Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Granpa_Weatherwax 12-04-06, 03:44 PM	I prefer to have all my players use the poin-buy method of stats, it keeps one person from being extremely unbalanced compared to the others. What do you more experienced DMs prefer and why?
Toloran 12-04-06, 03:51 PM	Point-buy: Pros: - Can be done without having the DM around. - Gives all players an equivalent power level (stat wise). Cons: - Encourages dump stats ("I don't need charisma, so I'll put it as low as possible") - Encourages cookie-cutter builds (All sorcerers/bards having 18 charisma, or all wizards having 18 int, and so on). Rolling: Pros: - More varied characters (The smart barbarian, the charismatic fighter, the wise sorcerer, etc). - More fun (since most players prefer to roll in my experience). Cons: - Has to be done in front of the DM (since even the most honest players will fudge a die roll or two). - Will occasionally cause really strong or really weak characters (the character with 3 18s vs the character with 3 6s).
olshanski_home 12-04-06, 03:53 PM	I prefer point buy. 25 point buy in fact. A first-time player may be shocked and dismayed... it makes it a serious consideration of whether that 18 is actually worth it. It makes game balance considerably easier, because the monsters are balanced against characters with 25 point buy. There will be the typical accusations that point by harms people who are dependant upon multiple attributes. In my opinion, it makes no difference whether you play a fighter that just needs strength, or a paladin that wants to have both strength and charisma. Either way you can focus your resources where you want. A fighter might use 16 of his point buy to give himself an 18 strength, the paladin might use 20 of his point buy to give him 16 in both STR and CHA. I once wrote an essay comparing high attribute characters with standard attribute characters. (Basically, compare 25 point buy with 30 point buy or 35+ point buy) The end result is that low point buy tends to work out to longer battles, fewer blowouts (1-round kills), and slower level gains. This can be demonstrated mathematically, but this is probably not the right place to do it.
Inigo Carmine 12-04-06, 04:07 PM	Cons: - Encourages dump stats ("I don't need charisma, so I'll put it as low as possible") Actually, I find the dump stat problem in both pointbuy and rolling. IE when someone who wants to play a fighter rolls a 5 for an ability score, it's probably not going into strength or con...
Sphere 12-04-06, 04:32 PM	As a DM and a player I like to use rolling. It is just more fun to make a character that way. Sometimes you get people that are a bit more powerful than others, but that isn't anything a dm can't solve by dropping a magic item to bump up the less fortunate or a monster/trap that eats stats :schemes:
Kradlo 12-04-06, 04:32 PM	I go with point buy, for the reasons stated by Toloran. As for "cookie cutter" characters or "dump stats," I don't find either to be a problem. You can still vary characters with point buy, and when I run a game, there are no "useless" ability scores or skills. So, your Half-Orc barbarian with Charisma 6 may have to try to talk his way out of a jam. This can be highly entertaining. Heck, I've played a Goblin ninja with Charisma 6 that chose to talk to the Dwarf police sergeant over the matter of the two dead bodies in an Eberron game. Hibachi was telling the truth, and the Dwarf knew it, but even so there was some tension - mostly in the Dwarf's hands on the haft of his axe as he was barely able to restrain the impulse to kill me. Oh, that was fun. :D
mlund 12-04-06, 04:33 PM	I tend to favor the 28 point buy for both the hero characters and the main villain characters. I leave most flunky monsters on their MM standards that are, indeed, built for 25 point buy characters to contest. I find that player the monsters with more opportunistic tactics and more than make up for the 3-point difference in the point buy. - Marty Lund
BoringInfoGuy 12-04-06, 04:43 PM	As a player and DM, I perfer rolling. If you roll low, you roll low. So what? And trust me when I say that I am statisticly the worst roller in any group I play in. Best current example. For my current character, a human paladin, I rolled a 1 for HP at 2nd and 3rd level. And argued with other players to <b>keep</b> my rolls.
PenderGrass 12-04-06, 05:18 PM	Rolling stats is far better than not. Why? Because die-rolling is cool. :dragon: ****
Feeb 12-04-06, 05:40 PM	I think rolling is probably a better option when your player group is made up over relatively new players, but I prefer the point buy for more experienced groups.
vagabonvoid 12-04-06, 05:40 PM	I recently have taken on a new gaming group and let them in their first game play with their characters rolled up with dice. The paladin in the group had 2 18s, a 16, two 14s and a 13... a 59 point character. The two others in the group rolled a 25 point character and one rolled a 24 point character. They kept the rolls and we played. the paladin was so overpowering compaired to the others that he pretty much played the glory hog (too bad they were in ravenloft). TPK ended up happening because of the imbalance, once the paladin was taken down by level drain, the other two didn't stand a chance. So In the new game I offered point buy... The two Players that had the weak PCs lept at the chance at a 25 to 28 point buy game. The paladin has complained for days... So Im going to suggest (i did this in my last group to encourage varrying characters) that we take a 24 point buy system and let the players roll a d8 for extra points. This way a character may end up with a 25-32 point characters (covering the 3 standard point buy systems)... and not sit around complaining that they rolled a character that a commoner could kill while another PC is superman. What do you think?
olshanski_home 12-04-06, 05:57 PM	What do you think? If the players and DM are set on rolling: this is what I did with a recent game: 1) everyone rolled a set of stats, including the DM... with 5 players, we then had six of each stat: 2) The players rolled to see who would go first. High roll goes first, the low roll goes last, but then goes first on the following round. 3) On a player's turn, they could take one of the attributes and use it for thier character. Str had to remain STR, and so on. This allowed for some organic-style characters... it allowed everyone to contribute by rolling. It also keeps all characters on an even keel, nobody will far outstrip the other characters.
a_psh 12-04-06, 06:00 PM	Rolling stats is far better than not. Why? Because die-rolling is cool.You can find an excuse to roll dice hundreds of times in a single session if you really felt like it. Is adding this one extra set of rolls actually, well, cool?
Sphere 12-04-06, 06:09 PM	I recently have taken on a new gaming group and let them in their first game play with their characters rolled up with dice. The paladin in the group had 2 18s, a 16, two 14s and a 13... a 59 point character. The two others in the group rolled a 25 point character and one rolled a 24 point character. They kept the rolls and we played. the paladin was so overpowering compaired to the others that he pretty much played the glory hog (too bad they were in ravenloft). TPK ended up happening because of the imbalance, once the paladin was taken down by level drain, the other two didn't stand a chance. So In the new game I offered point buy... The two Players that had the weak PCs lept at the chance at a 25 to 28 point buy game. The paladin has complained for days... So Im going to suggest (i did this in my last group to encourage varrying characters) that we take a 24 point buy system and let the players roll a d8 for extra points. This way a character may end up with a 25-32 point characters (covering the 3 standard point buy systems)... and not sit around complaining that they rolled a character that a commoner could kill while another PC is superman. What do you think? It reminds me of when my friends brother started playing with us. He rolled up a monster of a character, with no stat less then 14 and 16 in con str and dex. He played a barbarian, and was knocked down to 0 hit points in the second encounter, by a kobold, in one hit, who landed a max damage crit against him with his spear. He never lived it down.
GaffeR 12-04-06, 06:29 PM	The only problem with dice rolling is that often there's a huge difference between players, which isn't exactly fair. 44 pt buy vs 20 pt buy for example. Someone on these boards came up with a cool rolling method. Basically 6 players roll 4d6 drop 1 each, then the group votes on whether or not to keep em. Player 1: 15 Player 2: 8 .. and so on. the group votes on the set, then keeps or discards it. they can roll a certain number of sets, up to the DM.
PenderGrass 12-04-06, 06:35 PM	You can find an excuse to roll dice hundreds of times in a single session if you really felt like it. Is adding this one extra set of rolls actually, well, cool? Of course. Also, it is not "extra" - if removing die rolls is cooler to you, you may be playing the wrong game. Try playing some sort of TCG, there were plenty of these people at SoCal GenCon, so I doubt you will have a problem making the transition. :dragon: ****
Wopple 12-04-06, 06:42 PM	The only problem with dice rolling is that often there's a huge difference between players, which isn't exactly fair. 44 pt buy vs 20 pt buy for example. Someone on these boards came up with a cool rolling method. Basically 6 players roll 4d6 drop 1 each, then the group votes on whether or not to keep em. Player 1: 15 Player 2: 8 .. and so on. the group votes on the set, then keeps or discards it. they can roll a certain number of sets, up to the DM. The only problem I see with that is everyone will probably have a value under which they will take no compromise, and then you either have everyone rolling indefinatly until they have super high rolls, or, if you impose a limit, you randomly take the last roll, making it essentially random anyways. One system I like is you can either do the normal 4d6 drop 1 and choose where each stat goes, OR you can do 4d8 drop 1 and you do not choose where they go. Sure, you may end up with a 24, but it may be in Dex/Constitution and you have a 4 in strength.
a_psh 12-04-06, 07:56 PM	Also, it is not "extra" - if removing die rolls is cooler to you, you may be playing the wrong game."Rolling dice is cool" is a crappy argument for this kind of thing, because rolling for stats involves so little, well, actual rolling in the grand scheme of things. If I turn AC into an opposed check, I'm now rolling WAY more dice. And I'm rolling them during dramatic moments rather than at the beginning before play commences in earnest. Isn't my idea, therefore, like, infinitely cooler than just the idea rolling for stats? Try playing some sort of TCG.What happened to suggesting I play another RPG that doesn't involve rolling dice? They have a lot of those, too, y'know.
PenderGrass 12-04-06, 08:03 PM	"Rolling dice is cool" is a crappy argument for this kind of thing.... God's almighty toilet paper roll on a twig in the dark gloomy forest, have you lost all your sense of cool? :dragon: ****
Salla 12-04-06, 08:10 PM	The primary benefit to point buy is the ability of a player to create his character as he envisions it, within guidelines. He can make his scores fit his character concept, rather than having to force his concept to fit a series of randomized numbers. Add to that the fact that you don't have to worry about cheating or fickle luck affecting your character forever, I feel point buy is superior and will never randomize characteristics again. I don't even use random hit points anymore.
Neratos 12-04-06, 08:30 PM	As a player I prefer rolling. Randomness is the nature of the game, and i feel characters should not all be equal at everything. Some are born one way others another. Playing with low stats gives ppl an excuse to be creative to keep up with the high stat player. As a DM I prefer rolling (i give point buy as an option, but it has been rejected for 2.5 years now), and to those that get poor stats i give them a bump in gold. Giving a +15% boost in gold to the lowest stat person, actually proved to close the gap between the good rollers and the bad. I also ensure that each player has a minimum bonus total, so that no one ends up with a characters that are unplayable. As in the improbable character have all 6 stats below 10. My play group 100% rejects point buy, at any value. I could offer 50 point buy, and they would say "No!". I personally detest point buy, I unlike others believe it favors classes based on 1 or 2 stats. For instance a favored soul only has int as a dump stat, while a barbarian can dump int, wis, and cha. For example, a warforged fighter 5 Juggernaut 5 honestly does not need int/wis/cha because it has immunities to protect said dump stats. I also feel that most players don't feel heroic when they have the same stats as many NPCs, PCs are supposed to be the cream of the crop, not the average joe.
CharlieRock 12-04-06, 10:51 PM	I don't try to promote this kind of 'balance' between the characters. If someone is getting bent all out of shape because so-and-so has more modifiers, they are likely to pitch a fit on a night when their dice rolls come up fumbling while someone else consistantly rolls high. IMO both situations result in imbalance, and since one is required (dice) I'm not going to focus much attentionto the other. Besides, the players enjoy rolling to point buy (which is what stalled my GURPS career here). It also eliminates the 'interference' factor of a DM involving himself overly into the character generation process (something I regard as player demesne as much as possible). I also don't worry if a luckily rolled party stomps my dungeon flat without breaking a sweat. I just spice it up a notch next time (and besides, high rolled characters should stomp every once in a while).
CharlieRock 12-04-06, 11:01 PM	from A_psh:What happened to suggesting I play another RPG that doesn't involve rolling dice? They have a lot of those, too, y'know. But none are as commercially successful as the dice rolled RPGs. Why? Because rolling dice is cooler. :cool:
Ongorth 12-04-06, 11:03 PM	Correct answer: They both suck equally. Just pick your stats and move on with your life!
Salla 12-05-06, 12:05 AM	I don't try to promote this kind of 'balance' between the characters. If someone is getting bent all out of shape because so-and-so has more modifiers, they are likely to pitch a fit on a night when their dice rolls come up fumbling while someone else consistantly rolls high. This hasn't been my experience. The difference being, if your dice crap out on you during creation, or when rolling HP, you're stuck with that bad roll for the entire life of the character. One off night with the d20 doesn't cripple you forever, unless the character outright croaks.
a_psh 12-05-06, 12:27 AM	But none are as commercially successful as the dice rolled RPGs. Why? Because rolling dice is cooler. :cool:Well, let's see, how many RPGs have you roll dice for character creation? Looking at the majors... D&D does. That's got the most marketshare of any RPG. But it's also D&D, so that's a wierd case in some ways. White Wolf games don't. GURPS doesn't. Now, I hate how both WoD and GURPS for implement character creation, but you have to agree with the observation that they don't, in fact, have you rolling dice for it.
a_psh 12-05-06, 12:30 AM	God's almighty toilet paper roll on a twig in the dark gloomy forest, have you lost all your sense of cool?Your argument is poor. You can make up plenty of reasons to roll dice for characters, but you're not offering anything. You don't even tell us what specifically makes rolling dice cool. Nor how that coolness supplements or outweighs other arguments for or against fortune-based character generation.
Cantankerous 12-05-06, 12:41 AM	Point buy all the way. The reasons for have been clearly defined, the reasons against are, from my personal experiences, mostly non-sensical or simply outright false. If a Player has a cookie cutter character when generating PB, he/she will also have one when generated "organicly"...it will simply have weird stats that don't get RPed. For a good RPer cookie cutter characters do not exist. For a poor one they are the norm, no matter what method was used to configure the character. Isshia
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 12:43 AM	This hasn't been my experience. The difference being, if your dice crap out on you during creation, or when rolling HP, you're stuck with that bad roll for the entire life of the character. One off night with the d20 doesn't cripple you forever, unless the character outright croaks. Well, isn't that what generally happens when your d20s stink (roll poorly)? At lower levels (when differences of stat rolls are going to be the most obvious) your still going to bite it if the orc crits with his battleaxe.One roll. Poof.
a_psh 12-05-06, 12:48 AM	Correct answer: They both suck equally.They both suck in different ways. Which is why we can have these arguments about which one sucks more than the other: people consider one type of sucking to be less sucky than another type of sucking, and other people disagree. Just pick your stats and move on with your life!This works pretty well, actually.
Salla 12-05-06, 12:51 AM	Well, isn't that what generally happens when your d20s stink (roll poorly)? At lower levels (when differences of stat rolls are going to be the most obvious) your still going to bite it if the orc crits with his battleaxe.One roll. Poof. Six rolls. Initiative. Orc's attack, assuming he lives long enough to swing and can get past the guys with the d10 and d12 HP to hit a soft target. Orc's critical confirmation, assuming he rolled a natural 20. 3d8 of damage (counting each d8 separately), assuming he confirmed the crit.
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 12:51 AM	Well, let's see, how many RPGs have you roll dice for character creation? Looking at the majors... D&D does. That's got the most marketshare of any RPG. But it's also D&D, so that's a wierd case in some ways. White Wolf games don't. GURPS doesn't. Now, I hate how both WoD and GURPS for implement character creation, but you have to agree with the observation that they don't, in fact, have you rolling dice for it. Why would D&D be a 'wierd case'. It had competition from less then a year out of the box. Not much of a lead when you consider it took over six months for the first 100,000 sold. (Although it matched that figure in the next month). Your also leaving out Palladium . The Megaverse system? And, in your two (2) examples of point-buy one is classless(GURPS, because WoD I forgot how they did it). In fact, most of the point-buyers I know of are classless (or class customized, meaning you picked how many points went into skills, stats, and abilities (and sometimes gear). Those are the systems where point-buy works best. Not half-heartedly stuffed into a dice-rolling class monger system.
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 12:56 AM	Six rolls. Initiative. Orc's attack, assuming he lives long enough to swing and can get past the guys with the d10 and d12 HP to hit a soft target. Orc's critical confirmation, assuming he rolled a natural 20. 3d8 of damage (counting each d8 separately), assuming he confirmed the crit. The orc wouldn't need a 'soft target' to take out a d10 with a critical hit (unless that character got lucky on their hit die rolls,hmm further argument against predetermined hit dice?), nor would he need initiative if the characters were surprised (it happens). I've rolled double 20s twice in one session before (seperated by only an hour each).
a_psh 12-05-06, 01:06 AM	Your also leaving out Palladium . The Megaverse system?*shrug* Didn't know that one was even still around. And, in your two (2) examples of point-buy one is classless(GURPS, because WoD I forgot how they did it).WoD is levelless but, effectively, classful. That's what the "clans" or "tribes" of vampires are. That's really what the types of Exalted are, too, though I'm less familiar with those. In fact, most of the point-buyers I know of are classless (or class customized, meaning you picked how many points went into skills, stats, and abilities (and sometimes gear). Those are the systems where point-buy works best. Not half-heartedly stuffed into a dice-rolling class monger system.Indeed. Like I said, both methods suck in different ways. However, it is notable that many popular systems do not, in fact, use rolling for character-generation. Also: usually, you draw cards for your hand in a TCG. That's hardly like the "even playing field" that point-buy proponents talk about. Indeed, it's more like rolling 3d6 in order for your stats, isn't it?
Salla 12-05-06, 01:16 AM	The orc wouldn't need a 'soft target' to take out a d10 with a critical hit (unless that character got lucky on their hit die rolls,hmm further argument against predetermined hit dice?), nor would he need initiative if the characters were surprised (it happens). I've rolled double 20s twice in one session before (seperated by only an hour each). 1st level character, d10 Hit Die, automatic 10. 14 CON likely since d10 classes are martial. DEX is usually tanked, so they aren't that much more likely to hit a flat-footed opponent. 12 HP. Less than a 5% chance to score a critical hit, averaging 15 damage if I'm doing my math right, putting the target at -3; unconscious, but not dead. 2 people bash the orc's face in, 3rd person applies Cure Minor Wounds to stabilize.
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 01:16 AM	*shrug* Didn't know that one was even still around. Currently third in market share (behind D&D and WoD). Fourth place is held by TLG (C&C) which is also, a dice roller. WoD is levelless but, effectively, classful. That's what the "clans" or "tribes" of vampires are. That's really what the types of Exalted are, too, though I'm less familiar with those. Sort of like CyberPunk2020, then. :cool: Indeed. Like I said, both methods suck in different ways. However, it is notable that many popular systems do not, in fact, use rolling for character-generation. Also: usually, you draw cards for your hand in a TCG. That's hardly like the "even playing field" that point-buy proponents talk about. Indeed, it's more like rolling 3d6 in order for your stats, isn't it? Is a TCG like a CCG? It seems so. So, may I say this; CCGs are currently whupping both D&D and WoD(edit:combined ,even).
a_psh 12-05-06, 01:21 AM	Is a TCG like a CCG? It seems so. So, may I say this; CCGs are currently whupping both D&D and WoD(edit:combined ,even).Yeah, but telling me to go play a TCG if I don't want to roll for stats is idiotic.
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 01:24 AM	Yeah, but telling me to go play a TCG if I don't want to roll for stats is idiotic. Okay. :confused: (edit: I see where that was now, I assumed a TCG was a carded style RPG the first time I read it. I'm used to calling them CCGs) I've heard of RPGs that used a card-system (one in tandem with dice, the other exclusively). And I know of a deck that is billed as a 'stand-alone game' or a 'optional combat engine for RPGs'. :D
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 01:56 AM	Yeah, but telling me to go play a TCG if I don't want to roll for stats is idiotic. Unless you were dicephobic or just not into dice for some reason. (I think it was meant that way)
PenderGrass 12-05-06, 02:57 AM	Yeah, but telling me to go play a TCG if I don't want to roll for stats is idiotic. Actually, I recommended if you didn't think dice-rolling was cool you should investigate changing your hobby to a TCG or CCG or however you name it. As far as reasons for rolling dice for stats instead of buying them, rolling dice is more exciting and allows for more creativity. Plus, it is just far more cool to play a character that has been rolled. :dragon: ****
a_psh 12-05-06, 03:01 AM	I've heard of RPGs that used a card-system (one in tandem with dice, the other exclusively).Indeed. Deadlands and Savage Worlds, which is vaguely based on the old Deadlands, use a playing card deck for some stuff (e.g. initiative), as a small add-on to a mostly die-based game. Here the cards are mostly just used as a simple way to order things in a list, though. The "Saga" system, which was a system used for a non-AD&D Dragonlance game ("Fifth Age," I believe) and some kind of Marvel superheroes game, had a customized deck and used only cards rather than dice. Kind of a cute mechanic, which is that if you played a card "in suit," e.g. using a card from the Swords suit to make an attack, then you got to draw an extra card and add its value to the one you just played, too. The good touch was mostly that you could either throw down a high card to try to win a specific contest or play a low one "in suit" and basically get the effects of rolling, but the way the overall mechanics worked made it rather undesirable to actually lose contests like this. Overall, I've found both of these approaches to be inferior to using dice in card-like ways (e.g. rolling a set of dice and making that your "hand" for the encounter, if you will). Or to just plain using dice. The big advantage of using a full-on card-based system with a custom deck is that you can illustrate it with themed art to snazz up the game a bit (this worked in the Dragonlance game, for example, because they had like 20 years of art to draw on). But all of that is neither here nor there.
runestar 12-05-06, 03:15 AM	I used to try the BG2 rolling system, except that you had to accept the stats as generated and were not allowed to redistribute points.:)
Newpaintbrush 12-05-06, 05:47 AM	I prefer the point buy system because it is fair. I prefer the dice rolling system because it is not fair. -- That is to say - if you're playing with a diverse bunch of people - say you play with different people at different places, and want to use your character between those places (like Living Greyhawk), point buy is the best way to go. It requires the least bookkeeping, the least checking up, everyone can tailor their characters how they want them, and nobody complains about the point generation system. (Although they will complain about racial bonuses) If you're playing with a single bunch of people (home brew campaign), dice rolling is SOMETIMES better. If you're playing with a crowd that knows that sometimes life is just unfair, then dice rolling works out OK. The guy with the 18 17 17 14 14 11 is simply better than the 14 13 11 11 10 6 character, but everyone's cool with it. The fact that it IS unfair points out the fact that in REAL LIFE, things sometimes are not fair, and things don't work out, you just do the best you can with the hand you're dealt. I prefer to run and participate in games like that. But if that home brew campaign has players that just can't deal with the hand they were dealt (which is OFTEN the case, maybe even USUALLY, or even ALMOST ALWAYS the case), better to use point buy. Otherwise, the first thing that happens is that the character assigns the lowest score to Wisdom and/or Intelligence, and starts fighting the town militia / trolls / other nasty thing that 1st level characters really can't handle for the purpose of dying or being imprisoned for life, therefore being forced to make a new character. OR the player just complains all the time, and doesn't have a fun time playing.
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 09:17 AM	Rolled attributes is just funner then point buy. You can get excited when you get that '18'. I don't get excited over spending points as much. 'Oh, look! I got a few points left to put into CHA !!:dancin: ' ... doesn't happen. Point buyers do largely complain about racial modifiers. If your that worried about how good someone else is doing across the table, that's the wrong attitude to have for a game like D&D. I have never heard people grumble over who has how many modifiers or 'balance' like maniacal point buy players. Is anybody really that immature that they quit a game (or let it bother them) when their friend has better stats. :uh-huh: It must really poke them the wrong way if they were playing Munchkin or something where the object is to actually beat the team members across the table. :shifty: The thing I liked about certain other games that have point buy, is that you take those points with you through the entire process of character creation (to spend on skills, advantages and disadvantages). You even get five points back for coming up with a personality for your character (quirks). Something your expected to do for D&D, free of charge. There is still nothing like the fun of rolling the dice though. Good or bad.
Zumarai 12-05-06, 12:27 PM	As far as reasons for rolling dice for stats instead of buying them, rolling dice is more exciting and allows for more creativity. Plus, it is just far more cool to play a character that has been rolled. I have the complete opposite experience/opinion. Point Buy allows for more customization and creativity when making a new character and it is way more fun to play a character built with PB, rather than random rolls.
Dragon Snack 12-05-06, 12:51 PM	Currently third in market share (behind D&D and WoD). Fourth place is held by TLG (C&C) which is also, a dice roller.Link? Rolled attributes is just funner then point buy.In your opinion. Point buy is faster and lets me get to the actual rollplaying instead of spending the entire session thinking about what I want to do with that 5 that I rolled... It must really poke them the wrong way if they were playing Munchkin or something where the object is to actually beat the team members across the table. :shifty: But they aren't playing Munchkin, they are playing D&D. I've actually had another player tell me that he didn't like my character because he wasn't pulling his weight, so it's not just the people who rolled poorly that complain...
Salla 12-05-06, 01:14 PM	The problem with relying on words like 'fun' and 'cool' to compare point buy to rolling dice for character generation is that those terms are entirely subjective. I think it's more fun to point-buy my characters, and I think point buy for character generation is cooler than rolling dice, for reasons I've already stated.
Cantankerous 12-05-06, 01:40 PM	Well put Salla. I personally don't see anything about die rolling to create a character to be in any way fun or cool. It was one of the few things about earlier versions of D&D that I really dispised, until the mid 80's when i sat down and created something not terribly unlike the present point buy system for my group. And there was great rejoicing. Finally, a way to craft your character to fulfill your vision instead of relying on pure dumb luck. You know, originally the "place as desired" thing didn't exist for OD&D back in the mid seventies. When it was first mentioned it began the long process of paving the way for the present, far more exacting system. Before that you just rolled your dice and put up with whatever you got. You know, roll 3d6 for each stat, roll your hit points and money and start playing. The ONLY thing that Point Buy represents is customization, the triumph of the intellect over the idiot dice. Thank god, Allah to Zeus, take your pick, that it finally became official and indeed, the standard method upon which the present game is predicated. In earlier editions every-bloody-body cheated on the randomly rolled characters (or created alternate methods of character creation that made Monte the basis) in an attempt not to simply be stuck once agin playing a low con fighter or a mage with a low intel who would never be casting high level spells. There is no chance of that with a character YOU create as opposed to being stuck with due to crap rolls. Isshia
PenderGrass 12-05-06, 01:45 PM	The problem with relying on words like 'fun' and 'cool' to compare point buy to rolling dice for character generation is that those terms are entirely subjective. YAY! We have a winner! Rolling dice vs. point buy is a subjective choice. Dice have the edge as far as an established history. Dice also have the ability to generate a character that the player has to adjust to - sometimes "good" and sometimes "bad." Point buy removes all this. Each player is given the same starting point and none is "better" than the other. If a player was hoping for really outstanding stats it is no longer a possibility - there is no outstanding - everything is the same. Finally, dice rolling does generate more excitement. A rolled natural 18 is far more exciting than buying it. Just ask anyone in Vegas. Rolling the dice for the money is what draws people to the tables. I have never seen a point-buy cr@ps table. I doubt I ever will. :dragon: ****
PenderGrass 12-05-06, 02:02 PM	The ONLY thing that Point Buy represents is customization, the triumph of the intellect over the idiot dice. I doubt dice have an intellect. I do see where your problem originates - or, at least, some of the problem you're having. When you approach the table to create a character, you already have a pre-conceived notion of what you want. If the dice don't fulfill that vision, then you get upset. Point buy does encourage pre-conceived notions of characters - as my participation in RPGA has shown me - but, it also has its own let-down. For me, trying to make a character with the miserable small amount of points that is allowed in RPGA is horrifyingly frustrating. So, unless your DM has set the "correct" number of points to buy your stats, the point buy can be just as frustrating as horrible rolls (since you are totally constrained to a set system that is completely rigid and unforgiving). I would rather approach the table with no preset notion of what I will be playing. See what I roll and then - after rolling - decide the best course of action. And that, to me, is a far cooler, more creative, and far more exciting way of doing things. :dragon: ****
Erato 12-05-06, 02:42 PM	It appears to me, that most of the people in favor of rolling don’t like it because it makes characters different (though most claim to), but because it makes characters unequal. They seem to like inequality, the ‘some people are just BETTER’-attitude. I usually find that comparing the raw talent (stats) of people is difficult. Picasso wouldn’t have lasted a day in the middle ages, because the world wasn’t ready for him, and nobody would understand his vision. It’s not just a matter of talent; it’s also about having the right talent at the right time. And (of course) the opportunity to develop this talent. Is seems strange to me, that people all belonging to a the same group of people (the EXEPTIONAL kind), would range so wildly in raw talent, that one of them could easily be better at every single activity than another; yet they have all had an equal opportunity to develop these talents (class levels):rolleyes: . Combined with the fact, that the more powerful creatures in the group (races with LA), is mysteriously much less powerful, compared to their own race, while the members of weaker races are often paragon examples of their race. Why all this ‘everybody is not equal, but suddenly they are anyway’ :confused: ? It’s not that I mind people rolling, or anything. I just don’t get it.
Sphere 12-05-06, 02:54 PM	I doubt dice have an intellect. I do see where your problem originates - or, at least, some of the problem you're having. When you approach the table to create a character, you already have a pre-conceived notion of what you want. If the dice don't fulfill that vision, then you get upset. Point buy does encourage pre-conceived notions of characters - as my participation in RPGA has shown me - but, it also has its own let-down. For me, trying to make a character with the miserable small amount of points that is allowed in RPGA is horrifyingly frustrating. So, unless your DM has set the "correct" number of points to buy your stats, the point buy can be just as frustrating as horrible rolls (since you are totally constrained to a set system that is completely rigid and unforgiving). I would rather approach the table with no preset notion of what I will be playing. See what I roll and then - after rolling - decide the best course of action. And that, to me, is a far cooler, more creative, and far more exciting way of doing things. :dragon: **** Yeah coming to the table with a character you have already fleshed out with stats and everything, before the dm has a look at it, is a bit too much meta-gaming imo. Well maybe meta-gaming is the wrong word, but it encourages min-maxing and I don't like that.
Elthbert 12-05-06, 02:59 PM	I prefer to have all my players use the poin-buy method of stats, it keeps one person from being extremely unbalanced compared to the others. What do you more experienced DMs prefer and why? I am an old timer--- I and anyone in a campaign I am running roll. I don't tink I would play with someone who required I point buy. It doesn't feel like D&D to me. If I wanted to point buy--- I'd play Vampire.
Elthbert 12-05-06, 03:01 PM	It appears to me, that most of the people in favor of rolling don’t like it because it makes characters different (though most claim to), but because it makes characters unequal. They seem to like inequality, the ‘some people are just BETTER’-attitude. I usually find that comparing the raw talent (stats) of people is difficult. Picasso wouldn’t have lasted a day in the middle ages, because the world wasn’t ready for him, and nobody would understand his vision. It’s not just a matter of talent; it’s also about having the right talent at the right time. And (of course) the opportunity to develop this talent. Is seems strange to me, that people all belonging to a the same group of people (the EXEPTIONAL kind), would range so wildly in raw talent, that one of them could easily be better at every single activity than another; yet they have all had an equal opportunity to develop these talents (class levels):rolleyes: . Combined with the fact, that the more powerful creatures in the group (races with LA), is mysteriously much less powerful, compared to their own race, while the members of weaker races are often paragon examples of their race. Why all this ‘everybody is not equal, but suddenly they are anyway’ :confused: ? It’s not that I mind people rolling, or anything. I just don’t get it. Picasso would have done fine in the middle ages--- he was very talented realist. That is why his more abstract work is not total garbage because he was very very talented.
PenderGrass 12-05-06, 03:02 PM	It’s not that I mind people rolling, or anything. I just don’t get it. What don't you get? Instead of buying your character stats, they are rolled. As to your Picasso example, I think you are selling the man short. He may not have garnered the same amount of fame in a different Age, but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have had the same amount of satisfaction in his life. Same with any adventurer, it isn't necessarily the stats that make him/her so "above the norm" - rather, it is the desire to go beyond the norm that makes him/her "above the norm." Really which is more interesting: A character that is the perfect bard? or A character that is not quite as perfect but imagines himself to be? The thing with rolling dice for stats is that either is possible. When you have point buy system in place, there is no reason to not make just one type of character. A limitation by far, IMHO. :dragon: ****
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 03:02 PM	1st level character, d10 Hit Die, automatic 10. 14 CON likely since d10 classes are martial. DEX is usually tanked, so they aren't that much more likely to hit a flat-footed opponent. 12 HP. Less than a 5% chance to score a critical hit, averaging 15 damage if I'm doing my math right, putting the target at -3; unconscious, but not dead. 2 people bash the orc's face in, 3rd person applies Cure Minor Wounds to stabilize. There is a reason why the greataxe was removed from the orc entry in MM1 from 3.0. The average on a critical was more like 21. And, your assuming max hit points as well. I wasn't (and don't).
Erato 12-05-06, 03:04 PM	As I see it, you could do it 3 ways. Either have the players roll for EVERYTHING you don’t get to decide for yourself, like race, gender, background, ect… And no LAs, because half-dragons would just be BETTER than regular humans. This forces the players to adapt, and try out characters they would never voluntarily choose for themselves. The player envisioning a tough, badass ogre, to fulfil his macho fantasies, might find himself playing a chubby, blue-eyed gnome named ‘Amaryllis’ :D Fun for short non-serious game’s, and for players wishing to challenge themselves. Or use point-buy, LAs, and equal levels, so the players have a larger opportunity to control which character they play, without disturbing game-balance, and with no one feeling cheated. Practical for everyday games, where the DM just want the story to move along, with as little customisation as possible, and for players that don’t need the chance to play über characters, but are willing to compromise, when carrying out their character-concepts. Finally, just let the players decide (within the limits of the story of course). Or work with them to give them each a place in the story. Xp and wealth should be given out normally, but starting wealth, levels, ability scores, LA and other stuff, could vary as much as the players wished and story called for. Good for deep, serious, in-character games, where it doesn’t fit the story to have everybody on the same power-level, and with players that don’t abuse the situation. The ‘let’s roll for ability scores and hp, but not anything else’ kind of games, always seemed to combine the worst of both worlds. Either you choose, or you don’t. The pale, skinny geek might not have decided for himself that he would be socially inept, but I very much doubt that he could grow an afro or become pregnant over night.
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 03:08 PM	I would rather approach the table with no preset notion of what I will be playing. See what I roll and then - after rolling - decide the best course of action. And that, to me, is a far cooler, more creative, and far more exciting way of doing things. :dragon: **** :clap:
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 03:12 PM	Originally Posted by CharlieRock Currently third in market share (behind D&D and WoD). Fourth place is held by TLG (C&C) which is also, a dice roller. Link? I didn't read that off the internet. But, I did find it in this (http://www.magazinecity.com/0863-12.html) magazine. If you can't subscribe to it, ask your local games store owner to peruse theirs. (that's what I do ;))
PenderGrass 12-05-06, 03:13 PM	Good for deep, serious, in-character games.... I think this is possible in any game, regardless of how the characters are generated. In fact, I would say that a game's depth, seriousness, role-playing and tone are totally disconnected from the type of character generation used. :dragon: ****
Elthbert 12-05-06, 03:25 PM	I didn't read that off the internet. But, I did find it in this (http://www.magazinecity.com/0863-12.html) magazine. If you can't subscribe to it, ask your local games store owner to peruse theirs. (that's what I do ;)) As I understand it Rifts is 3rd in market share all by itself--- not including all of palladiiums other games ( which all use the Palladium megaverse and system).
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 03:27 PM	I think this is possible in any game, regardless of how the characters are generated. In fact, I would say that a game's depth, seriousness, role-playing and tone are totally disconnected from the type of character generation used. :dragon: **** Yeah, I can disfunction any 'serious' game, no matter how I got to be in it. :evillaugh As I see it, you could do it 3 ways. Either have the players roll for EVERYTHING you don’t get to decide for yourself, like race, gender, background, ect… And no LAs, because half-dragons would just be BETTER than regular humans. This forces the players to adapt, and try out characters they would never voluntarily choose for themselves. The player envisioning a tough, badass ogre, to fulfil his macho fantasies, might find himself playing a chubby, blue-eyed gnome named ‘Amaryllis’ :D Fun for short non-serious game’s, and for players wishing to challenge themselves. Those games are not always so short. We don't play a character till they die. Just until they reach a point where their personal conflict is (mostly) resolved. The players use a lot of characters from adventure to adventure. The composition of the party is constantly in flux because of player interest. Did that rogue who 'retired' to become a commercial locksmith become 'active' when the Dread Knights marched to the town gates? Of course, he did! And, with the help of a few friends he hadn't seen in a while (but not quite lost touch with) he thwarted the Dread Knights plans. And, went back to what he was doing. While his companions got some other friends (who were previously occupied) and set out to find the origins of that diabolic knightly order. Short? No. Episodic? Yes :D
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 03:30 PM	As I understand it Rifts is 3rd in market share all by itself--- not including all of palladiiums other games ( which all use the Palladium megaverse and system). Indeed, but the WW systems combined to edge Paladium out of third (for WW we added Vampire, Werewolves, Mage, and all the others). I love RIFTS! Mega-Damage 6d6 plasma bursts! :drool: Edit: Palladium hit upon a different take of the 'generic' RPG with multiple settings. They made all of their original games-line and used their rules there to form the basis for a 'Megaverse'. Which was that they used those same rules mechanics in every other game (and ,eventually a sort of 'timeline' between them. As Beyond the Supernatural and Palladium Fantasy all share common cosmologies and such with RIFTS). Last I bothered to check, the top four selling individual RPGs were 1) D&D (by a wide margin) 2)Vampire 3)RIFTS ,and 4)Castles&Crusades.
Elthbert 12-05-06, 03:38 PM	Indeed, but the WW systems combined to edge Paladium out of third (for WW we added Vampire, Werewolves, Mage, and all the others). I love RIFTS! Mega-Damage 6d6 plasma bursts! :drool: Edit: Palladium hit upon a different take of the 'generic' RPG with multiple settings. They made all of their original games-line and used their rules there to form the basis for a 'Megaverse'. Which was that they used those same rules mechanics in every other game (and ,eventually a sort of 'timeline' between them. As Beyond the Supernatural and Palladium Fantasy all share common cosmologies and such with RIFTS). Last I bothered to check, the top four selling individual RPGs were 1) D&D (by a wide margin) 2)Vampire 3)RIFTS ,and 4)Castles&Crusades. Yes I love Rifts-- it competes with my love for D&D.
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 03:44 PM	Yes I love Rifts-- it competes with my love for D&D. I liked how, because of the Megaverse connection, I could take my TMNT characters to RIFTS Earth for a 'interdimensional' adventure. Next was a trip to Palladium Fantasy.
Erato 12-05-06, 04:12 PM	Picasso would have done fine in the middle ages--- he was very talented realist. That is why his more abstract work is not total garbage because he was very very talented. Maybe, though in the middle ages, the art was of a different kind (and not very realistic), and people don’t always perform equally well in different genres (a jazz genius wouldn’t be the new Mozart). The important thing is that; given the 99% chance that Picasso’s parents where peasants, he would probably never have had the opportunity to play with paper and pencils, and would never have developed his exceptional talents. If he’d had a talent for another craft (like woodworking), predicting the weather, fighting, trading, or handling animals, he would stand a good chance of being successful. Look at orphans playing football (real football, not American). They don’t have the opportunity to go to school, so the book smart kids wouldn’t get the same amount of chances to shine. But the kids with a talent for football (that only requires an old ball, time, place and friends), have a chance to eventually make it their living. On the other hand, the rich children growing up in a town without a football team, and with ambitious parents pacing them trough school, at the cost of their spare time (which would be spent during homework, playing computer games or some other form of not doing sports – except maybe riding), would have to rebel against their parents to get the chance to discover if they could have been a successful football player, instead of a crappy lawyer. That’s why raw talent is so hard to place. Saying ‘some people are just better’ is just as inconclusive as saying ‘everybody is equal’, because (aside from obvious handicaps) you don’t really know. If you like rolling ability scores, it’s fine. But defending it with ‘it’s realistic’, is moot unless you also roll for race, gender, level and the like.
Erato 12-05-06, 04:14 PM	I think this is possible in any game, regardless of how the characters are generated. In fact, I would say that a game's depth, seriousness, role-playing and tone are totally disconnected from the type of character generation used. :dragon: **** I did say ‘and’ ;) Some styles of games are just seldom possible (or at least, successful), unless the players can handle it
Cantankerous 12-05-06, 04:15 PM	Point buy does encourage pre-conceived notions of characters - as my participation in RPGA has shown me - but, it also has its own let-down. For me, trying to make a character with the miserable small amount of points that is allowed in RPGA is horrifyingly frustrating. See, this IS the problem in a nut shell. A character built to Role Play doesn't need to be Herr Ubermensch (on steroids). You don't need to roll thirty seven sets of 5d6 drop the lowest two and arrange as desired until you get Herr Ubermensch (on steroids). You only need ridiculous amounts of points when you want to roll play, and the stats have to be Uber (on steroids) to be "cool". It IS often a difference in play style, but more often it's just plain dishonesty behind it. 2nd edition was notorious for how many people had a trio of 18's (or more) in their stats and claimed "oh yeah, I rolled it legit, Dave saw me." People like that {note: I am not catagorizing Pender that way, but be honest, who among the old timers hasn't seen this ad infinitum} must dispise Point Buy, which simply disallows such shennanigans. You do simply not NEED high stats in this game period. I can make a fully capable 25 point buy Monk or Paladin, and have done so on several occasions. The BS about SAD and MAD is exactly that, BS. Having high stats is nice, or multiple high stats, but it is NOT necessary if the ideal is role play. In older editions if you rolled a 13 for your best attribute (or for intel if you couldn't choose where to set the stats) and wanted to play a mage, your were stuck with sixth levels spells, maximum, ever, baring wishes or a VERY FEW magic items. Now, you want to play a Wizard and you've got a 25 PB? You can garauntee that by the time he/she/whatever can cast them, your character will have the stats to cast those 9th level spells, all within the rules. YOUR choice, not the vagaries of mindless bits of plastic, dictate what you get. And even here you CAN roll, partly anyway. As a DM I use die rolled stats for all my npcs, and if they fall below a set PB with this, all well and fine, if they exceed it, they get trimmed down to the appropriate PB, and thus I often never know before hand what the main BBEG, the secondary ones earlier in a campaign or their major lieutenants will be until after the rolls: BUT, I do know they'll be compatible with the system and will be easily classifiable into it. Isshia
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-05-06, 04:27 PM	My group rolls..why? Becasue not everyone is equal. Some people just are better than others. Sure it doesn't foster a friendly "hey guys, we are all one team" atmosphere but it doesn't ensure a revolt either.
Erato 12-05-06, 04:39 PM	My group rolls..why? Becasue not everyone is equal. Some people just are better than others. Sure it doesn't foster a friendly "hey guys, we are all one team" atmosphere but it doesn't ensure a revolt either. Try reading my posts ;)
PenderGrass 12-05-06, 04:53 PM	Cantankerous, since several people made remarks about "bad" stat rolls - it was worth bringing up. Myself? I have played everything from a dwarf riding a bullette and using Thor's hammer to a totally feeble elf that had no stat above 12 and most below 10. Both were fun in their own way. :dragon: ****
Cantankerous 12-05-06, 06:09 PM	Honestly, how many levels did you play that elf for? It's less the stats than the inequity anyway. It simply isn't much fun for the guy sitting at the table with the high stat 12 Fighter, watching the Bard with the four 18+s slash his way through encounters where the supposed combat specialist is grossly overmatched. Nor is it much fun for the DM to try to present a challenge for the multiple 18s man while not having the 12 str Fighter get mulched before the Bard has broken a sweat. This edition of D&D is predicated on a party of four of roughly 25 PB. If there are three in it hovering around the equivalent of a 22 PB through poor rolls while Dave is breezing through with his eqivalent 63 PB (which PB should really up his EL about +2 or maybe even +3 to be honest) you are GOING TO HAVE very skewed encounters and three Players sitting around doing less every session while Dave plays the "I'm god and these are my stooges...err companions, yeah, that's it, companions" hour. Can someone do this and have fun? Possibly. Is it likely though? Honestly, can any of you say you would be happy with being one the "stooges...err companions, yeah, that's it, companions", for a campaign that will last two years of real time and be played over a couple of hundred average four hour each sessions? Anyone? Isshia
BoringInfoGuy 12-05-06, 06:43 PM	Honestly, how many levels did you play that elf for? It's less the stats than the inequity anyway. It simply isn't much fun for the guy sitting at the table with the high stat 12 Fighter, watching the Bard with the four 18+s slash his way through encounters where the supposed combat specialist is grossly overmatched. Nor is it much fun for the DM to try to present a challenge for the multiple 18s man while not having the 12 str Fighter get mulched before the Bard has broken a sweat. This edition of D&D is predicated on a party of four of roughly 25 PB. If there are three in it hovering around the equivalent of a 22 PB through poor rolls while Dave is breezing through with his eqivalent 63 PB (which PB should really up his EL about +2 or maybe even +3 to be honest) you are GOING TO HAVE very skewed encounters and three Players sitting around doing less every session while Dave plays the "I'm god and these are my stooges...err companions, yeah, that's it, companions" hour. Can someone do this and have fun? Possibly. Is it likely though? Honestly, can any of you say you would be happy with being one the "stooges...err companions, yeah, that's it, companions", for a campaign that will last two years of real time and be played over a couple of hundred average four hour each sessions? Anyone? Isshia I have played the Low stat character in a group of high rollers. Repeatedly. And had fun, regardless of my character stats. Honestly, high stats matter most at lower levels. Once you reach 5th 6th level, class abilities start to over shadow pure ability scores. Sure, that multi 18 bard may do better than the pure fighter at level one, but by level 10, the fighter is going to have a much better BAB, more attacks per round, more feats, better AC and is going to be a better melee combatant than the bard, no matter how many 18's the bard has.
PenderGrass 12-05-06, 07:12 PM	Can someone do this and have fun? Do exactly as you stated? Doubtful. Can someone have a character with "substandard" stats and have a good time - most definitely. :dragon: ****
RiOrius 12-05-06, 07:31 PM	I just don't get the mentality of, "I would never play with point buy." I mean, if all you really want is the randomness, you can point-buy in a random manner. 25 points? 25d6. Each 1 puts a point in Str, 2 for Dex, etc. Poof--random, interesting character, but still on par with the rest of the party. You want a character that'll be completely ineffective? Point buy someone mediocre. You can make an 11-Int Wizard no problem with point buy. On the other hand, it strikes me as pretty difficult to get around the huge limitations on rolling. If I want to play a jack-of-all-trades Bard, but find myself with two 18's and four 8's, I'm not going to be able to do it. Or if I want to play a big, stupid Barbarian, and get straight 12's, again, I won't get to play the character I want. In short, rolling for abilities can ruin your character concept. However, using point buy doesn't keep you from getting random influence in your character concept. Point buy accomodates your style (don't think about character until you're at the table rolling for stats), but rolling doesn't accomodate mine (play a specific character style). So how is rolling better, again?
Shaftiel 12-05-06, 08:05 PM	My group rolls..why? Becasue not everyone is equal. Some people just are better than others. Sure it doesn't foster a friendly "hey guys, we are all one team" atmosphere but it doesn't ensure a revolt either. Okay, so I should have quoted PenderGrass b/c he's carrying the other side of the argument, but this quote was too perfect... it perfectly summarizes the problem I have with rolling. I spend all day working with kids, some of whom are simply smarter, better-looking, wealthier, and living better lives than others. Whether for kids or adults, Real Life isn't fair by a longshot. But my games are one place where I can ensure that everyone has an even shot. So I generally do. And PenderGrass, you claim you enjoyed playing the low-stat character and I totally believe you, but did you enjoy it enough to request that DMs let you play entirely low-stat characters in other games? (Aww man, another 18? Hey, could I make this a 6 instead?) Somehow I doubt it. -Shaftiel
GospelofRob 12-05-06, 08:10 PM	Side: I use rolling hopefully not important with my statement. Point by breeds the character you want. Rolling creates different. Probablity usually isn't going to swing that far in either direction, and if it does, you can accomadate. YOU need to do more work if the party is that different. Will player's have less fun, maybe. Probably because of not as much playing time, but as a DM, we have to do something about it. I see to ways to deal with it. Adjust your campaign, or use point-buy. (NOTE: Stats only, using point buy dosn't change much else) As far as people building specifically weak characters for point buy, its not what the system was made for. Its for balanced, well rounded characters. If they focus to much on one stat, they're "hurt." Just like how monk's are hurt in rolling. Point buy is a very good system, but not something I could see enjoying. Finnaly, on an aside that probably isn't true, espeacilly when it comes to the classes, people who like point buy are the same people who enjoy monks, well rounded fighters, standerd RP, and CO. People who like rolling enjoy magic users, rogues, and "characters." (as in odd things)
PenderGrass 12-05-06, 08:12 PM	So how is rolling better, again? I don't think it is a matter of which is "better." Rolling dice is just definitely cooler - it is a scientific fact. :cool: Again, if you are coming to the table with a specific image in your head, that is a surefire way of becoming disappointed, coddled and may endanger your ability to 'man-up' under difficult circumstances. Rolling doesn't "ruin" anything - except, maybe, some possible preconceived free-loving hippy notions you may have in your head. I would suggest that if you are participating in a game that you will be rolling stats for, don't attend with a character idea in your head. Now, if you still need some reasons why rolling is "better" - 1. Rolling dice is cool 2. Rolling dice for character generation is cool 3. Rolling dice allows the player to adjust to the role and not the reverse 4. Rolling dice allows the character to be built with no preconceived notions - and that is cool, too 5. Rolling dice is more exciting and fun If you need reasons why point-buying is not "better" - 1. Coddles players and possibly makes them into a bunch of pansey, meta-gaming wussies that complain whenever they don't get they're way 2. Removes the coolness, excitement and fun of rolling dice :dragon: ****
PenderGrass 12-05-06, 08:22 PM	And PenderGrass, you claim you enjoyed playing the low-stat character and I totally believe you, but did you enjoy it enough to request that DMs let you play entirely low-stat characters in other games? (Aww man, another 18? Hey, could I make this a 6 instead?) Somehow I doubt it. That would make about much sense as someone that demands that their DM reduce the number of points to buy stats with. So, I don't think that is a reasonable question. Now, would I play another character that I rolled "poorly" for his stats? Sure. Why not? Nothing is funnier than having a fighter with a 12 strength demanding respect because his father pulled some strings to get him squad leader position in the city guards. "Dad says I am the bada$$ here, buddy" *pokes the chest of nearest opponent with his forefinger while pushing out his feeble chest* "And that means you take your orders from me!" :dragon: ****
Neratos 12-05-06, 09:01 PM	Hmmmm how about this? 4d6 Method of Generating Stats: Core Point Buy Generating Stats: Optional Rule in DMG Optional rules are just that, optional. And usually optional rules change the balance of the game, DnD was designed with rolling as stat generation. Changing that, will inevitably have some impact on balance, whether good or worse is a matter of opinion.
vagabonvoid 12-05-06, 09:03 PM	Nothing is funnier than having a fighter with a 12 strength demanding respect because his father pulled some strings to get him squad leader position in the city guards. "Dad says I am the bada$$ here, buddy" *pokes the chest of nearest opponent with his forefinger while pushing out his feeble chest* "And that means you take your orders from me!" **** The one part you left out is the ending of the story/campaign. The NPC ends up spending life in the brigg for cutting off said "finger" with his greatsword causing 12 damage (2d6 average +4str) killing the retarded little punk with 10 hp who bleeds out. :P point buy is for a balanced game. If you demand that dice rolling is cool, why don't you roll up each different npc for your game. An orc at first level that rolled an 18 for str (without his race mod) and carries a greataxe is a scary sight to behold at low levels.:devil:
PenderGrass 12-05-06, 09:15 PM	DnD was designed with rolling as stat generation. Valid point. I like it. If you demand that dice rolling is cool, why don't you roll up each different npc for your game. I do. :dragon: ****
Cruel 12-05-06, 09:37 PM	See, now i had this discussion with one of my "Dice Rolling" Friends. *He thought rolling was cool, and uneven strength characters in a party made the game more interesting. *I didn't want to play in a game where my character was underpowered compared to others. NO PROBLEM! :D I said, we'll roll 2 sets of stats, and I'll take the better set and you can have the worse one, that way we can both get what we want. Strangely enough, he didn't go for this idea. :confused:
a_psh 12-05-06, 09:37 PM	And usually optional rules change the balance of the game, DnD was designed with rolling as stat generation.It seems that most of the actual playtesting was done with the elite array, however, for consistency.
Lethanic 12-05-06, 10:04 PM	Hmmmm how about this? 4d6 Method of Generating Stats: Core Point Buy Generating Stats: Optional Rule in DMG Optional rules are just that, optional. And usually optional rules change the balance of the game, DnD was designed with rolling as stat generation. Changing that, will inevitably have some impact on balance, whether good or worse is a matter of opinion. Actually, the game was balanced around a 25 point buy set of abilities, a standard 'Elite array'.
Neratos 12-05-06, 10:13 PM	Then, why is 4d6 the method described in the players. Elite Array is used to generate npc's not players in my opinion.
justdmjeff 12-05-06, 10:40 PM	As I see it, you could do it 3 ways. Either have the players roll for EVERYTHING you don’t get to decide for yourself, like race, gender, background, ect… And no LAs, because half-dragons would just be BETTER than regular humans. This forces the players to adapt, and try out characters they would never voluntarily choose for themselves. The player envisioning a tough, badass ogre, to fulfil his macho fantasies, might find himself playing a chubby, blue-eyed gnome named ‘Amaryllis’ :D Fun for short non-serious game’s, and for players wishing to challenge themselves. The ‘let’s roll for ability scores and hp, but not anything else’ kind of games, always seemed to combine the worst of both worlds. Either you choose, or you don’t. Could you please let me know what page(s) of the RAW this option is on. I couldn't find it.
vagabonvoid 12-05-06, 10:53 PM	I use the point buy method to get PC's balanced for games where PVP is highly likely and during my homebrew character contests. The rest of the time I usually use either the method I described earlier (24points+1d8 points buy) or I let the characters roll themselves up (with a minimum of a 25 point character--their heroes after all). And I do agree that in real life that some people are better than others. One thing that my groups do are make ourselves as characters. We all take the famous test here--http://www.angelfire.com/dragon/terragf/ and play the game after creating ourselves (in heroic classes of course). As far as point buy, I come out as 52 points. most others in my group are 28-36 points. Several others that have popped in and out over time have been stated as 15-20 points.
justdmjeff 12-05-06, 10:54 PM	The primary benefit to point buy is the ability of a player to create his character as he envisions it, within guidelines. He can make his scores fit his character concept, rather than having to force his concept to fit a series of randomized numbers. Add to that the fact that you don't have to worry about cheating or fickle luck affecting your character forever, I feel point buy is superior and will never randomize characteristics again. I don't even use random hit points anymore. I'm curious if the point-buy "craze" has anything to do with video games. It seems to me that in most video games today you get to build your character as you see fit, assign the points to create the character you envision. And you play that character for the life of the game in an unforgiving world that does not allow for a character to have a noticable weakness. By unforgiving I mean that the software does not take into consideration any shortcomings for a situation like a DM would. And now point-buy allows videogamers to play the type of game that they are accustomed to playing. Point-buy---just another way people are trying to turn D&D into a video game.
RiOrius 12-06-06, 12:06 AM	I'm curious if the point-buy "craze" has anything to do with video games. It seems to me that in most video games today you get to build your character as you see fit, assign the points to create the character you envision. And you play that character for the life of the game in an unforgiving world that does not allow for a character to have a noticable weakness. By unforgiving I mean that the software does not take into consideration any shortcomings for a situation like a DM would. And now point-buy allows videogamers to play the type of game that they are accustomed to playing. Point-buy---just another way people are trying to turn D&D into a video game. Riiiiight. Because any feature that's even remotely similar to a video game is obviously bad :rolleyes: Point buy isn't meant to make D&D a video game--it's meant to make it a better game. It's meant to give players more control and more options. Why do you people hate freedom? Furthermore, while a good DM can make up for it if one character is out of balance with the others, there are two flaws in that argument. First, not everyone has a good DM--as far as I'm concerned, a feature which allows poor DM's to still put on a good game, without in any way inhibiting good DM's, is a very good idea. Second, just because a DM can make up for it doesn't mean that's the best way to do things. If I roll crappy stats, and have my DM coddling me the whole game (the enemies attack other party members, etc.), I'm not going to have a whole lot of fun. Better to solve the problem at its source.
ornitholestes 12-06-06, 01:04 AM	As always this a matter of pure opinion and preferences, there is no right answer and I doubt very many people will be convinced either way. That said, I will present my opinion on what is more fun for me and my group Oddly enough, I prefer two seemingly opposite systems. I either like rolling attributes because or using a standard array (15,14,13,12,10,8). I like rolling attributes because it gets my creative juices flowing. D&D has so many options I usually don't go into character creation with a preconceived notion of what I want to play, and the dice give me a good idea of where to start. (I always "play my stats where they land", though I don't expect other players to do this when I am playing or DMing). When I play D&D I enjoy creative problem solving and trying to use my head (not just my knowledge of the rules) to think of a clever way out of the horrible situation the DM has put me in. As a result, I am a glutton for punishment - I like to play hard games where death is not only a possibility but a likelihood (nothing risked nothing gained). I don't like classic antagonistic DMs, save or die traps, or ridiculously unfair encounters (those really have no challenge just luck). I just think the deck should be stacked against my characters. That way, if I do survive I earned the right to be proud. As a result of this, I also like my games to be organic and will roll dice to create my character. Why? because I never know what the parameters for my character will be and they will change from game to game. Playing a wizard who rolled incredible stats can be a totally different game then playing a rogue who rolled middle of the rogue. I play D&D as a thought experiment, hm.. how will this low stat gnomish bard handle in game - wow that was fun, now lets try this high stat warforged warblade. Its easier to get unexpected results when you roll. Generally the people I play with work together very well and we rarely have problems with "unbalanced characters". The idea of a experience leech is foreign to us (and a bit offensive to me - only the guy who contributes to the game in a mechanical way has the right to play!, This isn't high-school gym class.) If bob has a really powerful character he gets to role-play the strong protector of the rest of the party, while the "weaker" characters get to struggle to overcome there disadvantages and feel all the more proud if they succeed. To illustrate my favorite games involve two extremes (both DMing solo games with my brother). One was an oriental adventures game where my brother rolled spectacularly two 18, 10, 16, 18, 14, 18 and played them in that order. He made a samurai and, as the most promising young warrior in his clan I decided he was sent on the really really nasty missions. Despite this, samurai prevailed, eventually becoming a lord himself. The other game involved "Sir Jo average guy, a bit physical but not too bright. He tried hard and reallyhn" the bumbling paladin with stats 12, 9, 11, 9, 12, 13. John was a generally believed in his cause, but he couldn't quite handle the dangers of the world around him. We played a few sessions through various misadventures. Then, sadly, one day john came across a situation he just couldn't handle. - a group had corned an old friend of his. John charged bravely and got killed, by a couple level 1 orcs. Oddly enough we remember Sir John fondly for his courage to do the right thing if he wasn't strong enough prevail. I guess the point of my rambelings is this, I like point buy because for me it creates more organic characters who feel real.
BoringInfoGuy 12-06-06, 01:08 AM	:weep: :weep: :weep: :weep: Just lost a long post I've been writing about two of my favorite characters, and how I only could've developed them by rolling the stats, because I'd never have thought to assign my points that way. Quick version. Toral "Nobody" NarrowValley. Rolled a 11, 11, 11, 12, 12. 13. Legally, could've dumped the stats and rerolled by Raw. Kept them. Took what I rolled, and decided what to do with them. Played a halfling rogue. My brother was also playing a halfling rogue. He built him to be a standard dungeon crawling rogue. I built mine to be a Con man. Inspired by his stats, I decided to make always wear disguises, and seek ways to set enemies against each other. Fun to play. Wildly successful. Ren of Rotellus. Human Paladin. Decided I wanted to play a Pally, then rolled the dice. 7, 10, 13, 13, 13, 18. Great rolls for a wizard. Bad for a Pally. Paladins do not have a dump stat. My placement: Str 13, Dex 7, Con 10, Wis 13, Int 13, Cha 18. Not wildly successful. More near death experiances than any two of my characters combined. (Only 17 HP at lvl 4) Very determined to overcome adversity and do the right thing. Works very well with others. For all his. . . challenges, I'm very found of Ren. Ren is my current character. Trying to play someone with a strong desire to do the right thing, no fear, and low hit points, while trying not to get him and the party killed is a compelling challenge. And generates good role playing withen the party and with NPC's. End quick version :weep: :weep: :weep: :weep:
Cantankerous 12-06-06, 01:18 AM	People as a whole hate freedom, as freedom also implies repsonsibility. If you roll crap for your stats, the thought goes, your character can be played like crap and you have a fall back. It seems terribly disingenuous to talk about how fun was had, or could be had, playing a low stat character in a high stat group and then to complain about the low amount of points with which to build a character via point buy that the RPGA fosters. Somehow the two seem mutually exclusive, especially with the RPGA method you are playing a character at the same stat level as everyone else. Somethings not right there. Nor is it true that by 10th level that Fighter with the single stat that grants him a plus will be anywhere near as proficient a melee combatant as a 4-18's Bard will be at the same level. If the Bard is built for battle he'll own the Fighter six ways from Sunday. His BAB will be three lower, but if one of those 18's was in Strength, he'll still have aa high or higher an ATTACK plus in melee, and if a second of those 18's was in Dexterity, his ability with ranged weapons will still be higher than the Fighters as well. Also, he's doing more damage with each melee attack, his AC is VERY LIKELY better than the Fighters and he's probably more mobile on top of it...all this before adding the buffs that he's going to have. All else being equal, oh no, Mr Fighter is still going to be a second stringer combat wise compared to the Bard. Now, add a 3rd of those 18's in Con and the fourth in Charisma and the only main stat that the Fighter MIGHT have higher is his Fort save, but probably they will be identical. By comparison the the Bard will have a Ref save that is higher by about EIGHT and a Will save that is about FOUR higher. Also, on average, Mr bard has more hit points too. And of course, this ignores the fact that Mr Mondo Bard is not primarily a melee combatant, yet he will still be more melee combat capable than the supposed combat specialist by leaps and bounds. Now add in all the Bard advantages... since Mr Bard is atleast as capale without them as the Fighter, our combat specialist, is with all of his. Mr Fighter is lucky to share in the Bards greatness, he's definitively less powerful in comparison to the Bard than the Bard's cohort is, if the cohort were to roll as well as the Bard. People, this example, while extreme, is entirely viable via the rolled method. This is the reason that Point Buy exists. It is simply far more fair and produces more viable characters than die rolling does. While older editions of this game used rolled stats as the basis, this one does NOT. This one uses Point Buy, and has evolved beyond the inadequecies of rolled stats. Come on out of the primordial soup boys, and join up with those of us who rule the land. :cool: The final point is that with point buy you are required to think, instead of letting a few mindless bits of plastic think for you. Creativity? You have to be much more creative with Point Buy than with die roll as a basis because you must come up with the original concept as well as fitting it all together. Isshia
a_psh 12-06-06, 01:49 AM	I'm curious if the point-buy "craze" has anything to do with video games. It seems to me that in most video games today you get to build your character as you see fit, assign the points to create the character you envision. And you play that character for the life of the game in an unforgiving world that does not allow for a character to have a noticable weakness. By unforgiving I mean that the software does not take into consideration any shortcomings for a situation like a DM would. And now point-buy allows videogamers to play the type of game that they are accustomed to playing. Point-buy---just another way people are trying to turn D&D into a video game.Okay, stay with me here... System is a combination of rules and play procedures. Rules are rules. Play procedures are instructions, but they're not really rules. They're just things you do. When printed in a book, they're there to offer general guidance and such. Both are important to how the game is actually played, however. Part of 3.x's design is the concept of "balance". Balance in 3.x is a bit hard to pin down, but it mostly means that there are certain basic limits to character power and that those limits shouldn't be crossed. Stuff like how no character should get access to 9th-level spells before level 17 when the wizard and cleric do, or how the best BAB you could possible have is +1/level. In general, you can express the idea of "balance" like this: "No one should be better at doing his secondary shtick than someone else is at doing that thing as his primary shtick." Anyway, writing "balanced" classes is an example of an attempt at balance through rules. Having a chart that says "try to make it so the PCs have about this much gold at any given time" is an example of balance through play procedures. There are certain advantages to doing things as rules rather than play procedures. Usually, that advantage is that it's harder to **** up the rules than it is to **** up the play procedures. There are certain advantage to doing things as play procedures rather than rules, too. Mostly that it's easier to change things around sometimes. Here's the problem... The books give you some guidance as to how to run encounters, &c. That's what CR is about. But as far as stats and character generation go, "Play whatever you roll and then the GM balances everything behind the scenes to compensate for your shortcomings" is a play procedure, but it's not a procedure that's really covered in the books themselves. You're relying on your own experience and intuition as GM to pull it off. There is, however, a set of rules and play procedures to cover buying your attributes with points, which claims to remove some of the need to do this balancing act because the characters are, ostensibly, more "balanced" to begin with. This is point-buy. When you look at the books, you're stuck choosing between rolling up characters without any help in how to "balance" them, because they didn't really write that part into the book, or using point-buy with its built-in "balance". Now, you can reject this notion of "balance" and then having "equal" PCs is just plain irrelevant. Or you can say that point-buy doesn't achieve the kind of "balance" it should. But, as long as you buy into the notion that "balance" is important (as you are doing if you say that the GM is really "balancing" everything behind the scenes anyway), then it's just plain pointless to attack a procedure that enforces that balance simply because it does so openly and directly. Guess what? That's honestly easier for the GM than a lot of behind-the-scenes GM handwaving, and it's a lot harder to **** up. So, what's wrong with people using the method that actually has some guidelines to help you along? And blaming video games for anything is just plain short-sighted.
PenderGrass 12-06-06, 02:42 AM	Interestingly enough, there are about a billion or more ways that people can roll dice to generate their PCs. With the point buy system, the only variable is what your DM allows for buying your stats. Talk about limiting and no real freedom. Rolling dice can be as simple and horrifyingly intense as 3d6 placed or as free-wheeled as roll 4d6, reroll 1s, place stats where you want, take 1 point for 1 point to a maximum of 4 points, and all stats added must equal at least 80. Point buying is about as exciting as making a grocery list and cutting coupons for shopping and then balancing your check book afterwards. Egads. Vomit. :dragon: ****
CharlieRock 12-06-06, 02:43 AM	See, this IS the problem in a nut shell. A character built to Role Play doesn't need to be Herr Ubermensch (on steroids). You do simply not NEED high stats in this game period. If you just read this part, you'd get the impression the author was on the side of rolling. Since, the case is made how low stats shouldn't effect game play. And, one of the more prominent arguments against rolling is that the stats are too low to play out a concept. Even still, one can't really complain about their stats being too low as rules for rerolling are presented right there on page 8 of the PHB (and that you should note that one need not start with higher then 14 INT to be a wizard, since by the time your INT is topped out spell level wise, you've increased it due to experience and can take a 14 and tun it into a 18 before topping out your XP levels.) See, now i had this discussion with one of my "Dice Rolling" Friends. *He thought rolling was cool, and uneven strength characters in a party made the game more interesting. *I didn't want to play in a game where my character was underpowered compared to others. NO PROBLEM! :D I said, we'll roll 2 sets of stats, and I'll take the better set and you can have the worse one, that way we can both get what we want. Strangely enough, he didn't go for this idea. :confused: Probably because you took the best part about rolling out of your friend's hands, literally. Rolling for stats is cool because you get to do it, not because someone else makes your stats for you. Letting someone else pick out your ability numbers is reserved for point buying, where the DM tells you how powerful you start out. P.S. I ,too, roll for NPCs. :cool: (thats why DMing is cooler then playing IMO. I get to roll hundreds of times more then any player).
Cantankerous 12-06-06, 03:25 AM	If you just read this part, you'd get the impression the author was on the side of rolling. Since, the case is made how low stats shouldn't effect game play. And, one of the more prominent arguments against rolling is that the stats are too low to play out a concept. Precisely what have you been smoking? And do you have any to share? What I've high lighted there of your statement is the exact opposite of what has been said about die rolling. It has been said that die rolling increases inequities in the creation system, but not once have I seen anyone complain that the characters made by die rolling have stats too low to be playable. Precisely the opposite is true. We've been talking about die rolling creating the 4-18's monster in the same group as the guy with the highest stat of 12. The OBVIOUS problem is not the guy with the highest stat being a 12. He's fine. If everyone else is predicated along the same lines there are no problems. The problem is the guy who rolled (or supposedly rolled) the 4-18's among his rolls. And for every way there is to roll die, there are as many to Point Buy. Again, all it takes is creativity and a desire to think, instead of having the dice think for you. Isshia
Sphyre 12-06-06, 04:05 AM	It’s not that I mind people rolling, or anything. I just don’t get it. I prefer rolling. For a few reasons. I'm not in control. It's not my fault if I have 18 int, or 6 str. I can't be accused of being a munchkin, whether or not I am. When doing point-buy, I feel obliged to min-max. Since I'm in complete control, and I like to optimize to a point (Because I can't stand playing a character who has no scalability, and can't contribute meaningfully to the group) I have a hard time balancing stats with how I want them to be and what I think they shoud be. I like variety. Sometimes I want to play a character who has high stats and does his job well, and is well liked, smart, and wise, along with strong reasonably dexterous, and resists punishmen well. Other times I like playing characters who have certain defects that they have to overcome. EDIT: Sometimes the most obvious and biggest reasons are the hardest to name. The reason why I prefer rolling over Pointbuy the most is because I have literally millions of different characters and personalities in my head. I find it much more satisfying to randomly pick one and focus on the stats I got and imagine what this person would be like. Anyone can pick their stats and say "He's strong but clumsy;" it takes some creativity to fit the peices of the puzzle together when fate gives you stats. Basically, I find it helps keeps the munchkin out of me. I most certainly don't want to destroy game balance, and I find that when I roll, I am better focused at being a character, not a character sheet. If you give me control over my stats, that's one more thing to optimize. One of the things about D&D that I enjoy in addition to roleplaying is the mechanics of the game. I like making the best of a character I can, but something needs to draw the line, and somehow my brain balances everything correctly, when i roll stats. It's a personal preference. I would prefer rolling over point buy, whether or not i ended up with lower or higher scores than pointbuy. I understand why people like rolling as well as people who like pointbuy. Pointbuy is like spinach, and rolling is like Moose Tracks flavored icecream. I know spinach is good for you, but I cannot, for the life in me, get myself to eat it. I love the flavor of the icecream, but sometimes when you scoop it, some people get more of the mini-peanut butter cups than others. I just have one taste and other people have other tastes.
CharlieRock 12-06-06, 04:14 AM	Precisely what have you been smoking? And do you have any to share? What I've high lighted there of your statement is the exact opposite of what has been said about die rolling. It has been said that die rolling increases inequities in the creation system, but not once have I seen anyone complain that the characters made by die rolling have stats too low to be playable. Precisely the opposite is true.Isshia To the contrary: This hasn't been my experience. The difference being, if your dice crap out on you during creation, or when rolling HP, you're stuck with that bad roll for the entire life of the character. One off night with the d20 doesn't cripple you forever, unless the character outright croaks. But if that home brew campaign has players that just can't deal with the hand they were dealt (which is OFTEN the case, maybe even USUALLY, or even ALMOST ALWAYS the case), better to use point buy. Otherwise, the first thing that happens is that the character assigns the lowest score to Wisdom and/or Intelligence, and starts fighting the town militia / trolls / other nasty thing that 1st level characters really can't handle for the purpose of dying or being imprisoned for life, therefore being forced to make a new character. OR the player just complains all the time, and doesn't have a fun time playing. In your opinion. Point buy is faster and lets me get to the actual rollplaying instead of spending the entire session thinking about what I want to do with that 5 that I rolled... Before that you just rolled your dice and put up with whatever you got. You know, roll 3d6 for each stat, roll your hit points and money and start playing. In earlier editions every-bloody-body cheated on the randomly rolled characters (or created alternate methods of character creation that made Monte the basis) in an attempt not to simply be stuck once agin playing a low con fighter or a mage with a low intel who would never be casting high level spells. There is no chance of that with a character YOU create as opposed to being stuck with due to crap rolls. Isshia There has been presented plenty of arguments in support of point buy as it eliminates the unwanted and unplanned for low stat. :cool: (I even quoted you, dude.) Edit: And now,also , late comer Zumarai I simply do not want to add randomness to important things that will affect my character throughout his/her entire career. Furthermore, while a good DM can make up for it if one character is out of balance with the others, there are two flaws in that argument. First, not everyone has a good DM--as far as I'm concerned, a feature which allows poor DM's to still put on a good game, without in any way inhibiting good DM's, is a very good idea. Second, just because a DM can make up for it doesn't mean that's the best way to do things. If I roll crappy stats, and have my DM coddling me the whole game (the enemies attack other party members, etc.), I'm not going to have a whole lot of fun. Better to solve the problem at its source. This is a new one on me. We should eliminate a mechanism that exposes bad DMs for what they are: Bad DMs. Huh? :confused: If your a bad DM (unintentionally that is) then something that pokes you in the eye is needed to make you start forming better DMing methods.
CharlieRock 12-06-06, 04:31 AM	We've been talking about die rolling creating the 4-18's monster in the same group as the guy with the highest stat of 12. The OBVIOUS problem is not the guy with the highest stat being a 12. He's fine. If everyone else is predicated along the same lines there are no problems. The problem is the guy who rolled (or supposedly rolled) the 4-18's among his rolls. Why stop there? Why don't we inhebit the players who are rolling more 20s? They are obviously going to be outperforming the guys who roll lower. That way we can make sure that everyone plays with equal amounts of success. And for every way there is to roll die, there are as many to Point Buy. Again, all it takes is creativity and a desire to think, instead of having the dice think for you. This is a dice game. Unlike what many point-buyers may think, dice rolling is the method used in the PHB ,not point buy. Dice. They are used in conflict resolution, also. Should we only allow so many 20s rolled per game, as well (distributed equally among the players, of course). :rolleyes:
Zumarai 12-06-06, 05:34 AM	Even though I've been playing since 1st edition when there was no Point Buy, now I will never go back. I simply do not want to add randomness to important things that will affect my character throughout his/her entire career. That is why I like Point Buy, and why I always take average for hit points. Plus, with Point Buy, you can come up with your character concept, and then assign the points to realize your vision. Instead of stuffing whatever you rolled into your concept. Some people seem to argue that with PB all characters of a certain type will have the same scores. Not true. Let's take the fighter as an example. Obviously if you're going the Two-Handed route you'll go for high Str. But if you're going for TWF, you'll obviously put more points into Dex, and if you're going for the Combat Expertise/smart fighter you'll put point into Int. Back in the day we used the old 4d6 drop the lowest one. But now, after foolishly letting my players roll 5d6 drop the lowest two (I know, I know) for my current campaign, and one guy got a 67 point buy equivalent, I’m completely sold on Point Buy and will never go back to “rolling” for ability scores. That goes for hit point too. “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. 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, 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 guy 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.
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-06-06, 08:44 AM	I have had DMs offer the you may roll 4d6 or use 28 PB. Everyone always rolls. My experience is that my groups like rolling better, therefor rolling is the better option for us.
justdmjeff 12-06-06, 10:13 AM	Okay, stay with me here... System is a combination of rules and play procedures. Rules are rules. Play procedures are instructions, but they're not really rules. They're just things you do. When printed in a book, they're there to offer general guidance and such. Both are important to how the game is actually played, however. Part of 3.x's design is the concept of "balance". Balance in 3.x is a bit hard to pin down, but it mostly means that there are certain basic limits to character power and that those limits shouldn't be crossed. Stuff like how no character should get access to 9th-level spells before level 17 when the wizard and cleric do, or how the best BAB you could possible have is +1/level. In general, you can express the idea of "balance" like this: "No one should be better at doing his secondary shtick than someone else is at doing that thing as his primary shtick." Anyway, writing "balanced" classes is an example of an attempt at balance through rules. Having a chart that says "try to make it so the PCs have about this much gold at any given time" is an example of balance through play procedures. There are certain advantages to doing things as rules rather than play procedures. Usually, that advantage is that it's harder to **** up the rules than it is to **** up the play procedures. There are certain advantage to doing things as play procedures rather than rules, too. Mostly that it's easier to change things around sometimes. Here's the problem... The books give you some guidance as to how to run encounters, &c. That's what CR is about. But as far as stats and character generation go, "Play whatever you roll and then the GM balances everything behind the scenes to compensate for your shortcomings" is a play procedure, but it's not a procedure that's really covered in the books themselves. You're relying on your own experience and intuition as GM to pull it off. There is, however, a set of rules and play procedures to cover buying your attributes with points, which claims to remove some of the need to do this balancing act because the characters are, ostensibly, more "balanced" to begin with. This is point-buy. When you look at the books, you're stuck choosing between rolling up characters without any help in how to "balance" them, because they didn't really write that part into the book, or using point-buy with its built-in "balance". Now, you can reject this notion of "balance" and then having "equal" PCs is just plain irrelevant. Or you can say that point-buy doesn't achieve the kind of "balance" it should. But, as long as you buy into the notion that "balance" is important (as you are doing if you say that the GM is really "balancing" everything behind the scenes anyway), then it's just plain pointless to attack a procedure that enforces that balance simply because it does so openly and directly. Guess what? That's honestly easier for the GM than a lot of behind-the-scenes GM handwaving, and it's a lot harder to **** up. So, what's wrong with people using the method that actually has some guidelines to help you along? And blaming video games for anything is just plain short-sighted. I guess that sums it up then. Do you realize you typed "balance" 14 times in your post. My "blaming" video games was more tongue-in-cheek than anything. Would it have helped if I had said "Damn kids and their MP3s"? Point-buyers seem so serious and rigid. They just seem to want to concentrate on "balancing" everything. I'm not trying to convert anyone that has to have the character that they have always dreamed of playing. Use point-buy then. If that is how you have fun then by all means have fun with it. But it seems to me that people that like to roll are more laid back. Point-buy people can't have fun unless they get exactly what they want and roll people find ways to have fun with whatever they get.
Zumarai 12-06-06, 10:25 AM	roll people find ways to have fun with whatever they get. Maybe that's because "rollers" conveniently always seem to "roll" insane scores. "Look, I rolled these!" …Yeah, sure you did...
justdmjeff 12-06-06, 10:33 AM	Maybe that's because "rollers" conveniently always seem to "roll" insane scores. "Look, I rolled these!" …Yeah, sure you did... Oh yes, I did forget to mention that we are cheats too. Thank you. I played Werewolf once with some friends. I had never played before but was interested in learning. Now these friends had been playing for years as a group. Everybody's rolls for the entire night were 15 or higher. Nobody rolled in the open. I find it very hard to believe that an entire group of people can roll that well in one night except for me. If I rolled a 2, I said it was a 2. If I rolled an 18, I said it was an 18. Maybe I'm too honest. Never played again. But that's how that group had fun. It just wasn't fun for me.
hiroshimahamster 12-06-06, 10:33 AM	Why is there an arguement here? Rolling needs to be done in front of the DM and point buy can be done anywhere. PERIOD. Why have this discussion? Just pick the way your gaming group prefer and stick with it - don't bleat on about which on is best. I actually rotate the two systems depending on the campaign I'm running...
Deschain of Gilead 12-06-06, 10:46 AM	Ok, I'll admit that I started skimming halfway down so if I'm repeating what anyone else has said already I'm sorry. This argument surfaces time and again in the D&D community. Yes, rolling is unfair, it leads to a bit of randomness in something that seems relatively important. Ditto that on rolling for hit points as well. But, and I think some other people have been hinting at this, this is D&D for Christ's sake! This game was built on rolling tons of funky shaped dice. We're stuck w/ tons of artifacts from the ghosts of D&D past, and this is just one of them--like cookie cutter character classes and a spell system that doesn't make any sense to anyone despite how many times they try to justify it (I'm curious to see Complete Mage's take...). After trying it a bunch of times, I feel like the point-buy system just doesn't "fit." Don't get me wrong, I've played a slieu of entirely point-based systems. But, to me, the point-buy system just defies the simple beauty of our beloved class-based, dice-based game.
The_Levitator 12-06-06, 11:14 AM	I'm with hiroshimahamster. The best method is the one your group wants to use, and I think both have their merits. We've rolled the last 2 campaigns and my group is interested in trying point buy for the next one. One of my players had an interesting idea: Is there a way to combine both? I was thinking you could roll a d8 to give you from a 25 to a 32 point buy. It still has the fun of a bit of randomness yet still allows the players to create their ideal stack. Does anyone think this would work?
CharlieRock 12-06-06, 11:22 AM	Does anyone think this would work? That's the kind of question that got us going on ,now! :rofl: Apparently to me, you already know your answer ,dude. Just use the one your team likes best. :)
vagabonvoid 12-06-06, 11:28 AM	I'm with hiroshimahamster. The best method is the one your group wants to use, and I think both have their merits. We've rolled the last 2 campaigns and my group is interested in trying point buy for the next one. One of my players had an interesting idea: Is there a way to combine both? I was thinking you could roll a d8 to give you from a 25 to a 32 point buy. It still has the fun of a bit of randomness yet still allows the players to create their ideal stack. Does anyone think this would work? I've already mentioned this method. I have used it, it worked in my group (who are split between rolling and point-buy). Still random, but not to the point where one character is barely a hero while one is stated like superman.
Bringer of autumn 12-06-06, 11:28 AM	Can someone expalin how the point buy system works, please?
The_Levitator 12-06-06, 11:35 AM	Basically, each stat total "costs" a specified number of points. Like this: 18 = 16 points 17 = 13 points 16 = 10 points 15 = 8 points 14 = 6 points 13 = 5 points 12 = 4 points 11 = 3 points 10 = 2 points 9 = 1 point 8 0r less = 0 points Your DM gives you a total, say like, 32 points. That is your total number of points. You then use those points to "buy" the stats you want. if you want that 18 STR for your fighter, it will cost you 16 points, leaving you with 16 points to use for the rest of your stats.
Bringer of autumn 12-06-06, 11:38 AM	Basically, each stat total "costs" a specified number of points. Like this: 18 = 16 points 17 = 13 points 16 = 10 points 15 = 8 points 14 = 6 points 13 = 5 points 12 = 4 points 11 = 3 points 10 = 2 points 9 = 1 point 8 0r less = 0 points Your DM gives you a total, say like, 32 points. That is your total number of points. You then use those points to "buy" the stats you want. if you want that 18 STR for your fighter, it will cost you 16 points, leaving you with 16 points to use for the rest of your stats. Ah, I see. I can clearly see the pros and cons of this.
Ocalus 12-06-06, 11:40 AM	The main benefit of point-buy IMO is that it starts everyone off on an even footing; no one gets a godly set of stats while another gets hammered. While the dice may make a difference during the game itself, removing the randomness for character creation is no bad thing. I should mention, though, that I actually don't use point-buy, though I am growing increasingly minded to do so.
Grand Theft Otto 12-06-06, 11:44 AM	Point-buy: Pros: - Can be done without having the DM around. - Gives all players an equivalent power level (stat wise). Cons: - Encourages dump stats ("I don't need charisma, so I'll put it as low as possible") - Encourages cookie-cutter builds (All sorcerers/bards having 18 charisma, or all wizards having 18 int, and so on). Rolling: Pros: - More varied characters (The smart barbarian, the charismatic fighter, the wise sorcerer, etc). - More fun (since most players prefer to roll in my experience). Cons: - Has to be done in front of the DM (since even the most honest players will fudge a die roll or two). - Will occasionally cause really strong or really weak characters (the character with 3 18s vs the character with 3 6s). Gonna call BS there. No one is going to put their high stat in Int for their barbarian if they roll, unless they roll really well and get an overpowered character. Dump stats exist in rolling, its just your lowest rolled stat (which tends to be higher than an 8). We determine stats by coming up with an agreed upon number. Your stat bonus must add up to that number. Half your stats can be odd if you want. Nothing above or below a certain number (in our current game its 6 and 18 before racial mods). Works great for NPC generation, I dont even bother writing down actual stats, just Str +2 Con +2 Dex +1 for some mook or whatever.
Grand Theft Otto 12-06-06, 11:48 AM	[quote] Overall, I've found both of these approaches to be inferior to using dice in card-like ways (e.g. rolling a set of dice and making that your "hand" for the encounter, if you will). Or to just plain using dice. The big advantage of using a full-on card-based system with a custom deck is that you can illustrate it with themed art to snazz up the game a bit (this worked in the Dragonlance game, for example, because they had like 20 years of art to draw on). But all of that is neither here nor there. Did you try Deadlands much? I understand you're familiar with its system, but the card system for initiative in particular works REALLY well, and speeds things up much more than D&D's numerical initiative. Plus it handles long actions very well.
BoringInfoGuy 12-06-06, 12:04 PM	Maybe that's because "rollers" conveniently always seem to "roll" insane scores. "Look, I rolled these!" …Yeah, sure you did... Like Bloody Hell. Did you read the stats from my examples? "Nobody" had a 12 for his high stat. Perfering rolling does not mean cheating. It means perferring to take what you get, good or bad.
Cantankerous 12-06-06, 12:43 PM	There has been presented plenty of arguments in support of point buy as it eliminates the unwanted and unplanned for low stat. (I even quoted you, dude.) No, you misquoted me, by taking the passage you cited out of context. It'd be like quoting me saying "I hate mashed potatoes." when I had been talking about having them without gravy. Context is everything. I'm not saying that ... the stats are too low to play out a concept. I'm citing that the preponderance of people playing, and this was confirmed as a universal trait at conventions, that you had no choices. In earlier editions every-bloody-body cheated on the randomly rolled characters (or created alternate methods of character creation that made Monte the basis) in an attempt not to simply be stuck once agin playing a low con fighter or a mage with a low intel who would never be casting high level spells. This in no manner precludes playing the character. The concept can still be played out. The idiot dice simply made doing it less fun. Not no fun, just less fun. Choice is ALWAYS cooler. In regards to sex, I'm sure as blazes not going to roll a pair of dice and then say, "sorry hun, the dice say, missionary position, no foreplay quickie for tonight so that's what we gotta do." I will bloody well have my choices damn it. The difference between your asertion:Why stop there? Why don't we inhebit the players who are rolling more 20s? They are obviously going to be outperforming the guys who roll lower. and the way things are done is obvious as well. The character creation process is permenant. It determines the tone and context for a HUGE amount of what will happen in the entire campaign. Now, if all you run are one night games, your position might well be defensible, in a situation where a campaign is involved the single set of rolls modify nearly EVERY OTHER die rolled action you will ever take. Your comparing apples to super novas, and you know it. Isshia
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-06-06, 01:30 PM	Well, like I said, I prefer rolling. Not because it is "balanced" or any other reason the PB crowd is going for but because I find it more enjoyable. Even if the game was to later go to PB as the standard my group would still roll but we would be house ruling it. I have never seen a problem with mature players and rolled characters. The method I use is 4d6 (drop lowest) seven times choose 6 scores. Some people still get a score under 10 but rarely if ever have I seen more than one of those and they always get a 14 or better in at least one score. Seems to work fine to me. Sure we get some characters with arrays like 13, 14, 14, 15, 16, 18. Those people get all jazzed up about their character. The people who roll 9, 10, 12, 12, 14, 14 don't feel cheated (to my knowledge) they just know that at lower levels particularly the other character is going to be better off. Of course if you keep rolling uner 5 on a d20 it doesn't matter so much what your stats are. I find rolling usually helps people that want classes that suffer from MAD more than PB. If you have to use your points to get a character like a monk or a paladin that doesn't have a good dump stat really, you can have bonuses in every stat but nothing worth writing home about. PB fools you into thinking that you can have a character in a class like that. No matter how you fudge 28 points, it just doesn't spread enough to make you great. Now a single stat character like a wizard can be fine. Sure there are other stats you might want high but not having bonuses in them won't hurt you either.
Evangelos 12-06-06, 02:16 PM	If you like point buy, use it. If you like to roll, use that. I strongly suggest that the players decide on the general method (though not necessarily the specifics, like the number of points), because they are the ones playing the characters. The key here is not to be an idiot and generalize about one group or another, or dismiss others' preferences. People who prefer point buy are generally not crybabies who want to leave the table if things don't go their way. People who roll for stats don't necessarily cheat. There's nothing wrong with having an idea for a character before you ever sit down at the table, and there is also nothing wrong with wanting to be surprised. Citing things like "this way is more fun" or "this way is cooler" are just downright stupid; you might as well put a flashing neon sign saying "I'm a moron" right above your head. Those things are purely subjective. Personally, I prefer point buy -- high point buy, we use 45. I like to think long and hard about what kind of character I want to play, and come to the table with a character history and character already created. I also strongly agree with Cantankerous, because I like having choices; if I get stuck with a character that for any reason isn't fun to play, then...why am I playing again?
HerbalTea 12-06-06, 02:18 PM	Your argument is poor. You can make up plenty of reasons to roll dice for characters, but you're not offering anything. You don't even tell us what specifically makes rolling dice cool. Nor how that coolness supplements or outweighs other arguments for or against fortune-based character generation. BAHAHAHAHA :rofl: :rofl: That, people, is brilliance!!
Cantankerous 12-06-06, 02:21 PM	I'm with hiroshimahamster. The best method is the one your group wants to use, and I think both have their merits. We've rolled the last 2 campaigns and my group is interested in trying point buy for the next one. One of my players had an interesting idea: Is there a way to combine both? I was thinking you could roll a d8 to give you from a 25 to a 32 point buy. It still has the fun of a bit of randomness yet still allows the players to create their ideal stack. Does anyone think this would work? There's a problem with it. And this problem underlines the reason why die rolled stats are NOT optimal for this system. When you are making an NPC, for instance, the difference between a standard array (equal to a 15 PB) and an elite array (equal to a 25 PB), by the rules, increases the challenge rating by 1. The difference then between the elite array and the high powered campaign point buy is roughly the same in terms of how it impacts on the modifiers thus supplied. In other words, the simple difference between a low end average set of rolls (equal to say, a 20 point buy) and a very high end average set of rolls (equal to say, a 50 point buy) should logicly be about a +/- two ECL. Far fetched? Not hardly. A 20 PB might well be 14,12,13,10,10,9 for instance. Hey, that's not a bad character, he's got +3 total modifiers before racial ones, but compare him to the 50 PB of 18,16,15,14,13,11 (+12 worth of modifiers) and problems begin to manifest. And this comparison could have been much worse and stayed within the 20/50 PB dicotomy because in the example, the 50PB has more odd numbers. Can these two co-exist? You damned bet ya they can. Is it a good idea? There I have to say, no. With one player having four times the modifier basis that the other has, where the two players are of equal ability, the character with the 50 PB is going to be skating through encounters that will drive the 20PB character to deaths door, again and again and again. Sooner or later death is going to answer the doorbell. Now, precisely why should one player be skating , continually, while the other is pressed to his limits time and again over a period of one hundred plus sessions based on ONE SET OF ROLLS? Isshia
Orbb_was_railed_by_God 12-06-06, 02:41 PM	I like the system someone suggested of 8+1D10 for the attribute generation. It's random, but consistent.
PenderGrass 12-06-06, 02:42 PM	Citing things like "this way is more fun" or "this way is cooler" are just downright stupid; you might as well put a flashing neon sign saying "I'm a moron" right above your head. Those things are purely subjective. Who is the more moronic here? The fool or the fools that want to argue about it? At least some people seem to get it. :dragon: ****
Sadrx 12-06-06, 02:55 PM	The group I DM for plays differently than I would, but for them, I've come up with a stat generating system that they seem to enjoy: Everyone gathers together for Ability Score generation, and 24d6 are rolled amongst the group. The 24 results between 1 and 6 are recored where they can be seen by all -- we use a white board. Each player then assigns his or her pick of 18 of the 24 results to create 6 ability scores of 3 results each. This method works optimally for my group for a number of reasons: They find the randomness of die-rolling fun. They enjoy being able to customize their attributes. In the past, none of them have been able to enjoy having a weaker character than the rest. I enjoy the way the party tends to turn out when they work together to make their characters. When the entire party is either weak or strong, I can more easily cater the adventure to their power-level, and if one of these outcomes was desired before rolling, we'd have modified the number of rolled and discarded d6s appropriately. Edit: Basically, my group has done what I suggest each of your's do (if you haven't already). Weigh the pros and cons of the different methods as they affect your group, and then don't be afraid to mesh the systems you like to get the best of many.
Elthbert 12-06-06, 02:57 PM	There's a problem with it. And this problem underlines the reason why die rolled stats are NOT optimal for this system. When you are making an NPC, for instance, the difference between a standard array (equal to a 15 PB) and an elite array (equal to a 25 PB), by the rules, increases the challenge rating by 1. The difference then between the elite array and the high powered campaign point buy is roughly the same in terms of how it impacts on the modifiers thus supplied. In other words, the simple difference between a low end average set of rolls (equal to say, a 20 point buy) and a very high end average set of rolls (equal to say, a 50 point buy) should logicly be about a +/- two ECL. Far fetched? Not hardly. A 20 PB might well be 14,12,13,10,10,9 for instance. Hey, that's not a bad character, he's got +3 total modifiers before racial ones, but compare him to the 50 PB of 18,16,15,14,13,11 (+12 worth of modifiers) and problems begin to manifest. And this comparison could have been much worse and stayed within the 20/50 PB dicotomy because in the example, the 50PB has more odd numbers. Can these two co-exist? You damned bet ya they can. Is it a good idea? There I have to say, no. With one player having four times the modifier basis that the other has, where the two players are of equal ability, the character with the 50 PB is going to be skating through encounters that will drive the 20PB character to deaths door, again and again and again. Sooner or later death is going to answer the doorbell. Now, precisely why should one player be skating , continually, while the other is pressed to his limits time and again over a period of one hundred plus sessions based on ONE SET OF ROLLS? Isshia I have been playing since 1979-- and I have never had his be a problem--- let me say that agian--- I HAVE NEVER HAD THIS BE A PROBLEM! Have I seen Characters with higher or lower stats than others--- yes. I once rolled a character that was frankly just almost bs from the begining 18, 16, 18, 16, 14, 16. Back then we played them where they fell and this guy was a perfect monk ( back when monks had Mutliple Attribute Requirments ) Yet I never skate through things while others lagged behind. Not in any of the 4 incarnations of D&D that I have played, have i ever seen this supposed problem--- no matter what the stats were on the characters. D&D is a team game--- if your party is having a problem like this, I would wonder if perhaps the team pat is missing from your game. I don't meant that as a hostile statment-- this is just so bizarre to me I have trouble understanding how it could be so otherwise.
Erato 12-06-06, 04:16 PM	What I don’t understand is why it has to be ability scores. Why not roll for level? Or race? (and please, stating that it’s RAW is not the point. The point is that RAW, in this case, doesn’t make sense) It’s ridiculous that the average half-dragon PC is weaker than his/her comrades, when s/he has the blood of DRAGONS :dragon: in his/her veins. Some creatures are just BETTER than others, but because of balance, it’s decided that powerful (and often very intelligent) creatures arbitrarily learn more slowly. And they don’t even learn more consistently slowly :rolleyes: . After the human half-dragon has reached 4th level, s/he levels up at the exact same rate as everybody else. If I want to challenge myself, and force my mind to adapt, I’ll roll for race, class, and gender. Maybe even ask the DM for a lower amount of points (a guy in my group did that), or play in a campaign where we started at different levels. If I want my character creation to be a lottery, I’ll play with a DM that lets us roll for our starting level, for whether or not we’re allowed to be spellcasters (not everybody has that talent :mage: ), and for starting wealth (some people are born rich, so why not some adventures?).
Cantankerous 12-06-06, 04:36 PM	I have been playing since 1979-- and I have never had his be a problem--- let me say that agian--- I HAVE NEVER HAD THIS BE A PROBLEM! Have I seen Characters with higher or lower stats than others--- yes. I once rolled a character that was frankly just almost bs from the begining 18, 16, 18, 16, 14, 16. Back then we played them where they fell and this guy was a perfect monk ( back when monks had Mutliple Attribute Requirments ) Yet I never skate through things while others lagged behind. Not in any of the 4 incarnations of D&D that I have played, have i ever seen this supposed problem--- no matter what the stats were on the characters. D&D is a team game--- if your party is having a problem like this, I would wonder if perhaps the team pat is missing from your game. I don't meant that as a hostile statment-- this is just so bizarre to me I have trouble understanding how it could be so otherwise. I've been at this since '76 myself, and as a prolific DM, between this and other games in this and other genres, I've DMed, Refed, GMed, StoryTold or what have you very likely in the neighborhood 3200 total sessions with better than one hundred different Players over that time and those plentitude of games and it's been my experience that in almost every game where there was a huge difference in character ability, some skated while others struggled or the weaker ones died off at an order of magnitude greater rate. Darwinism is alive and well in our games because we pull no punches. These guys were VERY often incredible team players, but since there were no discounts for having glaring weaknesses in comparison to the others, Darwinism proved itself in the game worlds as readily as in this one. Don't get me wrong... the high stat Players died off to at times, but the horrid stat players simply did so much more often. Yes, the high stat Players tried to look out for the low stat ones, but not wanting to be coddled and relagated to second string, the weaker players took risks just like the power houses. THAT ios what being a hero is. It's not letting the other guy take up the slack for you and run all the rsiks while you cower back. My Players seemed to understand this intuitively. But where the power houses could survive risk taking more easily, the weaker ones had their problems. It's only common sense that with all else being equal, the weak die off easier than the strong. I can't imagine it any other way myself. Isshia
BoringInfoGuy 12-06-06, 04:45 PM	I have been playing since 1979-- and I have never had his be a problem--- let me say that agian--- I HAVE NEVER HAD THIS BE A PROBLEM! Have I seen Characters with higher or lower stats than others--- yes. I once rolled a character that was frankly just almost bs from the begining 18, 16, 18, 16, 14, 16. Back then we played them where they fell and this guy was a perfect monk ( back when monks had Mutliple Attribute Requirments ) Yet I never skate through things while others lagged behind. Not in any of the 4 incarnations of D&D that I have played, have i ever seen this supposed problem--- no matter what the stats were on the characters. D&D is a team game--- if your party is having a problem like this, I would wonder if perhaps the team pat is missing from your game. I don't meant that as a hostile statment-- this is just so bizarre to me I have trouble understanding how it could be so otherwise. And I haven't seen this problem either. I've been playing around 20 years. The whole "I use PB becuase it's players with lower rolls will feel frustrated next to thier high stat companions," reminds me of how some schools are removing the honor roll so that students who don't make the list won't feel depressed. As if students should feel ashamed of doing well. The worst part? Half the time I read these stories, it turns out that it's the parents of the honor roll students who are pushing to get the list removed. Becuase they are worried about the other parents children. They are solving a problem that they only imagine exists. When I played Toral "Nobody" NarrowValley, the DM only allowed Bards, Fighters, and Rogues as characters. With 6 players, we had 3 rogues. The other players rolled much better stats. With the arguments PB propenents are posting, I should've been a seething ball of resentment, playing a weaker character. Instead, those stats helped me come up with his back story, outlook on life, strategy, and mindset. His ideas made the party rich. Very, very rich. I liked playing Toral. Everyone else was impressed by him. I don't hate PB. For online games, conventions, or groups that have actualy had problems between players due to stat differences, then it makes sense. But me? Give me those 4d6. I wanna have some fun.
Ocalus 12-06-06, 04:50 PM	Who is the more moronic here? The fool or the fools that want to argue about it? The fool who is commenting on the fools who are arguing with the fool, obviously. ;)
a_psh 12-06-06, 05:34 PM	Do you realize you typed "balance" 14 times in your post.And it's in quotes because I think it's all a big crock. Your point being? Point-buyers seem so serious and rigid. They just seem to want to concentrate on "balancing" everything.What do you appeal to in a discussion, though? What's there to talk about other than the way the character generation system just kinda wishy-washily makes you feel? Well, this "balance" thing is high on the list because 3e/3.5e is rather obsessed with it. And, yeah, talking about balance all day sounds more serious than talking about how cool you think something is. But let's not confuse rhetoric with in-play behavior. Someone making a "serious" argument when talking about abstract principles isn't necessarily more "serious" at the table. And his argument is certainly more meaningful than someone who just says "This is cool" and leaves it at that. Honestly? Both methods suck. Monstrously. Fortune-based character generation is stupid because it just mucks up the other fortune mechanics in the game. Point-based ability score generation is stupid because, as Charlie pointed out, nothing else in the game works this way. The elite array would make more sense than either of those methods. As would just plain not having ability scores. That's really the problem here... in 30 years, D&D has never really had a way to make ablity scores for characters that wasn't just plain klunky and tacked-on. This is even more of a problem in 3e because, through tons of designer effort, things have been tied together in such a way that the game is generally more consistent (which does not mean faster or more fun, to head off some arguments here), but the proud nails and kludged-together bits rather stand out more.
boozerker 12-06-06, 06:02 PM	Morpheus: Do you believe in rolling, Neo? Neo: No. Morpheus: Why not? Neo: Because I don’t like the idea that I’m not in control of my stats. Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean.
wrecan 12-06-06, 06:04 PM	First off, anybody who claims that anything about D&D is cool needs to be hoisted once more by his tighty-whiteys and hung on the local locker room door. Clearly they have no idea about what is or isn't cool. Second, my problem with dice rolling is imposing it on other players. Someone who wants to be surprised can be surprised with PB: assignt he points randomly. Done. Kaput. You get your randomness and everyone else gets the benefits of PB. In my opinion, the only reasons for rolling are what I call dice fetishism and schadenfreude. Dice fetishism is the notion that dice rolling is fun (or even cool) for itself and that should trump other aspects of the game, like party balance. Schadenfreude is the vicarious thrills I see too often among people who advocate dice-rolling in which one poor schmoe rolls nothing above a 12 and everyone laughs and laughs. (Often the schmoe has to laugh too, or be accused of taking the game "too seriously".) In fairness, I have seen people who enjoy playing the low-stat character they rolled. In my experience, these are also the people who like playing the drama sinks. The rogue who wears jesters' bells in the dungeon, the TN druid who hits his fellow PCs "for balance", the CN wizard who ensorcels his allies for mad fun, and the angst-ridden bard who bewails his poor fate at every inopportune moment. Being the Danny DeVito Twin is enjoyable in the vicarious way my little brother enjoyed waking me up Saturday mornings by farting in my face. It's not a "challenge" to play the equivalent of three levels behind everyone else. It's not "role-playing" to play someone with a silly assortment of stats. It's just goofy. Most players I know resent being made to play the odd man out. They either rely exclusively on strategy (unless the DM also forces people to roll whatever pathetic stat they ended up with as Intelligence) so as to avoid ever having to roll ever, they drop out, or they sit there and don't participate, relying on "teamwork" to ensure his village-idiot-90 lb. weakling-eggshell skull-klutzy-homely cleric doesn't ever have to do anything. Rolling for stats (and hp for that matter) is the last vestige of Gygaxian inequity that should have gone the way of the dwarf character class and the uber-elf. And yes. I am "generaliz[ing] about one group or another, or dismiss[ing] others' preferences." Because those preferences are bad, they are shallow and they are inequitable.
justdmjeff 12-06-06, 06:07 PM	What I don’t understand is why it has to be ability scores. Why not roll for level? Or race? (and please, stating that it’s RAW is not the point. The point is that RAW, in this case, doesn’t make sense) It must make sense to some people, since people have been rolling for ability stats for close to 30 years. And since people are still debating its merits.
justdmjeff 12-06-06, 06:09 PM	Morpheus: Do you believe in rolling, Neo? Neo: No. Morpheus: Why not? Neo: Because I don’t like the idea that I’m not in control of my stats. Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean. :heehee
justdmjeff 12-06-06, 06:20 PM	WOW! For people that claim to love their hobby, there sure are alot of complaints about it. I wonder if people that fish complain this much.
vagabonvoid 12-06-06, 06:30 PM	As it hs been pointed out, both methods have their good and bad points... Sometimes, I get together with my group and I give each person 10 minutes to describe their character as best they can. Their strengths, their weaknesses, etc... Then based on that, I give stats based on that... Its then based on what the character idea was... Of course I limit the munchkins in the group (usually I build the characters depending on the campaign hardness, usually 32-45 points) so a person who says their good at everything doesnt have straight 18s... They however may have 13/14s across the boards. Most of the time I have people who have an Idea such as Conan or Gandalf, and we build around that (IE a greater str or int, and a dump stat) All of my players have really liked this method. It allows for character creativity. Of course, I rarely do this... I usually let the players decide whether to roll or pointbuy ( I usually allow for both during character creation. This way a person who chose to roll, he deals with the cards he was dealt, while a person who did point buy can't complain about not having 3 18s across the board (he didn' run the risk of having poorly rolled scores)
Erato 12-06-06, 06:37 PM	It must make sense to some people, since people have been rolling for ability stats for close to 30 years. And since people are still debating its merits. Wasn’t there also a time when you could only advance to certain levels in certain classes, after which you had to start all over again? ;) Just because something has been a certain way for 30 years, does not necessarily make it logical, or even constructive (THAC0 :D ). But there will always be those who think the old way is better just because. It’s not that I think all people are this way; but can you honestly tell me, that NONE of the people in favour of rolling would change their mind about it, if point-buy became the default method? Besides, I haven’t heard any argument supporting rolling, that explains why it makes more sense or is more fun than rolling for level, race, gender, or wealth. I’m really just curious, and telling me it makes sense to some people, don’t get me any closer to the answer.
boozerker 12-06-06, 06:42 PM	Don't get me wrong... the high stat Players died off to at times, but the horrid stat players simply did so much more often. Yes, the high stat Players tried to look out for the low stat ones, but not wanting to be coddled and relagated to second string, the weaker players took risks just like the power houses. I have been playing since 1979-- and I have never had his be a problem--- let me say that agian--- I HAVE NEVER HAD THIS BE A PROBLEM! .....I never skate through things while others lagged behind. Not in any of the 4 incarnations of D&D that I have played, have i ever seen this supposed problem--- no matter what the stats were on the characters. D&D is a team game--- if your party is having a problem like this, I would wonder if perhaps the team pat is missing from your game. I don't meant that as a hostile statment-- this is just so bizarre to me I have trouble understanding how it could be so otherwise. And I haven't seen this problem either. I've been playing around 20 years. ..... I don't hate PB. For online games, conventions, or groups that have actualy had problems between players due to stat differences, then it makes sense. But me? Give me those 4d6. I wanna have some fun. Funny, I just asked a friend (who played since 1st edition) about his thoughts, before reading this. He prefers rolling, and said it's no problem because if anyone rolled crappy the party would boost them up with magic item finds. Of course, that likely depends on what group you play in. Edit: The DMG has rolling as standard, and point-buy is the alternative.
Erato 12-06-06, 06:46 PM	WOW! For people that claim to love their hobby, there sure are alot of complaints about it. I wonder if people that fish complain this much. For someone who love our hobby, we discuss it a lot, to share experiences, and find ways to improve it. We disagree, yes. But that’s what makes it interesting :D And yes, people who really love fishing, will have opinions on the quality and prices of fishing gear, the best ways to catch certain types of fish, pollution, commercial fishing, whether or not other fishers are telling the truth about their catches, ect, ect. Believe me :rolleyes:
Kendrick 12-06-06, 07:18 PM	I much prefer to roll. If I roll, I might roll poorly. If I do, I eat that **** sandwich and do what I can with it - a rogue or bard can function with bad to mediorce scores across the board, or if I have one decent score and nothing else, I could go for a spellcaster. I might also roll well, and be able to make whatever I want. Using point buy just garuntees that everyone except the wizard eats the **** sandwich every time. I'd much rather take my chances and have a shot at a great character (and also the chance of being dead weight) than get a garunteed mediocre character every time.
Grand Theft Otto 12-06-06, 07:28 PM	WOW! For people that claim to love their hobby, there sure are alot of complaints about it. I wonder if people that fish complain this much. Yeah, because we cant change anything, and liking a game has to be all or nothing. Curse you Gygax for binding me with your unbreakable rules. :rolleyes:
a_psh 12-06-06, 07:36 PM	I'd much rather take my chances and have a shot at a great character (and also the chance of being dead weight) than get a garunteed mediocre character every time.What makes a character "great," in your eyes? Do you have any ideas for how a method could be used to generate a great character every time? I ask because, well, sometimes it's better to switch delis than to keep eating **** sandwiches.
Erato 12-06-06, 07:38 PM	I'd much rather take my chances and have a shot at a great character (and also the chance of being dead weight) than get a garunteed mediocre character every time. Your problem is not point-buy. Your problem is to few points. If you want to have a ‘great’ character (‘great’ meaning powerful), simply play with a DM that lets you have a high point-buy. If the wizard is too powerful, agree on a way to tone it down (or power up everyone else). Or take turns playing the character with high stats, if you don’t want everybody to be a super-hero. It’s much more reliable than rolling in the hope of a chance to play the character you really want ;)
boozerker 12-06-06, 07:47 PM	Our DM usually let us scrap horrid rolls (for example, if our stats all ended up below 10). It makes sense, even when you don't scrap astounding rolls. Why? Because D&D is geared towards heroic stats in the first place, not average, so mathematically it's a sound choice. In other words, chances of rolling great are slightly higher than chances of rolling miserably (which follows the game's pattern of above-average characters).
devinmdp 12-06-06, 07:50 PM	I prefer to have all my players use the poin-buy method of stats, it keeps one person from being extremely unbalanced compared to the others. What do you more experienced DMs prefer and why? I dislike point buys. Mainly because they encourage every example of a given class to pretty much be cookie cutter. I am tired of seeing fighters with 8 Cha, Clerics with 8 Int, et al. I think the issue of unbalanced players is way overblown, since as you go higher in levels, stats make less and less difference. Furthermore, last time I checked D&D was supposed to be a cooperative game, not an arms race between players. I know if I were a player, I'd consider it a blessing to have a fighter with an 18 Str in the party, even if that fighter were not me. Devin
Kendrick 12-06-06, 08:34 PM	What makes a character "great," in your eyes? Do you have any ideas for how a method could be used to generate a great character every time? I ask because, well, sometimes it's better to switch delis than to keep eating **** sandwiches. A melee character can be mediocre with something like Str 16, Dex 11, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8 - a 25 point buy. But a fighter with Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 8 - a 30 point buy - is more fun to play. And a Fighter with Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 10 - a 44 point buy - is more fun by far. Low stats place painfully annoying limitations on a character. I have more fun with a character that I play to develop his strengths than a character I have to play to compensate for his weaknesses. I've never met a DM that allows more than a 32 point buy. So, like I said, I'd rather take the risk that I'll have to live with those frustrating limitations and have a chance to rise above them than have a garunteed mediocre character and live with those limitations anyways. I'd choose to roll if it was a choice between "3d6 placed in the order you roll them" or 25 point buy. The fact that "4d6 drop lowest and place them where you want" is widespread just makes the decision that much easier.
Sphyre 12-06-06, 10:08 PM	I much prefer to roll. If I roll, I might roll poorly. If I do, I eat that **** sandwich and do what I can with it - a rogue or bard can function with bad to mediorce scores across the board, or if I have one decent score and nothing else, I could go for a spellcaster. I might also roll well, and be able to make whatever I want. Using point buy just garuntees that everyone except the wizard eats the **** sandwich every time. I'd much rather take my chances and have a shot at a great character (and also the chance of being dead weight) than get a garunteed mediocre character every time. LOL, I like the way you think, sir, madam, or miss.
a_psh 12-07-06, 12:55 AM	A melee character can be mediocre with something like Str 16, Dex 11, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8 - a 25 point buy. But a fighter with Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 8 - a 30 point buy - is more fun to play. And a Fighter with Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 10 - a 44 point buy - is more fun by far.So, in other words, rolling is how you compensate for not being able to use a high "point-buy" total (or a maybe point-based method that maybe doesn't make 16s and 18s cost so much)? Does the rest of your group agree and, if so, why aren't you playing with more than 32 points?
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 01:01 AM	Herein lies the biggest difference and the entire reason for the debate. It always comes back to more, MORE, MORE!!! The people who like the rolled stats are often complaining how much it sucks to put up with, not really Point Buy, but with 25 Point Buy (the standard). Why? Simply, as several people have complained, the heroes thus produced just are less fun. A 25 is boring a 30 better a 44 better still. Wha? When is it enough people? When you already stand head and shoulders above 95% of the world statisticly and equal to another 4.9% of it, where is the complaint coming from? The game is predicated the way it is so that there is some challenge, so that it's not a bloody video game with a cheats book sitting open next to the computer to make you invulnerable. There is no reason why a young, inexperienced character should feel like he needs to be eating dragons for breakfast by the weeks ending. Where does the "my character MUST BE" stronger or faster or smarter or whatever than anyone ever seen to be enjoyable? 18's are simply a luxury and NOTHING more in this game. The chance to roll dice provides that ephemeral MORE, without the person having to know internally that they've munchkined out yet again...and supposedly without everyone else knowing it too. How many times in this forum especially have you heard some inexperienced DM bewailing that one character in the party who makes everyone else superfluous? A thousand or more this year alone? And how often has it been because the Player had stats that would make a dragon cringe? And how often has the excuse for those stats been : well he rolled really well"? This game is built around the concept of balance, and while it is far from perfectly balanced, the further balance is deviated from, the more out of whach things get. Of course, it's a no brainer that this is so. So, why do we as DMs need yet another imbalancing item? One that stays with us from first level on and never leaves? Isshia
Sphyre 12-07-06, 01:23 AM	This game is built around the concept of balance, and while it is far from perfectly balanced, the further balance is deviated from, the more out of whach things get. Of course, it's a no brainer that this is so. I totally disagree with this. This game wasn't built around the concept of balance. It was built on the concept of role-playing. Balancing came in later, and that's why there's imbalance. The truth of the matter is, if this game were totally, and completely balanced, what would be the only cause of death? Dice rolls. It would lack a lot of the flavor that it has. This game definately was not built around the concept of balance. Sure, there are a lot of ways you can remove imbalances, and making the playing field a bit better for everyone is a forward step, and if you want to remove the imbalances of dice rolls, you have the perogative to do so in your own game, but to claim this game is built around balance is wishful thinking. You play it how ever you want. You either overcome your imbalances and enjoy them or you go play chess and complain about the fact that white goes first.
Man in the Funny Hat 12-07-06, 02:13 AM	http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/stat_generation.htm That's a list of "official" character generation methods I came up with, capped off by a bunch of purely unofficial methods that people might find interesting. In assembling that list an interesting picture of the history of this particular part of the game came into focus. When the game first began the rolls were 3d6, recorded on the character sheet in the order rolled, and minimal adjustment was allowed according to the class of character you then chose. That adjustment was in sacrificing more points from one specific score you could have a lesser increase another specified score. For example, magic-users could sacrifice 3 points of strength for 1 more point of intelligence. So, for the most part you played what you got and part of the game was to make that dominantly random outlay work for the character class you chose. The softer side of it was that for the most part those scores DIDN'T MATTER ANYWAY because there were all of 3, count them! 3 - bonuses to be had from your ability scores. XP bonus/penalty for high/low score in prime requisite for the class, bonus/penalty hit points for Con, and bonus/penalty to missile fire for Dex. Nothing for Str, Cha, Int, or Wis. NOTHING. Because the game started out this way, where your ability scores meant almost nothing to having fun with a given character, it certainly seems to have been the perception (officially at least) that part of the fun, part of the challenge of D&D was to MAKE DO with what you got in creative ways. That changed very little by the time AD&D (1st Edition) was published although much of the other mechanics surrounding ability scores did change. Every ability now had bonuses or penalties that could be derived from it for low/high scores. Of the four character generation methods published in the DMG two of them still had scores recorded in order, but players would get several re-rolls for each or have many multiple sets of scores to choose from. In addition, characters had to have minimum scores to qualify for classes, with the classes that had many special abilities being quite hard to qualify for. This was deemed a "balancing" feature. Even though 4d6, arrange as desired, was the first and most common method, the fact that certain classes were difficult to qualify for should mean they were seen less often and were a reward of sorts for having lucky dice or putting up with playing plenty of less glamourous characters. These days such attitudes are quite laughable - that making a character less frequently seen made up for it being more powerful. Clearly though, in the time between the publication of the original game and AD&D some consideration was being given to letting players have more control over getting to play the characters they wanted. Not TOTAL control mind you, just more control than was originally conceived. Now the other thing about stats in 1st Edition is that high stats were made HIGHLY valuable. Strength in particular, because of the introduction of the Super-strength chart extension, could be WILDLY out of comparison to the value of lesser strength scores, much less in comparison to other ability scores. And yet there was a big, fat, blank space in the statistical spread on the charts where your scores still would get you NOTHING. Between 7 and 14 - which is the bulk of results even for 4d6 - it made no difference. But as soon as you get 15's fun things start to happen and when you get 17's and 18's you rock the world. The result then was that many players started to game the system or ignore it to more consistently get those fat bonuses that the bell curve of 3d6 or 4d6 results just weren't giving them. Those high scores now mattered a great deal more. The methods that people began to come up with to get them certainly reflects that. In the original Unearthed Arcana a method was presented that gave players up to 9d6 to get those high scores in the abilities where players typically wanted them. Again, it was just because anything below a 15 was meaningless in terms of bonuses. The only part of the scale that mattered was the top end of it. It should be noted, however, that not until 2nd Edition and the "Skills & Powers" rules was there an official method that even suggested the idea that it was necessary or even particularly desireable that all the PC's have the SAME abilty score values at the start for reasons of "balance" or "fairness". Indeed it was not until WELL AFTER 3rd Edition was published was it commonly, publicly suggested that out of all the methods 3E presented that point buy had any kind of inherent superiority because "balance" and "fairness" were such paramount considerations. That's interesting because in the 25 years up to that point that D&D had been played people would occasionally talk about the also occasional problem character that dominated play because of dominating ability scores. They noted that HIGH scores held disproportionate value, but nobody (at least in MY experience through all that time) had the fixation that unless you started with absolute ability score balance your game was DOOMED. Rather, it was quite commonly perceived (again, in MY experience) that seeing differences in character power was a GOOD thing. WIDE gaps in power were problematic of course, but the idea of a fighter who might be stronger than the wizard was smart being problematic would be nothing but LUDICROUS. Whatever value YOU might place upon extreme fairness and equity in ability scores at the start of the game, point buy is still just one of MANY possible methods for character generation because (and forgive me for being obnoxious about this, but) it just doesn't matter that much to a LOT of other people. This is not to say that random methods are somehow superior either. Different methods will suit different tastes, different play styles, different goals among the participants in how they get their fun out of the game. I don't care that there are people who prefer point buy. Heck, I'm GLAD there are, as I'm glad there are people who prefer ALL KINDS of different approaches to D&D because they all expand my own horizons of what I can do and want to do with D&D. But I sense that this endless preoccupation with point-buy and "even playing fields" only serves to convince otherwise sensible people that "MY fun relies on NOBODY else having the possibility of having MORE fun than me." That is not just a sad approach to D&D but a sad approach to life because it only ends in misery - either for yourself because it places you in the position of being happy only when someone else is miserable, or for others because in seeking your happiness you SEEK to increase the misery/decrease the enjoyment of others. Now this might make some sense if D&D was, in fact, a competitive game but it isn't. So, a certain amount of equanimity is laudable but it need hardly be considered as a goal or necessity.
a_psh 12-07-06, 02:32 AM	Really, here's the key: If a character creation method doesn't lead to a character you want to play every single time you go through the method, don't use it. If you're rolling because you want whatever the dice give you, that's cool. If you're point-buying because you want a specific set of attributes, that's cool. If you don't mind just writing down any stats you want, that's cool, too. Whatever. If you're rolling because it gives you the occasional chance to have a character you actually want to play, however, stop right there. Find a method that actually always generates the toon you want, however you do it. Play procedures should be about having fun, not making do.
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 02:38 AM	I totally disagree with this. This game wasn't built around the concept of balance. It was built on the concept of role-playing. Balancing came in later, and that's why there's imbalance. The truth of the matter is, if this game were totally, and completely balanced, what would be the only cause of death? Dice rolls. It would lack a lot of the flavor that it has. This game definately was not built around the concept of balance. Sure, there are a lot of ways you can remove imbalances, and making the playing field a bit better for everyone is a forward step, and if you want to remove the imbalances of dice rolls, you have the perogative to do so in your own game, but to claim this game is built around balance is wishful thinking. You play it how ever you want. You either overcome your imbalances and enjoy them or you go play chess and complain about the fact that white goes first. This game, this edition of D&D, the 3.5 most definitively IS built around the concept of balance...not taken to the insane extremes that you're talking about, but look: What is the CR system all about? Why do they bother with the entire concept of the classes being close to balanced against each other? Is it perfected yet? I said in my post that it wasn't. Is it closer now in 3.5 than it has ever been in earlier editions? Definitively. It is so obviously what the designers are striving for, and hell, they've even said it, that to not see it you have to be purposely closing your eyes(mind) when reading the rules. Isshia
Sphyre 12-07-06, 03:25 AM	This game, this edition of D&D, the 3.5 most definitively IS built around the concept of balance...not taken to the insane extremes that you're talking about, but look: What is the CR system all about? Why do they bother with the entire concept of the classes being close to balanced against each other? Is it perfected yet? I said in my post that it wasn't. Is it closer now in 3.5 than it has ever been in earlier editions? Definitively. It is so obviously what the designers are striving for, and hell, they've even said it, that to not see it you have to be purposely closing your eyes(mind) when reading the rules. Isshia It's built off previous versions of the game. Yes, the game has a lot more balance in it than previous versions, but no, that is not the focus. They would need to build it ground up if they wanted to build it around balance. Although I did not start playing D&D until 3rd edition, I have been exposed to previous versions, and things like feats were introduced, but does that mean it was built around balance? No. I agree with you that D&D is much more balanced than it's previous incarnations, but it is not made with the first, utmost thing in design as balance, and built branched off that. Now does that mean that I don't think that 4th edition might scrap everything and then start building everything from the ground up with balanced in mind? Well, time will only tell with that one. It's certainly the starting point if you have balance as the primary goal.
Zumarai 12-07-06, 05:11 AM	Rolling for stats (and hp for that matter) is the last vestige of Gygaxian inequity that should have gone the way of the dwarf character class and the uber-elf. …And segments. Bravo, my man! I totally agree with your entire post. I also didn't realize Gary has become a vestige.
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 08:05 AM	I've been at this since '76 myself, and as a prolific DM, between this and other games in this and other genres, I've DMed, Refed, GMed, StoryTold or what have you very likely in the neighborhood 3200 total sessions with better than one hundred different Players over that time and those plentitude of games and it's been my experience that in almost every game where there was a huge difference in character ability, some skated while others struggled or the weaker ones died off at an order of magnitude greater rate. Darwinism is alive and well in our games because we pull no punches. These guys were VERY often incredible team players, but since there were no discounts for having glaring weaknesses in comparison to the others, Darwinism proved itself in the game worlds as readily as in this one. Don't get me wrong... the high stat Players died off to at times, but the horrid stat players simply did so much more often. Yes, the high stat Players tried to look out for the low stat ones, but not wanting to be coddled and relagated to second string, the weaker players took risks just like the power houses. THAT ios what being a hero is. It's not letting the other guy take up the slack for you and run all the rsiks while you cower back. My Players seemed to understand this intuitively. But where the power houses could survive risk taking more easily, the weaker ones had their problems. It's only common sense that with all else being equal, the weak die off easier than the strong. I can't imagine it any other way myself. Isshia This has been almost the opposite in my experience. Player ability equal, the stronger stat character usually gets to die first. Why? Because they are taking larger risks compared to their 'lil buddy'. When determining who is going to go through the spooky archway first: the guy with the most hit points. Who usually stuns the enemy with a large-damage attack, thus attracting all kinds of aggro: the guy with the higher stats usually. Who does the DMs like to pick on the most: the guy who got 'lucky' (especially if they boast about it). When players see those high stats on their sheet, something in them goes 'I'm Batman!' and they start slipping. Sometimes it's by commitee :'You should go in that dark room first. You got all those high stats'. This is especially the case in the lowest levels where the differences in stats are most obvious effect on performance. If your one of those 'level jumpers' or PLers (players who decide to start at like, ten or something), then I guess you might see things differently.
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-07-06, 08:08 AM	This has been almost the opposite in my experience. Mine too almost. I agree on the big risks part. My group also has the benefit of having mostly new players though so the low-stat new guys try to emulate the high-stat daredevils and die right next to them.
Lethanic 12-07-06, 08:15 AM	http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/stat_generation.htm That's a list of "official" character generation methods I came up with, capped off by a bunch of purely unofficial methods that people might find interesting. In assembling that list an interesting picture of the history of this particular part of the game came into focus. When the game first began the rolls were 3d6, recorded on the character sheet in the order rolled, and minimal adjustment was allowed according to the class of character you then chose. That adjustment was in sacrificing more points from one specific score you could have a lesser increase another specified score. For example, magic-users could sacrifice 3 points of strength for 1 more point of intelligence. So, for the most part you played what you got and part of the game was to make that dominantly random outlay work for the character class you chose. The softer side of it was that for the most part those scores DIDN'T MATTER ANYWAY because there were all of 3, count them! 3 - bonuses to be had from your ability scores. XP bonus/penalty for high/low score in prime requisite for the class, bonus/penalty hit points for Con, and bonus/penalty to missile fire for Dex. Nothing for Str, Cha, Int, or Wis. NOTHING. Because the game started out this way, where your ability scores meant almost nothing to having fun with a given character, it certainly seems to have been the perception (officially at least) that part of the fun, part of the challenge of D&D was to MAKE DO with what you got in creative ways. That changed very little by the time AD&D (1st Edition) was published although much of the other mechanics surrounding ability scores did change. Every ability now had bonuses or penalties that could be derived from it for low/high scores. Of the four character generation methods published in the DMG two of them still had scores recorded in order, but players would get several re-rolls for each or have many multiple sets of scores to choose from. In addition, characters had to have minimum scores to qualify for classes, with the classes that had many special abilities being quite hard to qualify for. This was deemed a "balancing" feature. Even though 4d6, arrange as desired, was the first and most common method, the fact that certain classes were difficult to qualify for should mean they were seen less often and were a reward of sorts for having lucky dice or putting up with playing plenty of less glamourous characters. These days such attitudes are quite laughable - that making a character less frequently seen made up for it being more powerful. Clearly though, in the time between the publication of the original game and AD&D some consideration was being given to letting players have more control over getting to play the characters they wanted. Not TOTAL control mind you, just more control than was originally conceived. Now the other thing about stats in 1st Edition is that high stats were made HIGHLY valuable. Strength in particular, because of the introduction of the Super-strength chart extension, could be WILDLY out of comparison to the value of lesser strength scores, much less in comparison to other ability scores. And yet there was a big, fat, blank space in the statistical spread on the charts where your scores still would get you NOTHING. Between 7 and 14 - which is the bulk of results even for 4d6 - it made no difference. But as soon as you get 15's fun things start to happen and when you get 17's and 18's you rock the world. The result then was that many players started to game the system or ignore it to more consistently get those fat bonuses that the bell curve of 3d6 or 4d6 results just weren't giving them. Those high scores now mattered a great deal more. The methods that people began to come up with to get them certainly reflects that. In the original Unearthed Arcana a method was presented that gave players up to 9d6 to get those high scores in the abilities where players typically wanted them. Again, it was just because anything below a 15 was meaningless in terms of bonuses. The only part of the scale that mattered was the top end of it. It should be noted, however, that not until 2nd Edition and the "Skills & Powers" rules was there an official method that even suggested the idea that it was necessary or even particularly desireable that all the PC's have the SAME abilty score values at the start for reasons of "balance" or "fairness". Indeed it was not until WELL AFTER 3rd Edition was published was it commonly, publicly suggested that out of all the methods 3E presented that point buy had any kind of inherent superiority because "balance" and "fairness" were such paramount considerations. That's interesting because in the 25 years up to that point that D&D had been played people would occasionally talk about the also occasional problem character that dominated play because of dominating ability scores. They noted that HIGH scores held disproportionate value, but nobody (at least in MY experience through all that time) had the fixation that unless you started with absolute ability score balance your game was DOOMED. Rather, it was quite commonly perceived (again, in MY experience) that seeing differences in character power was a GOOD thing. WIDE gaps in power were problematic of course, but the idea of a fighter who might be stronger than the wizard was smart being problematic would be nothing but LUDICROUS. Whatever value YOU might place upon extreme fairness and equity in ability scores at the start of the game, point buy is still just one of MANY possible methods for character generation because (and forgive me for being obnoxious about this, but) it just doesn't matter that much to a LOT of other people. This is not to say that random methods are somehow superior either. Different methods will suit different tastes, different play styles, different goals among the participants in how they get their fun out of the game. I don't care that there are people who prefer point buy. Heck, I'm GLAD there are, as I'm glad there are people who prefer ALL KINDS of different approaches to D&D because they all expand my own horizons of what I can do and want to do with D&D. But I sense that this endless preoccupation with point-buy and "even playing fields" only serves to convince otherwise sensible people that "MY fun relies on NOBODY else having the possibility of having MORE fun than me." That is not just a sad approach to D&D but a sad approach to life because it only ends in misery - either for yourself because it places you in the position of being happy only when someone else is miserable, or for others because in seeking your happiness you SEEK to increase the misery/decrease the enjoyment of others. Now this might make some sense if D&D was, in fact, a competitive game but it isn't. So, a certain amount of equanimity is laudable but it need hardly be considered as a goal or necessity. Flip your question; Why is the INequality desirable or laudible? Why is the only wsay you can increase your own enjoyment by having higher ability scores than everyone else?
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 08:44 AM	I don't hate PB. For online games, conventions, or groups that have actualy had problems between players due to stat differences, then it makes sense. But me? Give me those 4d6. I wanna have some fun. :clap: Morpheus: Do you believe in rolling, Neo? Neo: No. Morpheus: Why not? Neo: Because I don’t like the idea that I’m not in control of my stats. Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean. Little does Neo know, that he is not in control of his stats. The DM is when that person mandated the number of points allowed to buy those stats with. Does rolling solve this? No, but it keeps the DM out of my characters stats. Second, my problem with dice rolling is imposing it on other players. Someone who wants to be surprised can be surprised with PB: assignt he points randomly. Done. Kaput. You get your randomness and everyone else gets the benefits of PB. Isn't this as bad as imposing a point-buy system on someone who wants to roll? Rolling for the placement of X amount of points doesn't change the amount of X itself. And, if I don't want a 25 point (voluntarily or randomly placed) character; I'm not going to play one. Wasn’t there also a time when you could only advance to certain levels in certain classes, after which you had to start all over again? ;) Just because something has been a certain way for 30 years, does not necessarily make it logical, or even constructive (THAC0 :D ). But there will always be those who think the old way is better just because. It’s not that I think all people are this way; but can you honestly tell me, that NONE of the people in favour of rolling would change their mind about it, if point-buy became the default method? Besides, I haven’t heard any argument supporting rolling, that explains why it makes more sense or is more fun than rolling for level, race, gender, or wealth. I’m really just curious, and telling me it makes sense to some people, don’t get me any closer to the answer. You don't roll for level. You start at one (usually). You don't roll for gender, it makes no difference mechanically. You don't roll for race, because because that effects choices made freely (non-rolled and bought) down the line, like skill points and feats. If you can't tell that D&D3.x uses a THAC20 (really just THAC0 with a different name), then I can see how you got confused in the first place. It's just the reflective opposite of THAC0. Now, we add instead of subtracting to find the attack roll needed. :smirk: You still have a level cap in D&D3.x ,and certain PrCs only go up so high also. What were you getting at about level caps in older D&Ds? Yeah, because we cant change anything, and liking a game has to be all or nothing. Curse you Gygax for binding me with your unbreakable rules. :rolleyes: The only unbreakable rule, really, is rule #0. So, in other words, rolling is how you compensate for not being able to use a high "point-buy" total (or a maybe point-based method that maybe doesn't make 16s and 18s cost so much)? Does the rest of your group agree and, if so, why aren't you playing with more than 32 points? Most DMs do not allow 40 point buys. Most of the examples used in support of point-buy in this thread have been in the 20s, besides. Where does the "my character MUST BE" stronger or faster or smarter or whatever than anyone ever seen to be enjoyable? 18's are simply a luxury and NOTHING more in this game. Isshia If 18s are a luxury, then why not allow someone to roll for them? You make the claim that characters with really low stats are still very viable, yet don't want to take the chance of rolling those low stats. Here, you go on that there will be challenges to exist for even high stat characters, yet you won't allow someone to roll those stats. Really, here's the key: If a character creation method doesn't lead to a character you want to play every single time you go through the method, don't use it. If you're rolling because you want whatever the dice give you, that's cool. If you're point-buying because you want a specific set of attributes, that's cool. If you don't mind just writing down any stats you want, that's cool, too. Whatever. If you're rolling because it gives you the occasional chance to have a character you actually want to play, however, stop right there. Find a method that actually always generates the toon you want, however you do it. Play procedures should be about having fun, not making do. :clap: (I know, quoted you twice. But, that was good.) Mine too almost. I agree on the big risks part. My group also has the benefit of having mostly new players though so the low-stat new guys try to emulate the high-stat daredevils and die right next to them. Heh, when I was new with low stats, I played halflings. Halflings that hid when the bigger characters fell. Hid and ran shortly afterwards. :hides:
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 08:55 AM	No, you misquoted me, by taking the passage you cited out of context. It'd be like quoting me saying "I hate mashed potatoes." when I had been talking about having them without gravy. Context is everything. I'm not saying that I'm citing that the preponderance of people playing, and this was confirmed as a universal trait at conventions, that you had no choices. No, I didn't. What I quoted was : Originally Posted by Cantankerous Before that you just rolled your dice and put up with whatever you got. You know, roll 3d6 for each stat, roll your hit points and money and start playing. In earlier editions every-bloody-body cheated on the randomly rolled characters (or created alternate methods of character creation that made Monte the basis) in an attempt not to simply be stuck once agin playing a low con fighter or a mage with a low intel who would never be casting high level spells. There is no chance of that with a character YOU create as opposed to being stuck with due to crap rolls. Isshia You claimed no one was making the argument that low scores was a reason to throw out dice rolled stats. Originally Posted by Cantankerous Precisely what have you been smoking? And do you have any to share? What I've high lighted there of your statement is the exact opposite of what has been said about die rolling. It has been said that die rolling increases inequities in the creation system, but not once have I seen anyone complain that the characters made by die rolling have stats too low to be playable. Precisely the opposite is true.Isshia Your claim was that it made unequal characters, only. But ,the rest of your post was a rant on low scores. No mention of anyone else even being in the group. Much less, having higher stats. This was the rest of the post: Well put Salla. I personally don't see anything about die rolling to create a character to be in any way fun or cool. It was one of the few things about earlier versions of D&D that I really dispised, until the mid 80's when i sat down and created something not terribly unlike the present point buy system for my group. And there was great rejoicing. Finally, a way to craft your character to fulfill your vision instead of relying on pure dumb luck. You know, originally the "place as desired" thing didn't exist for OD&D back in the mid seventies. When it was first mentioned it began the long process of paving the way for the present, far more exacting system. Before that you just rolled your dice and put up with whatever you got. You know, roll 3d6 for each stat, roll your hit points and money and start playing. The ONLY thing that Point Buy represents is customization, the triumph of the intellect over the idiot dice. Thank god, Allah to Zeus, take your pick, that it finally became official and indeed, the standard method upon which the present game is predicated. Proof read it. You made no mention of comparing stats between characters. Only that concept faltered and low scores sucked overall. Edit: I guess you know by now that dice rolled stats are actually the standard with point bought being the alternate from the DMG. :devil:
Epicweaver 12-07-06, 09:00 AM	I think it's really all about what your groups want... IMHO, no amount of cleverness or boosted gold will compensate a character with a 20pt character compared to a 55pt character. It's all about leveling the playing field so everyone can have fun, not just the guy with the highest stats. The 55pt guy is the guy who gets other characters killed in collateral damage when the DM overcompensates for his presence by significantly boosting the EL of each encounter. I hate that, and really never want players to roll for stats again.
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-07-06, 09:12 AM	IMHO, no amount of cleverness or boosted gold will compensate a character with a 20pt character compared to a 55pt character. It's all about leveling the playing field so everyone can have fun, not just the guy with the highest stats. I agree with you that everyone should be having fun. I have to say though that I have never seen a 20 point character. At least I don't think so.
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 09:26 AM	This has been almost the opposite in my experience. Player ability equal, the stronger stat character usually gets to die first. Why? Because they are taking larger risks compared to their 'lil buddy'. When determining who is going to go through the spooky archway first: the guy with the most hit points. Who usually stuns the enemy with a large-damage attack, thus attracting all kinds of aggro: the guy with the higher stats usually. Who does the DMs like to pick on the most: the guy who got 'lucky' (especially if they boast about it). When players see those high stats on their sheet, something in them goes 'I'm Batman!' and they start slipping. Sometimes it's by commitee :'You should go in that dark room first. You got all those high stats'. This is especially the case in the lowest levels where the differences in stats are most obvious effect on performance. If your one of those 'level jumpers' or PLers (players who decide to start at like, ten or something), then I guess you might see things differently. My Players just aren't that metagamey I guess. The Players know who has the most hit points, but the characters don't know what hit points are. Usual the "freelance aquistions specialist" checks such things that look like they may be trapped as he has the most experience handling that. Scouting is done by whoever is best suited to scouting. That can change in different areas too. If there's going to be a big fight, the tank will charge, but not accepting the "little buddies" idea, he sure aint alone usually. Distance fighters keep a distance, but... Of course this assumes they got caught with their pants down, which is unusual, because these guys are careful and smart. They don't simply fly by the seat of their pants and trust in the almighty hit point. They think, they plan, they optimize. And the guy who does big damage can change as well. A Wizard sometimes, a Fighter another, a Cleric the third and if surprise is had, Mr Rogue shines. Since in our game no one has their class stamped on their forehead the NPCs don't know either, any more than the PCs do when looking at an opponent to gauge what they can do. Few of our Wizards wear wizardly robes. Since armor slows you down and these guys know the value of mobility, even Mr Fighter might not look too different if you don't see his build. Especially presently where everyone is running around in the deep desert. Basicly everyone is in a burnoose and cama, and our Wizard carries, though seldom uses, a nice looking scimitar while the Fighter uses what are for all intents and purposes a pair of shortswords. Who's who in that bunch? With the Point Buy there is no slippage, but back in the day, Mr Mondo Roller, Tom, if you read this, chime in, was no more Batmanish than Rob (who couldn't roll an 18 if you gave him sixteen dice per stat), often less so. Not stupidity, just heroic mindset irregardless of his stats. No one was going to "little buddy" one of his characters. It's simple lack of metagame knowledge and a desire to Role (not the other spelling of that) Play. Isshia
wrecan 12-07-06, 09:44 AM	That's interesting because in the 25 years up to that point that D&D had been played people would occasionally talk about the also occasional problem character that dominated play because of dominating ability scores. Really? Because when I was in college in the 1980's, we switched over to point-buy specifically because it was painfully apparent to anybody with any knowledge in game theory just how retrograde randomizing abilities is. Maybe it's just because I gamed with actual economists and statisticians (along with the usual assortment of English Lit and Business majors) They noted that HIGH scores held disproportionate value, but nobody (at least in MY experience through all that time) had the fixation that unless you started with absolute ability score balance your game was DOOMED. Jeez. "Doomed"? Must everything be placed in such stark terms? How about, "unfair" or "inequitable" or "spiteful". I sense that this endless preoccupation with point-buy and "even playing fields" only serves to convince otherwise sensible people that "MY fun relies on NOBODY else having the possibility of having MORE fun than me." I "sense" that people who "sense" things about other people and declare it to be so are obliquely trying to cast aspersions without any evidence whatsoever. Now this might make some sense if D&D was, in fact, a competitive game but it isn't. There is a finite amount of time at a gaming table. There are finite playing opportunities. So there is competition -- not to win, but merelt to participate. As others have described power disparity means that "stronger" characters have more opportunities to participate. They can last longer, take more risks, roll more dice, have more options, multi-class more effectively, and, since they will succeed more often at things they try, are going to be asked to try more often. Where does that leave the "weaker" character? In the shadow, going second if the stronger character rolls badly, on the sideline watching the stronger character take risks, following the leader. They are relegated to trying to take actions that don't rely on dice (which is often inaccurately described as "good roleplaying"), playing up their bad abilities as character quirks (also inaccurately described as "good roleplaying") or they just sit there making sarcastic quips while other play. So, a certain amount of equanimity is laudable but it need hardly be considered as a goal or necessity. Equanimity is the heart of gaming. When my children sit down to play Chutes and Ladders, I don't randomly start one daughter at 32 on the board while my other one starts at square 1. When I play chess, we don't foll 2d8 to determine how many chess pieces we get to start the game at. Or, to take into account team play, when I coached my daughter's soccer team I didn't randomly ask four of the players to wear eyepatches because the low depth perception will make the game more "challenging fun" for them and oh, how lucky they are to wear the eyepatch! Gygax and Arneson devised a game with randomness to satisfy their own desire to pummel their players into the dirt. Their version of D&D was not built on ideas of equanimity, but on the role-playing equivalent of sadism. (I cite Tomb of Horrors as evidence.) D&D has slowly crawled out of that primordial ooze. It should be encouraged to continue to do so.
Erato 12-07-06, 09:58 AM	You don't roll for level. You start at one (usually). You don't roll for gender, it makes no difference mechanically. You don't roll for race, because because that effects choices made freely (non-rolled and bought) down the line, like skill points and feats. If you can't tell that D&D3.x uses a THAC20 (really just THAC0 with a different name), then I can see how you got confused in the first place. It's just the reflective opposite of THAC0. Now, we add instead of subtracting to find the attack roll needed. :smirk: You still have a level cap in D&D3.x ,and certain PrCs only go up so high also. What were you getting at about level caps in older D&Ds? THAC0 filled a function. Then another system came along (3.x) with a method of doing the same, but in a way that was easier to learn for most people, and felt more intuitive (higher was better) to the majority of gamers. But some people still complained that ‘without THAC0 there’s no D&D :rant: ’. After a while, these people (most of them anyway) stopped complaining, and realized that the game hadn’t suffered. And today, many of them will never admit, that they were the least bit sceptical, and will be the first to tell new gamers about the horrors of previous editions :rolleyes: People sometimes stick to old things, just because they’re old. I’m wondering if people against point-buy are that way too (I’m not accusing, just wondering). Saying, as you do, that “you don’t do X (in D&D)” more than implies, that you only roll for ability scores because ‘it’s in the rules’. Statements about what the rules say, are only relevant if we’re trying to decide how to solve something according to the rules. We’re not. We’re discussing the merit of said rules. And when doing that; the theoretical question of ‘why not roll for race?’, is relevant.
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-07-06, 10:01 AM	To all those people that say rolling is unfair and inequitable I ask how so? All the players roll the same 4d6, neh? they all have the same chance for good scores. I see nothing unfair or inequitable about it. Now if you don't like chance that is one thing. Some people like total creative control and I can understand that (I am not one of them but I understand) but there is certainly nothing unfair about everyone using the same creation method. p.s. tomb of horrors was the bomb back when I played. :D
Boshi 12-07-06, 10:12 AM	There's all sorts of inequality in RPing games, but rolling for stats (or HPs) just seems to be inequality for its own sake, which is rather silly IMNSHO
wrecan 12-07-06, 10:12 AM	To all those people that say rolling is unfair and inequitable I ask how so? Because a handful of rolls determines the entire course of the game. If we randomly told three people on a baseball team they had to play with their non-dominant hand for the game, that would be inequitable. And it's inequitable even though the players aren't competing with each other. It's inequitable even if you tell the hampered players that the fun is in overcoming the challenge. It's inequitable even though the players were not singled out by anything other than bad luck. And it's inequitable even though luck is very much a part of baseball (in the form of odd bounces, random gusts of wind and other weather conditions, as well as the ocassional fan interference). Dice rolling is a valid part of the game where the die affects a single action. Single actions are transient. But ability generation (and to a slightly lesser extent hp generation) affects the entire campaign. Now, I personally have no problem with random ability generation for a one-shot character who is not intended to last more than a session. But allowing one (or six) rolls of the dice to establish whether a player is going to be on the sidelines or the spotlight for an entire campaign... for a game that could last for months or years? That's the utter height of inequity. p.s. tomb of horrors was the bomb back when I played. When I played it in a tournament, it was pitched as "Gee, you always dreamed of being DM'ed by Gygax himself? Well here's what he did. See what a d*** he was to his players?" Again, an inequitable set-up for a one-shot, such as a tournament game is tolerable because the inequity is temporary. Thats' not the same thing as setting up an inequitable campaign.
Captain_Willard 12-07-06, 10:14 AM	Now if you don't like chance that is one thing. Some people like total creative control and I can understand that (I am not one of them but I understand) but there is certainly nothing unfair about everyone using the same creation method. But some of don't want chance to adversely effect are characters throughout their careers. As Wrecan has pointed out – you don't roll to see who starts with extra cards at the beginning of a game of M:tG, or to see who starts with more I.P.C.’s at the beginning of a game of Axis & Allies.
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 11:29 AM	Really? Because when I was in college in the 1980's, we switched over to point-buy specifically because it was painfully apparent to anybody with any knowledge in game theory just how retrograde randomizing abilities is. Maybe it's just because I gamed with actual economists and statisticians (along with the usual assortment of English Lit and Business majors) But, yet. We still played a game where everything was determined by dice. And, nobody had a problem with that? THAC0 filled a function. Then another system came along (3.x) with a method of doing the same, but in a way that was easier to learn for most people, and felt more intuitive (higher was better) to the majority of gamers. But some people still complained that ‘without THAC0 there’s no D&D :rant: ’. After a while, these people (most of them anyway) stopped complaining, and realized that the game hadn’t suffered. And today, many of them will never admit, that they were the least bit sceptical, and will be the first to tell new gamers about the horrors of previous editions :rolleyes: People sometimes stick to old things, just because they’re old. I’m wondering if people against point-buy are that way too (I’m not accusing, just wondering). Saying, as you do, that “you don’t do X (in D&D)” more than implies, that you only roll for ability scores because ‘it’s in the rules’. Statements about what the rules say, are only relevant if we’re trying to decide how to solve something according to the rules. We’re not. We’re discussing the merit of said rules. And when doing that; the theoretical question of ‘why not roll for race?’, is relevant. THAC0 ,THAC20, it's all the same to me. You could roll for race. I played a game where you had to roll for what starting languages you spoke (in a world with only human characters, that was as much as race got into the game). It does have a much more significant impact on your character though (multi-classing restrictions, feats, skills, other racial bonuses.) Because a handful of rolls determines the entire course of the game. Actually truer then you may have meant. The entire game is dang near dice rolls. But some of don't want chance to adversely effect are characters throughout their careers. This is the 'no need for low scores' argument Cantankerous doesn't believe exists. I don't need someone else telling me just how powerful (or weak) my character is going to be. Either I use as many points to coincidently get the ability scores I rolled, or there is someone's interference in my character. I want to play what I roll, not your mood-dependant determination of how many points I get.
wrecan 12-07-06, 11:37 AM	But, yet. We still played a game where everything was determined by dice. And, nobody had a problem with that? Do I really need to repeat the rest of my post, wherein I actually answered this question? Actually truer then you may have meant. The entire game is dang near dice rolls. But not a handful of them, which is why I modified "dice rolls" with that particular descriptive phrase. :banghead: Or is your argument "We roll some dice sometimes and that means we should roll dice for everything all the time!" (And, no, I don't think you believe what I wrote in the quotation marks.) I want to play what I roll, not your mood-dependant determination of how many points I get. That doesn't make any sense, if you believe dice rolling is indeed random. How is sucking up what fate deals you better than a DM's asssessment of points. Heck, if you like, just roll the dice until you get a character that doesn't exceed the DM's score. You have a randomized character, the DM has a balanced playing field. Everyone wins.
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-07-06, 11:42 AM	Because a handful of rolls determines the entire course of the game. If we randomly told three people on a baseball team they had to play with their non-dominant hand for the game, that would be inequitable. The example of the baseball players is unfair. If every player had to filp a coin and if it came up tails they would have to play with their off hand that would be fair. It has to apply to everyone. But that handful of rolls affects each player equally. That is why I say it is not unfair. If one player had to roll 3d6 and the others got to roll 4d6. That would be unfair. everyone using the same method is very fair and very equitable. But some of don't want chance to adversely effect are characters throughout their careers. As Wrecan has pointed out – you don't roll to see who starts with extra cards at the beginning of a game of M:tG, or to see who starts with more I.P.C.’s at the beginning of a game of Axis & Allies. The examples you gave were not the same thing as rolling for stats. If you don't want chance to affect your character use point buy. I am not saying you can't. I am saying that both are viable and neither is better than the other overall. One may be better for certain groups (like rolling is for mine). My point is simply that if everyone has the same options for character generation then it is fair regardless of the results of that generation method.
wrecan 12-07-06, 12:44 PM	The example of the baseball players is unfair. Why? Every player has an equal chance of being one of the three who are going to play with an externally imposed handicap. I'll tell you why it's unfair: it doesn't put the players on even footing. D&D, despite it's use of dice, is a game for which player satisfaction is closer to chess than to roulette. in that players gain more satisfaction for being smart players (even if that means playing dumb) than for dumb luck. The whole point of it being a "role" playing game is that players make choices (that's what makes it a "role"). Like D&D, baseball players are honored not for their luck, but for their skill at the game. And we do not exhort baseball players to tie a hand behind their backs in order to show off their mad skills. Rather, we insist that they play on even footing, which is why steroids in baseball struck at the very heart of the game. In D&D, random ability generation is like injecting baseball players with syringes that could be filled with either steroids, saline solution or debilitating disease. No fan of baseball would ever think that results of such a game constitutes a fair evaluation of players' athletic abilities. Nor would such a measure be justified by referencing all the other random stuff that happens in baseball games to affect their outcome. ("We should have random syringe injections because we already deal with the fact that games are sometimes called for random inclement weather!") But that handful of rolls affects each player equally. So what? That's not the only measure of fairness. The ancient Romans used to execute every tenth man in a dishonored legion. (Thus, the term "decimate.") It was evenly applied, but nobody believes that such a punishment is "fair." The examples you gave were not the same thing as rolling for stats. How are they not? I say they are directly analogous and I even explained why. My point is simply that if everyone has the same options for character generation then it is fair regardless of the results of that generation method. And my counterpoint is you are wrong for the reasons described above.
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 01:21 PM	if you believe dice rolling is indeed random. How is sucking up what fate deals you better than a DM's asssessment of points. Heck, if you like, just roll the dice until you get a character that doesn't exceed the DM's score. You have a randomized character, the DM has a balanced playing field. Everyone wins. *ahem* rolling until I meet your requirement for how powerful my character is ,is the same as you (the DM) telling me (the player) how powerful my stats are allowed to be. Know what I mean?
Dire_Rhino 12-07-06, 01:22 PM	My point is simply that if everyone has the same options for character generation then it is fair regardless of the results of that generation method. While the method may be fair, the results of the method are usually not. It fosters random inbalance in party power levels, which, unless the player desires to play a weaker character [note that I am discarding this case as peripheral to the argument; weak characters can be created either in PB or by assigning rolled stats to non-optimal areas], will usually lead to party tension. In my case, rolling actually contributed to the loss of a player. The players were standard Ftr, Rgr, Wiz, Clr. The Ftr and Rgr rolled the equivalent of a 28-30 PB. The Clr rolled a 54 pt, and the Wiz rolled 18 18 18 17 16 11 (74 pt!). Even at low levels, the casters were dominating the party. I gave the Ftr and Rgr customized magic items, but even that wasn't enough to rebalance the party. Eventually the Fighter's player decided that enough was enough, and that he didn't really want to play anymore. (I did offer to allow him to adjust his stats, but by then it was too late) So, while rolling is more fun in the short term, I think that PB allows for more equitable fun over the course of a campaign.
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 01:30 PM	Why? Because at the time of ability generation, none of the baseball players knew they were going to be baseball players. Like, if their stats had been higher they would have been football or soccer players instead. So what? That's not the only measure of fairness. The ancient Romans used to execute every tenth man in a dishonored legion. (Thus, the term "decimate.") It was evenly applied, but nobody believes that such a punishment is "fair." I think that is a form of 'joint punishment' that military institutions so favor. Like doing push-ups platoon wide becasue somebody stuck a donut in their footlocker. Fairness had nothing to do with it, and instilling discipline had everything to do with it. Don't like facing the 1/10 chance of getting executed, whack your buddy (either some sense into him, or otherwise) before he endangers the entire legion. And my counterpoint is you are wrong for the reasons described above. Just because two players have identical stats does not mean that the campaign is going to play out exactly fairly between them. A miss here and a critical success there. A dumb move here, a brilliant plan there. Next thing you know one is doing better then the other. What keeps them even? The DM. And a good DM can do the same with tiltedly stated characters.
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 01:32 PM	While the method may be fair, the results of the method are usually not. It fosters random inbalance in party power levels, which, unless the player desires to play a weaker character [note that I am discarding this case as peripheral to the argument; weak characters can be created either in PB or by assigning rolled stats to non-optimal areas], will usually lead to party tension. In my case, rolling actually contributed to the loss of a player. The players were standard Ftr, Rgr, Wiz, Clr. The Ftr and Rgr rolled the equivalent of a 28-30 PB. The Clr rolled a 54 pt, and the Wiz rolled 18 18 18 17 16 11 (74 pt!). Even at low levels, the casters were dominating the party. I gave the Ftr and Rgr customized magic items, but even that wasn't enough to rebalance the party. Eventually the Fighter's player decided that enough was enough, and that he didn't really want to play anymore. (I did offer to allow him to adjust his stats, but by then it was too late) So, while rolling is more fun in the short term, I think that PB allows for more equitable fun over the course of a campaign. Sorry about your buddy, but the game is for children 13 and over.
PenderGrass 12-07-06, 01:46 PM	While the method may be fair, the results of the method are usually not. Why not? If everyone at the table would rather take a chance, what is so "unfair?" I don't see anything in 6 pages that convinces me that point buy is "better" than rolling dice. In fact, the only thing I see is a bunch of people that are desperately trying to believe that point buy is cool. It isn't - dice rolling is cool. It is a scientific fact. Look at Vegas. :dragon: ****
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-07-06, 01:47 PM	And my counterpoint is you are wrong for the reasons described above. Since I know I am not wrong we must just have different definitions of the word "fair". That is in no way a condemnation as people percieve things differently.
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 02:26 PM	To all those people that say rolling is unfair and inequitable I ask how so? All the players roll the same 4d6, neh? they all have the same chance for good scores. I see nothing unfair or inequitable about it. Now if you don't like chance that is one thing. Some people like total creative control and I can understand that (I am not one of them but I understand) but there is certainly nothing unfair about everyone using the same creation method. p.s. tomb of horrors was the bomb back when I played. :D For one shot games, no problem. But one set of rolls that effects everything a character does for 100 games? Problem.
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 02:29 PM	But, yet. We still played a game where everything was determined by dice. And, nobody had a problem with that? Charlie, in practicly every other instance one roll effects ONE outcome. No problem. Here though we have one set of rolls effecting one hundred, or one thousand or ten thousand in a really long campaign. You really can't see a difference there? Isshia
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 02:31 PM	For one shot games, no problem. But one set of rolls that effects everything a character does for 100 games? Problem. It shouldn't be. By the hundredth game they should have amassed all kinds of toys that increase attributes. And, at the top end of the game, a few more +s aren't going to be noticed.
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 02:33 PM	Charlie, in practicly every other instance one roll effects ONE outcome. No problem. Here though we have one set of rolls effecting one hundred, or one thousand or ten thousand in a really long campaign. You really can't see a difference there? Isshia What if, on the first time out, the team ran across one +3 item. That would effect just as many rolls by a larger margin. And, into the game, one roll can have more effect then one outcome. If you fail a diplomacy check, resulting in something bad happening to the entire team. If you failed your silent move check and alerted the guards. If you critically hit the captain of the guard, resulting in his deadedness. If you succeed a sense motive check and notice the king just lied to you. Saying that all these thousands of rolls have less an impact then the other ones is absurd.
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 02:43 PM	*ahem* rolling until I meet your requirement for how powerful my character is ,is the same as you (the DM) telling me (the player) how powerful my stats are allowed to be. Know what I mean? Guy, why is anyone "telling you" the Player, what stats are going to be? Why aren't you the Player determining this WITH the DM and the other Players, as equals? As long as it's equitable, what difference does it make? The problem is permenant inequity all based on one set of rolls. Again, if your campaigns are one shot affairs, and with rolled stats it's probably an order of magnitude more likely that this is so than otherwise, there probably isn't much difference. In our case though our average campaign lasts ninety four sessions. We have two going presently. One is just twelve sessions old but the other, which has gone epic a while back, is closing on number two hundred and fifty. In a campaign of that length, that one set of rolls (if there had been one, which there sure as blazes wasn't) could have conservatively accounted for more than eight thousand rolls PER CHARACTER by now... all of which would have been effected by ONE SET of rolls. Do we get the point yet? Rolling a twenty, or three in a row, is NOTHING, in that it can effect three rolls, where as character generation rolls have the potential for several orders of magnitude more effect. Isshia
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 02:49 PM	What if, on the first time out, the team ran across one +3 item. That would effect just as many rolls by a larger margin. And, into the game, one roll can have more effect then one outcome. If you fail a diplomacy check, resulting in something bad happening to the entire team. If you failed your silent move check and alerted the guards. If you critically hit the captain of the guard, resulting in his deadedness. If you succeed a sense motive check and notice the king just lied to you. Saying that all these thousands of rolls have less an impact then the other ones is absurd. :uh-huh: They have singular, SINGULAR impacts. This is bizzare. Now we're pulling +3 items first time out? So, you start all your games at about 12th level with no one having any cash for equipment? And how would one item, held by one person, "...effect just as many rolls by a larger margin"? Pass that thing around and quit bogarting. Everyone wants to get that high. Isshia
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 02:55 PM	Guy, why is anyone "telling you" the Player, what stats are going to be? Why aren't you the Player determining this WITH the DM and the other Players, as equals? As long as it's equitable, what difference does it make? Well, if we're all equal. I'm going to roll. Any one roll can have drastic effect on the game, and more specifically the PC that owned it. Fail a search for a trap. You'll see what I mean. Succeed in the intimidate and set your friends free from jail. Same thing. Your getting all bent out of shape because of what I'm looking at on my character sheet is overbearing. We've reached epic here before. It takes patience more then luck anyway. I'm not dead set on playing a character until it hits fifth level anyway. Before that, and they're too new to tell if they will last the hectic 'peon' levels.
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-07-06, 02:59 PM	For one shot games, no problem. But one set of rolls that effects everything a character does for 100 games? Problem. Ok, let me check here. So are you saying that rolling is fair but you can get screwed or are you saying that rolling isn't fair because you can get screwed?
Kendrick 12-07-06, 03:03 PM	Herein lies the biggest difference and the entire reason for the debate. It always comes back to more, MORE, MORE!!! The people who like the rolled stats are often complaining how much it sucks to put up with, not really Point Buy, but with 25 Point Buy (the standard). Why? Simply, as several people have complained, the heroes thus produced just are less fun. A 25 is boring a 30 better a 44 better still. Wha? When is it enough people? When you already stand head and shoulders above 95% of the world statisticly and equal to another 4.9% of it, where is the complaint coming from? ... I did state that when I roll poorly I play with what I get and do what I can. I don't *demand* "more, more, more!" or else leave the game or something, as you seem to imply. I prefer to have a chance at that better character. I mean, I can understand "a psh", who says that it would be better to have a game where you get the better character every time (if only the DMs around here agreed...), but I don't get people like you who scream "You're going to eat your **** sandwich and you're going to like it, by God!" It's more fun to play a character who can "waste" skill points in cross-class skills for character and rp reasons without failing to pull his weight in the party. It's more fun to play a character with enough strength that his possessions don't have to be stripped down to combat essentials to keep up. It's more fun to play a character that can take a secondary role in the party as well as his primary, rather than having each character's domain and responsibilities strictly defined simply by what the characters are capable of. If you like playing in games where only the rogue can talk to people because the sorcerer didn't have enough skill points to become a secondary "face", or where the rogue can't even aproach combat because he didn't have enough "points" to be the skill monkey and survive a few rounds of melee, then I wish you luck with that. But I don't see how my preference means that "roll 4d6 drop lowest" is ruining the game, or whatever it is that gives you fits.
PenderGrass 12-07-06, 03:06 PM	The problem is permenant inequity all based on one set of rolls. Can you specifically quantify what you mean by "inequity?" Really, give us a string of stats (that a DM would allow in his game - remembering that most reasonable DMs would not allow a character that has rolled 3s for every single stat), rolled, that you see as an inequity. But, please, give us a set of stats that you feel would ruin a game. :dragon: ****
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 03:07 PM	Well, if we're all equal. I'm going to roll. Any one roll can have drastic effect on the game, and more specifically the PC that owned it. Fail a search for a trap. You'll see what I mean. Succeed in the intimidate and set your friends free from jail. Same thing. Your getting all bent out of shape because of what I'm looking at on my character sheet is overbearing. We've reached epic here before. It takes patience more then luck anyway. I'm not dead set on playing a character until it hits fifth level anyway. Before that, and they're too new to tell if they will last the hectic 'peon' levels. Are you actually smoking that stuff as you read? Or are you being purposely dense? The method used is decided ahead of time by conscensus. Savvy conscensus? Still you're also not seeing, one roll, even iof it means that the character dies, is one roll. That one roll effects one outcome. That outcome may be a large one, but it is ONE OUTCOME. Character generation effects basicly all of the rest of the rolls you make because of how the system is made. IE: Roll die, add modifier, check for result. See that highlighted bit? The one that says add modifier? THAT modifier is determined, in most cases, by your stats. Your stats are determined how? Why, by the character generation method used. So, stay with me here, what ONE SET OF ROLLS determines VASTLY more of the outcomes? A single roll taken in a single game, or the one set of rolls that modify almost EVERYTHING your character will do within the system? Isshia
PenderGrass 12-07-06, 03:12 PM	Are you actually smoking that stuff as you read? Or are you being purposely dense? The method used is decided ahead of time by conscensus. Savvy conscensus? Still you're also not seeing, one roll, even iof it means that the character dies, is one roll. That one roll effects one outcome. That outcome may be a large one, but it is ONE OUTCOME. Character generation effects basicly all of the rest of the rolls you make because of how the system is made. IE: Roll die, add modifier, check for result. See that highlighted bit? The one that says add modifier? THAT modifier is determined, in most cases, by your stats. Your stats are determined how? Why, by the character generation method used. So, stay with me here, what ONE SET OF ROLLS determines VASTLY more of the outcomes? A single roll taken in a single game, or the one set of rolls that modify almost EVERYTHING your character will do within the system? Isshia I am beginning to think that your ideal group of characters would have stats that were 10s or 11s. :dragon: ****
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 03:15 PM	Can you specifically quantify what you mean by "inequity?" Really, give us a string of stats (that a DM would allow in his game - remembering that most reasonable DMs would not allow a character that has rolled 3s for every single stat), rolled, that you see as an inequity. But, please, give us a set of stats that you feel would ruin a game. :dragon: **** Pender, you're not getting this. No set of stats ruins the game. It's not all or nothing at all. But one set of rolls can make for a gross inequity Ie; a character who has say, +12 worth of total modifiers, in comparison to the guy sitting next to him who has a total of +2 woth of modifiers. That sixfold difference is an inequity. It will not "ruin" a game (with the word "ruin" in capital letters, dripping gore across the screen and trailing brimstone smoke from behind it), but the guy with ONE SIXTH of the modifier total that his companion has is going to be extremely disadvantaged. In a short campaign, a few sessions long, who cares? But in one that clocks over three hundred sessions, would you really enjoy playing the weak sister as much as being the peer of the other characters? There is tzhe thing. As I said from early on: can it be done? Hell yeah. Should it? I decidedly do NOT think so. Isshia
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 03:18 PM	I am beginning to think that your ideal group of characters would have stats that were 10s or 11s. :dragon: **** We play a 28 point buy actually. A bit above the standard, because that's what the group decided. Actually, in the last two campaigns I was stumping for them to take 32 PB, and the Players decided they'd rather do 28s. They probably figured I'd take it a bit easier on them. They were right too. ;) Isshia
wrecan 12-07-06, 03:18 PM	*ahem* rolling until I meet your requirement for how powerful my character is ,is the same as you (the DM) telling me (the player) how powerful my stats are allowed to be. Know what I mean? Yeah, I know what you mean. It's so much better to let the impersonal hand of fate dictate what you play than... I don't knwo... work it out with a DM who is presumably also your friend. I can see why you'd much rather leave this to the dice. :rolleyes: Because at the time of ability generation, none of the baseball players knew they were going to be baseball players. Yes, they did. They all knew they had gathered for a rousing game of baseball. What they didn't know is if theyw ere going to be pitchers, catchers, infielders, outfielders, designated hitters or benchwarmers. And, thanks to the random injections, what they have has nothing to do with what they might prefer, or even what they might be good at, but rather what the syringe dictates. And your analogous response is that you would rather let the syringe dictate your position than your coach or your abilities... or your own preference. As a matter of fact, in D&D, the point-buy should be set jointly by players and DM, as Cantankerous points out. Dice, on the other hand, answer to nobody. That's simply not appropriate for a game that is supposed to reward player ability. I think that is a form of 'joint punishment' that military institutions so favor. You don't institute point buy because someone abused the dice rollign system. Institute point-buy because random ability generation is inherently abusive. Just because two players have identical stats does not mean that the campaign is going to play out exactly fairly between them. No, but it makes it more likely than if they start out the campaign unequally. a good DM can do the same with tiltedly stated characters. A good DM doesn't run a campaign with "tiltedly statted" (ie, grossly unbalanced) characters. It seems to me the defense is that abject randomness is better than a spiteful DM. I agree... but better that both is a DM who is actually a friend. And friends don't let friends randomly generate ability scores.
Kendrick 12-07-06, 03:19 PM	Are you actually smoking that stuff as you read? Or are you being purposely dense? The method used is decided ahead of time by conscensus. Savvy conscensus? Still you're also not seeing, one roll, even iof it means that the character dies, is one roll. That one roll effects one outcome. That outcome may be a large one, but it is ONE OUTCOME. Character generation effects basicly all of the rest of the rolls you make because of how the system is made. IE: Roll die, add modifier, check for result. See that highlighted bit? The one that says add modifier? THAT modifier is determined, in most cases, by your stats. Your stats are determined how? Why, by the character generation method used. So, stay with me here, what ONE SET OF ROLLS determines VASTLY more of the outcomes? A single roll taken in a single game, or the one set of rolls that modify almost EVERYTHING your character will do within the system? Isshia But if everybody knew going in to character generation that they could be the one who got the short end of the stick and agreed to anyways, where is the inequality? I like having the chance to roll high, and I accept the risk of rolling low. I don't see how you think I'm being "abused" or whatever you find so horrible if I take my chances and roll the dice and come up short. I also don't see how I'm a horrible unfair abuser if I take my chances and I roll high.
PenderGrass 12-07-06, 03:23 PM	Ie; a character who has say, +12 worth of total modifiers, in comparison to the guy sitting next to him who has a total of +2 woth of modifiers. That sixfold difference is an inequity. It will not "ruin" a game (with the word "ruin" in capital letters, dripping gore across the screen and trailing brimstone smoke from behind it), but the guy with ONE SIXTH of the modifier total that his companion has is going to be extremely disadvantaged. So, your quantification of inequity would be total modifiers? Less modifiers being an "inequity" from your standpoint, right? Your view, if I am not mistaken, is that this "inequity" of stat modifiers creates a game of "disadvantages" for someone, right? At what point, then, should a person not feel "disadvantaged" by this "inequity?" :dragon: ****
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 03:25 PM	I did state that when I roll poorly I play with what I get and do what I can. I don't *demand* "more, more, more!" or else leave the game or something, as you seem to imply. I prefer to have a chance at that better character. I mean, I can understand "a psh", who says that it would be better to have a game where you get the better character every time (if only the DMs around here agreed...), but I don't get people like you who scream "You're going to eat your **** sandwich and you're going to like it, by God!" It's more fun to play a character who can "waste" skill points in cross-class skills for character and rp reasons without failing to pull his weight in the party. It's more fun to play a character with enough strength that his possessions don't have to be stripped down to combat essentials to keep up. It's more fun to play a character that can take a secondary role in the party as well as his primary, rather than having each character's domain and responsibilities strictly defined simply by what the characters are capable of. If you like playing in games where only the rogue can talk to people because the sorcerer didn't have enough skill points to become a secondary "face", or where the rogue can't even aproach combat because he didn't have enough "points" to be the skill monkey and survive a few rounds of melee, then I wish you luck with that. But I don't see how my preference means that "roll 4d6 drop lowest" is ruining the game, or whatever it is that gives you fits. You just don't get it do you? No matter what your stats are you can cross class. You don't NEED modifiers out the yin yang to do so. If you've got a negative total modifier, still man, go ahead. Your chances aren't as good, but so what? Is it only fun if you skate over the opposition all the time? Have you never had fun while getting your butt kicked, and then coming back the next time, or the next, or the one after that and handing the over toned bugger his backside? No one said that alternate methods ruin anything. Nor am I having fits. I'm simply enjoying the discussion and amusing myself with saracastic and maybe sometimes witty responses. What, you think I chose the name Cantankerous at random?;) Isshia
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 03:33 PM	So, your quantification of inequity would be total modifiers? Less modifiers being an "inequity" from your standpoint, right? **** Completely wrong. The inequity is in the difference. If both have +12 ok. If both have +2, ok. It's when one is +12 and the other +2 that the problems crop up. When figuring CR, for instance, the difference between standard array, and elite array, which is a good deal less than a +10 difference in stats, changes the CR of encountered creatures. The elite array adds +1 to the CR. The Ghoul who is CR*1 has a CR*2 when he has an elite stat array. The difference between the two arrays, as an average, is of +6 worth of modifiers. Just more than half of the difference we are discussing and the designers see that as reason enough to increase the challenge rating signifigantly. Not me, the designers. THAT should be a telling point. Isshia
Kendrick 12-07-06, 03:34 PM	You just don't get it do you? No matter what your stats are you can cross class. You don't NEED modifiers out the yin yang to do so. If you've got a negative total modifier, still man, go ahead. Your chances aren't as good, but so what? Is it only fun if you skate over the opposition all the time? ... Except that if you choose to do that by multiclassing, you punish the rest of your party and fail to pull your weight in the group. Sure the sorcerer could take a level or two of rogue - but then he would suck even more as the party's arcane caster. He could also use his measly two skill points per level to buy ranks in diplomacy, sense motive, etc. with 10 Int. But then he falls down on his duties re: Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana). Would my group understand if someone did that? Sure. Would that someone still be a selfish ape? Definitely. Your prefered system garuntees that the entire group has to suffer every time any player wants to depart from cookie cutter roles. Rolling for ability scores doesn't result in happiness and joy every time, but it's a hell of a lot better than a low point buy.
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-07-06, 03:41 PM	Completely wrong. The inequity is in the difference. If both have +12 ok. If both have +2, ok. It's when one is +12 and the other +2 that the problems crop up. When figuring CR, for instance, the difference between standard array, and elite array, which is a good deal less than a +10 difference in stats, changes the CR of encountered creatures. The elite array adds +1 to the CR. The Ghoul who is CR*1 has a CR*2 when he has an elite stat array. The difference between the two arrays, as an average, is of +6 worth of modifiers. Just more than half of the difference we are discussing and the designers see that as reason enough to increase the challenge rating signifigantly. Not me, the designers. THAT should be a telling point. Isshia That fact that both the +12 and +2 guys had the same opportunity is the factor here. That is what makes it fair.
justdmjeff 12-07-06, 03:42 PM	Okay point-buyers, I have a question. All stats start at 8 and then cost so many points depending on how high you go, correct? What if I want to go lower? What if I want my strength to be 5. Do I get points back to place somewhere else? I mean if an 18 is going to cost me 16 points I should get back at least 10 points for a 3. 7--2 back 6--4 back 5--6 back 4--8 back 3--10 back
PenderGrass 12-07-06, 03:42 PM	Completely wrong. The inequity is in the difference. If both have +12 ok. If both have +2, ok. It's when one is +12 and the other +2 that the problems crop up. So, it is the disparity between modifiers that creates these feelings of negativity for you and your group? :dragon: ****
wrecan 12-07-06, 03:49 PM	So, it is the disparity between modifiers that creates these feelings of negativity for you and your group? Ability scores are the modifiers they produce. One could equally ask you if it's the non-disparity of modifiers that causes these feelings of negativity for you and your group?
Kendrick 12-07-06, 03:50 PM	Okay point-buyers, I have a question. All stats start at 8 and then cost so many points depending on how high you go, correct? What if I want to go lower? What if I want my strength to be 5. Do I get points back to place somewhere else? I mean if an 18 is going to cost me 16 points I should get back at least 10 points for a 3. 7--2 back 6--4 back 5--6 back 4--8 back 3--10 back 1. This isn't actually allowed in any point buy system I know of. 2. If it was, it would make sense to me for a lower score to give more points just as a higher score costs more: 7 - 1 back 6 - 3 back 5 - 5 back 4 - 8 back 3 - 11 back But it isn't allowed, so that characters using point buy can't abuse dump stats more than they already do. (Not that rolled characters don't use "dump stats", but it is less effective if your supposedly 48 point buy equivilant is something like 17 17 15 13 13 12)
wrecan 12-07-06, 03:51 PM	Okay point-buyers, I have a question. All stats start at 8 and then cost so many points depending on how high you go, correct? What if I want to go lower? Talk to your DM. I've seen PB systems that allow people sell back abiliity points to be placed elsewhere. Just like not all randomizers use the recommended 4d6-drop lowest methodfn, not all point-buyers use the recommended PB system. fnIn fact, I know almost no random ability generators who use the 4d6-drop lowest method exactly as written inthe DMG. Almost everybody I've seen uses some variation (usually with the intent of ameliorating the effect of low rolls).
PenderGrass 12-07-06, 03:54 PM	Ability scores are the modifiers they produce. One could equally ask you if it's the non-disparity of modifiers that causes these feelings of negativity for you and your group? I wasn't the one that had a "disparity" issue. :dragon: ****
Kendrick 12-07-06, 03:56 PM	Ability scores are the modifiers they produce. One could equally ask you if it's the non-disparity of modifiers that causes these feelings of negativity for you and your group? Groups of mature individuals wouldn't necessarily feel any "negativity" either way. Rolling offers equal opportunity. Point buy offers supposedly equal results. Each has a sort of equality, but neither results in actual equality - point buy just ends up exagerating the inequality between SAD and MAD classes, whereas rolling actually tends to flatten it out a little - i.e. "Alright, Dave only has one good score so I guess he'll have to be the wizard. Fabian, you got all 14s, so you could be a monk or a paladin or something to take advantage of that..." and so on.
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 04:05 PM	Except that if you choose to do that by multiclassing, you punish the rest of your party and fail to pull your weight in the group. Sure the sorcerer could take a level or two of rogue - but then he would suck even more as the party's arcane caster. He could also use his measly two skill points per level to buy ranks in diplomacy, sense motive, etc. with 10 Int. But then he falls down on his duties re: Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana). Would my group understand if someone did that? Sure. Would that someone still be a selfish ape? Definitely. Your prefered system garuntees that the entire group has to suffer every time any player wants to depart from cookie cutter roles. Rolling for ability scores doesn't result in happiness and joy every time, but it's a hell of a lot better than a low point buy. :uh-huh: :nonono: No, you punish no one by playing your character as a being, as a person, instead of as a set of metagame stats. This obviously is a role player, roll player difference. I admit, I'm not good with those. I suppose if dice rolling is the only fun involved, then higher is better. But for Role Playing it simply doesn't matter much. Watching Haclan (the uber tank) trying to learn to "go with his gut", ie: making Sense Motive rolls based on his mighty 2 ranks in Sense Motive, is priceless. There isn't a person at the table who doesn't get a grin from it time after time. Watching Alandera (with her Charisma of eight, one third of her intelligence of 24, and her one rank, recently aquired, in Diplomacy) trying to be a social mavien is wonderful. Likewise in the new game, seeing Iardix still doggedly trying to be a scholar of ancient elven history as a now 3rd level Fighter, because that was what his mother wanted for him, is definitively NOT something anyone in the group feels in the least bit slighted by. Or past characters who spent twenty plus skill points over their careers to become truely great vintners (Profession-Vintner) because it was a family legacy to produce the best wines in the southlands. These guys were anything BUT cookie cutter. None of them ever gave a tinkers damn about being ONLY optimized (although all of them still produced extrodanairely effective characters) and everyone of them had a ball because their characters "came alive" in ways that most of the people on these boards who continually ask "how do you make the game come alive" can only dream of. Hey, it's just a very basic difference in play styles and what you want from the game, roll play or role play. Isshia
wrecan 12-07-06, 04:11 PM	I wasn't the one that had a "disparity" issue. Sure you do. You mention it in post 49 wherein you criticize Point-Buy systems as follows (boldface added): Each player is given the same starting point and none is "better" than the other. If a player was hoping for really outstanding stats it is no longer a possibility - there is no outstanding - everything is the same. You have a clear problem with ability scores in which there is no disparity. Tell me, Pendergrass, how much disparity does it require for characters to be outstanding vis-a-vis one another. I mean, since you believe Cantankerous should explain how little disparity there should be in order for things to be equitable, you should have no problem explaining how you determine when a character has acheived "outstandingness" vis-a-vis the other PCs.
wrecan 12-07-06, 04:14 PM	Groups of mature individuals wouldn't necessarily feel any "negativity" either way. Well, I actually think groups of mature individuals would know better than using random-ability generation regardless of any negativity it does or does not produce. I'm not the one inferring the negativity though. That was Pendergrass.
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 04:19 PM	Groups of mature individuals wouldn't necessarily feel any "negativity" either way. Rolling offers equal opportunity. Point buy offers supposedly equal results. Each has a sort of equality, but neither results in actual equality - point buy just ends up exagerating the inequality between SAD and MAD classes, whereas rolling actually tends to flatten it out a little - i.e. "Alright, Dave only has one good score so I guess he'll have to be the wizard. Fabian, you got all 14s, so you could be a monk or a paladin or something to take advantage of that..." and so on. Whether they feel the negativity or not, it's there. It makes life tougher (and the last thing I need is for things to get tougher) as DM when there is the equivalent of three different ECLs in the same party...at first level... ;) Isshia
wrecan 12-07-06, 04:23 PM	Groups of mature individuals wouldn't necessarily feel any "negativity" either way. Rolling offers equal opportunity. Point buy offers supposedly equal results. Each has a sort of equality, but neither results in actual equality - point buy just ends up exagerating the inequality between SAD and MAD classes, whereas rolling actually tends to flatten it out a little - i.e. "Alright, Dave only has one good score so I guess he'll have to be the wizard. Fabian, you got all 14s, so you could be a monk or a paladin or something to take advantage of that..." and so on. Wait. So you think randomization works if the DM tells the guy who rolled high stats to play a so-called MAD-class? So rather than have his points dictated to him, he has to have his class dictated to him. "But I want to play a Rogue." "No way. You rolled a 17 and two 15s. You need to be a monk." "But a 17 Dex, 15 Int, 15 Wis rogue is a totally kick-ass skill monkey. By 12th level, this guy will rock." "But that's not fair to Bob. he rolled a 15, two 12s, two 10's and a 4. He's stuck being a straight-up Fighter. If you play a SAD class with your MAD rolls, it would be inequitable. Therefore, we must shoehorn your character." "Why don't we just change Bob's stats to something fair." "But then you won't be 'outstanding!' So dictate the great dice gods who must not be angered!" :confused:
Kendrick 12-07-06, 04:23 PM	:uh-huh: :nonono: No, you punish no one by playing your character as a being, as a person, instead of as a set of metagame stats. This obviously is a role player, roll player difference. I admit, I'm not good with those. I suppose if dice rolling is the only fun involved, then higher is better. But for Role Playing it simply doesn't matter much. Watching Haclan (the uber tank) trying to learn to "go with his gut", ie: making Sense Motive rolls based on his mighty 2 ranks in Sense Motive, is priceless. There isn't a person at the table who doesn't get a grin from it time after time. Watching Alandera (with her Charisma of eight, one third of her intelligence of 24, and her one rank, recently aquired, in Diplomacy) trying to be a social mavien is wonderful. Likewise in the new game, seeing Iardix still doggedly trying to be a scholar of ancient elven history as a now 3rd level Fighter, because that was what his mother wanted for him, is definitively NOT something anyone in the group feels in the least bit slighted by. Or past characters who spent twenty plus skill points over their careers to become truely great vintners (Profession-Vintner) because it was a family legacy to produce the best wines in the southlands. These guys were anything BUT cookie cutter. None of them ever gave a tinkers damn about being ONLY optimized (although all of them still produced extrodanairely effective characters) and everyone of them had a ball because their characters "came alive" in ways that most of the people on these boards who continually ask "how do you make the game come alive" can only dream of. Hey, it's just a very basic difference in play styles and what you want from the game, roll play or role play. Isshia So, you don't think it's possible to want to be able to *role*play without wanting to wreck your ability to *roll*play to do it? I'd rather do both than have to choose between them. Point buy forces that choice, and that's why I'll choose to roll every time there's an option.
wrecan 12-07-06, 04:27 PM	So, you don't think it's possible to want to be able to *role*play without wanting to wreck your ability to *roll*play to do it? No. He's saying that ability generation has nothing to do with one's ability to role-play. You're the one who thinks role-playing requires randomly generated stats, not Cantankerous. I'm not sure why you think that. Your argument on that point hasn't made any sense to me.
Kendrick 12-07-06, 04:27 PM	Wait. So you think randomization works if the DM tells the guy who rolled high stats to play a so-called MAD-class? So rather than have his points dictated to him, he has to have his class dictated to him. "But I want to play a Rogue." "No way. You rolled a 17 and two 15s. You need to be a monk." "But a 17 Dex, 15 Int, 15 Wis rogue is a totally kick-ass skill monkey. By 12th level, this guy will rock." "But that's not fair to Bob. he rolled a 15, two 12s, two 10's and a 4. He's stuck being a straight-up Fighter. If you play a SAD class with your MAD rolls, it would be inequitable. Therefore, we must shoehorn your character." "Why don't we just change Bob's stats to something fair." "But then you won't be 'outstanding!' So dictate the great dice gods who must not be angered!" :confused: The DM doesn't tell anybody anything during character creation - he just watches the rolls. All of us (the players) work it out among ourselves. We take our scores and we build the best party we can, taking into consideration what each set of scores is capable of in different roles.
Kendrick 12-07-06, 04:32 PM	No. He's saying that ability generation has nothing to do with one's ability to role-play. You're the one who thinks role-playing requires randomly generated stats, not Cantankerous. I'm not sure why you think that. Your argument on that point hasn't made any sense to me. Building a character with roleplaying in mind WITHOUT GIVING UP YOUR ABILITY TO PULL YOUR WEIGHT IN THE PARTY requires good stats. You can "roleplay" whatever you want. The *player* with the 6 Cha 8 Int half orc can give eloquent speeches about man's inhumanity to man all he wants. It won't be reflected in the game unless he instead gets his character's Int and Cha high enough to put some points into diplomacy and not suck it up on the check.
wrecan 12-07-06, 04:33 PM	We take our scores and we build the best party we can I'm not sure how this counters my argument that the player now has his class dictated to (except that it's dictated by the mob rather than the DM). High-rollers must take MAD classes and low-roller must take SAD classes. Otherwise they aren't "taking into consideration what each set of scores is capable of in different roles." And this is all in response to your assumption that PB accentuates the differences between MAD and SAD. In truth, it does no such thing. MAD merely requires several moderate stats (three 14s, a 12, 10 and 9, in a 25 point buy), while SAD works with a high stat and a bunch of low stats (17, 12, 10, 10, 10, 8, in a 25-point buy, for example). I have discerned no appreciable weakness in MAD characters in a point-buy system.
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 04:34 PM	So, you don't think it's possible to want to be able to *role*play without wanting to wreck your ability to *roll*play to do it? I'd rather do both than have to choose between them. Point buy forces that choice, and that's why I'll choose to roll every time there's an option. When your primary focus becomes the modifiers instead of the characters as people, then you've crossed over from one to the other "in basis". Actually, I'm not knocking that. If that's what you and your group enjoy, hell man, that's all that really matters. It's not something I'd enjoy, but that's ok. Who cares? Isshia
wrecan 12-07-06, 04:37 PM	Building a character with roleplaying in mind WITHOUT GIVING UP YOUR ABILITY TO PULL YOUR WEIGHT IN THE PARTY requires good stats. Abilities and role-playing have nothing to do with one another and all the capitalization, unerlining, italicizing and boldfacing in the world won't change that. The *player* with the 6 Cha 8 Int half orc can give eloquent speeches about man's inhumanity to man all he wants. And this equates to role-playing in what corner of the world? :confused: Role-playing is playing a personality. It is entirely untethered to abilities. If you use randomized ability scores to fashion a personality, may I recommend using the random personality generator found in the 1st edition DMG? (Another one of those Gygaxian monstrosities thankfully excised from subsequent editions of the game.) Actually, I'm not knocking that. If that's what you and your group enjoy... I am.
PenderGrass 12-07-06, 04:38 PM	You have a clear problem with ability scores in which there is no disparity. Nope. No problem. I would think it odd if there wasn't some disparity because I use a dice-rolling method for character creation that encourages people to have disparities. For example, the group's fighter would most likely opt to have a higher strength score than the wizard. Tell me, Pendergrass, how much disparity does it require for characters to be outstanding vis-a-vis one another. Not much. But the disparity I appreciate is not stat modifiers - it is the actual stats. There is a difference. I mean, since you believe Cantankerous should explain how little disparity there should be in order for things to be equitable, you should have no problem explaining how you determine when a character has acheived "outstandingness" vis-a-vis the other PCs. When a player smiles and enjoys playing his character, this is an "outstanding" character. When a player dreads playing a character and is unsatisfied - this is a poor character. As a DM, I am always willing to make sure - to the best of my ability - that every player ends up with an "outstanding" character. :dragon: ****
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 04:39 PM	Building a character with roleplaying in mind WITHOUT GIVING UP YOUR ABILITY TO PULL YOUR WEIGHT IN THE PARTY requires good stats. No, it most certainly does not. It aids things. It makes it easier. It is in NO MANNER NECESSARY. Isshia
Kendrick 12-07-06, 04:39 PM	Watching Haclan (the uber tank) trying to learn to "go with his gut", ie: making Sense Motive rolls based on his mighty 2 ranks in Sense Motive, is priceless. There isn't a person at the table who doesn't get a grin from it time after time. Watching Alandera (with her Charisma of eight, one third of her intelligence of 24, and her one rank, recently aquired, in Diplomacy) trying to be a social mavien is wonderful. Which works fine as long as your entire idea of "roleplay" is to watch your characters suck it up like a bunch of retards trying to do something they're incapable of. If your idea for a character was for Haclan to actually be good at judging people, he's gonna need some skill points to max out that sense motive. And if that comes at the expense of his climb and jump skill since he couldn't get more than a 10 in Int with the point buy system, someone else is gonna have to pick up that slack next time the party needs to get to the top of the cliff.
wrecan 12-07-06, 04:44 PM	Nope. No problem. I would think it odd if there wasn't some disparity because I use a dice-rolling method for character creation that encourages people to have disparities. For example, the group's fighter would most likely opt to have a higher strength score than the wizard. Well, then I don't think you actually understand what point-buy entail, because in point-but... the group's fighter would most likely opt to have a higher strength score than the wizard also. So why did you say indicate that point-buy doesn't result in outstanding characters? Not much. But the disparity I appreciate is not stat modifiers - it is the actual stats. There is a difference. Only in that ability scores determine the modifiers. Oh, and the prerequisities for certain feats and class abilities. Other than that, not so much. When a player smiles and enjoys playing his character, this is an "outstanding" character. Then why did you write that point-buy doesn't result in outstanding characters? Is it your belief that it is impossible to smile and enjoy playing a point-bought character? Seems to me that goalposts are getting hastily shifted around.
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 04:46 PM	Which works fine as long as your entire idea of "roleplay" is to watch your characters suck it up like a bunch of retards trying to do something they're incapable of. If your idea for a character was for Haclan to actually be good at judging people, he's gonna need some skill points to max out that sense motive. And if that comes at the expense of his climb and jump skill since he couldn't get more than a 10 in Int with the point buy system, someone else is gonna have to pick up that slack next time the party needs to get to the top of the cliff. No, it's simply a bit more mature expression in realizing that one need not be superman to throw a good punch. Retards? And of course retardation is evil and scary and ... here, don't get me started. This is more inane than saying "that's so gay". The party will get to the top of that cliff by using something infinitely more powerful than an extra few points in an ability... they'll use creativity and ingenuity. They'll THINK instead of relying on their dice to think for them and bemoaning their fate if they're not Herr Ubermensch, maxed out in the primary skills of their class for a given level . hey, weren't you the one complaining about cookie cutter? Hell, you're demanding it. Isshia
Kendrick 12-07-06, 04:49 PM	When your primary focus becomes the modifiers instead of the characters as people, then you've crossed over from one to the other "in basis". Actually, I'm not knocking that. If that's what you and your group enjoy, hell man, that's all that really matters. It's not something I'd enjoy, but that's ok. Who cares? Isshia "Hi guys. I'd like to play D&D with you, but I don't intend to actually be an asset to the party. Instead I'd rather use your game as my platform to play the role of Frank, the mentally challenged half-orc wizard. You know how wizards are usually intelligent, and contribute to the party by casting spells? Yeah, I'm not gonna be doing any of that. I'm going to be telling my story of Frank, a half orc who seeks to learn the profound secrets of wizardly spells despite the tragic fact that his 8 Int is too low for him to actually utilize any of the secrets he gathers." I'm not saying my group would kick me to the curb immediately if I pulled something like that, 'cause they're all (well, mostly) very decent and giving people. But I wouldn't want to do that to them, because I try not to be that kind of *******.
Cantankerous 12-07-06, 04:53 PM	And so ofcourse the only way you can respond is in a manner so completely over the top that it bears no resemblence whatsoever to anything under discussion? That's usually a sure fire sign that you realize that you have no point to make. Isshia
Olskool 12-07-06, 04:53 PM	Point buy is like kissing your sister. That's why, as DM, I never allow point buy. Because incest bothers me.
wrecan 12-07-06, 04:55 PM	How odd. That's exactly how I feel about inappropriate, unexplained analogies.
Kendrick 12-07-06, 05:02 PM	And so ofcourse the only way you can respond is in a manner so completely over the top that it bears no resemblence whatsoever to anything under discussion? That's usually a sure fire sign that you realize that you have no point to make. Isshia So you don't believe that reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical argument? My point is that when I play D&D with a group, each person is essentially agreeing that they are going to contribute their time and effort and communaly tell a story, with each individual contributing time and effort to the other players' stories and accepting the other players' efforts when it's time to magnify their own. Any time a player chooses to reduce the effort they're willing to put forth for others, while still demanding the same or more from other players is being a selfish ass. Sure, everyone could agree that nobody will bother to try to make the group effective as a whole, and we'll limp along bumbling through an adventure because nobody is bothering to play the role they'd be effective in. If that's what you enjoy, good for you. But I prefer to run through the adventure like a well oiled machine while smoothly working in everybody's "story" on top of that. It's not worth doing if you can't do it with style.
Kendrick 12-07-06, 05:05 PM	How odd. That's exactly how I feel about inappropriate, unexplained analogies. FFS, it's obviously a joke. Chill out, take a valium, maybe try not to get so worked up that you can't recognize a little irony?
wrecan 12-07-06, 05:13 PM	So you don't believe that reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical argument? It can be a valid argument, if it is offered to counter a universalist argument. I.e., Argument: "All beliefs are valid" Reductio ad absurdum counter: "How about flat earth theory?" However, you were not countering a universalist argument. Cantankerous' argument was: "When your primary focus becomes the modifiers instead of the characters as people, then you have crossed from [role-playing] to [roll-playing] in basis." No universality here. So, when you countered with some absurdist example of someone who purposely chooses personality and stats that make no logical sense, your use of reductio ad absurdum was, in fact, fallacious. Not because reductio ad absurdum is always fallacioous, but because your counter totally ignored the context of the comment (particularly the qualifying clause at the beginning of the quotation). My point is that when I play D&D with a group, each person is essentially agreeing that they are going to contribute their time and effort and communaly tell a story, with each individual contributing time and effort to the other players' stories and accepting the other players' efforts when it's time to magnify their own. Which has nothing to do with anything we're discussing. everyone could agree that nobody will bother to try to make the group effective as a whole Everybody could also agree to play while speaking only in Tolkeinish Quenya. (This, by the way, is a valid use of reductio ad absurdum.)
wrecan 12-07-06, 05:14 PM	FFS, it's obviously a joke. Chill out, take a valium, maybe try not to get so worked up that you can't recognize a little irony? Dude, my response was equally ironic, with some sarcasm thrown in for good measure.
PenderGrass 12-07-06, 05:17 PM	Well, then I don't think you actually understand what point-buy entail, because in point-but... the group's fighter would most likely opt to have a higher strength score than the wizard also. So why did you say indicate that point-buy doesn't result in outstanding characters? Because the players I know, aren't happy with using it. Thereby, it is an unsatisfactory and displeasing thing. Only in that ability scores determine the modifiers. Oh, and the prerequisities for certain feats and class abilities. Other than that, not so much. Failure to see the difference between: FIGHTER S: 18 D: 12 C: 14 I: 13 W: 10 C: 12 and WIZARD S: 10 D: 13 C: 14 I: 18 W: 12 C: 12 Means that you don't understand what I am talking about. I used the same numbers in the stats to illustrate the actual placement is the disparity that I enjoy. More than likely - in my game - it would look something more like this: FIGHTER S: 18 D: 12 C: 16 I: 14 W: 12 C: 10 and WIZARD S: 10 D: 14 C: 14 I: 17 W: 12 C: 10 Both rolled up using my die-rolling method. Both have very happy players. Job well done. Then why did you write that point-buy doesn't result in outstanding characters? For my group - it doesn't. Although, we all enjoy playing in the RPGA - all of us prefer to play in a game where die-rolling is the chosen method for character creation. Is it your belief that it is impossible to smile and enjoy playing a point-bought character? Impossible? No. It is impossible to get as excited as I do when I roll dice vs using a point buy. Point buy, like I said earlier, is about as "fun" as grocery shopping. Thank the gods when it is over and the game can really start. Seems to me that goalposts are getting hastily shifted around. Seems you failed a spot check. :dragon: ****
Kendrick 12-07-06, 05:20 PM	Dude, my response was equally ironic, with some sarcasm thrown in for good measure. Not apparent, given your pissy attitude toward everyone else.
DMMcSmartypants 12-07-06, 05:32 PM	I have a very simple point buy system: Nothing, nada, zip or zilch=15 points a soda or other beverage= 25 points 1 apple pie, box of twinkies or BLT= 32 points illicit substances(including but not limited to Hostess Fruit pies)= "you fill in whatever you want. I'll be back in like five minutes." DM McBribeypants
wrecan 12-07-06, 05:46 PM	Not apparent, given your pissy attitude toward everyone else.I think you may be reading emotions into my posts that aren't there, a not uncommon phenomenon on internet message boards. I assure you that I don't feel "pissy" towards anybody here.
Kendrick 12-07-06, 05:52 PM	It can be a valid argument, if it is offered to counter a universalist argument. I.e., Argument: "All beliefs are valid" Reductio ad absurdum counter: "How about flat earth theory?" However, you were not countering a universalist argument. Cantankerous' argument was: "When your primary focus becomes the modifiers instead of the characters as people, then you have crossed from [role-playing] to [roll-playing] in basis." No universality here. So, when you countered with some absurdist example of someone who purposely chooses personality and stats that make no logical sense, your use of reductio ad absurdum was, in fact, fallacious. Except that that wasn't the "argument" I was countering. I was reducing Cantankerous' claim that low powered builds can be versatile and built to rp specs without giving up power and thereby harming the party to the logical extreme. Cantankerous claims that changing your character so that it is less capable of fulfilling its role in the party (which would be done for roleplay reasons) does not harm the party as a whole or the other players. The logical extreme of that is a character that has been changed to be completely incapable of fulfilling any real role in a party. Does such a character harm the party and unduly put a burden on the other players? Yes. Ergo the initial claim is false.
wrecan 12-07-06, 05:52 PM	Because the players I know, aren't happy with using it.But that's not what you originally wrote. You wrote that people wouldn't be happy with the stats. Are you saying that if your player uses point buy to obtain a fighter with stats of S 18, D 12, Cn 16, I 14, W 12, Ch 10, he wouldn't be happy even though that player is currently happy with those exact abilities as the result of randomness? If that's true, then the problem is not the lack of outstanding stats (the stats are identical), but, as I mentioned in my first post on this thread -- a dice fetish. the actual placement is the disparity that I enjoy And that is unobtainable with point-buy because... It is impossible to get as excited as I do when I roll dice vs using a point buy. Dice fetish. Like I said. Seems you failed a spot check. Show me where I misquoted anything you wrote. You're the one who keeps changing what you claim the adjective "outstanding" is modifying.
wrecan 12-07-06, 05:57 PM	Except that that wasn't the "argument" I was countering. I was reducing Cantankerous' claim that low powered builds can be versatile and built to rp specs without giving up power and thereby harming the part to the logical extreme. First, that's not the quote that your comment followed. (See post 226, wherein this occured.) Second, it's still an invalid use of reductio ad absurdum, since "can be versatile" is by definition not a universalist argument. Now, if Cantankerous had said that every low-powered build is infinitely versatile and can accomodate any conceivable personality, then your reductio ad absurdum argument would not have been a fallacy. But he didn't. The logical extreme of that is a character that has been changed to be completely incapable of fulfilling any real role in a party. That's not the logical extreme at all. It is, in fact, a straw man constructed by changing "can" to "must be in all circumstances". It is the rhetorical equivalent of > Some planets are gas giants. > Yeah? Well Mercury isn't, so you're wrong. Does such a character harm the party and unduly put a burden on the other players? Yes. Ergo the initial claim is false. Only if Cantankerous said that there is no personality that cannot be accomodated by point-buy. But he didn't. Similarly, the fact that randomized ability generation results in specific character abilities that cannot accomodate all conceivable personality is not a reason to reject randomized ability generation. Rather there are other, rational reasons to reject random ability generation. :)
Kendrick 12-07-06, 06:04 PM	First, that's not the quote that your comment followed. Second, it's still an invalid use of reductio ad absurdum, since "can be versatile" is by definition not a universalist argument. Now, if Cantankerous had said that every low-powered build is infinitely versatile and can accomodate any conceivable personality, then your reductio ad absurdum argument would not have been a fallacy. But he didn't. That's not the logical extreme at all. It is, in fact, a straw man constructed by changing "can" to "must be in all circumstances". It is the rhetorical equivalent of > Some planets are gas giants. > Yeah? Well Mercury isn't, so you're wrong. Only if Cantankerous said that there is no personality that cannot be accomodated by point-buy. But he didn't. Similarly, the fact that randomized ability generation results in specific character abilities that cannot accomodate all conceivable personality is not a reason to reject randomized ability generation. Rather there are other, rational reasons to reject random ability generation. :) Your "reasoning" is faulty. The universal claim in question was that "a character that has been modified to conform to rp specs at the expense of its primary function does not harm the party as a whole or other players". Edit: The quotes in the above statement don't signify a quote from Cantankerous, they are just there to identify the argument in question. Try again. This time with reading comprehension, maybe?
PenderGrass 12-07-06, 06:09 PM	But that's not what you originally wrote. You wrote that people wouldn't be happy with the stats. Are you saying that if your player uses point buy to obtain a fighter with stats of S 18, D 12, Cn 16, I 14, W 12, Ch 10, he wouldn't be happy even though that player is currently happy with those exact abilities as the result of randomness? I am saying rolling stats is far more exciting and enjoyable than buying them. If that's true, then the problem is not the lack of outstanding stats (the stats are identical), but, as I mentioned in my first post on this thread -- a dice fetish. "Fetish?" I may enjoy rolling them - but I don't want to have sex with them. And that is unobtainable with point-buy because... I can "obtain" them by just writing them in - so why is that different than point buy and die rolling? Really now, don't be so narrow. The obtaining of them via die rolls is more exciting because I am taking a chance to not obtain them. Dice fetish. Like I said. No. The enjoyment of taking a chance. Show me where I misquoted anything you wrote. You're the one who keeps changing what you claim the adjective "outstanding" is modifying. I didn't say you "misquoted" me. Maybe I am misunderstanding you with your "goal post" reference. :dragon: ****
justdmjeff 12-07-06, 06:26 PM	1. This isn't actually allowed in any point buy system I know of. 2. If it was, it would make sense to me for a lower score to give more points just as a higher score costs more: 7 - 1 back 6 - 3 back 5 - 5 back 4 - 8 back 3 - 11 back But it isn't allowed, so that characters using point buy can't abuse dump stats more than they already do. (Not that rolled characters don't use "dump stats", but it is less effective if your supposedly 48 point buy equivilant is something like 17 17 15 13 13 12) Well that hardly seems fair. At least if I roll a 5, I did it fair and square. But if I want to pick a 5 and do not get a buy-back bonus for it, I would never pick anything less than an 8. I rolled these stats earlier today. 18,15,15,12,11,5. 4d6 drop lowest. Now according to the rules this is a 39 point buy character, which according to some would throw the whole universe out of whack. But if I use Kendrick's buy-back system it is a 34 point buy, which is a little more acceptable and more balanced with the stats my wife rolled. 17,15,14,12,10,7. That is a 33 point buy by the rules or with buy-back 32. Which matches exactly with the stats my 5 year-old daughter rolled. 16,16,13,13,9,9. 32 point buy. No buy-back. Hope I added that all correctly. Boy we had fun rolling that too. I was going to have my 2 year-old son roll too, but he just wants to eat the dice. I guess he will have to live with point buy then.
wrecan 12-07-06, 06:36 PM	Your "reasoning" is faulty. The universal claim in question was that "a character that has been modified to conform to rp specs at the expense of its primary function does not harm the party as a whole or other players". Edit: The quotes in the above statement don't signify a quote from Cantankerous, they are just there to identify the argument in question. Try again. This time with reading comprehension, maybe? Well, well, well, aren't we smarmy. Putting the straw man in quotation marks doesn't make it any less of a straw man. Nobody, and certainly not Cantankerous, has made the argument you claim. You're tilting at windmills. I am saying rolling stats is far more exciting and enjoyable than buying them. So you are taking back the comment that point buy cannot produce outstanding abilities. Rather, you're preference for randomization is the vicarious thrill you get by rolling dice (which I termed "dice fetish"). "Fetish?" I may enjoy rolling them - but I don't want to have sex with them. Yes, "fetish (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fetish)", whose most common definition is not something you wish to have sex with, but rather an object of nigh magical reverence. Please read my first post on this thread to understand what I mean. I can "obtain" them by just writing them in - so why is that different than point buy and die rolling?I don't know. You're the one with the fetish. Really now, don't be so narrow. Or, even better, write what you mean. I didn't say you "misquoted" me. Maybe I am misunderstanding you with your "goal post" reference. I don't know how that's possible. It's a pretty common rhetorical phrase. I asked you about your original statement -- which I quoted -- that random ability generation doesn't create outstanding stats. You said outstanding meant a player was happy, and then tied the word "outstanding" to things that had nothing to do with stats. That's called shifting the goalposts.
PenderGrass 12-07-06, 06:37 PM	I was going to have my 2 year-old son roll too, but he just wants to eat the dice. I guess he will have to live with point buy then. LOL Excellent. :dragon: ****
Olskool 12-07-06, 07:08 PM	Yes, "fetish (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fetish)", whose most common definition is not something you wish to have sex with, but rather an object of nigh magical reverence. Please read my first post on this thread to understand what I mean. Seems to me, by your own definition, you have a point buy fetish. You also really seem to like the word fetish itself. Maybe you have a fetish fetish.
PenderGrass 12-07-06, 07:17 PM	So you are taking back the comment that point buy cannot produce outstanding abilities. I wouldn't call any of my stats in RPGA "outstanding" - especially Eberron. Rather, you're preference for randomization is the vicarious thrill you get by rolling dice (which I termed "dice fetish"). No. I like randomness in many things - not just rolling dice. Yes, "fetish (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fetish)", whose most common definition is not something you wish to have sex with, but rather an object of nigh magical reverence. Fetish has a certain public, common, connotation that deals with a sexual obsession. Just like the terms 'bundled f@ggots,' 'the c0ck crowed at dawn' and 'the private d1ck was hard-pressed' all have certain public connotations beyond their dictionary definitions. If you are insisting to term my preference of rolling dice vs. point buy as anything beyond personal preference, I would rather you use 'obsession.' I don't know how that's possible. It's a pretty common rhetorical phrase. I never heard it before. I asked you about your original statement -- which I quoted -- that random ability generation doesn't create outstanding stats. I must have wrote that incorrectly. I apologize for that. I am sure I meant outstanding stats can be generated via die rolls. You said outstanding meant a player was happy, and then tied the word "outstanding" to things that had nothing to do with stats. That's called shifting the goalposts. For me, "outstanding" is a myriad of things - that could include many things, but narrowed down, I would say - as a DM - an "outstanding" character is one that my player is truly happy with. Some "outstanding" things I can never hope to obtain in the RPGA - an especially devastating fighter that has the prereqs for feats based on Strength, Charisma, Dexterity, Constitution and Intelligence would be unsatisfying for me to create and play in the RPGA (if not downright impossible). Granted, much - if not all - of my experience of point buy is from RPGA. Now, I am interested in which die roll method you are basing your debate on. Since there are many different ones out there. I am also interested in why your players are so interested in what they each have on their sheet compared to someone elses sheet? Seems to me that much of the point buy people are claiming it is always Joe looking at John and Brenda's character sheets is where people get all upset, bu77hurt and displeased. :dragon: ****
vagabonvoid 12-07-06, 07:32 PM	Some "outstanding" things I can never hope to obtain in the RPGA - an especially devastating fighter that has the prereqs for feats based on Strength, Charisma, Dexterity, Constitution and Intelligence would be unsatisfying for me to create and play in the RPGA (if not downright impossible). you have to remember that the rpga (point buy system) discourages munchkin players. :P It seems to me you are like several gamers, if you rolled a high character (18,18,16,16,14,14) you would play it; however, if you rolled a character that was anything less than a 28 point buy, you would tear up the character sheet and stomp out of the room. :tantrum:
PenderGrass 12-07-06, 07:44 PM	you have to remember that the rpga (point buy system) discourages munchkin players. :P It seems to me you are like several gamers, if you rolled a high character (18,18,16,16,14,14) you would play it; however, if you rolled a character that was anything less than a 28 point buy, you would tear up the character sheet and stomp out of the room. :tantrum: Then you are foolishly not reading what I am saying - or just being an a$$/troll. Just to be clear.... I play in RPGA - so I do play characters with less than 28 points (I think Eberron has a 25 point buy). For me to "tear up the character sheet and stomp out of the room [in a tantrum]" would be a waste of time since I am the one that signed up for the RPGA event and wants to play. Now, when I DM my own games, I use die roll methods because I don't have to worry about 'munchkin players' like RPGA does. I like having all sorts in my games - 'munchkin' 'rules-lawyers' 'ultra-role-players' 'curious' 'old-timers' 'loners' - whatever, so long as they aren't a cry-baby (well that is not really true, but the cry-babies I have had in my game usually leave when they don't get their way). Now, if you were attempting to be funny or troll-like or whatever, sorry for actually trying to clarify things for you. :dragon: ****
Sadrx 12-07-06, 08:55 PM	Each of the characteristics listed below for the two different systems might be positive or negative as far as your group is concerned. Your group might need to make its characters seperately as is more easily done with point-buy, for instance, or the DM might prefer to discourage the players from making their characters seperately and thus disallow point-buy. Pick the system that fits best together with your group, or come up with another system if neither fits very well at all. Point-Bought attributes: -Allows players to more easily generate characters without having to meet with their DM. -Allows players to more easily realize prior character ideas. -Allows players another venue through which they can customize their character. -Allows for an agreed upon power level for the party -- from being on-par with commoners to having truly heroic ability scores. -Prevents players from onesidedly outshining one another at the table by allowing the DM to more easily split the "success spotlight" amongst the characters. -Prevents parties from having a 'weak-link'. Rolled attributes: -Has the excitement of gambling in obtaining favourable results at the risk of less-favourable ones. -Makes high attributes rare among chracters and thus exciting to have. -Can be an exercise in roleplaying, gaming strategy, and character creation by having to play to the statistics rolled. -Allows for more diverse groups with characters of differing overall ability. This can possibly increase the gritty realism of a setting. What I've done here is taken the points all of you have seen in either system and listed them. If you can think of any more, add them to the discussion. Any of these traits might be seen by your group as a positive or negative aspect of either ability score generation method based on your situations and preferences. Pushing for one system over the other, however, is a matter of just that, group preference.
BoringInfoGuy 12-08-06, 03:08 AM	Cantakerous, You asked if I would play a high 12 fighter in a party with a multi 18 bard. A bard built for melee no less. Yes. At higher levels class abilities overcomes ability scores. You disagree. How about a fighter that has Str 12, everything else 10, against a bard with all 18's? A +1 vs a +24? Here's the thing, a fighter is only good at combat. Outside of that, he's limited. So he won't care about the bard's int, wis, or cha. Typically, there are five things that make a useful fighter. Melee Attack, Melee damage, HP, AC, and Feats. At first level, Fighter, Melee attack +2 (Weapon Focus +Str) Melee Dam +1 HP 10 (10+0) AC 16 (Scale + H. Shield) or AC 18 (Scale + T Shield [-2 Atk]) 2 or 3 feats remain. Low stats limit choices of bonus feats. Bard Melee attack +4 (Can't take Weapon focus till 3rd level) Melee Dam +4 HP 10 (6 + 4 con) AC 17 (Studded leather + Dex) or 18 (Studded leather + L shield + Dex [5% arcane failure]) or AC 19 (Studded leather + H shield + Dex [15% arcane failure]) 1 or 2 feats remain. Can start just about any feat chain path, except for one's that have a BAB requirement. Yeah, the fighter is looking weaker than the bard. But not as badly as some may have expected. The fighter's chance to hit is only 2 less than the bard. AC only 1 or 2 less. HP the same. But how about 10th level? Assuming both the fighter and bard put their ability score increases in STR. Fighter Attack +14 / +9 (Weapon focus, Greater weapon focus ) Melee Dam + 4 {Double Crit threat range} (+2 Str, Weapon Specialization, {Improved Critical}) HP 55 (avg) AC 18 (Full Plate using two handed weapon) AC 20 (Full Plate + H. Shield) AC 22 (Full Plate + T. Shield [-2 Atk]) 6 or 7 feats remain. But after 4th level, they have the 13 Str to qualify for the Power Attack and Cleave. Bard Attack +13 / +8 (Weapon focus) Melee Dam +5 HP 76 (avg) AC 18 (Chain shirt + Dex mod) AC 19 (Chain shirt + L. shield + Dex [5% arcane failure] AC 20 (Full Plate + H. shield + Dex [15% arcane failure] 3 or 4 feats remain. Ok, we're at the halfway point. The fighter, can use feats to increase his chance to hit above the bard's. He can use another feat to bring his damage to just one below the bards. But he can also take Improved Critical, to double his threat range. His AC is as good or better than the bard's. Why only a chain shirt? That's the best armor a bard is proficient with. Better armor requires a feat, and incurs considerable arcane spell failure. If the bard increased his Dex instead of Str, the chain shirt has a max dex of 4. Light armor caps at 8 with dex. Well, padded goes up to 9, if you have a +8 dex mod. The bard is almost guaranteed to have better HP. His minimum HP is 55, while the fighters minimum is 19. Both max at 100. That fighter is really hoping that he rolls HP better than the rest of his stats. I am deliberately ignoring enchantment bonuses to weapons and armor. Both classes have equal opportunities to acquire these bonus's, so they can be discounted. Why am I assigning more feats for the fighter than the bard? Well, fighter's get more. But more importantly, I'm choosing the feats that only a fighter can take, or can take sooner than the bard. Since the bard is supposed to be spec'd to be a fighter, I'm assuming the bard will have the same feats when possible. Otherwise, I don't fill the remaining feat slots. But I am listing how many remain. Speaking of feats, at level 12, the fighter can take Greater Weapon Specialization. At 12th Fighter Attack +16 / +11 / +6. Dam +6 Bard Attack +15 / +10. Dam +5 By 12th level, a Fighter with only a +1 Bonus can up his attack bonus, damage and AC above a +24 bonus bard. HP will be lower, unless the fighter is very lucky, and the bard very unlucky at HP rolls. Yes, I ignored bard spells. Most of them aren't combat related. And the few that are aren't has good as the clerics or wizards spell list. Who, by the way, are more powerful than both the bard and fighter by now. The bardic music abilities are meant to support the party. They also require him to spend one or more rounds out of melee combat. Where the fighter then is taking the front line in melee combat. The bard can do a better job taking over the rogue's job. But they are both skill users type classes. Even so, the rogue and bard can take different skills, so that both feel useful. The wizard isn't going to worry to much about a bard trying to out wizard the wizard. The cleric is going to be out and out amused. Remember, by RAW, you can re roll if your lowest stat is 13 or lower. So I am working with worst than the worst against the best.
Zumarai 12-08-06, 05:44 AM	Each of the characteristics listed below for the two different systems might be positive or negative as far as your group is concerned. Your group might need to make its characters seperately as is more easily done with point-buy, for instance, or the DM might prefer to discourage the players from making their characters seperately and thus disallow point-buy. Pick the system that fits best together with your group, or come up with another system if neither fits very well at all. Point-Bought attributes: -Allows players to more easily generate characters without having to meet with their DM. -Allows players to more easily realize prior character ideas. -Allows players another venue through which they can customize their character. -Allows for an agreed upon power level for the party -- from being on-par with commoners to having truly heroic ability scores. -Prevents players from onesidedly outshining one another at the table by allowing the DM to more easily split the "success spotlight" amongst the characters. -Prevents parties from having a 'weak-link'. Rolled attributes: -Has the excitement of gambling in obtaining favourable results at the risk of less-favourable ones. -Makes high attributes rare among chracters and thus exciting to have. -Can be an exercise in roleplaying, gaming strategy, and character creation by having to play to the statistics rolled. -Allows for more diverse groups with characters of differing overall ability. This can possibly increase the gritty realism of a setting. What I've done here is taken the points all of you have seen in either system and listed them. If you can think of any more, add them to the discussion. Any of these traits might be seen by your group as a positive or negative aspect of either ability score generation method based on your situations and preferences. Pushing for one system over the other, however, is a matter of just that, group preference. And we have a winner! Well said – it's a matter of group preference. …But I'm definitely with Wrecan, Cantankerous, and Captain Willard on my preferences.
Cantankerous 12-08-06, 05:44 AM	So you don't believe that reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical argument? My point is that when I play D&D with a group, each person is essentially agreeing that they are going to contribute their time and effort and communaly tell a story, with each individual contributing time and effort to the other players' stories and accepting the other players' efforts when it's time to magnify their own. Any time a player chooses to reduce the effort they're willing to put forth for others, while still demanding the same or more from other players is being a selfish ass. Sure, everyone could agree that nobody will bother to try to make the group effective as a whole, and we'll limp along bumbling through an adventure because nobody is bothering to play the role they'd be effective in. If that's what you enjoy, good for you. But I prefer to run through the adventure like a well oiled machine while smoothly working in everybody's "story" on top of that. It's not worth doing if you can't do it with style. Wherewe disagree it seems is in what constitutes style. The example you provided does not in any way constitute anything I can vaguely agree to be "stylish", but rather, only and completely absurd. Reduction to the degree of the absurd is not a valid intellectual arguement when used in a manner that does not highlight a specific issue. Yours did not. It was simply and only absurd. On the other hand, simply because you are not the be all and end all of a specific task for a specific level does in no way "stylishly" attempting and whether in success or not, forging forward with said effect. If you are of the opinion that this IS the case, I'd have to ask if you've EVER tried anything you weren't exceptionally good at, or only restricted yourself to that which was easy? Isshia
Cantankerous 12-08-06, 05:50 AM	Cantakerous, You asked if I would play a high 12 fighter in a party with a multi 18 bard. A bard built for melee no less. Yes. At higher levels class abilities overcomes ability scores. You disagree. How about a fighter that has Str 12, everything else 10, against a bard with all 18's? A +1 vs a +24? Here's the thing, a fighter is only good at combat. Outside of that, he's limited. So he won't care about the bard's int, wis, or cha. Typically, there are five things that make a useful fighter. Melee Attack, Melee damage, HP, AC, and Feats. At first level, Fighter, Melee attack +2 (Weapon Focus +Str) Melee Dam +1 HP 10 (10+0) AC 16 (Scale + H. Shield) or AC 18 (Scale + T Shield [-2 Atk]) 2 or 3 feats remain. Low stats limit choices of bonus feats. Bard Melee attack +4 (Can't take Weapon focus till 3rd level) Melee Dam +4 HP 10 (6 + 4 con) AC 17 (Studded leather + Dex) or 18 (Studded leather + L shield + Dex [5% arcane failure]) or AC 19 (Studded leather + H shield + Dex [15% arcane failure]) 1 or 2 feats remain. Can start just about any feat chain path, except for one's that have a BAB requirement. Yeah, the fighter is looking weaker than the bard. But not as badly as some may have expected. The fighter's chance to hit is only 2 less than the bard. AC only 1 or 2 less. HP the same. But how about 10th level? Assuming both the fighter and bard put their ability score increases in STR. Fighter Attack +14 / +9 (Weapon focus, Greater weapon focus ) Melee Dam + 4 {Double Crit threat range} (+2 Str, Weapon Specialization, {Improved Critical}) HP 55 (avg) AC 18 (Full Plate using two handed weapon) AC 20 (Full Plate + H. Shield) AC 22 (Full Plate + T. Shield [-2 Atk]) 6 or 7 feats remain. But after 4th level, they have the 13 Str to qualify for the Power Attack and Cleave. Bard Attack +13 / +8 (Weapon focus) Melee Dam +5 HP 76 (avg) AC 18 (Chain shirt + Dex mod) AC 19 (Chain shirt + L. shield + Dex [5% arcane failure] AC 20 (Full Plate + H. shield + Dex [15% arcane failure] 3 or 4 feats remain. Ok, we're at the halfway point. The fighter, can use feats to increase his chance to hit above the bard's. He can use another feat to bring his damage to just one below the bards. But he can also take Improved Critical, to double his threat range. His AC is as good or better than the bard's. Why only a chain shirt? That's the best armor a bard is proficient with. Better armor requires a feat, and incurs considerable arcane spell failure. If the bard increased his Dex instead of Str, the chain shirt has a max dex of 4. Light armor caps at 8 with dex. Well, padded goes up to 9, if you have a +8 dex mod. The bard is almost guaranteed to have better HP. His minimum HP is 55, while the fighters minimum is 19. Both max at 100. That fighter is really hoping that he rolls HP better than the rest of his stats. I am deliberately ignoring enchantment bonuses to weapons and armor. Both classes have equal opportunities to acquire these bonus's, so they can be discounted. Why am I assigning more feats for the fighter than the bard? Well, fighter's get more. But more importantly, I'm choosing the feats that only a fighter can take, or can take sooner than the bard. Since the bard is supposed to be spec'd to be a fighter, I'm assuming the bard will have the same feats when possible. Otherwise, I don't fill the remaining feat slots. But I am listing how many remain. Speaking of feats, at level 12, the fighter can take Greater Weapon Specialization. At 12th Fighter Attack +16 / +11 / +6. Dam +6 Bard Attack +15 / +10. Dam +5 By 12th level, a Fighter with only a +1 Bonus can up his attack bonus, damage and AC above a +24 bonus bard. HP will be lower, unless the fighter is very lucky, and the bard very unlucky at HP rolls. Yes, I ignored bard spells. Most of them aren't combat related. And the few that are aren't has good as the clerics or wizards spell list. Who, by the way, are more powerful than both the bard and fighter by now. The bardic music abilities are meant to support the party. They also require him to spend one or more rounds out of melee combat. Where the fighter then is taking the front line in melee combat. The bard can do a better job taking over the rogue's job. But they are both skill users type classes. Even so, the rogue and bard can take different skills, so that both feel useful. The wizard isn't going to worry to much about a bard trying to out wizard the wizard. The cleric is going to be out and out amused. Remember, by RAW, you can re roll if your lowest stat is 13 or lower. So I am working with worst than the worst against the best. Finally, after twelve levels, the Fighter, if and only if the Bard ignored the combat advantages he can get from superior spell casting abilities, has acheived parity to the Bard as a front line Fighter. Or he would, if the bard were not using those Buff spells, which very greatly DO enhance his combat abilities. And his Bardic abilities enhance it as well and have been, conveniently, left out. Now, in what way does he compare to the Bard in the multiple OTHER areas of expertise in which a more intelligently built Bard would excel? He has finally acheived parity with a poorly constructed Bard as what HE is, a Fighter, and compares not at all in any other manner. This is not parity. Isshia
Lethanic 12-08-06, 05:53 AM	Because at the time of ability generation, none of the baseball players knew they were going to be baseball players. Like, if their stats had been higher they would have been football or soccer players instead. I think that is a form of 'joint punishment' that military institutions so favor. Like doing push-ups platoon wide becasue somebody stuck a donut in their footlocker. Fairness had nothing to do with it, and instilling discipline had everything to do with it. Don't like facing the 1/10 chance of getting executed, whack your buddy (either some sense into him, or otherwise) before he endangers the entire legion. Just because two players have identical stats does not mean that the campaign is going to play out exactly fairly between them. A miss here and a critical success there. A dumb move here, a brilliant plan there. Next thing you know one is doing better then the other. What keeps them even? The DM. And a good DM can do the same with tiltedly stated characters. No it doesn't mean things will play out exactly even> It does mean however that they start out at the same place rather than one having a large headstart. Why is it that you seem to have a huge allergy to starting people out roughly even?
CharlieRock 12-08-06, 07:57 AM	Are you actually smoking that stuff as you read? Or are you being purposely dense? The method used is decided ahead of time by conscensus. Savvy conscensus? Still you're also not seeing, one roll, even iof it means that the character dies, is one roll. That one roll effects one outcome. That outcome may be a large one, but it is ONE OUTCOME. Character generation effects basicly all of the rest of the rolls you make because of how the system is made. IE: Roll die, add modifier, check for result. See that highlighted bit? The one that says add modifier? THAT modifier is determined, in most cases, by your stats. Your stats are determined how? Why, by the character generation method used. So, stay with me here, what ONE SET OF ROLLS determines VASTLY more of the outcomes? A single roll taken in a single game, or the one set of rolls that modify almost EVERYTHING your character will do within the system? Isshia Your staement is inaccurate, and misleading. Misleading on purpose to make a point, or out of ignorance because you are worried about what people smoke (because like high stat scores you are afraid of being left out). A modified miss is still a miss. A modified success is still a success as if it was rolled naturally. To wit, a STR of 18(+4) and a 12(+1) is only going to make a difference in 15% (and this percentage diminishes as level increases) of the total rolls made. There are only twenty integers you can score with a d20. A bonus of three will only affect the rolls within three points of the target number. So, you should be able to notice that +3 out of a possible 20 only affects 15% of the rolls. Not every single roll. That 15% is only most noticeable at level 1, and diminishes to less then 1/10 when at level 20. This would be an effective argument if it mattered how much of the modified roll you made over the target number. These cases can be made (like a Bard's perform check) but are generally the exception, not the rule. Even still in those cases the difference becomes slight to negligable at level 20.
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-08-06, 08:06 AM	Each of the characteristics listed below for the two different systems might be positive or negative as far as your group is concerned. Your group might need to make its characters seperately as is more easily done with point-buy, for instance, or the DM might prefer to discourage the players from making their characters seperately and thus disallow point-buy. Pick the system that fits best together with your group, or come up with another system if neither fits very well at all. Point-Bought attributes: -Allows players to more easily generate characters without having to meet with their DM. -Allows players to more easily realize prior character ideas. -Allows players another venue through which they can customize their character. -Allows for an agreed upon power level for the party -- from being on-par with commoners to having truly heroic ability scores. -Prevents players from onesidedly outshining one another at the table by allowing the DM to more easily split the "success spotlight" amongst the characters. -Prevents parties from having a 'weak-link'. Rolled attributes: -Has the excitement of gambling in obtaining favourable results at the risk of less-favourable ones. -Makes high attributes rare among chracters and thus exciting to have. -Can be an exercise in roleplaying, gaming strategy, and character creation by having to play to the statistics rolled. -Allows for more diverse groups with characters of differing overall ability. This can possibly increase the gritty realism of a setting. What I've done here is taken the points all of you have seen in either system and listed them. If you can think of any more, add them to the discussion. Any of these traits might be seen by your group as a positive or negative aspect of either ability score generation method based on your situations and preferences. Pushing for one system over the other, however, is a matter of just that, group preference. Good work!
Zumarai 12-08-06, 08:21 AM	Another reason point buy and lower scores makes more sense in the new game is the bonuses they grant. Remember in 1st/2nd edition AD&D, you often didn't get diddly squat from a score until you had at least a 15. Hell, a 17 Str only gave you +1 to hit and +1 damage, what a 12 Str grants you in 3rd edition. Everyone knows that 16 is the new 18. ...Even a 14 gives me a chubber in 3rd edition.
CharlieRock 12-08-06, 08:24 AM	I tried to catch up, but only made it to hare so far.Pender, you're not getting this. No set of stats ruins the game. It's not all or nothing at all. But one set of rolls can make for a gross inequity That is the most important rolls during character creation, and possibly the game. It does not however, make for gross inequity, unless you consider 15% (or less) gross inequity. In which case you simply keep your eye on the die too hard. We play a 28 point buy actually. A bit above the standard, because that's what the group decided. Actually, in the last two campaigns I was stumping for them to take 32 PB, and the Players decided they'd rather do 28s. They probably figured I'd take it a bit easier on them. They were right too. ;) Isshia If you take it easier on lower scored characters , what prevents you from doing so if the stats were rolled? Yeah, I know what you mean. It's so much better to let the impersonal hand of fate dictate what you play than... I don't knwo... work it out with a DM who is presumably also your friend. I can see why you'd much rather leave this to the dice. :rolleyes:. Unless I was in Cantankerous's group. In that case I would be outvoted into a 28 point character. No freedom of stat generation. But if everybody knew going in to character generation that they could be the one who got the short end of the stick and agreed to anyways, where is the inequality? I like having the chance to roll high, and I accept the risk of rolling low. I don't see how you think I'm being "abused" or whatever you find so horrible if I take my chances and roll the dice and come up short. I also don't see how I'm a horrible unfair abuser if I take my chances and I roll high. And besides ,didn't we play to have fun. Isn't it more exciting to watch the die tumble about and cheer your roll like a game, or sitting around voting on who gets how many attributes (followed by assigning those attributes. boring as it gets.) Have you never had fun while getting your butt kicked, and then coming back the next time, or the next, or the one after that and handing the over toned bugger his backside? Are you arguing for dice rolled abilities here, again? Because the same can be said to someone who flubbed their first character attribute rolls, only to come along with a new (slightly stronger) character and clear that dungeon. Ability scores are the modifiers they produce. One could equally ask you if it's the non-disparity of modifiers that causes these feelings of negativity for you and your group? The feelings of negativity over the disparity of atrributes were one of the main reasons in support of point-buy. Balance, (or the absense of "gross inequity") :uh-huh: :nonono: No, you punish no one by playing your character as a being, as a person, instead of as a set of metagame stats. Unless those stats are higher, n'est pas? :P No. He's saying that ability generation has nothing to do with one's ability to role-play. You're the one who thinks role-playing requires randomly generated stats, not Cantankerous. I'm not sure why you think that. Your argument on that point hasn't made any sense to me. It may not have to do with static role-playing skill. But, it has everything to do with flexibility of who you can play. Abilities and role-playing have nothing to do with one another and all the capitalization, unerlining, italicizing and boldfacing in the world won't change that. Role-playing is playing a personality. It is entirely untethered to abilities. If you use randomized ability scores to fashion a personality, may I recommend using the random personality generator found in the 1st edition DMG? (Another one of those Gygaxian monstrosities thankfully excised from subsequent editions of the game.) But, if you did have randomized personalities, you would have to develop a flexibility in role-playing (not something people usually do, they want to play the 'same' character over and over :rolleyes: with the same stats even, possible due to point-buy). I consider someone a greater role-player who can play many different types of characters with semi-equal ability. Not the same one over and over. Does point-buy rail-road you into this? No, but it allows it much more easily then rolled stats.
CharlieRock 12-08-06, 08:45 AM	Seems to me that goalposts are getting hastily shifted around. That would be another poster on your side of the fences doing as well. Going from the 'I can't realize my character concept' to the 'low scores suck' to now finally,'it produces gross inequity' for dice determined attributes. Coming from someone whose team admittedly plays with lower stats (making the 'low scores suck' argument obselete). This would be an effective argument if it mattered how much of the modified roll you made over the target number. These cases can be made (like a Bard's perform check) but are generally the exception, not the rule. Even still in those cases the difference becomes slight to negligable at level 20. This ,I was wrong on. I based this on a hypothesis. Even with a three bonus point (not just three point) difference between two bards (who roll identical on perform checks) ,in addition a 'room to spare' difference in type of success: the chances of making the difference due to attribute differences is still 15% (I.e. there are only three occuring numerals where the higher attribute will effect it). This can be brought down to 0% by level 15. (atctually somewhere between level 10 and 15, but I'm not going to calculate it all out to pin-point it exactly).
wrecan 12-08-06, 09:48 AM	Seems to me, by your own definition, you have a point buy fetish. You also really seem to like the word fetish itself. Maybe you have a fetish fetish. Except, unlike Pendergrass, who believes rolling is enjoyable for it's own sake, I don't believe point-buying is enjoyable for its own sake, but rather the best means possible to create a fair and equitable game. I wouldn't call any of my stats in RPGA "outstanding" - especially Eberron. Wow, that's the most non sequiturs I've ever seen condensed into a single sentence. So do you think stats -- as opposed to the method used to generate such stats -- can be "outstanding"? If so, what is the standard one uses to determine outstanding stats? No. I like randomness in many things - not just rolling dice. So? It's because you like randomness that you have a dice fetish in the context of D&D... as dice is the means of introducing randomness in the game. Fetish has a certain public, common, connotation that deals with a sexual obsession. Coming from someone who never heard the term "shifting goalposts", forgive me that I don't accept your knowledge of public, common connotations of words. I'm using a dictionary definttion. If you choose to believe I'm using a different definition and then further choose to be insulted by that, that's your problem, not mine. If you are insisting to term my preference of rolling dice vs. point buy as anything beyond personal preference, I would rather you use 'obsession.' I'd rather you use point-buy. Doesn't seem like either of us will get our wish. For me, "outstanding" is a myriad of things Thus, my accusation that you keep shifting the goalposts. an "outstanding" character... Nobody's asking you about outstanding characters. I'm talking about outstanding stats. I am interested in which die roll method you are basing your debate on. Any method that uses dice to determine stats. I am also interested in why your players are so interested in what they each have on their sheet compared to someone elses sheet? Because there is a finite amount of time at a gaming table, which means that a character who can do more will have more playing time than a character that can do less. That's the whole concept behind player balance. There is a competition for a very finite resource: playing time, which directly correlates to player satisfaction. That is why party parity is crucial to a tabletop RPG. That is the most important rolls during character creation, and possibly the game. It does not however, make for gross inequity, unless you consider 15% (or less) gross inequity. 15% can indeed be gross inequity. A six-point difference in point buy terms is considered by the game's own designers to be the equivalent of a character level of disparity. Random ability generation can produce up to an 18-point or greater spread. Unless I was in Cantankerous's group. Which you're not. Which, of course means you haven't addressed the point: you'd rather leave your abilities to chance than to have a discussion with your friends about what ability level makes the game most enjoyable for everyone. Isn't it more exciting to watch the die tumble about and cheer your roll like a game, or sitting around voting on who gets how many attributes (followed by assigning those attributes. boring as it gets.) That's short term dice-fetish enjoyment in favor of long-term game satisfaction. It may not have to do with static role-playing skill. But, it has everything to do with flexibility of who you can play. Shifted goalposts. So you acknowledge the method of ability generation is independent of an ability to role-play? But, if you did have randomized personalities, you would have to develop a flexibility in role-playing So what? Personality traits directly corresponds to roleplaying. Abilities do not. Does point-buy rail-road you into this? No, but it allows it much more easily then rolled stats. No, it doesn't. You are making the fallacy that abilities determine personality. They do not. They are independent of one another, except in the extremes. That would be another poster on your side of the fences doing as well. "Good for the goose, good for the gander" is not a valid counter. I haven't been making those arguments, but you have. If you didn't think them valid when made by PBers, you shouldn't have adopted them in defense of randomization.
CharlieRock 12-08-06, 09:48 AM	Finally, after twelve levels, the Fighter, if and only if the Bard ignored the combat advantages he can get from superior spell casting abilities, has acheived parity to the Bard as a front line Fighter. Actually misleading again. The parity started almost at level 1. There was a 10% chance per die roll the benefit the bard had over the fighter was even going to be noticed. Which isn't much considering that both are still one-hittable (taken out with one hit). At ten the fighter was trailing behind only in hit points really. The rest of the benefits gained purely from stats was about 5% chance per die roll.
CharlieRock 12-08-06, 10:14 AM	15% can indeed be gross inequity. A six-point difference in point buy terms is considered by the game's own designers to be the equivalent of a character level of disparity. Random ability generation can produce up to an 18-point or greater spread. 15% at level one may seem large, but it all slides down to less then 3% towards the end-game. At level 1, fighting 1HD creatures (avg. HP5) a +3 on STR represents 60% of a creatures health incurred at damage. While a +1 represents 20% incurred at damage. Against a 20HD creature (avg HP 100) this shrinks to just 1% and 3% of damage incurred with no (level 20 to-hit)difference in to-hit percentages until AC28 or higher. That is bereft of benefits a feat may add, which can easily stretch the window of non-differential out to way higher then AC30. Which you're not. Which, of course means you haven't addressed the point: you'd rather leave your abilities to chance than to have a discussion with your friends about what ability level makes the game most enjoyable for everyone. Yes, because my usual team-mates enjoy rolling for abilities and do not entertain ideas of inequity that would dampen our enjoyment of the game. That's short term dice-fetish enjoyment in favor of long-term game satisfaction. You have yet to prove we will be dissatisfied with the game due to our dice determined attributes. And statistically the advantage gained by attributes shrinks to the point of negligable at higher levels where it is outweighed by class ability and feats. Shifted goalposts. So you acknowledge the method of ability generation is independent of an ability to role-play? How is this a shifted goalpost when I am not trying to even defend the ability (or inability) of one to role-play in either method. I just pointed out an over-generalization made within your statement. So what? Personality traits directly corresponds to roleplaying. Abilities do not. Attributes can shape a personality (however, they may also not lend to a personality). You can easily shape a character's entire personality just off an impression gotten from the attributes. No, it doesn't. You are making the fallacy that abilities determine personality. They do not. They are independent of one another, except in the extremes. Not as extreme as you would have me believe though. Not even as extreme as you would have the entire forum believe that a 15% bonus that fades to only effecting one die roll in ten is an extreme (gross)inequity. "Good for the goose, good for the gander" is not a valid counter. I haven't been making those arguments, but you have. If you didn't think them valid when made by PBers, you shouldn't have adopted them in defense of randomization. I am not shifting the goal posts as I am not attacking ones ability to role-play in either method of character generation. What I will defend is that ability to role-play also includes flexibility in who you role-play. And, that playing the same character over and over on many different ocassions is more easily achieved using point-buy. You can take this as being inferred that point-buy is a crutch for those who have mastered only one type of personality (and those players would likely be flustered if attributes and personality types were randomized). However, should you do so, I will only deign to defend that inferrence on a case by case basis. (without ever having to remit the statement, since it is a bare-boned fact).
wrecan 12-08-06, 11:00 AM	How about a fighter that has Str 12, everything else 10, against a bard with all 18's? A +1 vs a +24? he won't care about the bard's int, wis, or cha. Of course he will. Intelligence determines Skill points and makes the bard a better Feinter in combat, as well as gives him increased Tumble, which is also useful in combat. It also allows the Bard access to Combat Expertise. Thanks to his Str 12 and plethoras of 10s, our 1st level fighter cannot spend any of his 3 Feats on Combat Expertise, Dodge, Power Attack, or Two Weapon Fighting, most of the "gateway" feats for fighters. In contrast, the 1st level combat bard has all of these Feats at his disposal. In addition, he can't take Combat Expertise. At first level, Fighter, Melee attack +2 (Weapon Focus +Str) Melee Dam +1 HP 10 (10+0) AC 16 (Scale + H. Shield) or AC 18 (Scale + T Shield [-2 Atk]) 2 or 3 feats remain. Low stats limit choices of bonus feats. Bard Melee attack +4 (Can't take Weapon focus till 3rd level) Melee Dam +4 HP 10 (6 + 4 con) AC 17 (Studded leather + Dex) or 18 (Studded leather + L shield + Dex [5% arcane failure]) or AC 19 (Studded leather + H shield + Dex [15% arcane failure]) 1 or 2 feats remain. Can start just about any feat chain path, except for one's that have a BAB requirement. Yeah, the fighter is looking weaker than the bard. Except you ignored that the Fighter is stuck with Feats like Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus and something not all that useful, like Mounted Combat. The Bard is taking Two-Weapon Fighting. Also, the bard doesn't have to worry about taking heavy armor. He has a +4 bonus to AC from Dexterity and can wear a chain shirt without incurring any arcane spell failure chance. Also, the bard boosts himelf with his bard song before entering combat. So now we have the following fighter: F1, 10 hp, Init +4, FAt longsword +2 melee (d8+1-avg 5.5), AC 13 (studden leather), Fort +2, Ref +0, Will +0, Intimidate +4, Ride +4. In contrast, B1, 10 hp, Init +4, FAt +3 longsword (d8+5, avg. 9.5), +3 shortsword (d6+5, avg. 8.5), AC 17 (studded leather and Dex), Fort +4, Ref +6, Will +6, Bluff +8, Intimidatecc +6, Perform +8, Sleight of Hand +8, Ridecc +6, Tumble +8. The bard outclasses the fighter in every category. He has a better chance to hit, will do more damage, a higher AC, better saves, and beats the fighter at even skills that are class skills for Fighter and cross-class skills for bards. When the party needs someone to be intimidating, they will ask the bard to do it before the fighter. Riding? The bard. But how about 10th level? Good question. Let's assume the fighter and bard put their ability increases in Strength. The fighter is now Str 14, the bard is Str 20. The fighter gets six new feats, four of which must be fighter feats. Fortunately, at 4th level he finally gets the pre-requisite for Power Attack. So his second and third level feats are still relatively useless stuff like Ride By Attack and Trample. Then he takes Power Attack, Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus. He might also take Cleave. With his cash on hand he now has a +2 longsword, full plate and a heavy shield +1. The bard gets only three new feats. But he's already got most of the prerequisites lined up. He also takes Combat Expertise, Two-Weapon Defense, and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. The bard has a +1 longsword, +1 shortsword, and a chain shirt +1. But he also has his spells. Before combat, he inspires greatness and courage (+2) in himself. He can also boost himself with a multitude of spells, such as blink, haste, blur, cat's grace, and rage. Let's assume he casts cat's grace (Dex 22) and rage (Str 22 Con 20) on himself before inspiring courage and greatness. F10, hp 59.5, Init +4, At +16 longsword (d8+6-avg. 10.5), FAt +15/+10 longsword (d8+7-avg. 11.5, 23 total), AC 21, Fort +7, Ref +3 Will +3. Skills? With that armor, forget about it. I used power attack to equalize the longsword attack chances on the full attack for easier comparison. B10, hp 122.5, Init +6, At +17 longsword (d8+8-avg 12.5), FAt +15 longsword (d8+8-avg.12.5), +15 shortsword (d6+8-avg. 11.5), +10 longsword (d8+8-avg. 12.5), +10 shortsword (d6+8-avg, 11.5). Avg dmg: 48. AC 19, Fort +7, Ref +11, Will +13. Maximized skills with maximized bonuses in Perform, Tumble, Bluff, Intimidate, Sleight of Hand and Ride. As you can see, at 10th level, the bard is inflicting double the damage every round, has much better saves, has now surpassed the fighter in initiative, has more combat options, and has plenty of skills, spell points to use outside of combat. Only in AC does the fighter surpass the bard (which I could easily have fixed by not casting Rage), but that is more than made up for by the fact that the bard has twice as many hit points. The disparity gets even worse at higher levels, because the bardic skills and buffing spells, like greater heroism and greater invisibility, far outstrip the benefits the fighter is getting. The problem is that stats don't just translate into attack abilities, but [b]option[/s] such a feat availability. The bard can match a fighter and he has plenty to do outside of combat. The fighter's player is sidelined pretty much the entire game and that never gets better. (That's assuming the bard doesn't decide to multiclass or take a prestige class, something he is more able to do thanks to his better stats.) Now, I'm just using your extreme example. But it works on the smaller scale too. A difference of 6 in agregate ability modifiers is equal to a +1 level adjustment. Yes, I ignored bard spells. Most of them aren't combat related. Rage? Cat's Grace? Heroism? Haste? Greater Invisibility? You also ignored bardic abilities. the clerics or wizards... are more powerful than both the bard and fighter by now. Depending on their ability scores. They also require him to spend one or more rounds out of melee combat. Where the fighter then is taking the front line in melee combat. Unless there has been surprise, most parties have one or two rounds to prepare, at least. by RAW, you can re roll if your lowest stat is 13 or lower. I think you meant "highest".
wrecan 12-08-06, 11:10 AM	15% at level one may seem large, but it all slides down to less then 3% towards the end-game. No, it doesn't because abilities are gateways and prerequisites to many things that come later. A fighter who can't get access to Power Attack at first level is playing catch-up. Even if the difference lessens with time -- something that has not been shown -- the effects are cumulative. Yes, because my usual team-mates enjoy rolling for abilities and do not entertain ideas of inequity that would dampen our enjoyment of the game. So even considering a point-buy system is a downer to you guys? :confused: Your enjoyment of the game is really that fragile? You have yet to prove we will be dissatisfied with the game due to our dice determined attributes. And statistically the advantage gained by attributes shrinks to the point of negligable at higher levels where it is outweighed by class ability and feats. Ability-defendant class abilities and feats. That's why it's all cumulative and cannot be viewed in isolation. How is this a shifted goalpost when I am not trying to even defend the ability (or inability) of one to role-play in either method. I just pointed out an over-generalization made within your statement. First, it wasn't my statement you were criticizing. Second, that statement didn't have a generalization. You assumed one and then attacked the straw man. You can easily shape a character's entire personality just off an impression gotten from the attributes. You can do a lot of things. That has nothing to do with the point that neither point-buy nor random ability generation is more conducive to shaping characters with personality. One can use a point-bought ability array to craft a personality just as easily as a randomized array. Not as extreme as you would have me believe though. It's the game designers who impose a +1 LA for every six-point differential in aggregate ability modifiers, not I. I just happen to agree with them. I am not shifting the goal posts as I am not attacking ones ability to role-play in either method of character generation. Of course you are when you state that randomized ability generation assists in developing role-play better than point-buy. playing the same character over and over on many different ocassions is more easily achieved using point-buy. Again, you erroneously equate personality and character. A player can play the same personality over and over just as easily under either system.
Bolaneer 12-08-06, 11:54 AM	Take the lesser of two evils, in my next upcoming campaign I am going to try something fresh. Each stat starts at six, and each player rolls 2d6 to determine Ability scores. You may still have one guy full of great stats and others a little behind, but at the very least every minimum score is now still an 8 just as the point buy has you do it. So I ended up with some good and some not so good results, but what I had in mind was having them roll first, then take their score and build something onto it. That way if they only get one good stat, they can compensate by playing a starting class that will help them develop as nicely as a class that really needs two or three good stats. My players may not like this, but I intend to use it anyways, and its an option for your dilemna.
Bolaneer 12-08-06, 12:01 PM	Another way to settle this besides going halves on the decision the way I did, is to just not let anyone influence what you like...you are obviously becoming proterbed over a piece of game structure that takes place before you even let the players kill all of your plot lines an intense battles... It sounds to me like you're too hung up on stats to have a good time in the first place. I prefer role play, not roll play. And if you do prefer the latter, then I have nothing further to contribute as it won't matter to your party's metagaming, twink mashing, Meat shielding, combat simulating waste of a great Roleplay system.:D
CharlieRock 12-08-06, 12:01 PM	No, it doesn't because abilities are gateways and prerequisites to many things that come later. A fighter who can't get access to Power Attack at first level is playing catch-up. Most class abilities, and even classes now do not have attribute minimums. Improved initiative can be the most useful feat at level one (where the first hit has greatest potential to be the last) requires no attribute minimum. So even considering a point-buy system is a downer to you guys? No. Just silly. Your enjoyment of the game is really that fragile? Presumptive, aren't we? Ability-defendant class abilities and feats. That's why it's all cumulative and cannot be viewed in isolation. Is your enjoyment of the game that fragile that you must be assured we have equal chances to every skill check throughout the game? First, it wasn't my statement you were criticizing. Second, that statement didn't have a generalization. You assumed one and then attacked the straw man. The assumption was that dice generated stats will benefit role playing. The challenge was that it does not. Regardless of your emotional attachment to point-buy it does facilitate making copy characters much more easily then random generation (more so if you include the randomized personality into dice rolled stats). You can do a lot of things. Except roll my stats, right? Because that would ruin your enjoyment of the game. That has nothing to do with the point that neither point-buy nor random ability generation is more conducive to shaping characters with personality. One can use a point-bought ability array to craft a personality just as easily as a randomized array. Yes. You can also make a copycat character that much easier if you point-buy them. It's the game designers who impose a +1 LA for every six-point differential in aggregate ability modifiers, not I. I just happen to agree with them. They won't modify the actual number of times a number will show up from the die. A +1 all but disappears before level 15. A +3 effects (at most) one die roll out of three and that one only 15% over a +/-0 at level 15. The biggest difference is going to be at level one, where your still just a fish in a barrel. At level ten, this will increase to one die roll out of two (again effecting it by 15%). This is not extreme as having a +6 (possible with the natural +3 and 1/2 of a racial +6). Of course you are when you state that randomized ability generation assists in developing role-play better than point-buy. When point-buy has a natural opt-out to allow playing a twinned or copy character, it can. Again, you erroneously equate personality and character. A player can play the same personality over and over just as easily under either system. Again, you erroneously disregard the inherent ability of point-buy to copy a character over (personality + attributes) and over.
Bolaneer 12-08-06, 12:12 PM	I think if this is going to be as heated as it has become, throw out ALL the stats, and do a more social roleplay like Whit Wolf games or something...see if you actually can do what this genre was created to do...use your brain instead of your die roll...this'll separate the men from the kobolds! I am not trying to be a jerk...but this particular thread goes back and forth with personal attacks on after another...as a gaming community, we should be putting ideas together for the greater good of our party who sets aside ever Saturday night bus a bunch of munchies, and sodas and come to hang out with us because its fun for them...but there's no point in coming on here for suggestions on how to run your game if you're not interested in hearing what anyone else has to say. BTW I had a perfectly successful campaign that awarded more XP for role play than combat, maybe because I tactfully avoided it so much, and we retired or PCs at 8th level...that was AD&D, so in 3.5 that would be more like, say 15th-18th somewhere. it ain't all about the stats.
Sadrx 12-08-06, 12:31 PM	My players may not like this, but I intend to use it anyways, and its an option for your dilemna. I think if your players are used to rolling, they'll like this method quite a bit. I would suggest allowing them to arrange their results to taste, however, unless they suggest the opposite beforehand. A group who will dislike the system you've described is probably one that has fun with a few low stats once in a while or one that consists of players who all like to do well. In my group, I've looked for ways to even out the characters attributes because those who rolled lower than the others always end up getting a little sore when their characters are being out-performed time and time again (and we mostly play at low levels).
PenderGrass 12-08-06, 12:52 PM	.................... :dragon: ****
wrecan 12-08-06, 12:59 PM	Most class abilities, and even classes now do not have attribute minimums. But they often improve with higher stats. When an ability is based or affects abilities, a disparity in abilities becomes pronounced. Most classes have ability-dependant or ability-affecting powers. No. Just silly. So your earlier response was non-responsive. Nice attempt at a dodge. Presumptive, aren't we? You're the one who answered a serious question with a smart-alecky comment. Don't complain that I called you on it. Is your enjoyment of the game that fragile that you must be assured we have equal chances to every skill check throughout the game? No. My enjoyment on the game is based on principles of equity and fairness. The assumption was that dice generated stats will benefit role playing. The challenge was that it does not. Regardless of your emotional attachment to point-buy it does facilitate making copy characters much more easily then random generation (more so if you include the randomized personality into dice rolled stats). Your sentences do not connect. You persist in the fallacious assumption that abilities and personality are connected. Point-buy certainly allows players to make the PCs with the same abilities. That has virtually nothing to do with whether randomization benefits role-playing. Except roll my stats, right? Because that would ruin your enjoyment of the game. I have several times said that you can randomly distribute your points, if rolling dice turns you on so much. Point buy easily accomodates the thrill of dice rolling, if you honestly don't care about character balance or planning. Yes. You can also make a copycat character that much easier if you point-buy them. Copycat stats has nothing to do with personality. I could randomly roll thirty sets of stats and roleplay the same personality on each of them. Stop with the straw man. They won't modify the actual number of times a number will show up from the die. So what? The bonus differential remains. As party level increases the DCs increase commensurately, so that differential is the just as effective at level 20 as at level 1. Moreso, because higher level characters tend to roll more dice. When point-buy has a natural opt-out to allow playing a twinned or copy character, it can. Prove it. You keep saying it because it is obvious to you in the way that flat-earthers think it is obvious that the world is a disc, not a spheroid. Again, you erroneously disregard the inherent ability of point-buy to copy a character over (personality + attributes) and over. Because it has yet to be established that personality and attirbutes are connected in anything but the most tangential way, and only in the most extreme cases. The notion that randomized ability generation encourages (or doesn't discourage) roleplay is fallacious. It requires either the most childish concept of roleplay ("Look at me, I'm playing an idiot because I rolled a 5 Int! Hyuk!") or the most extreme cases to make any point whatsoever. ("I want to play an uber twink master genius Olymmpic athlete with the face of Adonis, but point buy won't let me!" or "I want to play a character whose personality is the brain of the village idiot locked in the body of Stephen Hawking, but point-buy won't let me have stats under 8!") In extreme cases, both point-buy and randomization might affect roleplay. The former if your personality demands abilities so uber high or uber low that it can't be accomodated, and the latter if you fail to roll the abilities necessary for some personality you cooked up. But, except in extreme cases, most character personalities are not dependant on abilities. You can play a greedy character at any Wisdom score. You can play a compassionate character regardless of Charisma. Your character can be proud, haughty, modest, funny, fearful, silly, monstrous and pretty much any personality type you dream. And if you have no creativity and only want to play the same personality over and over, again, unless that personality requires extreme stats, you can transpose that personality on any abilities you get, whether it be from point-buy or randomization. Why? Because personality and abilities are unconnected to one another, except in the most extreme cases. On an unrelated note, I wonder if anybody who uses a randomization method would ever consider imposing a Level Adjustment on PCs who roll high abilities, or would give bonus levels to those who roll low.
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-08-06, 02:19 PM	On an unrelated note, I wonder if anybody who uses a randomization method would ever consider imposing a Level Adjustment on PCs who roll high abilities, or would give bonus levels to those who roll low. Nope.
PenderGrass 12-08-06, 02:22 PM	On an unrelated note, I wonder if anybody who uses a randomization method would ever consider imposing a Level Adjustment on PCs who roll high abilities, or would give bonus levels to those who roll low. Not it. :dragon: ****
Dirtysleevezen 12-08-06, 02:59 PM	I whipped up a house system called the 'Hero Point System' that combines random and pointbuy chargen with a beefed-up version of the Action Points that came through to D&D with Unearthed Arcana 3.5. Statgen goes like this: You start with a number of hero points equal to twice your level. Roll 3d6 six times, do not drop lowest, arrange as desired. 1 hero point buys 1 stat point. The extra stat point gained every 4th level turns into a hero point. You may use hero points to boost stats during level-up. Sounds overpowered, yeah. But it's part of the feel I'm going for. And hero points are used to buy more than stats (extra skills, feats, unusual races/templates, et al), so it gets spread thin pretty quickly. The PCs start at 5th level, so they'll get 11 hero points at chargen (12 with a good background). This means that they can: > boost their prime stat by 11; > be a half-celestial with a few extra skills; > have two or three extra feats; > or whatever. And the way they earn hero points is by being excellent players. See the cycle of awesome? ;)
BoringInfoGuy 12-08-06, 04:45 PM	Finally, after twelve levels, the Fighter, if and only if the Bard ignored the combat advantages he can get from superior spell casting abilities, has acheived parity to the Bard as a front line Fighter. Or he would, if the bard were not using those Buff spells, which very greatly DO enhance his combat abilities. And his Bardic abilities enhance it as well and have been, conveniently, left out. Now, in what way does he compare to the Bard in the multiple OTHER areas of expertise in which a more intelligently built Bard would excel? He has finally acheived parity with a poorly constructed Bard as what HE is, a Fighter, and compares not at all in any other manner. This is not parity. Isshia Now, the thing with Buff spells is that most of them don't have personal as a range. You can't assume that the bard will only Buff himself, becuase that is dependant on the player. Nor do can you assume that another character isn't putting out buffs. The only two things that you know for certain is that the bard can buff himself, and the fighter can't. But Fighters are always at the mercy of other party members in this regard. That gets us into the do high level fighters suck debate. The bardic music abilities are either meant to aid the other members of the party, or effect the bard + additional members per perform ranks. Now, if there are two front line melee combatants, and the bard is going to use an ability that could improve the combat ability of himself and another character, then is he really going to say "No! me only!"? Now, I didn't "poorly" construct a bard. It would be more accurate to say that I left him unconstructed. Then again, I left the fighter unconstructed as well. My only focus was on the Fighter only feats that he can take to level the field.
wrecan 12-08-06, 05:14 PM	My only focus was on the Fighter only feats that he can take to level the field. First, it's not a question of having this high-level bard buff the player. The problem is that the bard, as built will outshine the fighter except when the party is surprised, and the bard never gets a chance to buff up. In a game in which both PCs ar ein the party, the fighter exists only to hold off the bad guys for two rounds until the bard is buffed. Then by all rights, he should get out of the way and let the bard, which better attacks, hp, and damage-dealing ability, to take out the foes. He is, for all intents and purposes, a sidekick. What's worse, in non-combat situations, the fighter's got nothing. He's got to spend all his money on combat-effective items only to keep up with the bard. But the bard, thanks to his high ability rolls and class powers, will have a plethora of non-combat options. In short, thanks to his low abilities, the fighter's player is going to spend a lot less time actually playing and a lot more time watching the bard's player take the laboring oar. And so as not to turn this into a "fighters suck" issue, this works in reverse as well. A bard with a 12 Charisma and all 10's will be worse off in all circumstances -- including social situations -- than a fighter with all 18's who decides to be the social butterfly. Only at higher levels, when the bard can use his spells to buff himself up to the ability level of his fighter friend, will it begin to even out.
starfire311 12-08-06, 05:53 PM	this topic always turns crazy... IMO. The designers went to great lengths to balance things between the monsters and wealth and LAs and levels and PCs so much so that a net +2 to a stat is worth an LA. Would it be "fair" for player to ask to use a homebrew race that is just like human but gets a +2 strength... in a game where you are rolling stats this +2 strength bonus for a race may very well be meaningless and you might as well let him take it, there is a good chance even with the +2 to strength for free he will still have lower stats than other members of his party, so therefore getting this +2 would not be unbalancing. what about a character that wants to play a monk, and he has in his backstory that he was givine a belt that grants +2 str, +2 dex and +2 wis would you let a player use this for a rolled character, even with all these pluses odds are he is still not going to have the highest stats(in a group of 4-6), so really there would be no harm in letting him have a free 20k GP item to start the game, since it will not unbalance him. IMO if a +2 to a stat is worth 2k GP or a +1 LA at 1st level then, you should not just let players roll dice to get these items for free, oh sorry Betty you only get the you normal starting wealth, oh way to go Roger you jsut rolled up several +6 stat items oh and look you actually managed a +8 one gratz... granted these are all artifact level bonuses since they cant be stolen and dont radiate magic and are unnamed. I have always felt that if you are going to balance classes, races and wealth then why let the stats be unbalanced, and if you do balance the other things, and not stats, then it is impossible for the lower stated person to ever catch up. Why let a PC start off more powerfuls just because they happened to arbitrarily roll better on some D6s, something that was completly out fo the control of the PC. Why not roll for skill points or for feats or for any other game mechinic, since rolling is much cooler than point buy, why do you buy skills, why not just roll a d5-1 for each skill to determine your starting ranks. When I run games I could care less about the power level of the group in reaspect to the world, but I do care about the power level of the group with respect to itself
justdmjeff 12-08-06, 07:00 PM	When I run games I could care less about the power level of the group in reaspect to the world, but I do care about the power level of the group with respect to itself If you don't care about the balance of the world compared to the PCs, why not have everyone roll for stats and whoever gets the best keeps it and everyone else matches it using point-buy. 59 point-buy baby!!!
CelineSSauve 12-08-06, 07:03 PM	Rolling: [...] Cons: - Has to be done in front of the DM (since even the most honest players will fudge a die roll or two). - Will occasionally cause really strong or really weak characters (the character with 3 18s vs the character with 3 6s). I have to disagree with that first point. I did a point buy roll 4d6 (drop lowest) 7 times (DM added apperance as a stat). I got 7, 7, 10, 13, 13, 15, 15. My DM raised two stats due to Bloodlines, but I felt no urge to lie about it. Varying stats are a large part of the fun of D&D.
CharlieRock 12-08-06, 09:49 PM	So your earlier response was non-responsive. Nice attempt at a dodge. You're the one who answered a serious question with a smart-alecky comment. Don't complain that I called you on it. No. My enjoyment on the game is based on principles of equity and fairness. Whatever, man. You call 'is your enjoyment of the game that fragile?' a serious question. :rolleyes: Look, you can window dress your opinion with whatever you want: 'Balance, fairness, equity'. It still sounds like your whining over your dice roll.
WizO_Cat 12-08-06, 10:22 PM	Ok, let's knock off the personal comments since it is considered Baiting which is against the Code of Conduct. Further offenses will result in disciplinary actions. Fair warning.
Aryxbez 12-08-06, 10:32 PM	I prefer dice rolling for these reasons 25 point buy is the same that a NPC with class levels has, all that really kinda says is that the pc is no different than a NPC. when players are truly unique and should get slightly higher stats to help reflect that Also I have a Dice rolling method in which everyone is happy since everyone ends up with the same base rolled score, so no imbalance there. If you want I could explain it
Boshi 12-09-06, 12:15 AM	when players are truly unique and should get slightly higher stats to help reflect that When why not just give the players a higher point buy? Also by that logic rolling for stats is very silly since players can roll UNDER 25 point-buy and come out less stat-wise than the average NPC of their level.
Sadrx 12-09-06, 01:15 AM	If you want I could explain it I'm interested. PM me if you'd prefer.
BoringInfoGuy 12-09-06, 04:42 AM	First, it's not a question of having this high-level bard buff the player. The problem is that the bard, as built will outshine the fighter except when the party is surprised, and the bard never gets a chance to buff up. In a game in which both PCs ar ein the party, the fighter exists only to hold off the bad guys for two rounds until the bard is buffed. Then by all rights, he should get out of the way and let the bard, which better attacks, hp, and damage-dealing ability, to take out the foes. He is, for all intents and purposes, a sidekick. Sorry, if your not the best, you are worthless? A Buffed bard can still overshadow an unbuffed fighter. Note that the max stat bard NEEDS the buffs to overcome the Fighters Attack Bonus, Damage Bonus, and AC by 12th level. Not to mention the better weapon selection of the fighter. The fighter still lacks in the HP department. More accurately, the fighter is only much more likely to have worse HP. But do you really think that the moment the bard can buff up, the fighter should get out of the way? WTF? So, having two characters taking on the same creature isn't a good idea? Remeber the flanking bonus? Two attacks per round vs one? Five attacks vs two on a full round action? Two characters working together are more effective than one. What's worse, in non-combat situations, the fighter's got nothing. He's got to spend all his money on combat-effective items only to keep up with the bard. But the bard, thanks to his high ability rolls and class powers, will have a plethora of non-combat options. This is a fighter we are talking about. Good in combat. Just about nothing out of it. That's the nature of the class. As for the fighter needing to buy combat related gear, again, this is a fighter. Where else is he going to want to spend his money? Good in combat. Bad out of it. Again, nature of the class. He doesn't buy combat gear to keep up with the bard. He's going to buy combat gear because that's what a fighter wants to buy regardless. Now, if the bard keeps buying combat related gear, which isn't where the bard class normally spends his money, then who is working to keep up with who? In short, thanks to his low abilities, the fighter's player is going to spend a lot less time actually playing and a lot more time watching the bard's player take the laboring oar. There's the start of a fallacy here. Less time playing? He still has a strong role in combat. You may think that combat only goes to one player, whoever has the best stats. All the groups I've played in, everyone rolls initiative. Then, based off of those initiative scores, each player takes a turn each round in combat. How does your group do it? The fighter lacks skills or other non combat abilities. This does not mean that he is unable to role play. He is not banned from character - character or character - npc interaction. On a related side note, I came up with the name Boring Informative Guy on a free form RP guestbook. No stats, no dice, just role play. In such an environment, the thing that became abundantly clear is the difference between powerful characters and interesting characters. Every so often, someone would show up with the "My character is so powerful, he could kill you all, but he won't becuase he's nice." They never, NEVER, did well. Why? Because role playing is about personality, not power. The one's who did well were the one's who asked themselve's "How can I make my character unique?" High power does not preclude roleplay. That is not what I am saying. Roleplaying is seperate from character power. And so as not to turn this into a "fighters suck" issue, this works in reverse as well. A bard with a 12 Charisma and all 10's will be worse off in all circumstances -- including social situations -- than a fighter with all 18's who decides to be the social butterfly. Only at higher levels, when the bard can use his spells to buff himself up to the ability level of his fighter friend, will it begin to even out. And my point, and example, is that at higher levels, an increadably weak fighter uses his feats to bring himself up to the combat ability of his bard friend.
wrecan 12-09-06, 10:05 AM	Sorry, if your not the best, you are worthless? I didn't say that. I said that if the players aren't even, then you increase the possibility for players getting less play time. Play time is a finite resource defined by a character's ability to act in a given situation. The reason the standard party is assumed to have a combatant, skill monkey, arcanist and divine caster is so that they each have their time to act. When a character -- thanks to unequal stats -- occupies his own category and outshines someone in another category, the play time is longer going to be equal... uness the outshined character takes time through melodrama. But do you really think that the moment the bard can buff up, the fighter should get out of the way? Gee, if you're role-playing a party who actually wants to accomplish their in-game goals, yes. Now, if the bard keeps buying combat related gear, which isn't where the bard class normally spends his money, then who is working to keep up with who? The fighter is working to keep up with the bard because the bard's increased stats frees it up to keep his combat stats higher than the fighter. Increased stats is the equivalent of thousands of gold pieces in treasure. Roleplaying is seperate from character power. Yeah, I've been making that point as well. Maybe one day, the other randomizers will understand.
BoringInfoGuy 12-09-06, 12:33 PM	Of course he will. Intelligence determines Skill points and makes the bard a better Feinter in combat, as well as gives him increased Tumble, which is also useful in combat. It also allows the Bard access to Combat Expertise. Thanks to his Str 12 and plethoras of 10s, our 1st level fighter cannot spend any of his 3 Feats on Combat Expertise, Dodge, Power Attack, or Two Weapon Fighting, most of the "gateway" feats for fighters. In contrast, the 1st level combat bard has all of these Feats at his disposal. In addition, he can't take Combat Expertise. Your missing something. Weapon Focus IS a gateway feat. But only for a fighter. Weapon focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon specialization. Except you ignored that the Fighter is stuck with Feats like Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus and something not all that useful, like Mounted Combat. The Bard is taking Two-Weapon Fighting. While this fighter can't take Power attack, or other feats that have an ability score bonus, he isn't stuck with taking something that he's probably not going to use, like mounted combat. Here's a few things he can do. Be a human, and take feats like weapon focus longsword, weapon focus axe, throwing, and point blank shot. Since he's going to be significantly weaker at lower levels, he may want to consider acting as a range combat fighter for a while. Particularly if he rolls poorly for HP. Far shot and Precise shot can fill the slots at 2nd and third. By 4th level, he can take Power attack, but will instead choose Weapon Specialization (L sword or axe, throwing, depending on current HP) Be a half orc, raising his Str to 14, and taking Weapon Focus (something, maybe greatsword) and Power attack. Cleave, and oh, Maybe Improved Sunder can take care of the 2nd and 3rd level feats. Again, 4th level goes to Weapon Specialization. Be a dwarf, and gain a +1 to Con. Oh, and the dwarven Urgrosh is a martial weapon for dwarfs. A dwarf doesn't need to have the 13 Str that the Urgrosh normaly requires. Take W. Focus Urgosh at 1st level, W. Specialization Ugrosh at level 4. The Ugrosh is a good choice. No, our weak fighter can't use it as a double weapon without massive penalties. But he can use it as a one handed weapon with a shield, doing either slashing or piercing damage. Even better, once he starts being less fragile, he can then use it as a two handed weapon. With a two handed weapon, and the Power attack feat, he can trade 1 point of BAB for 2 points of damage. The charge counter ability isn't bad either. Also, the bard doesn't have to worry about taking heavy armor. He has a +4 bonus to AC from Dexterity and can wear a chain shirt without incurring any arcane spell failure chance. Something that I already knew about, and acounted for. Also, the bard boosts himelf with his bard song before entering combat. At first level, the only bardic music ability that the bard can use to boost himself before combat is inspire courage. And that will boost the bard. And the fighter. And anyone else in the party. Inspire courage works on all allies that can hear the bard sing. So now we have the following fighter: F1, 10 hp, Init +4, FAt longsword +2 melee (d8+1-avg 5.5), AC 13 (studden leather), Fort +2, Ref +0, Will +0, Intimidate +4, Ride +4. Skip Improved Init, he does have better things to do with his feats. +2 Atk? Nope, +3. Why? BAB = +1. STR = +1. Weapon focus = +1. Studded Leather? Nope, Scale Mail. And, while you picked a one handed weapon, you forgot the shield. Tsk, tsk, tsk. If you are going to deprive the fighter his AC, then trade out the longsword for a Greatsword. 2d6 damage, 19-20 x 2 crit. Since it's a two handed weapon, it works well with power attack. A better weapon choice if you take the Half orc option. +3 Atk Greatsword. 2d6 + 4 damage. (10 avg damage. 6 minimum damage. 16 max damage.) Feats: Weapon Focus Greatsword, Power attack. (STR 14 +2 by orc racial bonus) Used the +1 from the BAB to raise the damage by 2. Much better damage. Much more likely to die. Deal more damage, or recieve less damage. Not deal less damage, and recieve more damage. With the low con score, I'd perfer the shield for now. Intimidate and Ride? Cha and Dex based skills? If we are going with his one (relative) Str, then why not Climb and Jump? Your fighter build was poor. But then, you based it off of the concept of "He's gonna suck, so I'm going to show how badly he sucks." Next time, try a build that tries to do the best with what you've got. In contrast, B1, 10 hp, Init +4, FAt +3 longsword (d8+5, avg. 9.5), +3 shortsword (d6+5, avg. 8.5), AC 17 (studded leather and Dex), Fort +4, Ref +6, Will +6, Bluff +8, Intimidatecc +6, Perform +8, Sleight of Hand +8, Ridecc +6, Tumble +8. Ok, the bard's BAB is 0 at first level. His Str mod is +4. With the Two Weapon fighting feat, fighting with a one handed and a light weapon grants a -2 penalty on a full round action attack. Using a light weapon in your off hand only gives you have the Str bonus to damage. So, for a full attack it would be Longsword +2 Atk 1d8+4 damage (8 avg, 5 minimum, 12 max) and Shortsword +2 Atk 1d6+2 damage. (5 avg, 3 minimum, 8 max) The bard outclasses the fighter in every category. He has a better chance to hit, will do more damage, a higher AC, better saves, and beats the fighter at even skills that are class skills for Fighter and cross-class skills for bards. When the party needs someone to be intimidating, they will ask the bard to do it before the fighter. Riding? The bard. Once you get passed the mistakes you've made in your examples, lets see what you've got. Two Weapon fighting's penalties to ATK immediatly drops the bards chance to hit equal that of the fighter, without the fighter adding Weapon Focus. Since he will take weapon Focus, You've got made it so the fighters chance to hit is only 1 worse on a attack action, or 1 better to hit on a Full round attack option. You put the bard as having an AC 4 higher than the fighter, but you put the fighter in weaker armor than he is likely to start with. (See the fighter's starting gear in the PHB.) Once you give him Scale mail, his AC is 14. Add a heavy shield, than you raise it up to 16, only 1 less than the bard's at first level. If you are willing to risk having the 14 AC, then you can take a much better weapon than the Longsword. So, you made serious mistakes with the bard's build as well. Good question. Let's assume the fighter and bard put their ability increases in Strength. The fighter is now Str 14, the bard is Str 20. The fighter gets six new feats, four of which must be fighter feats. Fortunately, at 4th level he finally gets the pre-requisite for Power Attack. So his second and third level feats are still relatively useless stuff like Ride By Attack and Trample. Then he takes Power Attack, Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus. He might also take Cleave. With his cash on hand he now has a +2 longsword, full plate and a heavy shield +1. The bard gets only three new feats. But he's already got most of the prerequisites lined up. He also takes Combat Expertise, Two-Weapon Defense, and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. The bard has a +1 longsword, +1 shortsword, and a chain shirt +1. But he also has his spells. Before combat, he inspires greatness and courage (+2) in himself. He can also boost himself with a multitude of spells, such as blink, haste, blur, cat's grace, and rage. Let's assume he casts cat's grace (Dex 22) and rage (Str 22 Con 20) on himself before inspiring courage and greatness. F10, hp 59.5, Init +4, At +16 longsword (d8+6-avg. 10.5), FAt +15/+10 longsword (d8+7-avg. 11.5, 23 total), AC 21, Fort +7, Ref +3 Will +3. Skills? With that armor, forget about it. I used power attack to equalize the longsword attack chances on the full attack for easier comparison. B10, hp 122.5, Init +6, At +17 longsword (d8+8-avg 12.5), FAt +15 longsword (d8+8-avg.12.5), +15 shortsword (d6+8-avg. 11.5), +10 longsword (d8+8-avg. 12.5), +10 shortsword (d6+8-avg, 11.5). Avg dmg: 48. AC 19, Fort +7, Ref +11, Will +13. Maximized skills with maximized bonuses in Perform, Tumble, Bluff, Intimidate, Sleight of Hand and Ride. As you can see, at 10th level, the bard is inflicting double the damage every round, has much better saves, has now surpassed the fighter in initiative, has more combat options, and has plenty of skills, spell points to use outside of combat. Only in AC does the fighter surpass the bard (which I could easily have fixed by not casting Rage), but that is more than made up for by the fact that the bard has twice as many hit points. Actually, I see the same mistakes, only amplified. The disparity gets even worse at higher levels, because the bardic skills and buffing spells, like greater heroism and greater invisibility, far outstrip the benefits the fighter is getting. The problem is that stats don't just translate into attack abilities, but [b]option[/s] such a feat availability. The bard can match a fighter and he has plenty to do outside of combat. The fighter's player is sidelined pretty much the entire game and that never gets better. (That's assuming the bard doesn't decide to multiclass or take a prestige class, something he is more able to do thanks to his better stats.) Now, I'm just using your extreme example. But it works on the smaller scale too. A difference of 6 in agregate ability modifiers is equal to a +1 level adjustment. Rage? Cat's Grace? Heroism? Haste? Greater Invisibility? You also ignored bardic abilities. Rage: Target: One willing living creature per 3 levels. Good Hope: Target: One willing living creature per level. Haste: Target: One willing living creature per level. All good buff spells. Also all buff spells that effect more than just the bard. Cat's Grace: By the time the bard can cast it, he should be in a chain shirt. So it won't help his armor bonus. Unless for some insane reason the bard wasted one of his precious feats on Weapon Finesse, it won't help his melee attack. Good for ranged combat hit chance. Bardic music: Well, I already stated that Inspire courage affects the entire party who can hear the bard. So using that ability helps the fighter just as much as the bard. So it can be discounted. Inspire Greatness starts off affecting only one target, but for every three levels, he can affect another target with the same use. It also only last's 5 rounds after the bard stops singing. Plenty of time to do the job most of the time. By 12th, the bard can use Inspire Greatness for 2 targets. Hmm. You know, he may just choose to use it one the 2 primary melee combatants in the party. Probably, one of them is our fighter. WiO_Cat: Let's keep it polite. Thanks. Unless there has been surprise, most parties have one or two rounds to prepare, at least. One problem I have with the bard is that his abilities are all very vocal. Nothing ruins the rogues chance to catch someone flat footed than someone starting to sing to boost himself. If he's using an instrument, than it's worse. If you want to take advantage of the element of surprise, you attack while they still don't know you are there. That can mean buffing in combat. I think you meant "highest". Probably. You need at least a 14 in one stat, and a total modifier of +1 before adding racial mods.
BoringInfoGuy 12-09-06, 02:36 PM	I didn't say that. I said that if the players aren't even, then you increase the possibility for players getting less play time. Play time is a finite resource defined by a character's ability to act in a given situation. The reason the standard party is assumed to have a combatant, skill monkey, arcanist and divine caster is so that they each have their time to act. When a character -- thanks to unequal stats -- occupies his own category and outshines someone in another category, the play time is longer going to be equal... uness the outshined character takes time through melodrama. Gee, if you're role-playing a party who actually wants to accomplish their in-game goals, yes. He's not worthless, but he should not take part in combat if someone else can do better? :confused: The only reason to tell someone to get out of the way is if thier help would be more of a hinderance. This is not the case. You claim that they would be less able to accomplish there in game goals if the fighter takes part in combat? More attacks per round. More damage dealt per round. Damage recieved is split amoung more characters. Combat is a large part of most games. For some reason, whatever the party wants to accomplish, there is some kind of battle required to accomplish that goal. Or several battles. But you would put him on the side line. Yeah, you don't think he's worthless. Also, melodrama? So, a character who tries to role play when he has low stats is just being melodramatic? The fighter is working to keep up with the bard because the bard's increased stats frees it up to keep his combat stats higher than the fighter. Increased stats is the equivalent of thousands of gold pieces in treasure. Now, lets us see. Do you realize what happens when a fighter takes the Weapon focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization feat path? He has given himself the equivilant of a permanent, nonmagical, unnamed +4 bonus to his STR score when attacking, and a +8 bonus to his STR score when dealing damage. Without spending one gp. And this is a fighter only feat chain. The higher BAB covers the difference in the attack bonus. Hey, look. The fighter has more than leveled his main combat stat. He's also got more attacks per round at this point. With his base to hit and damage now better than the bards before adding enchantments, he's not playing catch up. Is he weaker over all. Yes. More likely to die. Yes. Worthless? NO! Yeah, I've been making that point as well. Maybe one day, the other randomizers will understand. Actually you are not. Your melodrama comment shows that. You seem to think that only if everyone has the same stats can everyone have fun. After listening to these for and against comment, I have to make these conclusions. People who perfer to roll for stats embrace diversity. They perfer to see both the high and the lows in a game. They hope to be the high, but can enjoy playing the low as well. People who perfer to use point buy embrace mediocrity. Regardless of how many or how few points the DM gives, no one will be very good or very bad compared to the other players. * * * One last note this post. Someone claimed that using rolling for stats is like taking random people on a baseball team, and randomly injecting some people with steroids. I disagree. You try to get people together for a game, you'll find some people are more athletic than others. Stronger or Faster, or Stronger and Faster than the others. You don't need steroids for this. It is the natural state. Point buy is like taking the people who are slower and weaker, and giving them steroids to raise them up to a set point, and giving handicaps to the stronger and faster one's to bring them down to the same point. "Listen Billy, its not fair that you can run faster than everyone else. So that's why we need you to wear these too small shoes to slow you down. You see that's better for the team, right?"
grok_grok 12-09-06, 03:18 PM	Not to sound like a total newb but where is this point-buy located in the PHB?
Korethr 12-09-06, 03:52 PM	It isn't. It is located in the DMG, at the beginning of the chapter titled "Characters". I forget which chapter that is or what page it starts at, but I know it is in the DMG.
justdmjeff 12-09-06, 04:22 PM	It isn't. It is located in the DMG, at the beginning of the chapter titled "Characters". I forget which chapter that is or what page it starts at, but I know it is in the DMG. That's a very good point. It is not in the PHB. It is an optional character creation method found in the DMG. Let me say that again. O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L! That should tell you all you need to know about it
boozerker 12-09-06, 04:25 PM	It isn't. It is located in the DMG, at the beginning of the chapter titled "Characters". I forget which chapter that is or what page it starts at, but I know it is in the DMG. On page 169 grouped with "eight options" for generating ability scores. I think people have confused it as being the official way to roll stats because of its title, "Standard Point Buy" (but that just refers to using 25 points). And because Living Greyhawk uses point-buy, which makes sense to keep play equalized among participants around the globe. Why can't a group use both, each player chooses which one they'll use?
Lethanic 12-09-06, 05:38 PM	That's a very good point. It is not in the PHB. It is an optional character creation method found in the DMG. Let me say that again. O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L! That should tell you all you need to know about it . .how is that relevant? SO does the fact that all of the supplemental books are "O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L!" mean that they aren't balanced, or usable? I take it, then, you vview anythign not in the core books, and more specifically anything not in the PHB as inferior?
CharlieRock 12-09-06, 05:43 PM	How many supplemental books have rules on character generation, optional or not?
Drohem 12-09-06, 05:51 PM	I think that it comes down to the maturity of the players. There are all types of gamers and gaming styles. In my experience, those that are combat-only gamers or power gamers dislike passionately the point-buy method because they cannot get uber stats unless the DM sets a high point total for abililty purchase. The reasons why they don't like point-buy is clear: they can't have uber scores in many abilities and at the same time usually have to have one or two poor scores. These types of players usually equate this senario as death for their PC, and therefore, are opposed to it. Another consideration is the nature of the game itself and how it has changed "style" over the years. Originally, it was a dungeon-crawl and just statistical manipulation. The reason so many people might be opposed it due to this hold-over from the earlier style of the game itself. In my experience, gamers who are mature and storyline orientated, usually don't have an issue with point-buy method. This is because they can take any set of ability scores and convert them into a full-blown character complete with flaws and quirks, regardless of actual ability scores.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 06:22 PM	How many supplemental books have rules on character generation, optional or not? Every single book which includes character classes or races?
justdmjeff 12-09-06, 06:28 PM	. .how is that relevant? SO does the fact that all of the supplemental books are "O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L!" mean that they aren't balanced, or usable? I take it, then, you vview anythign not in the core books, and more specifically anything not in the PHB as inferior? WOW! You read alot into my three little lines of post. Its relevant because the PHB is about the characters and their creation, hence the character stat method presented in the PHB must be the primary method to create a character's abilities. Never said anything about unbalanced. Never said not usable. Never mentioned supplemental books.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 06:34 PM	WOW! You read alot into my three little lines of post. Its relevant because the PHB is about the characters and their creation, hence the character stat method presented in the PHB must be the primary method to create a character's abilities. Never said anything about unbalanced. Never said not usable. Never mentioned supplemental books. Why must it? The PLayers handbook is the "Simplified" rules. The DMG adds more to it. And whether it is primary or not has NO bearing on if it is, in fact, good. .
justdmjeff 12-09-06, 06:45 PM	Why must it? The PLayers handbook is the "Simplified" rules. The DMG adds more to it. And whether it is primary or not has NO bearing on if it is, in fact, good. You mean that's all you need to play D&D is the PHB. Wow, I could have saved myself a boatload of money if I had known that. Sorry can't find the page that states the PHB is the "simplified" rules. I did find the page that states that the DM needs the DMG and the MM.
justdmjeff 12-09-06, 06:55 PM	Why must it? The PLayers handbook is the "Simplified" rules. The DMG adds more to it. And whether it is primary or not has NO bearing on if it is, in fact, good. . I'm sorry. I never did answer your question. It must be the primary method because it is the only method listed as a character creation method that is not listed as optional. Deductive reasoning. And you are 100% correct. It as no bearing whatsoever on if it is good or not.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 07:14 PM	I'm sorry. I never did answer your question. It must be the primary method because it is the only method listed as a character creation method that is not listed as optional. Deductive reasoning. And you are 100% correct. It as no bearing whatsoever on if it is good or not. THen when discussing "Benefits of Point Buy Vs. Rolling stats" is it being the primary method really a point in the discussion?
justdmjeff 12-09-06, 07:31 PM	THen when discussing "Benefits of Point Buy Vs. Rolling stats" is it being the primary method really a point in the discussion? I'm sorry. I wasn't talking about the "Benefits of Point Buy Vs. Rolling stats". I was answering the question posted by grok_grok in this thread. (Actually I was adding to the answer that someone else had supplied but my post was directed to grok_grok.) How dare he ask a question in an already established thread instead of starting one of his own. I guess I should have called him a moron instead of answering his question. Silly me. And after answering his question you decided to jump all over my answer and ask me a question in which I responded. And I have continued to do just that. If you want me to stop answering the questions you are posting directly to me, then quit asking them.
starfire311 12-09-06, 07:52 PM	If you don't care about the balance of the world compared to the PCs, why not have everyone roll for stats and whoever gets the best keeps it and everyone else matches it using point-buy. 59 point-buy baby!!! Works for me I really dont have a problem if the entire party has straight 18s or straight 12s, it does not affect my ability to DM a fair game for all of them, I do care if 1 person has straight 18s and another has straight 12s... The whole point is that if I dont care about balanced stats, then why should I care about balanced, spells, feats, classes, amgic items or the like. Why spend so much effort balancing everything, and then start by making sure everyone starts off unbalanced. Edit BTW Jeff, what you are suggesting would not be fair for the parson that actually rolled the dice, unless you gave them the point-buy equivalent as well, if all you want is random points you can always just roll 6D8 and give everyone points equal to the highest roll, would this be fine with you, since all you care about is die rolling, and not that the die rolling might give you a mechanical advantage over other party members.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 07:58 PM	I'm sorry. I wasn't talking about the "Benefits of Point Buy Vs. Rolling stats". I was answering the question posted by grok_grok in this thread. (Actually I was adding to the answer that someone else had supplied but my post was directed to grok_grok.) How dare he ask a question in an already established thread instead of starting one of his own. I guess I should have called him a moron instead of answering his question. Silly me. And after answering his question you decided to jump all over my answer and ask me a question in which I responded. And I have continued to do just that. If you want me to stop answering the questions you are posting directly to me, then quit asking them. Easy, easy. If that came across as an insult, apologies. Not intended.
justdmjeff 12-09-06, 09:24 PM	Works for me I really dont have a problem if the entire party has straight 18s or straight 12s, it does not affect my ability to DM a fair game for all of them, I do care if 1 person has straight 18s and another has straight 12s... The whole point is that if I dont care about balanced stats, then why should I care about balanced, spells, feats, classes, amgic items or the like. Why spend so much effort balancing everything, and then start by making sure everyone starts off unbalanced. Edit BTW Jeff, what you are suggesting would not be fair for the parson that actually rolled the dice, unless you gave them the point-buy equivalent as well, if all you want is random points you can always just roll 6D8 and give everyone points equal to the highest roll, would this be fine with you, since all you care about is die rolling, and not that the die rolling might give you a mechanical advantage over other party members. I'm sorry. I don't understand how that is not fair. Because all we are doing is basing it on fair and balanced. I rolled these 4d6 drop lowest Player 1: 12,16,8,11,9,17 31 point buy Player 2: 15,10,15,11,7,16 31 point buy Player 3: 12,14,5,16,14,13 31 point buy Player 4: 9,15,13,10,18,15 40 point buy Player 4 keeps his stats and everyone else bumps theirs up until they get to a 40 point buy. How is that not fair if everyone knows what is going on before the rolling starts? 2 side notes: 1) I still do not agree with the concept of not getting buy back points for anything under 8, but for this example I did not use any buy back points. 2) I personally would not use this method. I am merely pointing out a way for rolled stats to be balanced within the party.
justdmjeff 12-09-06, 09:31 PM	Easy, easy. If that came across as an insult, apologies. Not intended. Sorry. :twitch: I was not insulted. :noway: I was just explaining my posts. :thinks: I have to remember to use more smiley faces.:cool:
Lethanic 12-09-06, 09:34 PM	Sorry. :twitch: I was not insulted. :noway: I was just explaining my posts. :thinks: I have to remember to use more smiley faces.:cool: COol. :cool:
CharlieRock 12-09-06, 09:46 PM	In my experience, gamers who are mature and storyline orientated, usually don't have an issue with point-buy method. This is because they can take any set of ability scores and convert them into a full-blown character complete with flaws and quirks, regardless of actual ability scores. It seems to me that just the opposite holds true. The dice rollers are taking any set of stats that come along. The point buyers are the ones that have to be assured that their stats will not dip below a previously determined number or if one did, that they were above ridicule with the knowledge that all the rest of the group shared that score.
Andrew 12-09-06, 10:38 PM	Player 1: 12,16,8,11,9,17 31 point buy Player 2: 15,10,15,11,7,16 31 point buy Player 3: 12,14,5,16,14,13 31 point buy Player 4: 9,15,13,10,18,15 40 point buy Player 4 keeps his stats and everyone else bumps theirs up until they get to a 40 point buy. How is that not fair if everyone knows what is going on before the rolling starts? What is unfair is that it then is *worst* for Player 4 to have rolled well. The player that rolled worst does the best, because they have the most flexibility to pick and choose the most beneficial and efficient stats to improve, as well as being able to not invest points in less-advantageous odd stats. Better would be to take Player 4's stats, add up the cost of the equivalent even values (8,14,12,10,18,14 = 34) and then apply this method to bump up stats for the other players. The other players get the benefit of choice and hindsight, and the high-roller gets stats that are better but only marginally so.
boozerker 12-09-06, 10:48 PM	In my experience, those that are combat-only gamers or power gamers dislike passionately the point-buy method because they cannot get uber stats unless the DM sets a high point total for abililty purchase. The reasons why they don't like point-buy is clear: they can't have uber scores in many abilities and at the same time usually have to have one or two poor scores. Actually, it's a safe bet many people like the surprise of rolling. Lucky dice are only part of the equation, they'd accept bad rolls just as well, yet don't object if the DM allows starting over (the highest roll is only an 11, for example). About the optional point, it does seem people are under the impression that rolling has been made optional, and that point-buy is the new official way. It's not. But again, why can't players each choose their own method, even in the same group? (with DM's ok)
NineInchNall 12-09-06, 11:01 PM	What is unfair is that it then is *worst* for Player 4 to have rolled well. The player that rolled worst does the best, because they have the most flexibility to pick and choose the most beneficial and efficient stats to improve, as well as being able to not invest points in less-advantageous odd stats. Better would be to take Player 4's stats, add up the cost of the equivalent even values (8,14,12,10,18,14 = 34) and then apply this method to bump up stats for the other players. The other players get the benefit of choice and hindsight, and the high-roller gets stats that are better but only marginally so. Or just have each person roll 4d6 drop lowest six times, find the best, determine the equivalent point buy, and just let everyone use the same point buy from the beginning. Or let each person roll 4d6 drop lowest until six stats have been generated, and then you can use those six stats as the ability score array for each player. Just do a search for Otto's random array. Someone else had a suggestion of rolling Xd6 to determine where each point goes in a point buy with X points to spend. Randomness is maintained by some of the above for people who lack the ability to create their own characters, and balance is retained for those who obsess about intraparty equity. The thing is that you have to realize that rolled ability scores really aren't balanced and aren't guaranteed to give you the character (or the approximation) of the character that you really would have the most fun playing. On the other hand, point buys don't have the uncertainty that many people associate with character creation. Some people view this as a positive thing, while others absolutely detest it. There's nothing else to be said for dice rolling, when you get right down to it. People want to bring in the classic argument from traditon, but we all know how fallacious that is, so where are we left? We are left with the conclusion that mechanical arguments will be in favor of point buys and other methods that generate arrays that are arithmetically equivalent (by whatever metric is used). The only thing separating the two other than that is preference, and preference has a way of overriding other concerns despite its usual irrationality. If rolling for stats makes your games more fun, then more power to you. But there's really no way for you to judge unless you have actually given the point buy method a fair chance with different numbers of points and point equivalencies. The reverse goes for point buys. If balance is a major concern, however, one option is objectively better than the other. So it comes down to how much you like rolling and its consequences. Sometimes the difference in power levels among party members can be the impetus for a very entertaining campaign. Sometimes such a difference is absolutely the worst thing that can happen to a group. And then there's the personal preference issue rather than the group's (or DM's) preference. I know I prefer point buys, while my brother prefers rolling. The next time I run a game wherein he's got a character, I think I'm going to go with a selection of character generation methods that cater to each player's preferences. I really care what gives each of my players an enjoyable time at the table. The only time I've been absolutely inflexible in recent memory is holding to the standard character replacement method as far as XP is concerned, and that's only because I A) don't want to have to redo the raise dead line of spells and B) like to see characters of different levels adventuring together.
Ongorth 12-10-06, 12:42 AM	Correct answer: They both suck equally. Just pick your stats and move on with your life! For those people who didn't know, there is an awesome alternative to this problem that, as validated by a_psh himself: . . . works pretty well, actually. It lets you build the exact character you want every time, without fail! Do you live for balance? Discuss the power level you want and pick stats that fit! This allows you to play character designs that just won't be mechanically viable in point buy (I always wanted to play a Monk Concubine Spy, but never could afford the Intellegence for the skills!) and also allows you to address class imbalances without having to rebalance the classes (Oh, your playing a Marshall? How about you take an extra couple of points in strength). Do you crave randomness? Roll some dice and use those stats! And if you end up with a stat array that is inappropriate (7/7/7/7/7/7 in a hackfest) or undesirable (7/7/7/7/7/7 in a dramafest. I mean, I don't want to play myself!) you can just do it again without anyone getting all on your case about being a munchkin. Do you have a petty streak and the only joy you get in life is showing up people in roleplaying games? You can make your dream statline. And the best part is, it will be really easy to recognize what a jerk you are and throw you out of the group! Do you love being a giant ankleweight for your party? Look no further! Your blind, one legged, learning disabled Kobold can now suck on every level. And, like smashbot 5,000 , your group will have every chance in the world to throw you out! The only disadvantage is that you have to talk to the other players in order to do this. This isn't a bad thing as it also helps resolve almost every other stumbling block your game is likely to run into.
BoringInfoGuy 12-10-06, 02:51 AM	Works for me I really dont have a problem if the entire party has straight 18s or straight 12s, it does not affect my ability to DM a fair game for all of them, I do care if 1 person has straight 18s and another has straight 12s... The whole point is that if I dont care about balanced stats, then why should I care about balanced, spells, feats, classes, amgic items or the like. Why spend so much effort balancing everything, and then start by making sure everyone starts off unbalanced. Edit BTW Jeff, what you are suggesting would not be fair for the parson that actually rolled the dice, unless you gave them the point-buy equivalent as well, if all you want is random points you can always just roll 6D8 and give everyone points equal to the highest roll, would this be fine with you, since all you care about is die rolling, and not that the die rolling might give you a mechanical advantage over other party members. Sometimes, the DM runs it to "Fix" things that really should be left for the players to deal with. Stat disparity is an in game problem for the players. Let the players deal with it, in game. If the players are happy, then where is the problem? The low stat character will have a harder time. The high stat, an easier one. That does not garuantee that they both aren't having fun at the table. * * * On another side note, DM's who help out the players too much annoy me more than the one's that are out for a high PC body count. Every game you survive with the killer DM is an accomplishment. But if I find out that a DM is working to make certain that no one dies, that game is over for me. No chance of failure means that there's no real success. And when I DM, I let my players know that I'm not out to kill them, but I'm not going to fudge rolls or coddle them to keep them alive. If things start to go badly for them, they may want to retreat. Or chance strategies. As a player or DM, I love watching the players get creative.
BoringInfoGuy 12-10-06, 03:23 AM	I'm sorry. I don't understand how that is not fair. Because all we are doing is basing it on fair and balanced. I rolled these 4d6 drop lowest Player 1: 12,16,8,11,9,17 31 point buy Player 2: 15,10,15,11,7,16 31 point buy Player 3: 12,14,5,16,14,13 31 point buy Player 4: 9,15,13,10,18,15 40 point buy Player 4 keeps his stats and everyone else bumps theirs up until they get to a 40 point buy. How is that not fair if everyone knows what is going on before the rolling starts? 2 side notes: 1) I still do not agree with the concept of not getting buy back points for anything under 8, but for this example I did not use any buy back points. 2) I personally would not use this method. I am merely pointing out a way for rolled stats to be balanced within the party. As a player, I WANT TO USE MY OWN ROLLS, whether they are good or bad. I wouldn't want to have to drop what I rolled, to have them pumped up to the level of the highest roller. Again, this shows how it's not stat rolling that should be compared to steroid use on a sport to team. But in this case, instead of handicapping the high player, you keep giving steroids to everyone, until they all match the best natural talent. I wouldn't mind as much if everyone else gets bumped up to my level, if I'm the high roller. I would mind if every one is forced to be dropped to my level if I'm the low roller. It is a double standard on my part. I like rolling not in the hope that sometimes I get to have the high rolls so that I can be the one to overshadow the rest of the party. I just like taking what I get, to see what I can do with it. I've always been this way.
CharlieRock 12-10-06, 08:20 AM	If rolling for stats makes your games more fun, then more power to you. But there's really no way for you to judge unless you have actually given the point buy method a fair chance with different numbers of points and point equivalencies. I have quite a bit of experience with point buy systems actually. I have been playing GURPS for a longer combined time then D&D (started in D&D, but played GURPS more often since then). That's one other reason I leave point-buy out of my D&D. I already play games that have (better) point buy generation. If I wanted a point bought character, I'd go to Tri-Stat or GURPS. When I want diced fun, I go to D&D (or Palladium). See what I'm getting at here? I play different games because they are different. Not so I can get that rehashed feeling in a new setting. Point buys in Tri-Stat and GURPS are way better set up also, because there you also spend points on Advantages(like Feats) and skills. Do you front load a stat heavy character, or take a ton of skills and never be at a loss for something to do? And ,it has Disadvantages to make a more 3-D point buy then D&D ever had (why don't we get points back for going below 8, again?). End result: Point buy is done better in different games and feels slapped on in D&D, and besides I play D&D to get away from a point bought system. Everyone of the opposed opinion seems to think that all games should be alike; Dragons over here, Robots over there, sports cars around back. :bored: same old game, different cover art.
Lethanic 12-10-06, 08:28 AM	You don't go below eight because that truly DOES encourage min - maxing.
CharlieRock 12-10-06, 08:31 AM	You don't go below eight because that truly DOES encourage min - maxing. It still feels as slapped on as a car stereo held in with duct tape. And doesn't contend my point at all.
Lethanic 12-10-06, 08:50 AM	It still feels as slapped on as a car stereo held in with duct tape. And doesn't contend my point at all. YOU asked why points were not given back for eight. I answered.
CharlieRock 12-10-06, 08:51 AM	YOU asked why points were not given back for eight. I answered. Yeah, I had that one coming. ;)
Lethanic 12-10-06, 08:58 AM	Yeah, I had that one coming. ;) As to the rest of your post, as it was talking about why you preferred something. . . . I'm not going to argue your personal preferences.
CharlieRock 12-10-06, 09:09 AM	As to the rest of your post, as it was talking about why you preferred something. . . . I'm not going to argue your personal preferences. "One game system to rule them all" is not what we should be hoping for. As gamers, and consumers. It stifles creativity. And, gets boring playing one game till the end of time.
Cantankerous 12-10-06, 04:31 PM	You know, one obvious point is that no one ever seems to complain that they have a character in their game who dominates all the action and hogs all the spotlight if the characters were all generated with point buy. It is however a complaint you see constantly on these very boards when the characters were created by die roll generation. And who is the Player with the uber high die rolled character in these scenarios? Why yes, the one who's causing all the problems. Shall we do a search of this board, just this one, and see how many DM complaints we can come up with about a supposedly die rolled character with uber stats who is "ruining the game" as oppossed to how many are having the same complaint with characters who were generated by point buy? People, they've not got it perfect yet, but the good folks who designed this game have tried very hard to balance the character classes against each other, the CRs accurately against the level of the party and so forth. Now, when you have three or four different ECLs within the same party, even if an accurate overall is gotten, who are the characters more likely to survive? The ones with the higher ECLs or the ones with the lower ECLs? And since CRs change with just an average six point swing in stat modifiers (between standard and elite), if the DM is doing his job and is accurately tracking his PCs the same way, so that a guy with +12 of basic stat modifiers is atleast a good plus one ECL over the guy who has +3 worth of the same stat modifiers, the guy with the +3 total is going to be consistently fighting a full CR level above his companion. It's like having your character start the game with a permenant, unremovable level drain. How many people here would really be pleased to do that? How many of you would want to start your first level character level drained? Because, guys, even that doesn't make up as much of a disadvantage as having a nine point defeciet when compared to your companion in primary stat modifiers. Isshia
CharlieRock 12-10-06, 07:12 PM	You know, one obvious point is that no one ever seems to complain that they have a character in their game who dominates all the action and hogs all the spotlight if the characters were all generated with point buy. It is however a complaint you see constantly on these very boards when the characters were created by die roll generation. I've seen lots more from some PrC or another that was over-powered. And others where it was just the personality of the player, that didn't allow the shrinking violets in the group to take the spotlight. And who is the Player with the uber high die rolled character in these scenarios? Why yes, the one who's causing all the problems. Where do you find these players. I've never met someone who tore off and rampaged all over the game just because he rolled two or three 18s. Anyone acting like a one-character army at level 1-3 is soon to bite the big one ,anyway. Shall we do a search of this board, just this one, and see how many DM complaints we can come up with about a supposedly die rolled character with uber stats who is "ruining the game" as oppossed to how many are having the same complaint with characters who were generated by point buy? Last few I've seen were all of the 'this caster is too powerful' or 'this build is broken'. The most examples I've seen of the 'so-and-so's stats are too high' were in this and similar threads. And besides that, I can DM a spread of character power level. Now, when you have three or four different ECLs within the same party, even if an accurate overall is gotten, who are the characters more likely to survive? The ones with the higher ECLs or the ones with the lower ECLs? And since CRs change with just an average six point swing in stat modifiers (between standard and elite), if the DM is doing his job and is accurately tracking his PCs the same way, so that a guy with +12 of basic stat modifiers is atleast a good plus one ECL over the guy who has +3 worth of the same stat modifiers, the guy with the +3 total is going to be consistently fighting a full CR level above his companion. It's like having your character start the game with a permenant, unremovable level drain. How many people here would really be pleased to do that? How many of you would want to start your first level character level drained? Because, guys, even that doesn't make up as much of a disadvantage as having a nine point defeciet when compared to your companion in primary stat modifiers. It's called teamwork. You play each character according to their own strengths within the team as a whole. With each level the difference is going to be less and less from stats. You've been shown mathematically that to be true. Character abilities and class feats catch up to stat point advantages. Point buy character generation is available in several game systems (Cyberpunk 2020, GURPS, Tri-Stat). Done with more depth. Dice determined character generation is one reason this and other games (C&C, Palladium RIFTS) are different. If every video game was FPS, that would get boring after awhile, and we wouldn't have all the great video games that aren't FPS. Games should be diverse. Otherwise they'd all be the same, old, same-old with new cover art.
BoringInfoGuy 12-10-06, 08:01 PM	I've seen lots more from some PrC or another that was over-powered. And others where it was just the personality of the player, that didn't allow the shrinking violets in the group to take the spotlight. Regardless of stats, I can find myself taking the spotlight. This is something I watch for as a player, and make certain that I keep that in control. For example, my current character is an 18 cha paladin with high diplomacy. He was dominating NPC interaction. Which could take up a lot of time in the game session. The cleric had a good Cha also. So I decided that my paladin would let the cleric start off the conversations with newly met NPC's, while my Paladin used his DE ability for three rounds. It's only 18 seconds of coversation, vs 3 rounds of potential combat. Note that even though the paladin has better stats for conversation, there is a good, strategic reason for letting the cleric take the lead. Where the diplomacy check is vital, then it's the paladin who takes over, with the cleric aiding. Where do you find these players. I've never met someone who tore off and rampaged all over the game just because he rolled two or three 18s. Anyone acting like a one-character army at level 1-3 is soon to bite the big one ,anyway. Most of the time, I see people who merely believe that this will be the case, without needing to have experianced it. Like when everyone assumed that a heavier object will fall faster than a lighter one. Last few I've seen were all of the 'this caster is too powerful' or 'this build is broken'. The most examples I've seen of the 'so-and-so's stats are too high' were in this and similar threads. And besides that, I can DM a spread of character power level. Agreed. CoDzilla is a particularly popular thread in this theme. It's called teamwork. You play each character according to their own strengths within the team as a whole. With each level the difference is going to be less and less from stats. You've been shown mathematically that to be true. Character abilities and class feats catch up to stat point advantages. But if it doesn't fit thier view, than it is ignored. Once you get to the point that the to hit and damage level out, it's a matter of buffs. As I pointed out, many of the bard's buffs effect multiple allies. For the single target buffs, I showed that by 12th level, the fighter can have a better AC, better Attack modifier, better damage modifer, and an extra attack. If the party is looking to maximize their combat potential, who is the bard going to buff? Depends on the players. Point buy character generation is available in several game systems (Cyberpunk 2020, GURPS, Tri-Stat). Done with more depth. Dice determined character generation is one reason this and other games (C&C, Palladium RIFTS) are different. If every video game was FPS, that would get boring after awhile, and we wouldn't have all the great video games that aren't FPS. Games should be diverse. Otherwise they'd all be the same, old, same-old with new cover art. Diversity. Gotta love it. Unless you like Point Buy. (Mostly kidding)
boozerker 12-11-06, 12:21 AM	(why don't we get points back for going below 8, again?) I created a system here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10778116#post10778116) for doing that (it's "point-borrow"). Shall we do a search of this board, just this one, and see how many DM complaints we can come up with about a supposedly die rolled character with uber stats who is "ruining the game" as oppossed to how many are having the same complaint with characters who were generated by point buy? The CharOp boards is nothing but point-buy. They don't say, "well, this broken character is only possible if you roll high" :D Anyone who does uber in a game would do so point-buy or rolled. And to answer your question, the only time I've seen complaints about rolled uber characters have been on threads discussing point-buy vs rolling. Also, d20 monster CRs and encounters are balanced for a certain power level, and WotC made rolling 4d6 drop one the standard method to achieve that power level. :tiphat:
a_psh 12-11-06, 12:27 AM	Also, d20 monster CRs and encounters are balanced for a certain power level, and WotC made rolling 4d6 drop one the standard method to achieve that power level. :tiphat:Just to be clear: they did use the standard array extensively in playtesting. I don't think that means anything. I'm just pointing it out.
Cantankerous 12-11-06, 02:56 AM	I've seen lots more from some PrC or another that was over-powered. And others where it was just the personality of the player, that didn't allow the shrinking violets in the group to take the spotlight. Which still says nothing about the additional problem of uber high stats on one character over the others, which are still complained about all but constantly. Just because there are other unsolved problems is not a good reason to go out and actively recruit further ones. Where do you find these players. I've never met someone who tore off and rampaged all over the game just because he rolled two or three 18s. Anyone acting like a one-character army at level 1-3 is soon to bite the big one ,anyway. I don't get them; but obviously dozens of DMs on this board have had them, they've complained about them constantly. Why do you keep trying to make this something that I'm experiencing personally when I've said atleast ten times in this thread that I am not having these problems myself? Last few I've seen were all of the 'this caster is too powerful' or 'this build is broken'. The most examples I've seen of the 'so-and-so's stats are too high' were in this and similar threads. And besides that, I can DM a spread of character power level. See answer #1. ;) It's called teamwork. You play each character according to their own strengths within the team as a whole. With each level the difference is going to be less and less from stats. You've been shown mathematically that to be true. Character abilities and class feats catch up to stat point advantages. Teamwork has nothing in the world to do with this. Whether the teamwork is there or not, the defeciet is. Period. It can be worked around, sure, but how much fun is it to have to have the other guy always covering for you in a game of heroic fantasy? Too, it has not been shown to be true. It has been shown that a poorly built Bard will , after twelve levels, be the fighting equivalent of the Fighter who is decently built, but that the Fighter compares to the Bard in no other signifigant way than by his (the Fighters) supposed speciality while the Bard is still leagues ahead of the Fightrer in every other respect. That is not parity brough about by feats. Point buy character generation is available in several game systems (Cyberpunk 2020, GURPS, Tri-Stat). Done with more depth. Dice determined character generation is one reason this and other games (C&C, Palladium RIFTS) are different. If every video game was FPS, that would get boring after awhile, and we wouldn't have all the great video games that aren't FPS. Games should be diverse. Otherwise they'd all be the same, old, same-old with new cover art. I've played GURPS and Cyberpunk and several other systems that feature point buy, and as you yourself have been pointing out, it's one of their strengths. Die rolled character generation is probably game engine difference the most minor difference between GURPS (for instance) and the older editions of D&D. And since the advent of 3rd edition, it has ceased to be a difference ... and yet the two games could hardly be more different in basis in game engine. This nonsense about D&D having to be die rolled to keep it different is just that, nonsense. Isshia
Zumarai 12-11-06, 05:37 AM	Just to be clear: they did use the standard array extensively in playtesting. a_psh is correct, though I know he/she meant the "Elite" array. Sean K Reynolds just confirmed on another site that all the playtesting is done with the iconic characters (elite array), and other character builds all using the Elite Array (using the iconic characters as base). The default ability score generation method (4d6 drop the lowest) in the PHB has nothing to with the games design/play-testing. They probably just left in rolling for ability scores because it's a sacred cow, Gygaxian holdover. …And maybe because some people just get a chubber rolling for ability scores.
CharlieRock 12-11-06, 08:21 AM	Which still says nothing about the additional problem of uber high stats on one character over the others, which are still complained about all but constantly. Only by you, and others in a debate about point-buy vs die-rolled. Nowhere else have I seen the issue you complain about. The CharOp boards is nothing but point-buy. They don't say, "well, this broken character is only possible if you roll high" :D Anyone who does uber in a game would do so point-buy or rolled. And to answer your question, the only time I've seen complaints about rolled uber characters have been on threads discussing point-buy vs rolling. So, I guess I wasn't alone in observing the 'oh, noes .They're too powerfully rolled' issue comes up in certain threads. That wasn't a weakly built bard in the above example compared to a fighter. It was a build specifically to keep parity with the fighter. If the bard had veered off from the competition one feat, (to, oh say, do something else besides melee) the fighter would have surpassed it sooner in level. Comparitively speaking, ShadowRun and GURPS (and others) do mechanically work much differently then D&D. One area is character generation. Let's keep it that way, instead of blending all the games as much as you can. And, how is it that dice determined character stats are the throwback when 3 out of 4 top-selling games are dice rollers. (D&D, RIFTS, and C&C). C&C debuted in 2004 (relatively a baby) and is the fastest rising game system. (I hate admitting that, because I loved my GURPS). You can't dismiss hard mathematical evidence that people a)prefer dice rolled stats ,and b)aren't really hindered by them due to character abilities and feats by mid-level. The main complaint against dice-rolled stats on this (or any other) thread are : Low scores suck. Low rolls suck any point in time in the game. That's what makes rolling high numbers all the more exciting. I've seen celebration of an 18 on attributes, but I've never seen anyone hooting or hollering over xx points. Just because point-buying came after dice-rolling in RPG history doesn't make it automatically an evolutionary step (in the sense that it is better). I've already got point games. I play D&D because of how it is different (and the players unanymously poo-poo'd those games). I'm sure if D&D resembled those games too much, I'd be on the RIFTS forums right now, (since,I'm already on C&Cs ;) ). I come to this assurance because I offered the players points for their characters and got ':P' .
starfire311 12-11-06, 09:27 AM	I'm sorry. I don't understand how that is not fair. Because all we are doing is basing it on fair and balanced. I rolled these 4d6 drop lowest Player 1: 12,16,8,11,9,17 31 point buy Player 2: 15,10,15,11,7,16 31 point buy Player 3: 12,14,5,16,14,13 31 point buy Player 4: 9,15,13,10,18,15 40 point buy Player 4 keeps his stats and everyone else bumps theirs up until they get to a 40 point buy. How is that not fair if everyone knows what is going on before the rolling starts? The reason I would say it is not fair is because player 4 is stuck with the stats he rolled while player 1-3 get teh flexibility of assigning the point-buy how they want, what if player 4 would rather bump the 9 to a 10 and the 13 to a 14 at the expense of lowering a 15 to a 14, he doesn't ahve this flexibility, while the other players do. 2 side notes: 1) I still do not agree with the concept of not getting buy back points for anything under 8, but for this example I did not use any buy back points. I ussually give back 1 point for each point less than 8, not completly fair, but good enough for my, IE a 5 would be a point buy of -3 2) I personally would not use this method. I am merely pointing out a way for rolled stats to be balanced within the party. I would not use it either, but for the games I run there is always die rolling for stats in character creation, but it is always some kind of community die rolling method to help assure balanced stats within the party, but going into it we don't know what power level the party will end up at.
wrecan 12-11-06, 09:57 AM	Your missing something. Weapon Focus IS a gateway feat. But only for a fighter. Weapon focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon specialization. I didn't miss that, obviously, as that's exactly the feat tree I applied to our sub-mean fighter. It's the only gateway feat available to him. Lower stats means fewer options. Which can be fair, if everybody has the same few options. But that's not the case with randomized ability generation. While this fighter can't take Power attack, or other feats that have an ability score bonus, he isn't stuck with taking something that he's probably not going to use, like mounted combat. Yes, he will, since he gets more feats than there are appropriate fighter feats. he's going to be significantly weaker at lower levels Be a half orc... Who was it who said randomized ability generation doesn't encourage min/maxing? In fact, it appears that randomization requires it for those people who roll unlickily, whereas the bard -- who is clearly not optimized -- easily keeps up with his optimized unlucky companion. But he can use it as a one handed weapon with a shield No, he can't. An urgrosh is a two-handed weapon, whether it is learned as a martial or an exotic weapon. Even if only using one head, it's a two-handed weapon, just like all the other double weapons (quarterstaff, for example). he can then use it as a two handed weapon. With a two handed weapon, and the Power attack feat The dwarf doesn't get a racial Strength bonus. He won't be able to take Power Attack until at least 4th level. Inspire courage works on all allies that can hear the bard sing. And it's not something that fighter can invoke. It's playing the bard gets, in addition to outshinigng the fighter at his own game. We're not talkign about head-to-head competiton. We're talkign about playing time and being able to shine as a character. Skip Improved Init Fine. Now the fighter is going after the bard, meaning the bard basically gets an action befor eeven the fighter does, say, invoking his bardic abilities. while you picked a one handed weapon, you forgot the shield. The AC+2 for a heavy shield hardly makes up the difference. Intimidate and Ride? Cha and Dex based skills? If we are going with his one (relative) Str, then why not Climb and Jump? Because, to be effective, he has to max out his AC by taking heavy armor that will impose penalties far exceeding any benefits from throwing his skills into Climb and Jump. (And if he's a half-orc, he gets a whopping one skill point per level!) Your fighter build was poor. Hardly. i forgot to add AC +2 for the shield, or a greatsword that adds all of two extra hp damage. But then, you based it off of the concept of "He's gonna suck, so I'm going to show how badly he sucks." Don't impugn my motives. i only countered with an example because your original example totally ignored every possible advantage the bard might have. Notice I didn't optimize the bard either. I didn't give him extra human bonus skill points. I didn't play with racial builds or feats in Complete Adventurer. Had he access to those books, the fighter would never be able to catch up. you put the fighter in weaker armor than he is likely to start with. I gave him the armor that you gave him in your original hypothetical! Actually, I see the same mistakes, only amplified. They're your mistakes. I only corrected some of the more glaring ones. At any rate, if the mistakes are same for both, then it evens out and my point stands. Also all buff spells that effect more than just the bard. No kidding. They're still things the fighter can't do. By 12th, the bard can use Inspire Greatness for 2 targets. Hmm. You know, he may just choose to use it one the 2 primary melee combatants in the party. Probably, one of them is our fighter. Why? The fighter is hopeless. Better to use it on the party cleric, who, unless he rolled as crappy as our fighter, is also a better melee combatant. At any rate, the whole point of this exercise is to show that the unlucky fighter has fewer options than the lucky bard. All you're showing is the fighter is now dependent on the lucky bard for his effectiveness in combat. He is role-playing,m by necessity, a sidekick. Sure, you might relish playing a sidekick for an entire campaign. But maybe that's not what gives you role-playing pleasure. Tough noogies. You rolled badly, so the next 65 gaming sessions (the assumed length of a 1st to 20th level game), you get to play a sidekick. Oh joy. One problem I have with the bard is that his abilities are all very vocal. So what? The bar din our example has all the abilities of the fighter, plays his vocal abilities (or somatic, if he takes perform (dance)). By the way, your criticism that bardic abilities can hamper surprise: 1) applies to the bard's party... it's not like the fighter in a bardic party doesn't suffer the proble, and 2) only applies if the bard is playing before encounters begin, which was never suggested. A bard can tiptoe better than the heavily armored fighter, who has no ranks in Move Silently and has an Armor Check penalty! He's not worthless, but he should not take part in combat Oh, sure he can roll the dice and participate in combat. But how much is he contributing to the party overall? At best, he contributes equally to the bard in combat and contributes less outside combat. (This assumes players of equal role-playing skill.) But you would put him on the side line. Yeah, you don't think he's worthless. Oh, please. I was speaking metaphorically. He's on the sidelines in the sense that the bard contributes more, on average, than the fighter, even at higher levels. I didn't mean he literally sits out of combat. So, a character who tries to role play when he has low stats is just being melodramatic? Yes. Do you realize what happens when a fighter takes the Weapon focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization feat path? He has given himself the equivilant of a permanent, nonmagical, unnamed +4 bonus to his STR score when attacking, and a +8 bonus to his STR score when dealing damage. Without spending one gp. No, but he just spent every one of his class abilities. Your melodrama comment shows that. You seem to think that only if everyone has the same stats can everyone have fun. No. I think that a level playing field is the epitome of fair play. People who perfer to use point buy embrace mediocrity. Since when is fairness mediocrity? You try to get people together for a game, you'll find some people are more athletic than others. Based on their actual abilities. The players in the D&D game don't roll their own abilities, but abilities for their characters. And in D&D different players have different natural abilities at role-playing. Point buy is like taking the people who are slower and weaker, and giving them steroids to raise them up to a set point Only if you think it takes no natural skill to play D&D. "Listen Billy, its not fair that you can run faster than everyone else. So that's why we need you to wear these too small shoes to slow you down. You see that's better for the team, right?" That makes no sense whatsoever. Giving everybody a level playing field doesn't punish the better players. Randomization, in fact, makes it possible less skilled role-players to roll badly and thus be even that much father behind better skilled role-players who roll well. Randomization accentuates disparities in player abilities.
Cantankerous 12-11-06, 10:58 AM	Only by you, and others in a debate about point-buy vs die-rolled. Nowhere else have I seen the issue you complain about. Too be blunt: BS. In a three minute Google search I came up with the following: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=725280 http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-355563.html http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=302209 http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-65814.html http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=740166 http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-107977.html http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=460106&goto=nextnewest Each of those, from a quickie quick search, has something to do with people complaining either about single characters in groups who's monster high rolls were driving them nuts, or that the supposedly rolled stats were unbalancing things. Someone who knew what they were doing with Google could probably have beaten that amount I found bny an order of magnitude. So, again, BS. Isshia
justdmjeff 12-11-06, 02:10 PM	The reason I would say it is not fair is because player 4 is stuck with the stats he rolled while player 1-3 get teh flexibility of assigning the point-buy how they want, what if player 4 would rather bump the 9 to a 10 and the 13 to a 14 at the expense of lowering a 15 to a 14, he doesn't ahve this flexibility, while the other players do. I guess I would not give the other player's that much flexibility. No lowering of the stats. In the example I gave, players 1-3 each have 9 more points to spend. For example player 1 wants to take the 17 to 18, it costs 3 points. Player 2 wants to turn the 10 into 11, costs 1 point. And so on. Now also I guess that the 5 and the 7 would have to be taken up to 8 for free.
boozerker 12-11-06, 02:18 PM	You'd find a lot more "fighters suck compared to.." in a search (heck you wouldn't even have to use Google, just look for the titles here). Surely they'd complain even if playing a nicely rolled fighter in a group where the spellcaster used point-buy. Also, It'd be intimidating to compete against munchkins from the CharOp boards even if they agree to strat off with a 15 point buy while you start with 35 point-buy (or 4d6 drop one, plus free reroll). By 10th or 15th level, we'd by hard-pressed to keep up. Lastly, no amount of googling will find complaints (of a rolled-up PC ruining the game) in the CharOp boards. Why is that?
CharlieRock 12-11-06, 03:03 PM	Too be blunt: BS. In a three minute Google search I came up with the following: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=725280 http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-355563.html http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=302209 http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-65814.html http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=740166 http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-107977.html http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=460106&goto=nextnewest Each of those, from a quickie quick search, has something to do with people complaining either about single characters in groups who's monster high rolls were driving them nuts, or that the supposedly rolled stats were unbalancing things. Someone who knew what they were doing with Google could probably have beaten that amount I found bny an order of magnitude. So, again, BS. Isshia I'm calling shenanigans on your list there, dude. One thread was about point-buy(!). One was deleted by the OP when the responders started questioning some of the details. A third was asking for some Character Optimization for a rolled character. Another had nothing to do with point bought or dice rolled stats, just pure-dee munchkinism(Edit: actually, there was a couple like that with no mention of how the stats were gained). Yet another was about new PrCs that older characters miss out on (nothing to do with the stats rolled or bought). What are you trying to pull here?
Man in the Funny Hat 12-11-06, 03:38 PM	Flip your question; Why is the INequality desirable or laudible? Why is the only way you can increase your own enjoyment by having higher ability scores than everyone else?<sigh> I'm not saying inequality is desireable, etc. What I'm saying is that point buy doesn't provide the equality that people seem to think it does because there are too many OTHER things in the game that make it irrelevant. Therefore the relentless fascination with point buy for that reason is something I find irksome. I have also said repeatedly that rolling is not inherently superior. It is different. It has benefits and drawbacks JUST LIKE POINT-BUY. And just as point-buy is no guarantee of establishing equality, rolling is similarly not a guarantee of INequality - even with wide spreads between total score values. Try this exercise: I'll put up two sets of numbers for use in determining ability scores. 15, 12, 8, 13, 14, 10 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 Now, arranged as desired, which of those two sets of scores guarantees that the character created WILL be a more powerful character than any other? Which set is the one that will dominate the game? Finally, which set is INHERENTLY unfair if both are in the same game?
wrecan 12-11-06, 03:46 PM	<sigh> I'm not saying inequality is desireable, etc. What I'm saying is that point buy doesn't provide the equality that people seem to think it does because there are too many OTHER things in the game that make it irrelevant. So are you saying game balance is an illusion? Just because other things in the game may be unbalanced does nto mean why should go around heightening the lack of balance with randomized abilities. I mean, I think most people would balk at rolling a d8 to determine a character's starting level. One could not reasonably defend such a rule with "Well, the game is already unbalanced, so what's the big deal?" If things are unbalanced, then balance them. I've heard some people think that all druids should have a LA+1. I don't think druids are so unbalanced as to require a LA, but at least that's someone dealing with the issue instead of throwing his hands up and saying "there are too many OTHER things in the game" already unbalanced. just as point-buy is no guarantee of establishing equality, rolling is similarly not a guarantee of INequality No, but I'd rather take the method that tends towards equality than the one that tends towards inequality. I believe all fair-minded DMs should as well.
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-11-06, 03:50 PM	No, but I'd rather take the method that tends towards equality than the one that tends towards inequality. I believe all fair-minded DMs should as well. I am fair-minded and I use die rolls. Never had a single complaint from any player in 3rd edition about bad stats. Like I said we can use PB or DR and they always use DR.
a_psh 12-11-06, 03:55 PM	People who perfer to use point buy embrace mediocrity.Even the standard elite array (the 25 point thing almost everyone says is appallingly low) is already supposed to be a set of stats for "heroic" characters. It's head and shoulder above standard array / 15 points. As far as the game world is concerned, the characters are far form mediocre. Bump it up to, say, 32 points, and they're definitely anything but mediocre. If that's not enough, whatever... use 36 points, 40 points, 62 points if you want! Make the guys you want to make together. (Too much? 10 points. Have fun!) Now, "they're still mediocre because they're all the same," you'll say. Meh. Like on a baseball team or whatever (that analogy was rather bad, but I'll keep it in play anyway), one guy is faster and one guy is stronger and one guy does throw the trickiest pitches. But they're all superstars at their own thing. Joe Average doesn't get to play pro ball. The reincarnation of Babe Ruth is quickly going to get promoted out of the amateur leagues. If anything, you want to appeal to the idea of the adventuring party as something that isn't highly managed and structured like a team -- "You have friends who are just better than you at everything but you still hang out with them" rather than "Some people on a team run faster than others". Now, I don't think point-buy is the ultimate stat generation method for D&D (it's what I've used the last few times I've GMed a D&D game, though), but some of you folks arguing for rolling your stats as the one true way are just grossly misrepresenting point-based character generation systems altogether.
Man in the Funny Hat 12-11-06, 04:17 PM	Equanimity is the heart of gaming. When my children sit down to play Chutes and Ladders, I don't randomly start one daughter at 32 on the board while my other one starts at square 1. When I play chess, we don't foll 2d8 to determine how many chess pieces we get to start the game at. Or, to take into account team play, when I coached my daughter's soccer team I didn't randomly ask four of the players to wear eyepatches because the low depth perception will make the game more "challenging fun" for them and oh, how lucky they are to wear the eyepatch!And again, D&D is not a board game, nor a competitive sport. There is no "winning" at D&D, therefore I have yet to be convinced there is a need for absolute equinimity at the outset of the game. A more apt analogy would be that your daughter might better at soccer than her friends, that she might actually know the rules and game strategy better, and that she might actually put that knowledge to work more effectively than her teammates. At the same time others enjoy just running up and down the field. And perhaps your daughter is naturally dextrous and agile and so is a better natural ball-handler where others have to work very hard at it. But, to ensure that noone has an unfair advantage over anyone else on the team in order to qualify to play noone must be able to run faster than anyone else. That's the sort of argument I see being used to advocate point-buy over rolling and I vehemently disagree with it. It does not affect me or my game whatever YOU use in yours. Choose what you like and have fun, but I'm unsold on this notion that point-buy establishes anything like a level playing field.
wrecan 12-11-06, 04:33 PM	A more apt analogy would be that your daughter might better at soccer than her friends, that she might actually know the rules and game strategy better, and that she might actually put that knowledge to work more effectively than her teammates. No, that analogy would be if a DM tries to prevent players who have read the rules from using that knowlege. Again, people misuse the analogy by ignoring the difference between players and characters. That's the sort of argument I see being used to advocate point-buy over rolling Nobody's made the argument you ascribe.
BoringInfoGuy 12-11-06, 04:43 PM	Even the standard elite array (the 25 point thing almost everyone says is appallingly low) is already supposed to be a set of stats for "heroic" characters. It's head and shoulder above standard array / 15 points. As far as the game world is concerned, the characters are far form mediocre. Bump it up to, say, 32 points, and they're definitely anything but mediocre. If that's not enough, whatever... use 36 points, 40 points, 62 points if you want! Make the guys you want to make together. (Too much? 10 points. Have fun!) Now, "they're still mediocre because they're all the same," you'll say. Meh. Like on a baseball team or whatever (that analogy was rather bad, but I'll keep it in play anyway), one guy is faster and one guy is stronger and one guy does throw the trickiest pitches. But they're all superstars at their own thing. Joe Average doesn't get to play pro ball. The reincarnation of Babe Ruth is quickly going to get promoted out of the amateur leagues. If anything, you want to appeal to the idea of the adventuring party as something that isn't highly managed and structured like a team -- "You have friends who are just better than you at everything but you still hang out with them" rather than "Some people on a team run faster than others". Now, I don't think point-buy is the ultimate stat generation method for D&D (it's what I've used the last few times I've GMed a D&D game, though), but some of you folks arguing for rolling your stats as the one true way are just grossly misrepresenting point-based character generation systems altogether. Yes, I do say that keeping it so that there are no high or lows in the party means that all the players are medicore in regards to each other. To use your Babe Ruth example, he was a man who stood head and shoulders amoung the players of his day. Or, to put it another way, he had much better stats than other ball players. He didn't just stand above the amature leages, he was the best of the pro leage also. Why do you think his name is still a legend? (If you know anything about his life, his talent let him practice with much less dedication than other players, who had to work much harder for less return). Nor have I EVER claimed that there is no place for Point Buy systems. My two claims are that I, personally find rolling for stats to make a more enjoyable game, and at higher levels, character abilities will overshadow pure ability scores.
Cantankerous 12-11-06, 04:49 PM	I'm calling shenanigans on your list there, dude. One thread was about point-buy(!). One was deleted by the OP when the responders started questioning some of the details. A third was asking for some Character Optimization for a rolled character. Another had nothing to do with point bought or dice rolled stats, just pure-dee munchkinism(Edit: actually, there was a couple like that with no mention of how the stats were gained). Yet another was about new PrCs that older characters miss out on (nothing to do with the stats rolled or bought). What are you trying to pull here? Not the entire threads, as I clearly said, but read the responses. Actually read them. They're all there.
Man in the Funny Hat 12-11-06, 05:19 PM	So are you saying game balance is an illusion? Just because other things in the game may be unbalanced does nto mean why should go around heightening the lack of balance with randomized abilities.Yes, it's an illusion. In this respect: the idea that SOME difference in ability scores is inherently UNbalancing. I would not argue that WIDE differences in ability scores are insignificant. They can be. But that's not the argument. The argument is that ANY differences is significant. I'm saying they're not. Again, play style, campaign specifics, character class, race, specific stat assignment, player choices of development as the character increases in level, magical items, and more all conspire to make balance IMPOSSIBLE to achieve, or to even identify IMbalance. The variables are too many and cannot be quantified. What is valuable to one player in one campaign is worthless to another. Take one character sheet into two seperate campaigns and you can have VASTLY different results - even if the campaigns have all the same players, DM, and campaign setting. All it takes to upset the "balance" is working with a different array of character classes, races, and general campaign goals. I've heard some people think that all druids should have a LA+1. I don't think druids are so unbalanced as to require a LA, but at least that's someone dealing with the issue instead of throwing his hands up and saying "there are too many OTHER things in the game" already unbalanced.And again, I'm not saying, "Don't bother." I'm saying that THIS area does not achieve the balancing effect that people claim it does. The "Druids are overpowering" school is a fine example. So is the "Monks don't work unless they have high stats across the board." If there IS truth in these positions doesn't it make MORE sense to IMBALANCE the stats at the outset to compensate for these percieved imbalances elsewhere? Much of this argument regarding what's balanced and over/underpowered is derived from focusing (IMO undesirably for obvious reasons) upon character combat optimization rather than CASUAL gaming/roleplaying viewpoints. I must confess that I am utterly lost when it effectively comes down to, "My fighter is a poorer fighter than your wizard is a wizard so there is inherent unfairness between our characters and my fighter should be given something to compensate." This only contributes to my apoplexy when I see people giving forth the suggestion that point-buy fixes this. No, but I'd rather take the method that tends towards equality than the one that tends towards inequality. I believe all fair-minded DMs should as well.And were it not for the OTHER things I dislike about point-buy I might actually use it. Oddly enough, the thing that bothers me about character generation methods at this point is NOT the numbers and whether they are equal or not, but free-assigning them. Something shared by virtually all methods random or not. And that's almost another thread entirely.
Ongorth 12-11-06, 05:36 PM	Anyone want to help me out? No, but this might run paralell anyway. One disturbing idea that keeps coming up is the fact that point-buy is being advocated as a balancing measure. I suppose that this might work in some cases, but generally, it will not get the job done for a few reasons. 1) Point buy only balances out potential. A player still has to know where to put his points in order to achieve proper mechanical power. As such, the noob is very likely to have a weaker character, because he (like me) thought it would be awesome to put a 12 in intellegence and a 14 in charisma for his 25 point buy monk. These options leads to a super suave splatter on the end of some orc's falcion. Point buy does NOT ensure balance because it does NOT account for the players messing it up. 2) As the above suggests, the investment of points in a given stat varies wildly between classes and party roles. Indeed, some of the classes just get practically no benefit from raising certain stats. This, unfortunately, means that in order to keep up with the rat race, certain options are completely unjustifiable mechanically. That won't stop people from playing them though, but it does ensure that they get a weaker character for their troubles. While fighters shouldn't just get a free 18 charisma since they "Don't need it", since charisma gives them a much smaller mechanical advantage it doesn't need to cost as much to remain balanced. Point buy does NOT account for the situational difference in the value of stats. 3) The number of point buy points required for different characters to acheive balance. Seriously, do clerics honestly need as many point buy points as anyone else? If they didn't have as many, they'd have a much harder time doing everyone's role for them! Maybe, just maybe, other classes could be valuable to a party again. Ok, not until Druid's give up their animal companions, but still. Point buy does NOT ensure balance because it does NOT account for the variety of ability score values required to balance the claasses 4) And most problematic is the multiclassing system. This system basically forces point buy to be unbalanced. If we give monks discount intellegence, players could get it cheaper at level one then multiclass to something that milks the int. Point buy CANNOT account for the variations in the system because the class system has nearly infinite variations. This is not to say point buy can't be balanced. All of the players could agree to make their characters at the exact same power level, but this would unfortunately limit out a huge number of potenial characters. If this power level is high, you have no charming monks, no wise fighters, no burly wizards. Or, if the power level is low, you have no optimized designs. This is actually also true for dice rolling. Their is no guarantee for balance, but the player's can agree to play on the same power level. People with lower stats play druids and optimize, while people with uber stats play charming monks. Neither system guarantees balance and both allow for it. They just do it in different ways. Now, if you want a game that has a balanced character creation system, look at Feng Shui. 1) You pick an archetype (Sort of like your race and class rolled into one). 2) This gives you your stats and skills. The numbers are based on the archtype. 3) The archtype may or may not give you a number of schicks, based on your archtype. 4) Everything else about your character is purely flavor. 5) Kick butt This avoids all of the above problems. It balances everything about each archtype ahead of time, you just pick a schick (maybe) and add your own look, personality, backstory and melodramic hook. Does this sound unsatisfying? I think to most D&D players it does, as the theme of third edition has been customization. Feng Shui is a game of Action Movie roleplaying! The description of the events of the scene, not the mechanics that cause them, is the prime focus, so that fact that every "Big Bruiser" is mechanically identical isn't a big deal. This is not the case in D&D. Mechanical personalization is extremely important, as the sales of endless books filled with spells, feats and PrCs have shown us. Standardized values for abilities stifle this goal in order to promote balance by making many of these creations, which are possible in the system, mechanically unviable as they fail the proposed goal (balance). Again, this is why picking stats works so well. You can actually customize ability scores to the individual case instead of trying to force fit a standard system to every possible permutation that is dreamed up at the table. The standardized ability scores could work if options were severly restricted (as in, more limited then core only), but if you embrace the idea of customization it isn't sufficient.
a_psh 12-11-06, 06:02 PM	1) Point buy only balances out potential. A player still has to know where to put his points in order to achieve proper mechanical power. As such, the noob is very likely to have a weaker character, because he (like me) thought it would be assume to put a 12 in intellegence and a 14 in charisma for his 25 point buy monk. These options leads to a super suave splatter on the end of some orc's falcion. Point buy does NOT ensure balance because it does NOT account for the players messing it up.This goes back to the concept of "mastery". One of the concepts the original 3e design team borrowed form Magic was "mastery". The idea was that the system would support a rich and complex set of interactions between rules, some of them non-obvious, such that players who had a broad and deep understanding of the rules would be rewarded with much more character power (I'm not pulling this out of my ass: Monte Cook wrote this up on his website). In other words, the rules are intentionally complex in order to make optimization more difficult but more rewarding. Now, if you do really believe in this whole "mastery" idea, then point-buy is a system far superior to rolling: everyone starts out with equal resources and has to spend them as best he can. Nobody gets an advantage "for free," so to speak. That seems to be the operational definition of "balance" that many people operate under: balance is a system that emphasizes player skill over luck. Cook later went on to say that he thinks writing the books with this concept of "mastery" in mind was a dubious design decision. I agree. The same ruleset written up in a more straightforward, conversational, and "here's why we did this" manner would honestly make the game more enjoyable for the majority of players, I think: for every person who really likes the challenge of optimizing, there are like half a dozen newbs who are just confused and wish they could understand the rules better. (Also, mass communication pretty much makes the personal quest of optimization kinda irrelevant -- you can play someone else's "build" pretty easily if that's what you want to do.)
Ongorth 12-11-06, 06:23 PM	This goes back to the concept of "mastery". I know you aren't making this up. The idea of mastery is in direct conflict with balance and I can understand some of the regret for its heavy integration. I mean, think of all the time that must have went into the paralell balance systems of CR, wealth/XP and ECL. Mastering character creation (i.e. optimization) basically makes these systems useless. The system is made for four core-only, intuitively designed characters to run from 1-20 with moderate challenge. Optimization makes it laughable. Its sad that the power/challenge system is so easily undone. Your reward for mastering the system is having to remake the system in order to function at the level of your mastery.
starfire311 12-11-06, 06:31 PM	Yes, it's an illusion. In this respect: the idea that SOME difference in ability scores is inherently UNbalancing. would you say that if race of human in the PHB was exaclt the same but gave a +2 to any two stats and a +4 to any other stat of your choice, was unbalanced? I would not argue that WIDE differences in ability scores are insignificant. They can be. But that's not the argument. The argument is that ANY differences is significant. I'm saying they're not. if it were not significant, then why do they feel that unbalanced racial stat mods are worth a +1 LA, and if you are rolling stats in a group of 4-6 players odds are the stat difference between the best and the worst array is significant. I must confess that I am utterly lost when it effectively comes down to, "My fighter is a poorer fighter than your wizard is a wizard so there is inherent unfairness between our characters and my fighter should be given something to compensate." actually the argument is "My fighter is a poorer fighter than your wizard is a fight so there is inherent unfairness between our characters and my fighter should be given something to compensate." This only contributes to my apoplexy when I see people giving forth the suggestion that point-buy fixes this. And were it not for the OTHER things I dislike about point-buy I might actually use it. Oddly enough, the thing that bothers me about character generation methods at this point is NOT the numbers and whether they are equal or not, but free-assigning them. Something shared by virtually all methods random or not. And that's almost another thread entirely. lol, so you don't like being able to freely asign your attributes, that is pretty old school, but if I am gonna commit to playing a 65 session long campaign, I don't want to be handicapped with a fighter that has a strength of 4 and dex of 10 that happened to roll well on Intelligence and charisma... yes your argument is then don't play a fighter I know, I played 1st ed, I had to play with what I was dealt, but it gets borng after awhile, occssionally after my 50th time playing the character I didnt want to play, get to play the one I want. My biggest quetion for those advocates of randomization, is why after trying to so hard to balance, feats, races, classes, spells and magic items, would you begin character creation by insisting the characters start off unbalanced? That is like spending the money to get the best materials to build a house, and the best applainces to put in it and then making sure the foundation was laid improperly. IMO if you support random character creation, you have lost any arguement when complaining about an unbalanced class, feat, spell, or magic item... How can you say a <insert mechanic> is broken when you likely gave a character as much as a +1-4 in 3 or more stats to one player over another to start a game.
starfire311 12-11-06, 06:38 PM	No, but this might run paralell anyway. One disturbing idea that keeps coming up is the fact that point-buy is being advocated as a balancing measure. I suppose that this might work in some cases, but generally, it will not get the job done for a few reasons. 1) Point buy only balances out potential. A player still has to know where to put his points in order to achieve proper mechanical power. As such, the noob is very likely to have a weaker character, because he (like me) thought it would be awesome to put a 12 in intellegence and a 14 in charisma for his 25 point buy monk. These options leads to a super suave splatter on the end of some orc's falcion. What keeps you from assigning your stats improperly when you roll them? if you happen to roll 15, 14, 12, 11, 11, 9 (25 PB)and decide you want to play a monk and you assign your 12 to intelligence and 14 to charsima, you will still not be to optimal. Monk with say, 15 Str, Dex 11, Con 9, Int 12, Wis 11, Cha 14 is not gonna be very effective.
wrecan 12-11-06, 06:41 PM	Yes, it's an illusion. In this respect: the idea that SOME difference in ability scores is inherently UNbalancing. But I think that's a straw man. It's not that it's inherently unbalancing, but that it's potentially unbalancing and randomized ability generation can only accentuate the potential, rather than correct for it. The argument is that ANY differences is significant. But that's not the argument at all. Nobody is saying that minor differences in character generation are unbalancing, just like nobody is saying (I would hope) that a 1st-level character with all 3's is just as effective a character as one with all 18's. That appears to be a straw man argument. The variables are too many and cannot be quantified. While that is true, that doesn't mean that parity is something to be ignored. The reason we don't roll dice for starting level is because we all believe that to be inherently unfair. Inherently unbalanced. While perfect balance in impossible, we can attempt to acheive more balance than unbalance. THIS area does not achieve the balancing effect that people claim it does. I don't think anybody is claiming that point-buy is a magic bullet. But it is one tool that can help acheive party balance. Saying that we should reject point-buy because it doesn't ensure balance is like saying a hammer is not a tool because it can't saw wood. If there IS truth in these positions doesn't it make MORE sense to IMBALANCE the stats at the outset to compensate for these percieved imbalances elsewhere? But randomization doesn't acheive that, unless you force people to take classes based on what they roll, and that would seem to me to be inimical to the idea of having fun. Ongorth's system (DM and player together assign stats) works best to resolve that issue. Randomization works worst. With point-buy it is possible that MAD classes are discouraged. (I disgaree, but that's a whole other thread.) But, at a minimum, a person is choosing to play a MAD class because he wants to, not because the dice dictate it to him. This only contributes to my apoplexy when I see people giving forth the suggestion that point-buy fixes this. It's not that it fixes it as much as it doesn't exacerbate the problem the way randomization has clear potential to do.
Ongorth 12-11-06, 07:49 PM	What keeps you from assigning your stats improperly when you roll them? if you happen to roll 15, 14, 12, 11, 11, 9 (25 PB)and decide you want to play a monk and you assign your 12 to intelligence and 14 to charsima, you will still not be to optimal. Monk with say, 15 Str, Dex 11, Con 9, Int 12, Wis 11, Cha 14 is not gonna be very effective. That is true. It also has nothing to do with my point. I was arguing about using point buy as a balancing measure, which is a quality it fails at. My alternative solution to balanced character creation was not rolling, but instead "archetypes" a la Feng Shui. The fact that rolling also has the same defict as point buy is a nice tangential point, but since I think both are terrible methods. . .
a_psh 12-11-06, 08:02 PM	if it were not significant, then why do they feel that unbalanced racial stat mods are worth a +1 LA, and if you are rolling stats in a group of 4-6 players odds are the stat difference between the best and the worst array is significant.Do note that LA is designed to partly overcompensate for this stuff. It's pretty clear that monsters with LA are supposed to be potentially playable while, for the most part, being highly undesirable. Let's take +2 Int as an example... +1 to save DCs is vastly inferior to just plain having access to high-level spells faster. It's even more worthless when you realize you're trading it for saves, class abilities, &c. Power-wise, very few LA-ed races are actually worth playing. That's kind of the intent: "If we don't have any rules, everybody will try to play stupid monsters and totally break the game. If we make up some rules that are kinda balanced but strongly cripple monster characters, people will be discouraged from playing them and game balance will be maintained."
boozerker 12-11-06, 08:55 PM	These analogies serve as examples of why people enjoy rolling (besides the chance for great stats). If you've gotten a surprise pet that you can't imagine not having, or if one of your favorite dishes had been randomly chosen at some time, or if your dream person is someone you would've never suspected, they're a kind of feeling that point-buy goes against. Choosing your preferences, rather than being surprised by fate. Granted, you could still be surprised by how inventive you are with a point-buy character, but random generation seems more human because it shares a human quality -- you don't get to choose your inherent traits. However, rolling is only half-random. You get to choose where to place the stats. So actually, rolling has the best of both worlds compared to point-buy, which only has strictly choice.
Boshi 12-11-06, 09:56 PM	These analogies serve as examples of why people enjoy rolling (besides the chance for great stats). If you've gotten a surprise pet that you can't imagine not having, or if one of your favorite dishes had been randomly chosen at some time, or if your dream person is someone you would've never suspected, they're a kind of feeling that point-buy goes against. Choosing your preferences, rather than being surprised by fate. Granted, you could still be surprised by how inventive you are with a point-buy character, but random generation seems more human because it shares a human quality -- you don't get to choose your inherent traits. However, rolling is only half-random. You get to choose where to place the stats. So actually, rolling has the best of both worlds compared to point-buy, which only has strictly choice. Its easy to combine that feeling with balanced characters. Do this: Choose a point-buy value Roll 4d6 drop the lowest for 5 stats with anything below 8 counting as +1 for every point that it is below 8 Adjust the sixth stat up or down until you get to the proper point buy value, if you hit 18 or 8 then adjust the 5th stat you rolled up or down. Simple.
CharlieRock 12-11-06, 11:59 PM	No, but I'd rather take the method that tends towards equality than the one that tends towards inequality. I believe all fair-minded DMs should as well. You (as a DM) have tons of power to compensate for low scores at every encounter. You can also allow rerolls if Ace has 3 18s and Baker only has 1 14 as their respective highest rolls. What do you do when a low level 'anybody' fails that save vs death? The entire game is based on die rolls. It is even named after a die (d20). Now, "they're still mediocre because they're all the same," you'll say. Meh. Like on a baseball team or whatever (that analogy was rather bad, but I'll keep it in play anyway), one guy is faster and one guy is stronger and one guy does throw the trickiest pitches. But they're all superstars at their own thing. Joe Average doesn't get to play pro ball. The reincarnation of Babe Ruth is quickly going to get promoted out of the amateur leagues. Here's an analogy: The A-Team. What was Murdoch's strongest attribute. His craziness :rolleyes: . He wasn't stronger then B.A.. He wasn't smarter then Hannibal. He wasn't slyer (or swarmy, charming) as Face. Yet, could you imagine the A-Team with no Murdoch? It just wouldn't be as fun. :cool: Not the entire threads, as I clearly said, but read the responses. Actually read them. They're all there. I did. My claim to shenanigans still stands. Your point was about 'numerous' threads being posted where a DM felt his campaign was being wrecked by high rolled statsfor a character within a party of lower stat characters; yet you examine one thread where point buy was the method used, several of indeterminate origins (no comparison made to stats from the rest of the party. basically someone was power-gaming and ruining it for the immersion addicts), one that was deleted by the OP when certain details came into question, and a couple about munchkinism (which point buy does nothing to stop). Edit:Here's an interesting one about low stats presenting in-game challenges:http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=754000 (and it is current :D). My biggest quetion for those advocates of randomization, is why after trying to so hard to balance, feats, races, classes, spells and magic items, would you begin character creation by insisting the characters start off unbalanced? Because it is fun to play something with strengths determined at random sometimes. Edit: I have never once complained about something being broken in-game. The DM is the penultimate game breaker-breaker. ;) Its easy to combine that feeling with balanced characters. Do this: Choose a point-buy value Roll 4d6 drop the lowest for 5 stats with anything below 8 counting as +1 for every point that it is below 8 Adjust the sixth stat up or down until you get to the proper point buy value, if you hit 18 or 8 then adjust the 5th stat you rolled up or down. Simple. A 'flush' attribute system? I know a DM in our team that uses a similar technique (though his is mostly intuitive,not as mathematically based as yours).
twad 12-12-06, 01:11 AM	I use the point buy system. Why? Its more fair for everybody. And when its fair, its fun. Oh, and i usually use the same system for my (named) NPCs.
Cantankerous 12-12-06, 01:12 AM	If there IS truth in these positions doesn't it make MORE sense to IMBALANCE the stats at the outset to compensate for these percieved imbalances elsewhere?:eek: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :bow: I almost literally fell out of my chair I laughed so hard when I read this. This has to be one of the best lines ever. This is like a Doctor saying to you: "Well Mr Smith, you broke your leg in the car accident, so to even you out we broke your other one and both of your arms." I just don't get it people. This isn't the only problem with D&D balance wise by a long shot, but since it's another problem, why not eliminate it from the outset instead of trying to polish it and rationalize it? According to Skip Williams when they play tested this game they used the iconic characters all predicated on the (25 point buy) Elite Array. They bloody did not use rolled stats, atleast according to one of the designers. So, what exactly is the problem with the method they used to test the game? Isshia
CharlieRock 12-12-06, 01:47 AM	According to Skip Williams when they play tested this game they used the iconic characters all predicated on the (25 point buy) Elite Array. They bloody did not use rolled stats, atleast according to one of the designers. So, what exactly is the problem with the method they used to test the game? Isshia Have you ever play-tested professionally? They get payed to 'play' for a reason; it is a lot of work. While you can have fun and work at the same time,it is still work. And, gets to be a chore (boring) at times. That is one reason you shouldn't play exactly as the play-testers did, they were payed to grind out all the bumps, we're trying to have fun. If the play-testers designed the game using point-buy, and still recommended dice rolled stats; there is probably a good reason for it. If I took up snowboarding, and the snowboard tester guy said 'I tested these boards doing this stuff. You might not want to do that though.' ,I'm going to take their advise. In one of the earlier examples of a thread where it was presumed that high stats due to rolling was a game-breaking issue, I found one major flaw in the OP's process. Rather predictable. They rolled 4d6 ,rerolled 1s and 2s (:eek: ) and then dropped the lowest. Wonder how they all ended up with Superman stats. This situation would have been the same if done point-buy style and used a really high point total (since they were using a really high dice total). If your going to exemplify how dice-rolled stats are wrecking a game, choosing a situation where the dice were intentionally fudged higher is in poor choice. One could point out the same problems with a really high point total. Even in the above example, all the characters had really high stats. They were equal at jump. This correlates with the problem of inequity in stats how?
BoringInfoGuy 12-12-06, 02:54 AM	I didn't miss that, obviously, as that's exactly the feat tree I applied to our sub-mean fighter. It's the only gateway feat available to him. Lower stats means fewer options. Which can be fair, if everybody has the same few options. But that's not the case with randomized ability generation. Not completely. But unless the DM is running an Arthurian Legend based campaing with lots of jousting action, the Mounted Combat chain is of rather limited use. And he can't take the Power Attack chain, yet. But that will become available at level 4. But to the next point. . . Yes, he will, since he gets more feats than there are appropriate fighter feats. Even our 12 high fighter will run into the problem of more things he wants to put feats into, than feats available. Ok, here is what he can do. At level 12, he gets two feats. By that time, the fighter can have specialized with two weapons, with 4 feats leftover. Before you blow off the idea of just retaking the specialization chain, this gives the fighter the ability to use different combat styles with great efficiancy. We've talked about the one handed melee with shield, and two handed without. What about ranged? You can specialize with any weapon. By 12th, with a Composite Longbow, you could have a +14 / +9 / +4 Full Attack, doing 1d8 + 6 damage with a x3 crit. The bard is only proficient with a shortbow, so with his +4 Dex mod, he gets only Full attack +13 / +8, doing 1d6 damage, with a x3 crit. Cat's Grace can improve the bards Attack, but not number of attacks. Good Hope is the ONLY bard spell I found that could improve his damage with ranged weapons. That give's a +2 morale bonus to damage. (And, as stated earlier, it affects 1 creature per level. Since the earliest that a bard get's Good Hope is 7th level, that's enough to buff even a extra large size party). The only bardic music ability that can increase his damage is back to Inspire Courage, granting a +2 morale bonus to attack and weapon damage rolls. Since both are morale bonuses and only unnamed and dodge bonuses stack, it's one or the other. And again, Inspire Courage affects the entire party. A very good choice if the fighter doesn't roll well for HP. With the 4 remaining, he could take Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, and Sunder. How about Point blank shot, precise shot and far shot? Or he could double the Crit threat range of one weapon. Or more, if he delays mastery of one weapon. There are still unchained, useful feats like blind fight. I partially take back what I said about Improved Initiative. If a fighter is going with the 2 handed melee weapon option, then he may want it to get the hit first, hit last advantage. To put it another way, this fighter has three options for combat. One handed weapon + shield. Better AC, less damage. Two Handed weapon. More damage, less AC. Ranged weapon. By taking the specialization chain, he can increase his ranged weapon past most classes. Even a Ranger isn't likely to have a +6 to damage with his arrows. Of course, the ranger makes up for it by being able to put a lot more arrows in the air, at the cost of accuracy. And if the target is a favored enemy, then he takes the lead at ranged damage. (Assuming a ranger who is a range specialist) He won't have quite enough feats by 12th to take all three. But he can make himself a specialist in two of them. With the remaining levels, he has 2 regular and 4 bonus feats left. Not enough to do everything he may have wanted to. Here's how you are wrong. You think that there are more fighter feats than appropriate fighter feat choices. I have shown that the fighter is never out of options. Even this one. No, he can't take the Two weapon fighting feat chain. Nor can he take Combat Expertise, and it's chain. And he can't take the full Point Blank Shot chain. But there is plenty a fighter can do without those feats. Even a fighter who could qualify for the other feats chain may not want to take them. Who was it who said randomized ability generation doesn't encourage min/maxing? In fact, it appears that randomization requires it for those people who roll unlickily, whereas the bard -- who is clearly not optimized -- easily keeps up with his optimized unlucky companion. Min maxed? Optimized? I pointed out the three races that work well for a fighter, and what options they give. As for the fighter build, it wasn't optimized. I pointed out the advantage of the fighter taking the feat chain that is specific to fighters only. My point is that class abilities overcome base stats. This is also supposed to be compared to a bard, who is spec'd to matching a fighter on his own ground. If we are going to avoid min maxing, why not pick race by what race has the class in question as it's favored class. Humans can be anything, ditto with half elves. So let's pick dwarf for fighter, and gnome for bard. No? As for min maxing due to ability generating system, both can be equaly guilty. PB, you can place with exact min max precision. Rolling, you can min max only to the limits that the rolls allow. No, he can't. An urgrosh is a two-handed weapon, whether it is learned as a martial or an exotic weapon. Even if only using one head, it's a two-handed weapon, just like all the other double weapons (quarterstaff, for example). Actually, you are right here. I was thown by the part of the description that says "A creature wielding a dwaven urgrosh in one hand can't use it as a double weapon--only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round." This refers to a large sized creature using a normal urgrosh, or a medium sized creature using a small sized urgrosh. I had mistaken it for a special property of the weapon that it could be used as both a one handed weapon and a double weapon. The dwarf doesn't get a racial Strength bonus. He won't be able to take Power Attack until at least 4th level. I said "When he's less fragile. . ." I was talking about higher levels, after he can qualify for power attack. How many times did I refer to taking power attack after 4th level? And it's not something that fighter can invoke. It's playing the bard gets, in addition to outshinigng the fighter at his own game. We're not talkign about head-to-head competiton. We're talkign about playing time and being able to shine as a character. We're not talking about head to head competition? Of course not. In that case, the bards ability would affect only the bard, and not the fighter. The bards buff spells are mostly built on being able to buff multiple allies. Using an ability that helps the entire party doesn't make the bard shine brighter alone. It makes the entire party shine brighter. Nor does it lessen the fighter's playing time for the bard to use a buff ability. Fine. Now the fighter is going after the bard, meaning the bard basically gets an action befor eeven the fighter does, say, invoking his bardic abilities. Which is likely to mean that the bard goes first, uses, say Inspire Confidence, granting morale bonuses to the entire party. The fighter then gets to act on the same round, with the benefit of the buff on him. Once the bard stops using his bardic abilities, it lasts for only 5 more rounds. So the fighter gets to use it's effect for 6 rounds, while the bard only 5. Letting the bard go first is a bad thing how? Note also that the fighter, and the rest of the party, get more benefit from the bardic ability than the bard can. The AC+2 for a heavy shield hardly makes up the difference. It changes the fighters AC from being 3 lower at first level, to only 1 lower at first level. That makes up most of the difference. Because, to be effective, he has to max out his AC by taking heavy armor that will impose penalties far exceeding any benefits from throwing his skills into Climb and Jump. (And if he's a half-orc, he gets a whopping one skill point per level!) So to climb, he has to remove his armor. Same with jumping. Even a higher STR fighter needs to do this. Hardly. i forgot to add AC +2 for the shield, or a greatsword that adds all of two extra hp damage. The +2 AC is siginificant. So is the difference between shield and no shield at higher levels. Once you begin enchanting your armor, you can get double the enchantment bonus for half the cost with a sheild. +1 armor adds 1000gp to the cost of the armor. +2 armor costs 4000 gp. But you can also have a +1 shield for another 1000gp. Armor and shield bonuses stack, so you can have a +2 enchantment bonus to AC for only 2000gp. And if the bard tries to go with a shield, then he has to deal with arcane failure chance. High stats do nothing when you spell goes fizzle. The greatsword gives 2 extra damage at first level. But once the fighter takes specialization at 4th, it's even more. Atk + 7 (+4 BAB, +1 W. Focus, +2 STR) Damage 2d6 + 4 Crit 19-20 x2. The TWF bard with L sword and S sword. Full Atk Longsword +5 (+3 BAB, +4 Str, -2 TWF penalty) Damage 1d8 + 4 crit 19-20 x 2 and +5 (+3 BAB, +4 Str, -2 TWF penalty Damage 1d6 + 2, crit 19-20 x2. By level 4, the bard can still do more damage per round, but at the expense of his base attack bonus. And the fighter can do more damage from a single attack, important if you need to overcome hardness or damage reduction. Not even slightly insignificant. Don't impugn my motives. i only countered with an example because your original example totally ignored every possible advantage the bard might have. I ignored the advantages a bard might have that a fighter can't emulate regardless of stats. My focus, as I stated, is to show how a bard trying to out fight a fighter would be overcome by the fighters class abilities. Notice I didn't optimize the bard either. I didn't give him extra human bonus skill points. I didn't play with racial builds or feats in Complete Adventurer. Had he access to those books, the fighter would never be able to catch up. No, you just gave him much better stats than he should have. I didn't hear you mention that you messed up how TWF works. I gave him the armor that you gave him in your original hypothetical! No, I gave him Scale mail. You picked studded leather. And dropped the shield. Do you ever go back and check stuff before posting? They're your mistakes. I only corrected some of the more glaring ones. At any rate, if the mistakes are same for both, then it evens out and my point stands. You are putting out more mistakes than I am. But to address another mistake on my part, my original example only gave the fighter a +2 atk at first level. Since I gave him W. focus as a gateway feat, it should have been a +3 atk, compared to the bards +4 atk. Even at first level, the fighter is only slightly behind the +18 bard. No kidding. They're still things the fighter can't do. No fighter can self buff. Regardless of stats. But they tend to be better targets for buffs because they can make better use of them than other characters. My 12 high fighter takes a while to get there, but once his level hits 12, his base attack stats are higher than the all 18 bard. The party gets more out of buffing the fighter than the bard at that point. Why? The fighter is hopeless. Better to use it on the party cleric, who, unless he rolled as crappy as our fighter, is also a better melee combatant. Even assuming a moderately well rolled cleric, the fighter has a better BAB, more attacks per round, and still the better weapon selection. The cleric can also be throwing out his own buffs. He can go CoDzilla all on his own. Or he can be supporting the party. We can't assume, since it again depends on the individual player. At any rate, the whole point of this exercise is to show that the unlucky fighter has fewer options than the lucky bard. All you're showing is the fighter is now dependent on the lucky bard for his effectiveness in combat. He is role-playing,m by necessity, a sidekick. And I showed that the fighter has more options than you were willing to give him credit for. Nor does he need to be a side kick. That is only your view. Sure, you might relish playing a sidekick for an entire campaign. But maybe that's not what gives you role-playing pleasure. Tough noogies. You rolled badly, so the next 65 gaming sessions (the assumed length of a 1st to 20th level game), you get to play a sidekick. Oh joy. Again, only your view. I look at the 12 high fighter, and I see an interesting challenge. And one not far off what I've done before. So what? The bar din our example has all the abilities of the fighter, plays his vocal abilities (or somatic, if he takes perform (dance)). Big mistake here. While it doesn't have to be perform (sing), it does have to be some form of audible perfomance. Interpritive dance does not work. Read up the bardic music ability. Also, the bard can't take the Silent spell feat. Again, look it up. By the way, your criticism that bardic abilities can hamper surprise: 1) applies to the bard's party... it's not like the fighter in a bardic party doesn't suffer the proble, and 2) only applies if the bard is playing before encounters begin, which was never suggested. A bard can tiptoe better than the heavily armored fighter, who has no ranks in Move Silently and has an Armor Check penalty! True, but at least the wizard and cleric can take silent spell. Oh, sure he can roll the dice and participate in combat. But how much is he contributing to the party overall? At best, he contributes equally to the bard in combat and contributes less outside combat. (This assumes players of equal role-playing skill.) At best, the bard, or other buffers, realize that by 12th level, the fighters base stats have become the best for combat, and cast thier buff spells on him. Any fighter, regardless of stats, relies on the arcane and divine spells of others. It just takes my 12 high fighter 12 levels to get the best pre buff stats. Oh, please. I was speaking metaphorically. He's on the sidelines in the sense that the bard contributes more, on average, than the fighter, even at higher levels. I didn't mean he literally sits out of combat. I asked you a direct, yes or no question. You said yes. Don't back track now. Yes. Are you being melodramaticly metaphorical again? How about this situation. To complete the parties goal, the bard suggests a bold, daring, and above all dangerous plan that will give them a lot of glory, to be made into an epic ballad. The rogue suggests a safer plan, that wouldn't net them the glory, but get the job done. Now, if the fighter is still alive at this point, he will have learned caution. In the discussion / argument that follows, the fighter has a vested interest in siding with the rogues safer plan. This can be a good, in character, rp based discussion, with no need for melodrama. No, but he just spent every one of his class abilities. As I showed, not even close. No. I think that a level playing field is the epitome of fair play. Even dice rolling starts with a level playing field if everyone use the same method. But even with PB, you can find some builds more effective than others. Since when is fairness mediocrity? Mediocrity is making certain that no one can do better than anyone else, regardless of natural ability. How is that fair? Based on their actual abilities. The players in the D&D game don't roll their own abilities, but abilities for their characters. And in D&D different players have different natural abilities at role-playing. Only if you think it takes no natural skill to play D&D. That makes no sense whatsoever. Giving everybody a level playing field doesn't punish the better players. My analagy, and point is that in RL, there are disparities in skill. RL is not fair. Why try to force an unrealistic fairness into a game of roleplaying? Randomization, in fact, makes it possible less skilled role-players to roll badly and thus be even that much father behind better skilled role-players who roll well. Randomization accentuates disparities in player abilities. But anyone who has low stats, and tries to roleplay is stuck with melodrama in your view. So if the stats are low, no on can roleplay. Therefore, RP skill becomes irrelevant at low stats. This is the view you gave. This is how you answered when I directly asked you if that is what you thought. Are you going to back track again?
Cantankerous 12-12-06, 03:14 AM	Dude, get a grip. ;) If by professionally you meant, I got paid for it, then yes, albeit not alot. White Horse Games, a company that never had more than one lung, or more than local release (too bad really, it was a decent game engine and an interesting take on a post apocalyptic backdrop, the guy who ran it ended up working for Steve Jackson Games) paid us mostly in pizzas and promises, but there was one check involved too (for thirtynine dollars and eighty five cents:dancin: ), so yep, I guess you can say I have done it professionally. It was a bit of work, but alot of fun as well. Now that was (1983) pre point buy days;) but it was still a hoot. The game designers included die rolling, one would presume, because anyone who says they know for sure except for them is a moron, as a throwback to earlier editions. I would guess that they KNEW that the dinosaurs out there who would be the ones primarily buying the game early on would loose their minds completely if there were too many completely new primary systems, so they bit the bullet and hoped for the best. Hey, rolled generation CAN work! It CAN work fine. It usually provides atleast little extra problems, but CAN it work? Absolutely. It's not as much fun, but hey, the primordial ooze is comforting and ventruing out on dry land is scary, I know. Some of the older posters on this board will clearly remember my emergence here, kicking and screaming (metaphoricly) all the way, trying to hang on to those old, familiar, worn out and hackneyed portions of the older editions for dear life. But you know, it wasn't as much fun then as now. IMO, the only people who could get bored with Point Buy are those without any creativity and imagination. They can't think of what to do, so they have want the dice to think for them. Hey, no problemo. If they like it that way, sure, have a ball. Personally, as a Player (on the weird occasions I actually get to play instead of DMing) I can play under either generation system and enjoy myself. As a DM I could DM under either system and enjoy it, but... And here's the but... As even YOU have inadvertently pointed out You (as a DM) have tons of power to compensate for low scores at every encounter. You can also allow rerolls if Ace has 3 18s and Baker only has 1 14 as their respective highest rolls. there ARE very often inherent difficulties that occur with die rolled generation that the DM has to compensate for. With Point Buy you don't need mulligans. You don't need to create a character and then re-create it after rerolling to get it in line with the guy who rolled the 3-18s. No compensations have to be made, it's just not a problem. Ohh, and if someone fails a Death save atr 2nd level, they are probaly dead. Ain't no second level characters in any game I'd want to have anything to do with that are going to be ressing their dead companions, by gumption.;) Ohh, another great line: If I took up snowboarding, and the snowboard tester guy said 'I tested these boards doing this stuff. You might not want to do that though.' ,I'm going to take their advise. So, you figure you might break your neck falling off your point buy? ;) Isshia
CharlieRock 12-12-06, 03:21 AM	The game designers included die rolling, one would presume, because anyone who says they know for sure except for them is a moron, as a throwback to earlier editions. You do realize what you just called yourself in this sentense, right? :rofl:
CharlieRock 12-12-06, 03:27 AM	With Point Buy you don't need mulligans. You don't need to create a character and then re-create it after rerolling to get it in line with the guy who rolled the 3-18s. No compensations have to be made, it's just not a problem. Ohh, and if someone fails a Death save atr 2nd level, they are probaly dead. Ain't no second level characters in any game I'd want to have anything to do with that are going to be ressing their dead companions, by gumption.;) Ohh, another great line: So, you figure you might break your neck falling off your point buy? ;) Isshia No, but if the guy who tested it every which way from sunday recommends rolling dice, whatcha think I'm gonna do? As a DM your compensating for a whole host of things. It doesn't have a quantitative value, so you can't wear it out either. No one in the party remembered to roll up a ranged aggressor (or arcane spell caster, tanker, whatever is deemed the keystone class)? You start tailoring the adventure. Even if every keystone character is represented ,your compensating for that. If you come to the table demanding that everyone start with the same number in stats, thats a form of compensation as well.
Cantankerous 12-12-06, 03:36 AM	You do realize what you just called yourself in this sentense, right? :rofl: Do you know the difference between knowing and presuming, or do you think that everything you presume constitutes knowledge?;) Isshia
Cantankerous 12-12-06, 03:47 AM	No, but if the guy who tested it every which way from sunday recommends rolling dice, whatcha think I'm gonna do? They don't recommend dice rolling. They don't make any recomendations about how you should make your character. They DO however include the system they used. If they didn't think that it warranted inclusion, it stands to reason that they wouldn't have included now would they?;) Really, you're not only grasping at straws here, you're inventing the straws your grasping at. As a DM your compensating for a whole host of things. It doesn't have a quantitative value, so you can't wear it out either. No one in the party remembered to roll up a ranged aggressor (or arcane spell caster, tanker, whatever is deemed the keystone class)? You start tailoring the adventure. Even if every keystone character is represented ,your compensating for that. If you come to the table demanding that everyone start with the same number in stats, thats a form of compensation as well. Maybe you compensate for your Players, maybe you like coddling them. I have too much respect for mine to do so. I assume that they CAN and WILL think about what they are doing and will be able to do certain basic things for themselves. The only stylistic things where I would change a scenario to fit the Players is if we've decided to include a pre-packaged scenario in our campaign. Otherwise I find out ahead of time, before the first character is built, what direction the Players want to go with their characters, what basic type of game they want, whether heavy on intrigue, freewheeling, a save the world type, heavy on combat and dungeon crawling or whatever and create a baseline that we operate from. I present a thesis of ideas and we kick around what we can do to make the game more fun. Once that's in place, no fudging around, the dice fall where they may, but also, my villians are the genre classic, who believe in capturing the defeated heroes so they can gloat, or use them in their schemes, or whatever. Nor is it in any way logicly defensible that a base line is a form of compensation. What does it compensate for? Look, I can run a race wearing track shoes, or whatever foot wear is appropriate, or I can run it by nailing my foot to floor. Personally I'd rather wear the track shoes. Nailing my foot to the floor just does not seem an intelligent way to prepare to run a race. Isshia
CharlieRock 12-12-06, 04:20 AM	Do you know the difference between knowing and presuming, or do you think that everything you presume constitutes knowledge?;) Isshia Well, with your incorrect comma usage in the seperation of ideas within a sentense; you've included 'one would presume' with 'because anyone who knows for sure except them is a moron'. That entails the seperation of those two parts from the rest of the sentense. Which would then read: 'The game designers included die rolling as a throwback to earlier editions.' It took me the second time reading threw it to see your original intent of the phrase.
CharlieRock 12-12-06, 04:36 AM	They don't recommend dice rolling. They don't make any recomendations about how you should make your character. They DO however include the system they used. If they didn't think that it warranted inclusion, it stands to reason that they wouldn't have included now would they?;) Really, you're not only grasping at straws here, you're inventing the straws your grasping at. Dice rolled stats are the presented method in the PHB. The only presented method, btw. I made an assumption that the only presented way to generate a character is the recommended way to go. It seems a rather safe assumption due to the complete lack of alternate methods in the PHB. Maybe you compensate for your Players, maybe you like coddling them. I have too much respect for mine to do so. Oh. Then how do you corelate that with this earlier statement? We play a 28 point buy actually. A bit above the standard, because that's what the group decided. Actually, in the last two campaigns I was stumping for them to take 32 PB, and the Players decided they'd rather do 28s. They probably figured I'd take it a bit easier on them. They were right too. Isshia It doth seem as one DM is coddling his players. Look, I can run a race wearing track shoes, or whatever foot wear is appropriate, or I can run it by nailing my foot to floor. Personally I'd rather wear the track shoes. Nailing my foot to the floor just does not seem an intelligent way to prepare to run a race. And if the guy that tested those sneakers didn't include a hammer and instructions on how to affix a nail through my foot, guess what I'm not going to do? The hammer and nails were included in an altogether seperate purchase for something other then foot races. And that's why outlandish analogies don't work.
CharlieRock 12-12-06, 05:13 AM	If by professionally you meant, I got paid for it, then yes, albeit not alot. White Horse Games, a company that never had more than one lung, or more than local release (too bad really, it was a decent game engine and an interesting take on a post apocalyptic backdrop, the guy who ran it ended up working for Steve Jackson Games) paid us mostly in pizzas and promises, but there was one check involved too (for thirtynine dollars and eighty five cents:dancin: ), so yep, I guess you can say I have done it professionally. It was a bit of work, but alot of fun as well. Now that was (1983) pre point buy days;) but it was still a hoot. Then you are well aware that any form of 'luck' is isolated while playtesting is done. You could roll dice the entire time of playtesting. It'll take longer then if you just penned in what odds were placed where. The actual dice rolled ,traditional style, playing of the game comes at the very end (hopefully) of this process. To put it succinctly: Dice are not rolled throughout the majority of a playtesting process ,and comparing said process to actual game experience with intent to emulate is irrational.
Cantankerous 12-12-06, 08:20 AM	Well, with your incorrect comma usage in the seperation of ideas within a sentense; you've included 'one would presume' with 'because anyone who knows for sure except them is a moron'. That entails the seperation of those two parts from the rest of the sentense. Which would then read: 'The game designers included die rolling as a throwback to earlier editions.' It took me the second time reading threw it to see your original intent of the phrase. Yea gods, my editor isn't as much of a comma Nazi as you. ;) Isshia
Leo 12-12-06, 08:28 AM	You know, in a game where 90% of the actions are decided by dice, you would expect to dice soemwhat affect your charactter's creation
Cantankerous 12-12-06, 08:36 AM	Then you are well aware that any form of 'luck' is isolated while playtesting is done. You could roll dice the entire time of playtesting. It'll take longer then if you just penned in what odds were placed where. The actual dice rolled ,traditional style, playing of the game comes at the very end (hopefully) of this process. To put it succinctly: Dice are not rolled throughout the majority of a playtesting process ,and comparing said process to actual game experience with intent to emulate is irrational. Ahh, not true. In every other game instance, in the testing done with 1st and 2nd edition D&D, according to no less an authority than Dave Arneson (who talked about it in respect to original D&D at a Con I attended long ago , they used rolled characters...as that was the preferred methodoly in those earlier days. It's ridiculous to assert that die rolled characters were not used to play test almost every conceivable type of game upon which such a character was the basis. This edition of D&D differs there. Die rolling (for character generation) is still around, and yet the testers didn't use it. I repeat: Die rolling is still around, and yet the testers didn't use it. And as to dice not being rolled through the majority of the play testing process: on what planet? It's not on this one according to things I heard from some of the luminaries of the earlier editions, my own (albeit limited) experiences and the fact that it also runs completely contrary to common sense. The game is going to be based on die rolling for individual outcomes . So, when we test it, we'll do away with them. Right? Guys, right? Errr, ok. Joke. That's like wanting to test the new car design for automatic transmissions with a manual transmission vehicle. Ahhh, err? Exactly where do you get this stuff? Make it up as you go along? Isshia
wrecan 12-12-06, 08:47 AM	I'm out of this thread. I've already had to report multiple posts for harrassment. I just wanted to let people know not to expect further responses from me. Thanks, anyway.
Cantankerous 12-12-06, 08:50 AM	Dice rolled stats are the presented method in the PHB. The only presented method, btw. I made an assumption that the only presented way to generate a character is the recommended way to go. It seems a rather safe assumption due to the complete lack of alternate methods in the PHB. The PHB is one of three Core Rule Books. The other two are also considered necessary to properly use the game. That is why they are referred to as the Core Rule Books. Savvy Core? The other two expand upon the basics in the PHB, but are equally CORE Rules. The methods there are alternate manners in which to do things. They're options, for when you get used to the basic concepts and want to expand your abilities as Players or DM and when you are ready to streamline your game. Really, don't be afraid to take the training wheels off your game. It won't hurt. Honest. ;) It doth seem as one DM is coddling his players. Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, is it? There is a world of difference between increasing the difficulty considerably, which is what my Players would have (rightfully) expected if the Point Buy was increased, and refraining from increasing the difficulty because they stayed with a more sensible total. As a side note, the difficulty of those campaigns were increased over what they would have been had the Players chosen to go with a 25 Point Buy basis. It's like they have in the DMG: Tougher Campaign 28 points; High Powered Campaign 32 points. The NORMAL expectations are thus that with increased Point Buys, the difficulty of the campaign is going to be increased. Now, that wasn't too difficult for you, was it? And if the guy that tested those sneakers didn't include a hammer and instructions on how to affix a nail through my foot, guess what I'm not going to do? The hammer and nails were included in an altogether seperate purchase for something other then foot races. And that's why outlandish analogies don't work. :rolleyes: Ohh, this is rich. After comparing this: If I took up snowboarding, and the snowboard tester guy said 'I tested these boards doing this stuff. You might not want to do that though.' ,I'm going to take their advise. to using Point Buy, then any attempts by you to cite anyone for outlandish analogies is just too perfect a case of the Pot calling the kettle black.;) Isshia
starfire311 12-12-06, 09:39 AM	Here's an analogy: The A-Team. What was Murdoch's strongest attribute. His craziness :rolleyes: . He wasn't stronger then B.A.. He wasn't smarter then Hannibal. He wasn't slyer (or swarmy, charming) as Face. Yet, could you imagine the A-Team with no Murdoch? It just wouldn't be as fun. :cool: Yes and the A-team would be messed up if Face was stronger than BA and smarter than hannibel, but thre is that chance if he happened to roll well... actually the A-team almost seems like a point-buy party, that did a joint character creation, to cover up each others deficiencies. Some of the older posters on this board will clearly remember my emergence here, kicking and screaming (metaphoricly) all the way, trying to hang on to those old, familiar, worn out and hackneyed portions of the older editions for dear life. Isshia I actually remember, and I also remember you being the 1st poster I encountered, that I didn't like, I thought you were just an old fart dinosaur, that refused to change with the times, and prefered living in the past. yes you did clutch on to your old school ideas with a deathgrip that I had never seen before, you were almost impossible to reason with, I also thought you were quite rude. I was wrong, and my opinion of you has changed greatly since then.;) You know, in a game where 90% of the actions are decided by dice, you would expect to dice soemwhat affect your charactter's creation Actually no, I have played numerous RPGs, that use die rolling methods for action resolution, but don't touch dice during character creation, they let you actually make the character you want, then you play that character. there aer even D20 systems like mutants and mastermind that don't use dice during character creation, heck the don't use XP or levels really either, you just get points to buy all your attributes, BAB, BDB, saves, skills, feats and powers, there is not even HP that need to be rolled, the only die used is a D20. IMO it is a revolutionary system, granted it lacks a bit in some areas IMO, but the game really got me excited the 1st time I read it.
CharlieRock 12-12-06, 10:43 AM	Ahh, not true. In every other game instance, in the testing done with 1st and 2nd edition D&D, according to no less an authority than Dave Arneson (who talked about it in respect to original D&D at a Con I attended long ago , they used rolled characters...as that was the preferred methodoly in those earlier days. It's ridiculous to assert that die rolled characters were not used to play test almost every conceivable type of game upon which such a character was the basis. Since the mechanical parts for 1edD&D was already made (in the form of Chainmail Fantasy Battles) they were well past that part of game designing. I know of several games where dice were named but not rolled during the creation of its mechanics (one was called the Great Unnamed Role-Playing System). Once you've gone and nailed down what sort of mechanics your going to use for what, then the dice come into play. The PHB is one of three Core Rule Books. The other two are also considered necessary to properly use the game. Not for a player. And the DMG does a good job of listing it as a 'variant' rule. Since 'variant' is usually defined as a deviation from the normal (suggested) it is still a safe assumption that the designers recommended dice rolling for stat generation. Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, is it? There is a world of difference between increasing the difficulty considerably, which is what my Players would have (rightfully) expected if the Point Buy was increased, and refraining from increasing the difficulty because they stayed with a more sensible total. And this is not 'compensating' how? I wasn't saying your wrong with your method, simply that it is really similar to what I do (as a DM). But, when I suggested such a measure, you accused me of coddling. I was merely pointed out that your viewing my terms with prejudiced intent. Yes and the A-team would be messed up if Face was stronger than BA and smarter than hannibel, but thre is that chance if he happened to roll well... actually the A-team almost seems like a point-buy party, that did a joint character creation, to cover up each others deficiencies. Like I said. Murdoch was weaker then B.A. ,less 'strategically brilliant' then Hannibal ,and less 'charming' then Face. What did he contribute to the team? Craziness? That's a RP factor. He wasn't the best at something with any of them. But, the A-Team as a whole would have lost so much with his absense.
Doc225 12-12-06, 11:36 AM	Yes and the A-team would be messed up if Face was stronger than BA and smarter than hannibel, but thre is that chance if he happened to roll well... actually the A-team almost seems like a point-buy party, that did a joint character creation, to cover up each others deficiencies. What's wrong with that? Seems like a great way to make a team to me. Most "teams" could be statted out this way. As far as sports teams go, The thing to remember is that while there will be people who are faster and stronger than the others, what have those "others" assigned their "points" and "ranks" to instead of that sport? You shouldn't look at people in the vacuum of just one sport. But we will for this case. Sure Babe Ruth was great at hitting. But how fast was he? He didn't have the best range in the outfield or a great throwing arm, which is something pretty important for a right fielder. Babe was a Min-Maxed hitter, with speed and fielding as dump stats. Ozzie Smith, on the other hand, was a great fielder and hardly ever struck out, but his lifetime batting average was WELL below .300. Home runs for Ozzie? He didn't hit many. Was Babe a Better HITTER? Of course he was. Was he a better PLAYER? Some would argue, as defense is also very important to a team. Should we move on to the speed and hitting of Nolan Ryan? I doubt anyone would argue his pitching ability. Then there are people like Casey Stengel, Joe Torre, or Tony Larussa. None of them were star players or Hall of Famers as players. LaRussa never made it out of the minors. Torre played, yes, but he was never a superstar. These great managers have a head for the game. Are they any less important to the team? No. You could say that they assigned their points more to the mental stats, and instead of buying ranks in fielding or hitting, they bought ranks in "knowlegde (baseball strategy)" and "handle player (diplomacy)" I doubt Einstein put many (if any) points in his physical stats, which left him plenty of points to buy his mental stats. This however would have made him TERRIBLE at baseball! Does this mean he is a useless character? If we are playing a baseball game, probably. If we are playing a twisted game where A-bombs and the theory of relativity mattered in baseball, then maybe he'd be ok. I could do this all day, but I'd rather not, and hopefully my point is understandable.
Doc225 12-12-06, 11:53 AM	I may have forgotten to make my point... Babe, Ozzie, Nolan, Torre, and Eisntein could all have been made with the same point buy. They assigned their points differently, and probably had different classes, which explains the disparity in their abilities.
boozerker 12-12-06, 01:04 PM	According to Skip Williams when they play tested this game they used the iconic characters all predicated on the (25 point buy) Elite Array. They bloody did not use rolled stats, atleast according to one of the designers. So, what exactly is the problem with the method they used to test the game? So, what exactly is the problem with the method they used to introuduce and establish the game? Heck, it even stayed with the 3.5 conversion. And those who've brushed it off as a (precautionary) holdover from the Gygaxian-era are stating opinions, not facts. There is no reason players can't use both (point-buy and rolling) in a game. However, it seems a few in the point-buy crowd have labeled rolling as imbalanced, as if labeling it so changes reality. Makes them sound like politicians instead. The last word in the following quote is an example of such mislabeling (the politician reference isn't directed at you starfire311, by the way). My biggest quetion for those advocates of randomization, is why after trying to so hard to balance, feats, races, classes, spells and magic items, would you begin character creation by insisting the characters start off unbalanced? Simple. But first, let's reword your question. After trying to so hard to balance feats, races, classes, spells and magic items, would you begin character creation by insisting the characters start off rolled (which a significant number of point-buyers see as imbalanced)? If balance is what you're after, then a mix is more balanced than going all one way or another. :tiphat:
boozerker 12-12-06, 01:35 PM	Random-generation fans seem more open to a "use whatever suits ya" attitude than point-buy fans do. No offense meant -- could be direct influence from loud-mouth politicals on AM radio today. Poisoning the minds of *strictly* point-buyers everywhere :zzz: (Yeah, I know, the other side is the rolling "elite" :P) If balance is what you're after, then a mix is more balanced than going all one way or another. To clarify the last post -- mixing fixed numbers with random dice (is more balanced).
Cantankerous 12-12-06, 01:36 PM	So, what exactly is the problem with the method they used to introuduce and establish the game? Heck, it even stayed with the 3.5 conversion. And those who've brushed it off as a (precautionary) holdover from the Gygaxian-era are stating opinions, not facts. There is no reason players can't use both (point-buy and rolling) in a game. However, it seems a few in the point-buy crowd have labeled rolling as imbalanced, as if labeling it so changes reality. Makes them sound like politicians instead. The last word in the following quote is an example of such mislabeling (the politician reference isn't directed at you starfire311, by the way). You're not paying attention. The "Point Buy crowd" hasn't labeled die roll generation as imbalanced. They have said that it is potentially imbalanced though. And it is. Which is the ENTIRE problem. I, for one, have said that I could (and have) enjoyed both ways. It's certain portions of the "die roll crowd" who have said, point blank, that point buy IS boring. Not potentially boring, but rather that it IS boring. Therein the other problem lays, as THAT is ludicrous. About the only way though that die rolled and Point Buy work together "seamlessly" is if the die roll comes up in the same PB range as the rest used for the point buy. Otherwise, there are seams, pure and simple. Can you play the game with the seams still in and enjoy it? You damned bet ya you can. But why add the seams if they don't have to be there? Isshia PS: Hey Starfire, "Who loves ya baby?" side note: where's a good Telly Savalas smiley when you need one?
boozerker 12-12-06, 01:52 PM	It's certain portions of the "die roll crowd" who have said, point blank, that point buy IS boring. Point-buy is not boring. It's not the best system for every gamer, but that's just opinions. There, problem solved. :) Now however, rolling is the official way, in both the PHB and DMG. Except of course, there is no official way. Except of course, for Rule 0. So if anyone says this or that way is bad, they're wrong -- unless they're DM and it's their game (with players agreeing).
CharlieRock 12-12-06, 02:25 PM	That's like wanting to test the new car design for automatic transmissions with a manual transmission vehicle. Ahhh, err? Exactly where do you get this stuff? Make it up as you go along? Isshia Since you like analogies, here is another one. When they tested the space shuttles, they used chimps. Does that mean that astronauts should only consist of people with full body fur with a habit of slinging handfuls of mud at each other? Comparing to playtesters using point buy.
BoringInfoGuy 12-12-06, 02:31 PM	On second thought, this should be a PM matter exclusively, If I really mean what I said.
a_psh 12-12-06, 02:44 PM	Like I said. Murdoch was weaker then B.A. ,less 'strategically brilliant' then Hannibal ,and less 'charming' then Face. What did he contribute to the team? Craziness? That's a RP factor. He wasn't the best at something with any of them. But, the A-Team as a whole would have lost so much with his absense.Well, isn't he like one of the world's best chopper pilots or whatever? (You could call that Dexterity if you wanted to.) Also, I'm not that sharp on my A-Team lore, but, from Wikipedia:Despite his purported mental status, Murdock is a thoroughly competent member of the team, when needed to be. Murdock actually has extensive knowledge of various subjects and keeps up on current events, showing a genius level aptitude. He speaks several languages including Spanish, Vietnamese and Mandarin Chinese. In the second season episode "The Maltese Cow", Murdock says, "What can I say? One day I had a gonzo headache and before it went away I could read and speak Chinese. And it was a bad afternoon, too, lemme tell you." He also seems capable of a photographic memory. He is also a talented actor and often accompanies Face in his scams. He is capable of impersonating the voices of famous individuals and mimicking many different foreign accents.Seems like he's pretty good at more than just flying. With that in mind, can you honestly say that he's that much worse overall than the rest of the team?
a_psh 12-12-06, 03:28 PM	You know, in a game where 90% of the actions are decided by dice, you would expect to dice soemwhat affect your charactter's creationEnh, the standard counter-argument is that rolling dice during character creation is like loading your real dice that you roll during the rest of the game. I know of many games that overwhelmingly rely on fortune mechanics for task or conflict resolution but don't include fortune in character creation and and the majority of those would honestly be absolutely ruined by fortune-based character creation. I can't think of any game that doesn't already have fortune-based character creation that would actually be improved by adding it in (though I think WoD is sufficiently arbitrary that adding it wouldn't affect anything). With that in mind, looking at the actual state of RPGs as a whole, to say that fortune in resolution mechanics demands or even justifies fortune in character creation is a mistake. You need a more compeling reason to include it than just "hey, I roll dice during play!" Now, one of my favorite games actually does use fortune during character creation (whereas I just use point-buy in D&D, though I'd just let people assing stats however they wanted if they cared), but in what many might consider a twisted way: character creation includes an initial conflict. After you pick your stats, traits, &c. non-randomly, you talk about something you hope you accomplished during your initiation. Then you roll to see what happened and success or failure in that conflict helps define your stats.
starfire311 12-12-06, 03:45 PM	Simple. But first, let's reword your question. After trying to so hard to balance feats, races, classes, spells and magic items, would you begin character creation by insisting the characters start off rolled (which a significant number of point-buyers see as imbalanced)? If balance is what you're after, then a mix is more balanced than going all one way or another. :tiphat: that is a completly different kinda of balance and you know it I am arguing that an 18 on 4D6 drop lowest is not balanced with a 12 on 4D6 drop lowest. you are arguing that if you have a everything balanced, then you need to force in some unbalanced stuff, because well it was so balanced that it was becoming unbalanced. how about instead of forcing in unbalanced stats, you force in unbalanced xp or unbalanced starting wealth... would this be reasonable for you.
CharlieRock 12-12-06, 03:50 PM	You're not paying attention. The "Point Buy crowd" hasn't labeled die roll generation as imbalanced. They have said that it is potentially imbalanced though. And it is. Which is the ENTIRE problem. You have said it was imbalanced ('produced inequity' I believe was your terminology.) And your not the spokesperson for the entire point-buy crowd. I can quote several that say it is flat out imbalanced, including yourself. (mainly the one where you used a guy with a high score of 12, disregarding that the PHB would allow a reroll.) But, to be fair .... Point-buy is not boring. It's not the best system for every gamer, but that's just opinions. There, problem solved. :) I am guilty of calling point-buy boring. Within the context of the other games I use being point-bought also. While using the disclaimer that I wanted something different (more exciting) then what I had just previously played. When I get bored with D&D, I'll move onto other games (the ones that use point-buy, likely). One day I'll get bored with those and come back to D&D. Well, isn't he like one of the world's best chopper pilots or whatever? (You could call that Dexterity if you wanted to.) Also, I'm not that sharp on my A-Team lore, but, from Wikipedia:Seems like he's pretty good at more than just flying. With that in mind, can you honestly say that he's that much worse overall than the rest of the team? He was the most frequently used member for flying. And he also was the most argumentative with B.A. over who gets to drive the van. But, Face (and less often Hannibal) also could fly. Face seemed too lazy to do it most of the time, and Hannibal liked to lean back and smoke a cigar instead. In game terms Pilot would be a skill. And you can make a more skilled rogue then a fighter who had higher stats left and right. It could also go some ways to explain all the languages Mad Dog spoke. I didn't say he was the worst team member 'overall'. He just seemed secod best compared to any of the others in their strong areas. He was the most popular (thanks in most part to Dwight Schultz's portrayel). The A-Team would be lost without Murdoch, even though he wasn't their ace in any one field (with the possible exception of flying, which may be an attribute, or just a built up skill). All were superb marksmen, so you can't really make any DEX comparisons easily (B.A. did most of the driving, though).
starfire311 12-12-06, 04:02 PM	You have said it was imbalanced ('produced inequity' I believe was your terminology.) And your not the spokesperson for the entire point-buy crowd. I can quote several that say it is flat out imbalanced, including yourself. (mainly the one where you used a guy with a high score of 12, disregarding that the PHB would allow a reroll.) But, to be fair .... I have said it was not balanced as well, although that is not really true, since it is quite possible to roll and still have completly balanced stats in a party, it is also true that PB is not necessarily balanced as well, but it is IMO more balanced than rolling.
CharlieRock 12-12-06, 04:11 PM	Enh, the standard counter-argument is that rolling dice during character creation is like loading your real dice that you roll during the rest of the game. It's not as bad, though. A 15% difference (at level one) for a +3 that shrinks to less then 2% by level 15. I can play that and still enjoy the game. Main point I'm saying, if your willing to accept the fate handed to you by the dice later on in the game ,then you really shouldn't argue that dice rolls are not important enough to have high impact on character survival. Whether it is one saving throw or six attribute rolls. At some point it is all going to come down to dice rolls. And saying the attribute rolls were less important then the other ones is faulty logic. Why are the rest of the dice rolls 'real dice' (to borrow your term.)? I don't mind a good 'dice-less' or even 'luckless/fortuneless' game. But in a diced game, I'm not going to delude myself that 'these' ones are more important then 'those' ones and never in the middle should they meet. Point-buy is a lot more fairer (and fun) when it has total control of the character (which would include feats and skills in D&D). Jamming it into the front end of character creation is like driving a car before it's hood was put on in the factory. It works ,but looks odd and isn't recommended (by myself).
Cantankerous 12-12-06, 04:26 PM	You have said it was imbalanced ('produced inequity' I believe was your terminology.) And your not the spokesperson for the entire point-buy crowd. I can quote several that say it is flat out imbalanced, including yourself. (mainly the one where you used a guy with a high score of 12, disregarding that the PHB would allow a reroll.) But, to be fair .... Cite it, in my case, since you've thrown me in there, with the # of the post it is in, and we'll take a look. I also believe that if you look at that post, you'll see the rolls cited had a high of 13... but go ahead, cite it and we'll look. Then we'll look at yours, cite them. Do you want to guess where that will go? ;) There are times when enough is enough, and people simply get tired of accrimony, but hey, I've got stamina, if you really want this to turn into accrimony hour, suppose I can oblige you. Isshia
BoringInfoGuy 12-12-06, 04:43 PM	I doubt Einstein put many (if any) points in his physical stats, which left him plenty of points to buy his mental stats. This however would have made him TERRIBLE at baseball! Does this mean he is a useless character? If we are playing a baseball game, probably. If we are playing a twisted game where A-bombs and the theory of relativity mattered in baseball, then maybe he'd be ok. I could do this all day, but I'd rather not, and hopefully my point is understandable. Einstien is a fun example. Think about this, he had one of the most revolutionary minds in physics that the world has ever seen. Aside from that, he could play the violin. Also, he got to date Marilyn Monroe. So you could consider him the ultimate super geek who got the super jock quality girlfriend. Now, that's just not fair. But that is life. Go Einstien!
starfire311 12-12-06, 05:21 PM	It's not as bad, though. A 15% difference (at level one) for a +3 that shrinks to less then 2% by level 15. I can play that and still enjoy the game. a +3 modifier is the same as a +15% modifier at 1st or 20th level if you have a +20 to hit and add a +3 you have increased you chances of hitting by 15%... if you have a +0 to hit, and add a +3 to hit, you have increased your chacnes to hit by 15%... this excludes corner cases at 5% chance to hit or 95% chance to hit. Main point I'm saying, if your willing to accept the fate handed to you by the dice later on in the game ,then you really shouldn't argue that dice rolls are not important enough to have high impact on character survival. Whether it is one saving throw or six attribute rolls. At some point it is all going to come down to dice rolls. And saying the attribute rolls were less important then the other ones is faulty logic. Why are the rest of the dice rolls 'real dice' (to borrow your term.)? Actually the attribute ones are more important than anyone roll during the game, a single 4D6 drop lowest roll that goes into strength will affect each of your attack rolls for an entire campaign, while only one attack roll will affect that one attack roll.
CharlieRock 12-12-06, 05:22 PM	Cite it, in my case, since you've thrown me in there, with the # of the post it is in, and we'll take a look. I also believe that if you look at that post, you'll see the rolls cited had a high of 13... but go ahead, cite it and we'll look. Then we'll look at yours, cite them. Do you want to guess where that will go? ;) There are times when enough is enough, and people simply get tired of accrimony, but hey, I've got stamina, if you really want this to turn into accrimony hour, suppose I can oblige you. Isshia Okay, here in post 97: What I've high lighted there of your statement is the exact opposite of what has been said about die rolling. It has been said that die rolling increases inequities in the creation system, but not once have I seen anyone complain that the characters made by die rolling have stats too low to be playable. Precisely the opposite is true. We've been talking about die rolling creating the 4-18's monster in the same group as the guy with the highest stat of 12. The OBVIOUS problem is not the guy with the highest stat being a 12. He's fine. If everyone else is predicated along the same lines there are no problems. The problem is the guy who rolled (or supposedly rolled) the 4-18's among his rolls. That's a 12. And 'increasing inequity' , not 'increased chances of inequity'. Go ahead and cite my posts. I've already admitted to calling point-buy boring. I'll do it again. Doesn't matter because I'll own up to what I say.
CharlieRock 12-12-06, 05:32 PM	a +3 modifier is the same as a +15% modifier at 1st or 20th level Not actually. With the increase in character abilities and feats (not to mention magic items that were not figured into the equation as yet) that advantage of +/-15% dwindles. As the spread of numbers it would effect start to include the rolls already effected by those feats/abilities. (does it matter if you got the +3 from STR or weapon focus/specialization) Actually the attribute ones are more important than anyone roll during the game, a single 4D6 drop lowest roll that goes into strength will affect each of your attack rolls for an entire campaign, while only one attack roll will affect that one attack roll. Well, doesn't it seem right that six inter-related rolls be more important then one solo roll anyway? And it would not affect all your rolls if you had a +3, it would only affect 15% of them at most. If you attack an AC 15 with +3, does it matter if you rolled a 16, or a 16+3=19 modified. Or, a roll of 10, or 10+3=13 modified. Either way ,you have 17 other numbers that will produce the same results with or without a +3 modifier.
boozerker 12-12-06, 05:42 PM	I am arguing that an 18 on 4D6 drop lowest is not balanced with a 12 on 4D6 drop lowest. you are arguing that if you have a everything balanced, then you need to force in some unbalanced stuff, because well it was so balanced that it was becoming unbalanced. how about instead of forcing in unbalanced stats, you force in unbalanced xp or unbalanced starting wealth... would this be reasonable for you. *Again* labels the rolling system as unbalanced. It's not. Someone did bring up a good point, about the book's explanation of how a +1 or +2 extra is unbalancing. Yet it could've meant in the grand scheme of things, not just for one particular thing. For example, if you got an extra +1 or +2 across the board -- for example letting all similar bonuses stack, or allowing 10 different (thus stackable) bonuses on the same item, and combine that with extra (unrecommended) bonuses in every feat, skill ability, class feature and/or spell -- that would be unbalancing. WotC probably deters that with a blanket precaution, "careful what you do". Actually, none of the core books point out unbalanced things. We only get a warning that something is "probably unbalancing" The core books are way more open-minded than people forget. If anyone could find where the book flatly calls something unbalancing rather than "probably (or likely) unbalancing" they get a :cookie: We're constantly reminded by the DMG about playing by your own style, tweaking rules, heck we're even given Rule 0. And the book emphasizes the rules are guidelines. It only asks that we be mindful of how tweaking might affect game elements which are carefully intertwined. If monster CRs were determined with a point-buy test group, it's likely they just wanted middle of the road results. That way, players could go higher or lower power without affecting balance much, or stick with middle of the road by using point-buy. On complaints about 25 point-buy being too little -- 25 makes sense for the price of choice. There's already a price for rolling, chances of low scores. So point-buy needed its proce too. Anyone who plays MTG could recognize the similarity of balancing factors; choice is more expensive, but random -- though cheaper -- has an even chance of being great or crappy.
starfire311 12-12-06, 05:51 PM	Not actually. With the increase in character abilities and feats (not to mention magic items that were not figured into the equation as yet) that advantage of +/-15% dwindles. As the spread of numbers it would effect start to include the rolls already effected by those feats/abilities. (does it matter if you got the +3 from STR or weapon focus/specialization) doesnt matter where you got the +3 to hit, but in general a +3 to hit grants a +15% chance to hit if you are level 15 with a +20 to hit and the targets AC is anywhere from 24-42 then a +3 to your attack roll will increase your chance to hit by 15% just take for example 2 players want to play a fighter they roll identical stats, but one gets an 18 strength and one has a 14... the one that rolled the 14 essentiall gets WF, WS, GWF for free for every weapon they use, and it is even better than that, because they get extra encumbrance, bouses on skills. Most people would scoff at the idea of giving one player 3 extra feats over another player, but why is it some people don't mind letting the players randomly roll stats, and let essentially the same thing happen, but be far better than just 3 extra feats. A simple +4 to one stat is better than 3 free bonus feats, most of the time. for example 2 characters identical in every way except one has 4 more points of Con. +4 constition gives improved toughness times 2, and great fortitude, and gives bonus on con based skills, con checks, and 4 more points of Con to fight off con draing/damage. Well, doesn't it seem right that six inter-related rolls be more important then one solo roll anyway? And it would not affect all your rolls if you had a +3, it would only affect 15% of them at most. If you attack an AC 15 with +3, does it matter if you rolled a 16, or a 16+3=19 modified. Or, a roll of 10, or 10+3=13 modified. Either way ,you have 17 other numbers that will produce the same results with or without a +3 modifier. Not really, six rolls made at level one should not be more important than every attack roll you make over a 3 level stretch.
Cantankerous 12-12-06, 06:02 PM	Okay, here in post 97: That's a 12. And 'increasing inequity' , not 'increased chances of inequity'. Go ahead and cite my posts. I've already admitted to calling point-buy boring. I'll do it again. Doesn't matter because I'll own up to what I say. You're right. I said twelve there. And? ;) However, sure it does (without any doubt) increase the inequity. Since what was being talked about was the difference between a twelve as highest stat and a boatload of eighteens, how is there not an inequity in those stats? Does a single example mean always though? No, obviously not. Because there IS an inequity between a twelve high and a boatload of eighteens says nothing about the die rolling system as a whole. Simply one part of it. You're a bright guy. I'd doubt seriously that you aren't bright enough to know the difference there. Just a tad conveniently obtuse aren't we? Charlie, you're really stretching here. You're not getting anywhere, but you are stretching. Isshia
justdmjeff 12-12-06, 09:03 PM	Random-generation fans seem more open to a "use whatever suits ya" attitude than point-buy fans do. You know, I was thinking the exact same thing. It seems the that point-buy fans have to convert the masses, because if 4.0 comes out and rolling for stats is the primary ability generator again, the world will end. At least that's the feeling I get from the point-buy posters.
Cantankerous 12-13-06, 12:14 AM	You know, I was thinking the exact same thing. It seems the that point-buy fans have to convert the masses, because if 4.0 comes out and rolling for stats is the primary ability generator again, the world will end. At least that's the feeling I get from the point-buy posters. It's more the other way around. It seems like the dinosaurs see the impending Ice (Point Buy) Age coming and are shouting all the louder, all the more vociferously, by the moment. The Point Buy posters are the ones saying, hey, both ways are ok, whatever ya like, while the most vociferous of the "roll at any cost crowd" are afraid the trend in RPGs that PB represents will continue unto roll generation extinction. Ofcourse, it'll never happen. I hope not away. I like choices. Even if Point Buy were to become the primary method and Die Rolled an option, it'd always be there, just as PB will from this point forward, because once the Genie's out of the bottle, getting him back in there is a pain in the rump; and the Die Rolled Genie has a very broad rump.;) Isshia
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 02:48 AM	doesnt matter where you got the +3 to hit, but in general a +3 to hit grants a +15% chance to hit if you are level 15 with a +20 to hit and the targets AC is anywhere from 24-42 then a +3 to your attack roll will increase your chance to hit by 15% Not really, six rolls made at level one should not be more important than every attack roll you make over a 3 level stretch. If Ace and Bravo rolled their stats, and Ace got +3 in STR: At level 1 there are 15% of the STR rolls that get effected by that +3. The +3 doesn't make a difference on the other 17 numerals that can appear. At level 15, Bravo can cover those three numbers with character abilities and feats. At that point Ace could also grab those feats or character abilities. (also, we could put 3 more stat points in Baker bringing down the difference to +1 or +2). Due to rules on stacking though, that +3 that Ace has(not any of the +2s he gets since then, the original STRbonus) is only going to show through on (slightly less then)1:10 total STR checks by way of comparison to the number of STR it could have effected for Baker. BoringInfoGuy saved me a lot of typing when he posted the fighter (low stat) vs bard (high stat). My experiment only ran through total bonus' available to any character build at each five level stage of progression ,and how many retained an effect by the original stat bonus. There was a serious drop between 10 and 15 (likely the 12th as BoringInfoGuy showed). Now between 15 and 20, there was no further drop off (but at 2% of total d20 checks available being effected, the fractions got to be too much for me, and I quit the experiment). In every stat it was not hard (after 10th level) to close the gap on attribute's original bonus. Now at level one the +3 in STR does provide (with 1d8 weapon) an overall +30 damage per 100 attempts. Giving a +60% to damage after 100 attacks. Very noticeable. But taken into account at that level everyone has 1HD and personal experience that anyone can die quickly in that stage of the game, I wasn't worried on losing out compared to my partner w/+3. It's more the other way around. It seems like the dinosaurs see the impending Ice (Point Buy) Age coming and are shouting all the louder, all the more vociferously, by the moment. The Point Buy posters are the ones saying, hey, both ways are ok, whatever ya like, while the most vociferous of the "roll at any cost crowd" are afraid the trend in RPGs that PB represents will continue unto roll generation extinction. Ofcourse, it'll never happen. I hope not away. I like choices. Even if Point Buy were to become the primary method and Die Rolled an option, it'd always be there, just as PB will from this point forward, because once the Genie's out of the bottle, getting him back in there is a pain in the rump; and the Die Rolled Genie has a very broad rump.;) Isshia Great. Now, not only do I have to work alongside gamers that I have been playing D&D longer then they have been alive; your calling me a dinosaur. :P Thanks ,Cant. I'm not really worried about any trend causing one method or the other to disappear (the fastest rising game atm, is a dice roller). While I have more games that are dice-generators, I've played the point-generators longer. I'm also a collector, and if a game is just that different from the norm, I'll grab it. Who knows, thats why I picked up GURPS and that led to the highest played game time-wise I have. (though with D&D3.x the gap is closing).
Cantankerous 12-13-06, 03:30 AM	Ahh, your welcome Dino. Don't feel bad about the age thing though, from what I get from your bio, I've been DMing for as long as you've been alive, which I guess makes me a gamer grandpa... that and the fact that my eldest child is about to have her second child. ;) Dinosaur though is attitude. It's holding on to the outmoded and a reactionary adherence to it because it's the way things were. I'm bloody glad to see Point Buy finally make it into D&D. I had my own point buy-esque system (that still had rolling in it anyway *lol*) for AD&D as far back as 83 or 84. I've simply never liked the frantic inequality that rolled generation sometimes provides as much as point buys ability to customize and provide more possibilities. Like I said, I likes me my choices, I does. ;) That is the biggest telling point ofcourse. Point Buy can produce ANYTHING that die rolled generation does EXCEPT grevious statistical inequality within the party. Other than providing a built in problem it HAS all the advantages of die rolling. Hell, if you're really stuck for ideas of how to build your character and you think a bit of randomness will help, do as one of my old timers did this last game: die roll it and then using that as a basis, tweak it to conform to the point buy numbers. He ended up with a high dex, high intel, low charisma Rogue by the way. ;) Isshia
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 03:53 AM	That is the biggest telling point ofcourse. Point Buy can produce ANYTHING that die rolled generation does EXCEPT grevious statistical inequality within the party. Other than providing a built in problem it HAS all the advantages of die rolling. Except that it's not die rolling, and so it is less exciting. ;) Edit: And, like the A-Team analogy, we don't need to have everyone have the same quantitative value as the next. And creatively, dice rolled allows me to play a character I had little forethought of. You can't preplan the dice, so what you think your going to get and what you do get are two different things sometimes. Post Edit: In issue #1 KoDT (special edition) Bob is describing his character for the first few pages. He says the 'dice were humming' when he made the character. However, for the next dozen or so panels he describes how he abused the point-buy system to get some gosh-awful powergamed monstrosity of a character. One strike against point-bought characters is it can lead to a lot of munchkinized characters such as Bob's. It was meant in humor. But, it's humor is derived from it being so close to reality.
Lethanic 12-13-06, 05:41 AM	If Ace and Bravo rolled their stats, and Ace got +3 in STR: At level 1 there are 15% of the STR rolls that get effected by that +3. The +3 doesn't make a difference on the other 17 numerals that can appear. At level 15, Bravo can cover those three numbers with character abilities and feats. At that point Ace could also grab those feats or character abilities. (also, we could put 3 more stat points in Baker bringing down the difference to +1 or +2). Due to rules on stacking though, that +3 that Ace has(not any of the +2s he gets since then, the original STRbonus) is only going to show through on (slightly less then)1:10 total STR checks by way of comparison to the number of STR it could have effected for Baker. BoringInfoGuy saved me a lot of typing when he posted the fighter (low stat) vs bard (high stat). My experiment only ran through total bonus' available to any character build at each five level stage of progression ,and how many retained an effect by the original stat bonus. There was a serious drop between 10 and 15 (likely the 12th as BoringInfoGuy showed). Now between 15 and 20, there was no further drop off (but at 2% of total d20 checks available being effected, the fractions got to be too much for me, and I quit the experiment). In every stat it was not hard (after 10th level) to close the gap on attribute's original bonus. Now at level one the +3 in STR does provide (with 1d8 weapon) an overall +30 damage per 100 attempts. Giving a +60% to damage after 100 attacks. Very noticeable. But taken into account at that level everyone has 1HD and personal experience that anyone can die quickly in that stage of the game, I wasn't worried on losing out compared to my partner w/+3. Great. Now, not only do I have to work alongside gamers that I have been playing D&D longer then they have been alive; your calling me a dinosaur. :P Thanks ,Cant. I'm not really worried about any trend causing one method or the other to disappear (the fastest rising game atm, is a dice roller). While I have more games that are dice-generators, I've played the point-generators longer. I'm also a collector, and if a game is just that different from the norm, I'll grab it. Who knows, thats why I picked up GURPS and that led to the highest played game time-wise I have. (though with D&D3.x the gap is closing). HOwever many ways you try to twist around it, that plus three is still an additional plus three. No matter how many levels you add to both characters, it is STILL an additional plus three. Its also possibly more than that to to prerequisites and when certain abilities woudl be allowed,. YOu seem to be presuming that the OTHER person isn't taking feats, isn't doing anythign to improve - when you talk about "Closing the gap"
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 05:46 AM	HOwever many ways you try to twist around it, that plus three is still an additional plus three. No matter how many levels you add to both characters, it is STILL an additional plus three. Its also possibly more than that to to prerequisites and when certain abilities woudl be allowed,. And? It is not as pronounced an inequity as to make characters unplayable or useless. And ,when you've already established that die rolls determine your characters destiny; why not have the ones that form and shape your character of some importance. Your replacing the thrill of dice-rolling with the mundane 'so, I get 1 16, 1 14, and the rest 10s'. If dice rolling is not supposed to effect your character, then get rid of them throughout the game, please. Edit: 'My character is too important to have dice determine his/her fate.' 'But, dice determine the fate of a character later on ,anyway'. 'But, those are different.' 'Why?' 'Because I chose the modifier that applies to a small percentage of them.' 'But, there will always be the chance your character is going to suffer from negative dice rolls. Whether you manipulate those odds by choice or not.' 'I'll take those chances.' 'Then why not take a chance with rolling for your attributes?' 'Because I'll get better odds if I pick them' 'Not ,if you roll well.' 'What if I don't?' 'What if you spent all afternoon optimizing your points, and rolled poorly against an orc who cleaves you ten minutes into the game?' 'That's not going to happen, if I choose my attributes I'll roll better later on.'
starfire311 12-13-06, 08:58 AM	If Ace and Bravo rolled their stats, and Ace got +3 in STR: At level 1 there are 15% of the STR rolls that get effected by that +3. The +3 doesn't make a difference on the other 17 numerals that can appear. At level 15, Bravo can cover those three numbers with character abilities and feats. At that point Ace could also grab those feats or character abilities. (also, we could put 3 more stat points in Baker bringing down the difference to +1 or +2). Due to rules on stacking though, that +3 that Ace has(not any of the +2s he gets since then, the original STRbonus) is only going to show through on (slightly less then)1:10 total STR checks by way of comparison to the number of STR it could have effected for Baker. BoringInfoGuy saved me a lot of typing when he posted the fighter (low stat) vs bard (high stat). My experiment only ran through total bonus' available to any character build at each five level stage of progression ,and how many retained an effect by the original stat bonus. There was a serious drop between 10 and 15 (likely the 12th as BoringInfoGuy showed). Now between 15 and 20, there was no further drop off (but at 2% of total d20 checks available being effected, the fractions got to be too much for me, and I quit the experiment). In every stat it was not hard (after 10th level) to close the gap on attribute's original bonus. Now at level one the +3 in STR does provide (with 1d8 weapon) an overall +30 damage per 100 attempts. Giving a +60% to damage after 100 attacks. Very noticeable. But taken into account at that level everyone has 1HD and personal experience that anyone can die quickly in that stage of the game, I wasn't worried on losing out compared to my partner w/+3. I son't see how you are closing the gap, everything that Bravo does to close the gap, Ace can do to increase the gap. I am not comparing a 15th level bard w/ +3 str mod to a 15th fighter with +0 str mod I am comparing essentially the same character vs itself with +3 higher strength mod. So if you have a 5th level fighter with WF, WS, +1 weapon, and 13 strength He will be 15% less likly to hit than a fighter with WF, WS, +1 Weapon and 19 strength. As far as I can tell, as long as both characters have access to the same wealth, then it will be impossible for the lower strength one to ever catch up to teh higher strength one. Yes as a DM I can correct this, by giving the weaker fighter something to compensate, but this IMO would be showing favoritism.
boozerker 12-13-06, 09:01 AM	Point Buy can produce ANYTHING that die rolled generation does EXCEPT grevious statistical inequality within the party. Well, point-buy doesn't allow you to go below 8. That's like forcing rerolls on anything below 3, in random generation. Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10778116#post10778116)' s an unofficial (yet accurate) point-buy system for going below 8 (all the way down to 3) -- see if it holds up as well to your statement.
starfire311 12-13-06, 09:07 AM	And? It is not as pronounced an inequity as to make characters unplayable or useless. And ,when you've already established that die rolls determine your characters destiny; why not have the ones that form and shape your character of some importance. Then why not randomly determine other things like SP per level, you can easily have fighters roll a D4, Barbarians D6, Rangers D8 and Rogues a D10, You can aslo randomly do many other things as well such as roll 1D10x100 open ended for starting gold, or roll for starting XP that way as well. Niether of those would horribly unbalance things untill you are in a group where one person gets extremly lucky, sweet I just got 4 tens in a row for starting XP, I get to start at 3rd level with 4700 xp, oh man too bad you rolled tha 1. Just because something doesn't always make the game horribly unbalanced doesnt make it worth it, giving someone 3-5 extra feats at 1st level for free would not horribly unbalance the game, but it wouldn't be fair to the other players.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 09:08 AM	Yes as a DM I can correct this, by giving the weaker fighter something to compensate, but this IMO would be showing favoritism. First off, there is not much wrong with that. As Cant pointed out you are supposed to take it easier on lower score characters. Second, doing +3 on damage to a 20d8 hp creature is only increasing one hit by +3%. Sure it was 60% of 1d8 hp, but it dropped off. Third, take those same two fighters in your example and have them wear identical armor. Say they are pretty well protected at AC 20. Have them attack each other 100 times and count up how many each would hit. At level 15 they are both hitting 95% of the time. They are both hitting the same amount of times all the way out to the upper 20s in AC, and thats just with abilities (we could assume both were buffed and push their 95% to-hit all the way into the 30s .. which would be a very old red dragon, something the both are likely to encounter by15). By epic levels it seems to make far more difference what you are carrying or casting then whatever stats you were starting off with. Edit: Besides, you may encounter this with point buy players ,but how likely are Baker and Ace to take the exact same feats with the exact same PrCs while discovering the exact same magic items.
justdmjeff 12-13-06, 09:09 AM	If dice rolling is not supposed to effect your character, then get rid of them throughout the game, please. Edit: 'My character is too important to have dice determine his/her fate.' 'But, dice determine the fate of a character later on ,anyway'. 'But, those are different.' 'Why?' 'Because I chose the modifier that applies to a small percentage of them.' 'But, there will always be the chance your character is going to suffer from negative dice rolls. Whether you manipulate those odds by choice or not.' 'I'll take those chances.' 'Then why not take a chance with rolling for your attributes?' 'Because I'll get better odds if I pick them' 'Not ,if you roll well.' 'What if I don't?' 'What if you spent all afternoon optimizing your points, and rolled poorly against an orc who cleaves you ten minutes into the game?' 'That's not going to happen, if I choose my attributes I'll roll better later on.' :bow: I can completely understand using point buy on a player's view if that player feels he must play a certain class for the upcoming campaign. I can also understand using it if the group feels that everyone must start "equally". But other than that, why take away the fun of rolling the dice to help create the character?
Zumarai 12-13-06, 09:24 AM	But other than that, why take away the fun of rolling the dice to help create the character? Because some of us don't get a stiffy rolling ability scores? I've been playing since 1st edition and I have always dreaded rolling ability scores, and the same goes for hit points.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 09:35 AM	Then why not randomly determine other things like SP per level, you can easily have fighters roll a D4, Barbarians D6, Rangers D8 and Rogues a D10, You can aslo randomly do many other things as well such as roll 1D10x100 open ended for starting gold, or roll for starting XP that way as well. Niether of those would horribly unbalance things untill you are in a group where one person gets extremly lucky, sweet I just got 4 tens in a row for starting XP, I get to start at 3rd level with 4700 xp, oh man too bad you rolled tha 1. Just because something doesn't always make the game horribly unbalanced doesnt make it worth it, giving someone 3-5 extra feats at 1st level for free would not horribly unbalance the game, but it wouldn't be fair to the other players. What is SP/Level? Silver Pieces? You do roll for that (except it is GP). If it is skill points, well you are kinda rolling for that with INT. Any + gets X4 added to class base. You can't roll for starting XP. You start with 0. Level 1 (or alternately level 0). How many characters do you go through during the rat race that is levels 1-5? Just one?
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 09:36 AM	Because some of us don't get a stiffy rolling ability scores? I've been playing since 1st edition and I have always dreaded rolling ability scores, and the same goes for hit points. Then do point buy. Why does your preference have anything to do with how I make a character?(you can do a point-buy in the same campaign as a roller, you know) How do you face that dread of rolling the die when the *ahem* 'real' rolls are made?
justdmjeff 12-13-06, 09:46 AM	I've been playing since 1st edition and I have always dreaded rolling ability scores, and the same goes for hit points. Do what ever you feel comfortable with. I'm not judging you. I just do not understand, that's all.
boozerker 12-13-06, 09:50 AM	Then why not randomly determine other things like SP per level, you can easily have fighters roll a D4, Barbarians D6, Rangers D8 and Rogues a D10, You can aslo randomly do many other things as well such as roll 1D10x100 open ended for starting gold, or roll for starting XP that way as well. Because none are time-tested traditions. Rolling is. And part of tradition is following core books, and tweaking as needed. Presently, core has rolling as official. Some people may not like rolling, that's fine. But D&D is about choice, so play whatever you like.
starfire311 12-13-06, 09:52 AM	First off, there is not much wrong with that. As Cant pointed out you are supposed to take it easier on lower score characters. There is a difference between taking it easier and compensating for a deficit... compensating would be giving the 12 str fighter a +6 belt of strength at 1st level, taking it easier, would be not having any mosters attack him and always have them attack the higher strength guy, both IMO show favortism, one is just a bit mroe obvious than the other. Second, doing +3 on damage to a 20d8 hp creature is only increasing one hit by +3%. Sure it was 60% of 1d8 hp, but it dropped off. Third, take those same two fighters in your example and have them wear identical armor. Say they are pretty well protected at AC 20. Have them attack each other 100 times and count up how many each would hit. At level 15 they are both hitting 95% of the time. They are both hitting the same amount of times all the way out to the upper 20s in AC, and thats just with abilities (we could assume both were buffed and push their 95% to-hit all the way into the 30s .. which would be a very old red dragon, something the both are likely to encounter by15). OK i'll do the math, since I think you are wrong 1st fighter level 15 with Str 21, +5 long sword, WF, WS, MWM, GWF, GWS Gives +29/+24/+19 1D8+16 Crit 19+/x2 2nd fighter level 15 with Str 27, +5 long sword, WF, WS, MWM, GWF, GWS Gives +32/+27/+22 1D8+19 Crit 19+/x2 VS AC 25 on Average with full attack(including crits) Fighter 1 does 37.62 Fighter 2 does 48.2625 Difference of 22% VS AC 30 on Average with full attack(including crits) Fighter 1 does 32.395 Fighter 2 does 43.45 Difference of 25% VS AC 35 on Average with full attack(including crits) Fighter 1 does 21.8075 Fighter 2 does 34.1 Difference of 36%
Zumarai 12-13-06, 09:52 AM	Then do point buy. Why does your preference have anything to do with how I make a character?(you can do a point-buy in the same campaign as a roller, you know) How do you face that dread of rolling the die when the *ahem* 'real' rolls are made? So you feel you can dictate to the DM which character generation method will be implemented? I only dread "rolling" for ability scores and hit points because those are one off rolls that affect your character for the rest of their career. All the other rolls are so common (attacks, saves, skill checks etc) that it's no big deal if you have that crap night where you can't seem to roll over a 3. Attacks and saves may come and go, but ability scores/hit points are forever.
Zumarai 12-13-06, 09:55 AM	And part of tradition is following core books Tradition is the illusion of permanence.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 09:58 AM	So you feel you can dictate to the DM which character generation method will be implemented? I only dread "rolling" for ability scores and hit points because those are one off rolls that affect your character for the rest of their career. All the other rolls are so common (attacks, saves, skill checks etc) that it's no big deal if you have that crap night where you can't seem to roll over a 3. Attacks and saves may come and go, but ability scores/hit points are forever. A poorly rolled save can result in dweth. Which, by default, effects the rest of your career? I don't get the first question. If I can't roll my stats, I'm probably not going to play D&D. Since, to me, that is one of it's major draws.
Zumarai 12-13-06, 09:59 AM	Do what ever you feel comfortable with. I'm not judging you. I just do not understand, that's all. I know you're not judging me – I'm certainly not judging anyone. Hey, do whatever is the most fun for your group. What don't you understand?
Cruel 12-13-06, 10:00 AM	Probably because you took the best part about rolling out of your friend's hands, literally. Rolling for stats is cool because you get to do it, not because someone else makes your stats for you. Letting someone else pick out your ability numbers is reserved for point buying, where the DM tells you how powerful you start out. Im thinking you may have missed the real point there. When you come up with a method of rolling stats that is fair enough to both parties that you will be willing to take the worst set of numbers, call me, ill get on board the uneven character train. till then, im riding the point buy express. in my experience, people want rolling to get a chance to play a character that outshines everyone else in the group. Take that away, and the 'rolling coolness' factor fades rapidly
boozerker 12-13-06, 10:04 AM	I only dread "rolling" for ability scores and hit points because those are one off rolls that affect your character for the rest of their career. A failed save or attack roll can affect the rest of their career. Death usually works that way :D Matching attack # vs. AC in combat (instead of rolling), would be far superior then, wouldn't it? That way you know exactly if your PC can jump the pit, hit the orc, climb the wall. No room for error -- choose your destiny.
Zumarai 12-13-06, 10:04 AM	A poorly rolled save can result in dweth. Which, by default, effects the rest of your career? I don't get the first question. If I can't roll my stats, I'm probably not going to play D&D. Since, to me, that is one of it's major draws. I think at this point you are trying to deliberately feign misunderstanding. You know the difference between a roll that results in your characters death and a series of rolls that starts your character off on unequal footing. And for me, rolling for stats has always been the games big repellent.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 10:07 AM	Tradition is the illusion of permanence. :uh-huh: There is a difference between taking it easier and compensating for a deficit... compensating would be giving the 12 str fighter a +6 belt of strength at 1st level, taking it easier, would be not having any mosters attack him and always have them attack the higher strength guy, both IMO show favortism, one is just a bit mroe obvious than the other. If I was a monster, I'd go after the biggest guy that does the most damage. :cool: And, why did you include criticals (something I left out of my math, since attributes don't effect them whatsoever.) I almost started figuring those in, but realized that +3 isn't going to effect the DP100r at all. And you didn't notice that both have the same to-hit against the AC25 for 2:3 attacks? And that thrid attack there is still only a 15% chance of it actually being effected by the +3. Looks to me like that +3 didn't make much more significance in to-hit. Assuming the HD of the creature was equal to level of character that damage difference is appx 4.5%(edit: whoops, thats actually 2/15, not 1/20). of a difference in total creature HP. Edit: Against the 30AC, the +3 only helped on 10% of the second attacks (none at all on the first) and 15% of the attacks made on the third. On an average that would mean the +3 ,against this AC, helps make the difference on 8 1/3%. Your only helping me out here. The biggest difference on damage was vs AC35 ,and that was about 10-12 pts. Again less then 15%(2/15) of total creature hp. Ten points on average difference, that can be covered by a 2nd level sorc spell. A 2nd level divine spell will push that window of no-difference in to-hit out 3 more ACs.
boozerker 12-13-06, 10:07 AM	Tradition is the illusion of permanence. Taken out of context. And part of tradition is follwowing core books, and tweaking as needed. Tweaking means no permanence (except the act of doing it).
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 10:11 AM	I think at this point you are trying to deliberately feign misunderstanding. You know the difference between a roll that results in your characters death and a series of rolls that starts your character off on unequal footing. And for me, rolling for stats has always been the games big repellent. At level 1, when the bonus to stats are most apparent, your still a fish in the barrel trying to make that 1HD (of whatever Die it is) cover your hide till the end of the session when you can go 'level up'. Usually, I made the guys with the big bad stats open up the doors or enter the corridors first. When they went splat I had the choice of taking my lower stats and running or going splat with them :rofl: Sure, I know the difference in those rolls. But, I fail to see why those first six should count less then the rest.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 10:18 AM	Matching attack # vs. AC in combat (instead of rolling), would be far superior then, wouldn't it? That way you know exactly if your PC can jump the pit, hit the orc, climb the wall. No room for error -- choose your destiny. Sounds like a totally fair and non-imbalanced game to me ... :zzz: Edit: It's Chess the RPG! :rimshot:
Zumarai 12-13-06, 10:27 AM	One could say that rolling for ability scores is a revolting, Gigaxian hold-over for those players that really just want to justify ridiculous scores and laud it over the other players, while pretending that they're better at role-playing because they play with what "fate" gave them. One could say that Point Buy is a Min-Maxer's wet dream and an excuse to get the perfect build, and that they can't role-play their way out of a wet paper bag. Who's to say who's right – was Jack the Ripper the Loch Ness Monster? ...We may never know the answers to these questions.
Zumarai 12-13-06, 10:31 AM	Sure, I know the difference in those rolls. But, I fail to see why those first six should count less then the rest. That's what we're saying - they are too important to let fate decide.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 10:46 AM	That's what we're saying - they are too important to let fate decide. It is just that importance that gives it the thrill of rolling for it. And each roll thereafter.
Zumarai 12-13-06, 10:52 AM	It is just that importance that gives it the thrill of rolling for it. For you maybe, some of us just get stressed out and nauseas when we have to roll ability scores.
Cantankerous 12-13-06, 11:02 AM	Well, point-buy doesn't allow you to go below 8. That's like forcing rerolls on anything below 3, in random generation. Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10778116#post10778116)' s an unofficial (yet accurate) point-buy system for going below 8 (all the way down to 3) -- see if it holds up as well to your statement. Point Buy allows you to do anything the Players and DM says it allows you to do. Really though, never once, ever, have I seen a person ASK to have a score set low and not had the DM accomidate them. Nor have I heard of such a thing. Charlie, if you can roll anyway and then tweak (if necessary), you ARE rolling. You get the best of both worlds. Isshia
Cantankerous 12-13-06, 11:05 AM	Well, point-buy doesn't allow you to go below 8. That's like forcing rerolls on anything below 3, in random generation. Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10778116#post10778116)' s an unofficial (yet accurate) point-buy system for going below 8 (all the way down to 3) -- see if it holds up as well to your statement. Point Buy allows you to do anything the Players and DM says it allows you to do. Really though, never once, ever, have I seen a person ASK to have a score set low and not had the DM accomidate them. Nor have I heard of such a thing. As Cant pointed out you are supposed to take it easier on lower score characters. No, Cant didn't point that out in the manner in which you are stating. Not at all. I did say that you gauge your campaign before you start it. You do NOT EVER let any individual Player have it easier than any other. THAT most assuredly IS showing favoritism. And Charlie, if you can roll anyway and then tweak (if necessary), you ARE rolling. You get the best of both worlds. As for Munchkinized...the worst munchkinized characters possible are the ones created by a munchkin...whether they use point buy or rolled (and usually cheated too with a munchkin, something Point Buy by itself doesn't allow for) generation matters not a single whit. Isshia
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-13-06, 11:19 AM	Why is this still being argued exactly? I thought the benefits of each had been summed up pretty well earlier on.
thehivemind5 12-13-06, 11:19 AM	Our group does things a little differently. We use 4d6 drop lowest, except that you can really have as many re-rolls as you want (though we get a little leary after three or so). We also often roll our stats where no one else can see. We recently played a game where i was the only character without an 18,and had the lowest stats at 16,16,14,14,12,10, or something like that. Want to know somethign weird? We still had fun! Especially me as the character concept I had was really cool and fun to play. I suppose my point is that if your group decides it can trust itself and is willing to have fun instead of whining, you can practically let people pick their own stats. Our system works really well, despite the fact that two of us (myself included) are optimizers at heart and everyone else has no power gaming in them. No one tries to hog the spot-light, and everyone is willing to share the glory. My advice: become good friends with your group FIRST, then play DnD. You'll find things work out much better.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 11:52 AM	For you maybe, some of us just get stressed out and nauseas when we have to roll ability scores. I really wouldn't want to be there when you have to save vs mummy rot or something then ... :gah: (eww, he just chucked on my mini.) Charlie, if you can roll anyway and then tweak (if necessary), you ARE rolling. You get the best of both worlds. Isshia What I meant was, I could roll my stats, and someone with a weaker stomach, or someone that wasn't into taking that kind of a chance could use point-buy. Just because you use a point buy doesn't mean I don't roll OR tweak my scores to fit yours. Point-buy guarantees you will have no too low scores. So you really can't complain on that aspect ,then if I just rolled and took my own chances. No, Cant didn't point that out in the manner in which you are stating. Not at all. I did say that you gauge your campaign before you start it. You do NOT EVER let any individual Player have it easier than any other. THAT most assuredly IS showing favoritism. Is it favoritism or just plain dumb to leave the most powerful member of the opponent out of an attack, just because that's who you swung at the last time? You don't have to evenly distribute enemy attacks. You should be playing them as if they had a will to live and succeed. That would include the basic tactic of taking out the heaviest hitter (or healer) first.
boozerker 12-13-06, 11:55 AM	in my experience, people want rolling to get a chance to play a character that outshines everyone else in the group. Wanting to roll good, and wanting to outshine everyone are two different things. Maybe your group is like that? Could explain the dislike. Point Buy allows you to do anything the Players and DM says it allows you to do. Really though, never once, ever, have I seen a person ASK to have a score set low and not had the DM accomidate them. Nor have I heard of such a thing. You only lower a score below 8 so that you can raise another score -- you don't take a crappy score just for kicks. The system explains that. It is just that importance that gives it the thrill of rolling for it. And each roll thereafter. For you maybe, some of us just get stressed out and nauseas when we have to roll ability scores. Both reasonable. There are people who love fantastic stunts that would nauseate most of us to attempt, and they only get one chance to fail. Yet some thrill seekers, like skydivers, weight the odds in their favor (just like dismissing crappy rolls). (Like eating a Reese's) there's no wrong way to generate ability scores. To each their preference.
boozerker 12-13-06, 12:01 PM	You do NOT EVER let any individual Player have it easier than any other. THAT most assuredly IS showing favoritism. Most fans of rolling probably would say that fellow party members would stick them with found loot (magic items), to compensate. The DM has nothing to do with that.
starfire311 12-13-06, 12:09 PM	And, why did you include criticals (something I left out of my math, since attributes don't effect them whatsoever.) The reason for this is becasue the spreadsheet I use to do damage calculations, takes criticals into account, and I didnt feel like redoing the spreadsheet to ignore criticals, since as you put it, attributes don't really affect them, I just left it in. And you didn't notice that both have the same to-hit against the AC25 for 2:3 attacks? I did notice Here is the actually breakdown per attack vs AC 25 Fighter 1(Low strength) Attack 1 (95% chance to hit): 20.3775 Attack 2(95%): 9.9275 Attack 3 (70%): 7.315 Fighter 2(High strength) Attack 1 (95% chance to hit): 23.5125 Attack 2(95%): 13.0625 Attack 3(85%): 11.6875 And that thrid attack there is still only a 15% chance of it actually being effected by the +3. Looks to me like that +3 didn't make much more significance in to-hit. Assuming the HD of the creature was equal to level of character that damage difference is appx 4.5%(edit: whoops, thats actually 2/15, not 1/20). of a difference in total creature HP. It is substancial, theere is a difference of 22% in the damage output VS say a creature with 200 HP it would take the 1st fighter 5.3 rounds to kill it and the 2nd fighter 4.1 rounds to kill it, this is substantial. Edit: Against the 30AC, the +3 only helped on 10% of the second attacks (none at all on the first) and 15% of the attacks made on the third. On an average that would mean the +3 ,against this AC, helps make the difference on 8 1/3%. Your only helping me out here. Yes it only increses you chance to hit by 8.3%(which is still far better than WF can ever give you) but it also increases your damage per hit and when combine it gives a net increase of 25% to your damage output, and 25% more damage per round is quite a large increase. The biggest difference on damage was vs AC35 ,and that was about 10-12 pts. Again less then 15%(2/15) of total creature hp. Ten points on average difference, that can be covered by a 2nd level sorc spell. A 2nd level divine spell will push that window of no-difference in to-hit out 3 more ACs. the difference is very large at AC 35 It is 36%, and yes the weaker fighter could benefit from spells, but then again so can the stronger fighter. VS a 200HP AC 35 opponent the weaker fighter would take 9.2 rounds to kill him while the stronger fighter only takes 5.7 rounds.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 12:13 PM	Im thinking you may have missed the real point there. When you come up with a method of rolling stats that is fair enough to both parties that you will be willing to take the worst set of numbers, call me, ill get on board the uneven character train. till then, im riding the point buy express. in my experience, people want rolling to get a chance to play a character that outshines everyone else in the group. Take that away, and the 'rolling coolness' factor fades rapidly Why wouldn't it bother me if someone else rolls 2 18s and 3 16s? I got myself a 5'X5' spot on the map to hide behind. The rest I couldn't understand what you were saying.
Cantankerous 12-13-06, 12:18 PM	What I meant was, I could roll my stats, and someone with a weaker stomach, or someone that wasn't into taking that kind of a chance could use point-buy. Just because you use a point buy doesn't mean I don't roll OR tweak my scores to fit yours. Point-buy guarantees you will have no too low scores. So you really can't complain on that aspect ,then if I just rolled and took my own chances. No, it doesn't. Presently in our Point Buy game (the newer of the two now running) we've got a character (remember the Rogue I mentioned?) with a Charisma of 4. Again, what DM ever refused to let a Player play a lower than "rolled" stat? Is it favoritism or just plain dumb to leave the most powerful member of the opponent out of an attack, just because that's who you swung at the last time? You don't have to evenly distribute enemy attacks. You should be playing them as if they had a will to live and succeed. That would include the basic tactic of taking out the heaviest hitter (or healer) first. Charlie, a decent DM plays the NPCs as though they are living beings. If they're dumb animals, they attack as a dumb animal would, if they're tactical geniuses they attack in said manner. Which, by the by, is NOT always to take the meaty warrior out first, and if there is no obvious "most powerful", which there shouldn't be, as that should be as nebulous as the situation (and is if everyone buys intelligently and starts from an even basis). The heaviest hitter? Who's that? The Wizard with the Disintegrate, the Fighter with the mega damage weapon he uses three times in the round, the Rogue with the horrific backstab damage, the Druid who's about to transform into the Dire Shark (if we're in the water just then, or into some other nasty in another situation), who IS the heavy hitter? And other than carrying the glowing stave of doom, or the flaming greatsword, or walking around with crackles of energy leaking from your eyes, how do you tell who the heavy hitter is? And why is there just ONE heavy hitter? Oh yeah, because one guy is so stupendously unbalanced compared to everyone else because they rolled average on ONE SET OF ROLLS six months ago, while he rolled like a house afire. With Point Buy you simply don't hit this problem. The NPCs can react in an organic and intelligent manner, according to the situation at hand, because there probably is no ONE heavy hitter in the group, for whom everyone else is a supporting character. They're ALL heavy hitters, some better in this or that situation, but all are terrifying to the enemy, all of them demand respect and care when confronting, not just the guy who rolled well once many moons agone so that every other player is just there to provide support for the only real hero. Isshia
boozerker 12-13-06, 12:25 PM	No, it doesn't. Presently in our Point Buy game (the newer of the two now running) we've got a character (remember the Rogue I mentioned?) with a Charisma of 4. Again, what DM ever refused to let a Player play a lower than "rolled" stat? Probably the one obsessed with party equality :D The heaviest hitter? Who's that? The Wizard with the Disintegrate, the Fighter with the mega damage weapon he uses three times in the round, the Rogue with the horrific backstab damage, the Druid who's about to transform into the Dire Shark (if we're in the water just then, or into some other nasty in another situation), who IS the heavy hitter? The one who charges in.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 12:31 PM	The reason for this is becasue the spreadsheet I use to do damage calculations, takes criticals into account, and I didnt feel like redoing the spreadsheet to ignore criticals, since as you put it, attributes don't really affect them, I just left it in. Just seemed like more work to me ,though. It is substancial, theere is a difference of 22% in the damage output VS say a creature with 200 HP it would take the 1st fighter 5.3 rounds to kill it and the 2nd fighter 4.1 rounds to kill it, this is substantial. 15% of 1:3 attacks is substancial? :confused: One round, Ace wouldn't be able to get a hit off on Baker's creature (unless he has some kind of move+attack feat, but that would require a reworking of DPR that would favor Baker more). Baker notices not much difference. Yes it only increses you chance to hit by 8.3%(which is still far better than WF can ever give you) but it also increases your damage per hit and when combine it gives a net increase of 25% to your damage output, and 25% more damage per round is quite a large increase. Until you start into the higher 30s in AC the difference in damage will be 9DPR. It may be 25% of output, but it is still 4.5% of input. You were setting out to prove my figures wrong. So far, you just arrived at the same results (and are reading the opposite into them). These are still not an imbalance that I would want to quit playing Baker over. the difference is very large at AC 35 It is 36%, and yes the weaker fighter could benefit from spells, but then again so can the stronger fighter. VS a 200HP AC 35 opponent the weaker fighter would take 9.2 rounds to kill him while the stronger fighter only takes 5.7 rounds. I was assuming the same target. You split them up. The to-hit never got over 15% at 1:1. And, your wrong btw. Baker would kill his creature in eight, as Ace would take one in travel (or take a single attack). If you used one 2nd level spell the difference there becomes entirely negligible (sure Ace could benefit exactly from it, I'm saying it is not an insurmountable difference between the two.What are the real odds of two 15th level fighters with no caster back-up able to cast a 2nd level spell?) To be clear, it does make a difference. To me, that difference is not too bad. I suppose if you sat there with a calculator all game long and fretted over it ,it would become somewhat of a nuisance (and so would the calculator). :smirk:
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 12:41 PM	Charlie, a decent DM plays the NPCs as though they are living beings. If they're dumb animals, they attack as a dumb animal would, if they're tactical geniuses they attack in said manner. Which, by the by, is NOT always to take the meaty warrior out first, and if there is no obvious "most powerful", which there shouldn't be, as that should be as nebulous as the situation (and is if everyone buys intelligently and starts from an even basis). The heaviest hitter? Who's that? And why is there just ONE heavy hitter? Oh yeah, because one guy is so stupendously unbalanced compared to everyone else because they rolled average on ONE SET OF ROLLS six months ago, while he rolled like a house afire. With Point Buy you simply don't hit this problem. The NPCs can react in an organic and intelligent manner, according to the situation at hand, because there probably is no ONE heavy hitter in the group, for whom everyone else is a supporting character. They're ALL heavy hitters, some better in this or that situation, but all are terrifying to the enemy, all of them demand respect and care when confronting, not just the guy who rolled well once many moons agone so that every other player is just there to provide support for the only real hero. Isshia First of all, in the high level games, your casters are the heavy hitters (generally regardless of stats ,even). You can tell who the heavy hitters (plural ;) ) are just a few short rounds into a battle. Whoever a)busted up the front line so bad it isn't there anymore or b) just bypassed the entire front either with damage or themselves. If A and B both happen, you might want to go to plan B (as in Begone). Sure you can decoy and draw out the enemy heavy hitters, but who is going to be the decoy? There are pros and cons as to which squad gets the weight (and the action). If your team has one heavy hitter, then that is generally who I'd pick for a decoy. One character (unless a seriously BAD nuker) just doesn't have the power to outflank the enemy. If you have many heavy hitters, then you could risk the weaker squad to be the decoys, as you have serious power to outflank really quickly. Either way, you aren't leaving out anyone as each has an important role to play (adjusted to their strengths).
starfire311 12-13-06, 12:44 PM	I was assuming the same target. You split them up. The to-hit never got over 15% at 1:1. And, your wrong btw. Baker would kill his creature in eight, as Ace would take one in travel (or take a single attack). I am not wrong, unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying. Weaker fighter(baker): Damage per round VS AC 35: 21.8075 200HP/21.8075 HP/Round = 9.17 Rounds Stronger fighter(Ace): Damage per round VS AC 35: 34.1 200HP/34.1 HP/Round = 5.87 Rounds Are you trying to say that Ace would kill his guy in 6 rounds, then spend a round moving, then on the 8th round help baker finish his off, thus allowing baker to kill his in 8 rounds? Man if that aint stealing the show. Disclaimer: I am doing my best to make sure I don't mis-type any of the numbers, but typos can still happen if something seems odd, let me know and I can double check.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 12:50 PM	I am not wrong, unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying. Weaker fighter(baker): Damage per round VS AC 35: 21.8075 200HP/21.8075 HP/Round = 9.17 Rounds Stronger fighter(Ace): Damage per round VS AC 35: 34.1 200HP/34.1 HP/Round = 5.87 Rounds Are you trying to say that Ace would kill his guy in 6 rounds, then spend a round moving, then on the 8th round help baker finish his off, thus allowing baker to kill his in 8 rounds? Man if that aint stealing the show. Disclaimer: I am doing my best to make sure I don't mis-type any of the numbers, but typos can still happen if something seems odd, let me know and I can double check. How is that stealing the show? Chances are Baker is going to get the kill-shot anyway. And I would be quite cross (and rightly so) if Ace (my partner) didn't come help me.
Cantankerous 12-13-06, 01:18 PM	Having to have your buddy help you out, fight after fight after fight after fight after... you get the idea, when you rarely if ever have to return the favor is not the stuff of heroic legend. It's being the side kick, or as one recent movie had it: "hero support". Why, based on a single set of rolls a year or two, or more earlier, does it make sense for one or several players to have to be "hero support" for the "heavy hitter"? Which (the Heavy Hitter that is), even at Epic levels, is not always the guy slinging the spells. It's still situational. A heavy SR on an opponent can make the Wizo very glad that Haclan still kicks out a routine hundred plus damge per round. A Rogue can make even that pale, all on a single roll, in the right situation. It aint always the spell slingers bubby. Isshia
Cantankerous 12-13-06, 01:21 PM	Probably the one obsessed with party equality :D A single stat doesn't change party equality in the least. It's the over all that does. The one who charges in. Oh, by no means is the one who gets moronicly idiotic, err, charges in, the heavy hitter. Usually of course, no one gets stupid, errr, charges in. That's one of the joys of having a strong tacticly minded group though. Isshia
Matthew77 12-13-06, 01:27 PM	I'm not going to weigh in on the point buy / rolling debate, I think it was settled in the second post when Toloran laid out the arguments on each side. However, I want to correct a common error. People argue that a +3 modifer = 15% greater chance to succeed. This is wrong. Example: +9 attack bonus trying to hit a 20 AC, hits 50% of the time. +12 attack bonus trying to hit a 20 AC, hits 65% of the time. The +12 hits 30% more often than the +9, not 15% more often. (65 is 30% greater than 50) Extreme example: +9 attack bonus trying to hit a 30 AC, hits 5% of the time +12 attack bonus trying to hit a 30 AC, hits 15% of the time The +12 hits 200% more often, not 15% more often. (15 is 200% greater than 5) You are correct in saying it only makes a difference on 15% of the rolls (3 numbers), however, that translates into a lot more than 15% greater combat effectiveness. (or skill checks or saving throws or whatever.)
boozerker 12-13-06, 01:33 PM	A single stat doesn't change party equality in the least. It's the over all that does. Still missing the point, which is related to using my system of going below 8 (as opposed to simply asking to go below 8 -- with nothing in return). Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10778116#post10778116)' s the link again. It's more customized, just as potentially imbalancing, and still 25 point-buy. (In post #431, you never addressed the system)
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 01:43 PM	Having to have your buddy help you out, fight after fight after fight after fight after... you get the idea, when you rarely if ever have to return the favor is not the stuff of heroic legend. It's being the side kick, or as one recent movie had it: "hero support". Why, based on a single set of rolls a year or two, or more earlier, does it make sense for one or several players to have to be "hero support" for the "heavy hitter"? Your helping each other out. Unless Ace thinks he has a better chance going it alone. What happened to your low rolls? The ones that mess up someone's stats so bad. They never happen to Ace later on? Ever? It is not only statistically possible Ace is going to flub some rolls, it is highly probable. And Baker would be there to help him out in such a case. However, I want to correct a common error. People argue that a +3 modifer = 15% greater chance to succeed. This is wrong. Example: +9 attack bonus trying to hit a 20 AC, hits 50% of the time. +12 attack bonus trying to hit a 20 AC, hits 65% of the time. The +12 hits 30% more often than the +9, not 15% more often. (65 is 30% greater than 50) You are correct in saying it only makes a difference on 15% of the rolls (3 numbers), however, that translates into a lot more than 15% greater combat effectiveness. (or skill checks or saving throws or whatever.) Compared from one to the other in absense of any other factor, maybe. But we were taking the overall (three factor, or four in Starfire 311's use). It is only going to effect 3 (or less) numbers per die roll. In 100 rounds that is still only going to be a 15% accuracy boost. They are still 50-65% success for total attacks made. And against an AC25 they both have 95% for 2:3 attacks. Shrinking your 30% difference.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 03:37 PM	Point-buy is as much about hindering someone's play as it is helping out someone's. If you offered a point-buyer the ability to generate their stats with points, while allowing you to roll your own; what do you suppose the response would be? Of course not! You can't be allowed to undertake such a chance because if you roll well, it will still ruin their game. They label it as the 'choice' method of generating a character while taking choice away from others. Edit: I could accomodate a player who insisted on point-buy stat generation (especially if it made one nauseous). However, I would not abide that player to make that choice for any other players. D&D is about taking chances. Taking a chance on stat generation is fun for myself, and many other players.
starfire311 12-13-06, 03:51 PM	Compared from one to the other in absense of any other factor, maybe. But we were taking the overall (three factor, or four in Starfire 311's use). It is only going to effect 3 (or less) numbers per die roll. In 100 rounds that is still only going to be a 15% accuracy boost. They are still 50-65% success for total attacks made. And against an AC25 they both have 95% for 2:3 attacks. Shrinking your 30% difference. 1st in the example of the 25 AC it affects at least the 3 damage rolls, if they hit and 1 of the attack rolls, so it can affect 4 rolls per round. the 1st & 2nd attack will have its damage affected 95% of then the 3rd attack will have its attack roll affected 15% of the time and the damage roll affected 85% of the time. So, out of 100 rounds of combat you will have 95+95+15+85= 290 out of a possible 95+95+95+95= 360 rolls affected So, the +3 mod to str will affect more than 15% of the rolls, in the case of the AC 25 example, witha 95% chance to hit even without the +3, that +3 will still increase your damage dealt by 10%(if say you do 30 points on average), 95% of the time. in a case were you have say a 50% chance to hit and you do 30 points of damage, gaining a +3 to your str mod will increase your damage output on 15% of your rolls by 110% and on 50% of your rolls by 10% IE, you will hit on an 8-10 now and doing 100% more than the 0% you were doing, and also gaining a bonus of +10% on top of it (from the +3 to your 30 points before), and for the other rolls of 11-20 you will still get a +10% to your damage.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 04:01 PM	So, out of 100 rounds of combat you will have 95+95+15+85= 290 out of a possible 95+95+95+95= 360 rolls affected Your leaving out the first two attacks of 95+95 that weren't effected in the first place? Or just the damage rolls here? Actually, the possible number of rolls effected were 400. Since even though you can pretty much gaurantee that 5% will miss, you have to count those 'absentee' rolls in the total possible. Otherwise an actually rolled figure could come out looking like 390 hits out of a possible 360.
starfire311 12-13-06, 04:08 PM	Point-buy is as much about hindering someone's play as it is helping out someone's. If you offered a point-buyer the ability to generate their stats with points, while allowing you to roll your own; what do you suppose the response would be? Of course not! You can't be allowed to undertake such a chance because if you roll well, it will still ruin their game. They label it as the 'choice' method of generating a character while taking choice away from others. 1st I ask you would you mind if the DM said, ok this is gonna be 4D6 drop the lowest or point buy, and everyone makes there character, and then another guy shows up late and the DM says 4D6 drop the lowest or point-buy, and the other player is like cool, I already got a point-buy character made, lets play, and it turns out he is using a 96 point buy. actually, IMO people should only use one means of stat generation, unless ofcourse that stat generation is use wahtever stat generation method you like. For example if the group chooses 22 point-buy then everyone use 22 PB, if the group chooses 4D6 drop lowest everyone uses it, even if one player would prefer 5D6 drop 2 lowest. Now if the group says just put whatever stats however you like(my personal favorite) then you could roll 4D6 drop lowest if you want, you could use 22 PB or 48 PB, or you could just create the character you envision.
Nom 12-13-06, 05:31 PM	Still missing the point, which is related to using my system of going below 8 (as opposed to simply asking to go below 8 -- with nothing in return).Basically, anything below 8 isn't a real penalty (compared to any other below 8 value). If you're willing to suffer a -2, you'll be willing to suffer a -4, since you're not planning on actually doing anything meaningful with the score anyway. The same applies to rolling, except that without a point transfer mechanism to harvest 'below 8' scores minimums aren't as important. It's just a 'rubbish score' to put in whatever is your dump ability (hope you can afford one). More on topic, it's interesting to note that while both WFRP (earlier editions) and Runequest used random generation, they used it for everything. Race, class, abilities and skills were all randomly generated roughly in the order they appeared in your life. D&D ability rolling has this bizarre system where you roll your abilities first and then select what race you are. :confused:
starfire311 12-13-06, 05:34 PM	Your leaving out the first two attacks of 95+95 that weren't effected in the first place? Or just the damage rolls here? Actually, the possible number of rolls effected were 400. Since even though you can pretty much gaurantee that 5% will miss, you have to count those 'absentee' rolls in the total possible. Otherwise an actually rolled figure could come out looking like 390 hits out of a possible 360. guess I could have phraseds it better over the course of 100 rounds there is a 300 attack rolls made and upto 300 damage rolls for a total theoretical possibility of 600 rolls(not counting crits) on the 1st attack 0 of the 100 rolls have the possibility of being affected by the +3. Running Total rolls affected on average 0 out of 0 on average only 95 out of 100 will hit and of those 95 that hit all 95 damage rolls will be affected. running Total rolls affect on average 95 out of 95 on the 2nd attack 0 of the 100 rolls have the possibility of being affected by the +3. Total rolls affected on average 95 out of 95 on the 2nd attack, on average only 95 out of 100 will hit and of those 95 that hit all 95 damage rolls will be affected. running Total rolls affect on average 190 out of 190 on the 3rd attack, on average, 15 of 90 of the rolls have the possibility of being affected by the +3, the other 10 will either be auto hit or auto miss Total rolls affected on average 205 out of 295 on average only 85 out of 100 will hit and of those 85 that hit all 85 damage rolls will be affected. Total rolls affect on average 290 out of 380 That is how I arrived at the numbers I guess I could have said that out of possible 600 die rolls, on average, only 380 have the possibility of being affected and of those 380 on average 290 will be affected.
Matthew77 12-13-06, 05:43 PM	If you're dealing with STR mods only, even if you hit on anything but a 1, more strength means you can powerattack more with the same hit percentage. Unless you are already powerattacking max and hitting on anything but a 1, in which case the thing you're fighting isn't really a threat anyway. I guess my point is that starting with an 18 in a prime stat for your class gives you a major advantage over starting with a 14, no matter what level you eventually reach, the guy that started with 18 will be significantly more powerful. If you think party members should be roughly equal in power, then you should consider point-buy rather than rolling. Imagine if you rolled a D6 and were able to add that many templates to your character when you made it.. same idea. Someone's gonna feel useless because they rolled low, and sidekicks are funny in movies, but not so much fun to play.
Sim_antix 12-13-06, 06:22 PM	Point Buy produces characters that all have the exact same abilities as eachother even if they are placed in different stats there is zero discrepancy. I have heard some Point Buy enthusiasts say that this eliminates jealousy issues and truely thats the only thing I think it does. Rolling gives you a more realistic spread of abilities as well as allowing for some people to be more naturally gifted than others. Note that this does not make them a better hero than the other characters, just that they have more natural abilities to work with while the others must rely on their class abilities, items and abilities that they do have.
justdmjeff 12-13-06, 06:29 PM	I know you're not judging me – I'm certainly not judging anyone. Hey, do whatever is the most fun for your group. What don't you understand? I don't understand where the fun comes in using point-buy. To me point buy is like watching football with the coach on the sideline with his laminated sheet telling him whether he should go for a 2 point conversion or not.:bored: You could make a sheet with every class and point-buy total there is and have the abilities all charted out. Heck somewhere out there some publishing company probably has done that. Want to be a fighter? Here is where you should place the stats for a 25 point-buy.:zzz:
starfire311 12-13-06, 06:36 PM	I don't understand where the fun comes in using point-buy. it comes from letting your imagination flow and creating the character that you envision, yes you can do this with die rolling too, IMO there is no enjoyment to be gained by rolling D6s, I can do that any time anywhere. The enjoyment comes from building your character, not just the rolling fo stats. To me point buy is like watching football with the coach on the sideline with his laminated sheet telling him whether he should go for a 2 point conversion or not.:bored: sorry, but I really love football, and I love the strategy behind football, making a call on whether or not to go for 2 is ussually not clear cut, and is always second guessed... it is far from boring IMO You could make a sheet with every class and point-buy total there is and have the abilities all charted out. Heck somewhere out there some publishing company probably has done that. Want to be a fighter? Here is where you should place the stats for a 25 point-buy.:zzz: the thing is you do the exact same thing when rolling stats, want to be a fighter, place your stats like this Str 1, Dex 3, Con 2, Int 4, Wis 5, Cha 6 or some variation of that for different fighter types.
justdmjeff 12-13-06, 07:10 PM	sorry, but I really love football, and I love the strategy behind football, making a call on whether or not to go for 2 is ussually not clear cut, and is always second guessed... it is far from boring IMO. I really, really love football too. I agree that going for 2 should not be so clear cut. But how many times have you seen the coach in the post-game press conference explain his decision to kick an extra point instead of going for 2, "We just went by the chart."? ARRRRRRGH Have some guts. Take a chance. Don't let some piece of paper make a decision for you. the thing is you do the exact same thing when rolling stats, want to be a fighter, place your stats like this Str 1, Dex 3, Con 2, Int 4, Wis 5, Cha 6 or some variation of that for different fighter types. Yep. I could do that too. But a least I would have fun rolling some dice first. Again I have zero problem with someone that comes to the table and knows the type of character he wants to play before the campaign starts and wants to use a point-buy to accomplish his goal. I understand the fun of that. I couldn't to it, but I understand it. I come to the table with no idea of what the character is going to be. I roll and it's like a light goes on in my head and the character starts to take shape. Maybe the dice are my muse. Point-buy to me is like reading a technical manuel for my car. I can read it. I can understand it. But it is very dry and bland and it makes my head hurt. The fun of rolling sparks some creativity inside me.
The_Levitator 12-13-06, 07:50 PM	I think justdmjeff has touched on a very important aspect of this conversation. I've been DM'ing for more than 20 years and for the most part, players have fallen into 1 of 2 groups. Group 1 knows exactly what they want to play before they even show up, and tend to only ever play 1 or 2 classes. Group 2 designs their character by the roll of the die. They play something different every time they play. They don't have any idea what character they want to play before they start. From my experience, Group 1 has been a MUCH larger group than Group 2. That would seem to explain the appeal of point buy for what seems to be a lot of players. They already know what they want to play and they want to adjust the stats to fit that exact character. I had just as much fun with Group 1 players as I did Group 2 players. Honestly, I don't see what the fuss is all about. All we are talking about is a way to create a character. They are just numbers. Numbers that help you determine your next choice of actions. I've always believed that the emphasis should be on the story, not the stats. Good players do just as well with average characters as they do with heroic characters. And for some campaigns, average characters are more fun than heroic characters would be. Both methods are good in their own way. It definitely seems like 3.5 is much more of a spoon-fed game than earlier editions. The addition of things like point buy, feats and prestige classes take a lot of the work out of roleplaying and character development it seems. My players have preferred to use the feats and skills with the Core characters and create their own version of those classes. But I can see how that would appeal to some people. With 3.5 you can just pick stuff from a list and go kill stuff. You can pick your own stats, your own skills, and your own feats like a buffet. I have one player in my group that I know is very drawn to that aspect of 3.5. He mostly plays meat shields and cares very little about information gathering or puzzle solving or roleplaying. He just likes combat......a lot! Although the one spoon-feeding aspect of 3.5 he doesn't care for is the point buy, but I'm not sure why. I would have thought he would prefer it to rolling. The DM's job is to find the method that works the best for their group. I don't have any point-buyers in my current group of 6 players, so it's a moot point for me. We had tossed the idea of PB around, but it was quickly tossed away in favor of rolling. But keep in mind that most of my group is comprised of long term gamers who mostly fall into Group 2 (my combat crazy meat shield being the exception, he's definitely in group 1)and rarely play the same class twice. People who like PB probably wouldn't like our group anyways because I determine skills and their advancements based on how you play your character. If you didn't climb anything or make any attempt to practice climbing, you don't get to add ranks to your climb skill. We also don't allow dipping unless you can provide a REALLY good storyline reason for it. And it has to be able to be worked into the campaign. So if the sorcerer wants to get some sword training and he has to hole up in the city with the guard captain for a few weeks, the party has to decide if it's worth it for them to wait around for him. I should mention that we don't have big chunks of time in the game where everyone goes off and trains and practices to get their levels. I level people up as soon as they have the EXP to do it, because they pick whatever feats, skill, spells, etc. that they want at the next level in advance so that I know what they are working on. That way we don't have to have story killing downtime while everyone scatters to get better at everything. What I'm trying to say is basically that there are as many ways to play D&D as there are groups playing it. The only wrong way to do anything is doing it in a way that is no fun for your players. I know it's a cliche thing to say, but it's true. If my group came to me with a specific idea of characters in mind that they wanted to run and they wanted to go point buy, we'd go point buy no problem. Not only that, but I'd probably let them pick the points too. I'm the DM, I can work with anything they create, so it just doesn't matter to me. :D
boozerker 12-13-06, 08:43 PM	Basically, anything below 8 isn't a real penalty (compared to any other below 8 value). If you're willing to suffer a -2, you'll be willing to suffer a -4, since you're not planning on actually doing anything meaningful with the score anyway. Nope :) Then ability score damage takes you right out. In the most extreme example (one score is 24 and the rest are each 3), that PC will have serious drawbacks. And speaking of that, negative modifiers affect saves too. And hit points, AC, skills (and how many at first level), feat prerequisites, etc.
Boshi 12-13-06, 08:47 PM	The number one reason that using rolling for thats always pisses me off: I want to make an Errol Flynn-style character with great charisma, very good dex, decent str, con and win and abysmal wis. Basically can talk his way out of anything, somewhat clever, in good shape but with the common sense of a lemming. With 28 point buy I do: Str: 12 Dex: 14 Con: 12 Int: 12 Wis: 8 Cha: 16 Beautiful! Matches my concept exactly! Then I go and roll for stats and get: 15, 14, 14, 13, 12, 11 I'd probably have to do with this: Str: 13 Dex: 14 Con: 12 Int: 14 Wis: 11 Cha: 15 Which doesn't fit my character concept anywhere near as well as the other bunch of stats. As far as point-buy being more realistic I could see that if people rolled organically (roll the stats in order, no swapping) as that would result in some interesting characters with very non-standard ability score combinations but if you allow players to assign stats how they want you get the same basic stat configurations that people do with point-buy and the same dump stats being dumped just with some more added randomness. It just seems like randomness for the sake of randomness to me.
boozerker 12-13-06, 09:16 PM	Agreed Boshi. We could improve the feasibility of mixing both systems rather than highlight why one should go and one is "better". It's plain that both ways are fun to different players, regardless of nitpicks made about each system.
Sim_antix 12-13-06, 09:20 PM	Except your wisdom of a lemming is still only a -1 and can not go lower by point buy standards whereas with rolling you could get 5 10 12 12 14 16 and viola your perfect character concept...
boozerker 12-13-06, 09:31 PM	I'll just repost the gist of my point-buy system here. (The DMg says their point-buy gives maximim customization, but this method offers a bit more) Step 1. Your abilities start at 3. Step 2. Your pool starts at 55. Buy your points one at a time and place them anywhere. Minimum cost is 1, raising an ability costs the same as its modifier. For example, if a score is 13 (+1 modifier), raising it once costs 1. But raising it again (from 14, +2 modifier) then costs 2 more. Below are 3 results using this system. The need of one outweighs the needs of the many: 3 24 3 3 9 3 Two good scores: 17 10 14 8 10 10 One nice score: 18 10 10 12 9 8
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 10:06 PM	The number one reason that using rolling for thats always pisses me off: I want to make an Errol Flynn-style character with great charisma, very good dex, decent str, con and win and abysmal wis. Basically can talk his way out of anything, somewhat clever, in good shape but with the common sense of a lemming. With 28 point buy I do: Str: 12 Dex: 14 Con: 12 Int: 12 Wis: 8 Cha: 16 Beautiful! Matches my concept exactly! Then I go and roll for stats and get: 15, 14, 14, 13, 12, 11 I'd probably have to do with this: Str: 13 Dex: 14 Con: 12 Int: 14 Wis: 11 Cha: 15 Which doesn't fit my character concept anywhere near as well as the other bunch of stats. As far as point-buy being more realistic I could see that if people rolled organically (roll the stats in order, no swapping) as that would result in some interesting characters with very non-standard ability score combinations but if you allow players to assign stats how they want you get the same basic stat configurations that people do with point-buy and the same dump stats being dumped just with some more added randomness. It just seems like randomness for the sake of randomness to me. Don't worry! If he makes it to 4th then your good to go. That CHA bumps up to 16 (which is where you had it anyway). I don't attach that much to my characters until they hit about 5th anyway. Too easy to lose them before that to work myself into a fit that it didn't fit concept exactly. Edit: Also, now (after you'd hit 4th) you have an origin of your character developing and practising his CHA before he got really good.
BoringInfoGuy 12-13-06, 11:33 PM	There is a difference between taking it easier and compensating for a deficit... compensating would be giving the 12 str fighter a +6 belt of strength at 1st level, taking it easier, would be not having any mosters attack him and always have them attack the higher strength guy, both IMO show favortism, one is just a bit mroe obvious than the other. And if I was playing that fighter, I'd give the belt to the rogue. If the monsters are ignoring my fighter becuase the DM is trying to "help" me out, I'd start putting myself in the middle of the largest group of monsters possible during combat. If I'm willing to take what I get in rolls, then I'm willing to deal with it as is. Not with a wink and a nudge to the DM that he'll "make it ok." And when the combat trick finally gets my fighter killed, I would ask to play another fighter with the same stats, but this time with the DM kid gloves off for my PC.
BoringInfoGuy 12-14-06, 12:23 AM	I come to the table with no idea of what the character is going to be. I roll and it's like a light goes on in my head and the character starts to take shape. Maybe the dice are my muse. Point-buy to me is like reading a technical manuel for my car. I can read it. I can understand it. But it is very dry and bland and it makes my head hurt. The fun of rolling sparks some creativity inside me. I may have some basic concepts in mind, but it's not until I have those rolls on paper, and start working out how to place them that his personality developes. It's exciting to see what I have to work with. What character will it inspire? But they don't worry me. It's about creating a character, not a series of stats. That inspiration is something I don't get from working out point buy. Now, point buy doesn't always let you make the character you've envisioned. I've walked into D&D games with a couple of loose ideas on what I feel like playing. Only to have even these beginning concepts invalidated by the DM before I can pick up the dice. Now, there are still times that I hold that PB makes more sense. The discussions about Howling Mad Murdock reminds me of his "Dwight Schultz?" character Reginald Barcley and Star Trek TNG. Now, the Enterprise is the flag ship of the Federation. So, it makes sense that the the crew is the best of the best. If a DM said that he was making a campaign themed after the Star Trek, starting with higher level PB characters make sense. These would be the best possible people. Now, if the campaign was more based off of Star Trek Acadamy theme, rolled first level characters make more sense (to me, at least). The cadets are still untried.
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 01:24 AM	Point-buy is as much about hindering someone's play as it is helping out someone's. If you offered a point-buyer the ability to generate their stats with points, while allowing you to roll your own; what do you suppose the response would be? Of course not! You can't be allowed to undertake such a chance because if you roll well, it will still ruin their game. They label it as the 'choice' method of generating a character while taking choice away from others. Edit: I could accomodate a player who insisted on point-buy stat generation (especially if it made one nauseous). However, I would not abide that player to make that choice for any other players. D&D is about taking chances. Taking a chance on stat generation is fun for myself, and many other players. So, if everyone else rolled their stats and the other person wnated to Point Buy his at say, 22 points above the highest rolled stat characters total, that would be ok? So, what you are really saying is, the only reason not to point buy is so that you can have stats higher than everybody elses. I've been saying that that IS the real reason for people who insist on rolled stats too. Well, atleast now it's clear. The rolled stats advocate cannot stand the thought that they might not have the chance for the highest stats in the group, or have a drastic statistical advantage over the basis for the campaign at the least, because you know, if you roll too low, there is always a re-roll (and another, and another, etcetera, ad naseum) until such an advantage is gained. Honestly, really honestly now, and think about it first: if you were offered this choice: "You can roll your stats while everyone else Point Buys theirs, but yours can't exceed theirs." Would THAT be ok? I think the obvious answer there is also, "of course not!" Why? If the rolled ideal is so cool, why not allow for both ends of the spectrum? This is typical "I want an advantage and I'll get it or I'll pout" nonsense. Why do you need to have those higher stats. Isshia
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 01:28 AM	Group 1 knows exactly what they want to play before they even show up, and tend to only ever play 1 or 2 classes. Group 2 designs their character by the roll of the die. They play something different every time they play. They don't have any idea what character they want to play before they start. Nonsense. Since instituting Point Buy I've seen more, far more in fact, diversity than without it. I've seen every possible combination of stats and classes, including what on the surface looks to be heavily non-optimized choices (like our Rogue, which class usually gets quite a bit out of Charisma skills) that work our beautifully because the Player is REQUIRED to consider the implications of what the stat represents instead of having the dice think for him. Isshia
Olskool 12-14-06, 02:39 AM	So, what you are really saying is, the only reason not to point buy is so that you can have stats higher than everybody elses. I've been saying that that IS the real reason for people who insist on rolled stats too. Well, atleast now it's clear. The rolled stats advocate cannot stand the thought that they might not have the chance for the highest stats in the group, This is typical "I want an advantage and I'll get it or I'll pout" nonsense. Why do you need to have those higher stats. Isshia Nobody "needs" higher stats. They just want them because it's fun. It's fun in a game that's about having fun. And I've never seen anyone pout because they rolled low stats. They play their low stat character and have fun doing it. Because they came to play a game to have fun. Point buy seems boring, technical, and soulless to some people. And they think rolling dice is fun. No amount of charts, and figures, and math are going to convince dice rollers that point buy is better than rolling. Because charts, and figures and math are boring. And rolling dice is fun
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 02:51 AM	Rationalizations are rationalizations no matter how you try to window dress them. The ONLY single difference in Roll to Generate instead of Point Buy, because you are going to be making all of those same "boring, technical, and soulless" decisions in character generation whether you make your character in one way or the other anyway, is that you introduce a basis for possible inequality right from the beginning that effects everything you do from that point onward. It is the ONLY difference. You still decide (unless you place them as you roll them, a real oddity that wasn't adhered to even at conventions even when that was the "offical" way to do things) where you are going to place your rolls. You still decide what class you are going to play. You still make all the same "boring, technical, and soulless" decisions after you've rolled the dice. Thirty seconds of fun, or not so much fun (if the rolls are eh, so so), or frustration (if the rolls suck), at the beginning of a campaign is not in any manner enough to compensate for the sometimes thousands of hours those thirty seconds worth of actions modify. Isshia
Olskool 12-14-06, 03:04 AM	Rationalizations are rationalizations no matter how you try to window dress them. The ONLY single difference in Roll to Generate instead of Point Buy, because you are going to be making all of those same "boring, technical, and soulless" decisions in character generation whether you make your character in one way or the other anyway, is that you introduce a basis for possible inequality right from the beginning that effects everything you do from that point onward. Isshia Inequality Ineshmality.D&D characters are'nt supposed to be equal. Uncertainty is part of the fun. No one's supposed to know what they're getting going in. It's D&D not some videogame. Unequal stats are a small part of the fun of the game, but all the quirks and imperfections of the game add up to the total sum of what makes D&D fun. I'm not rationalizing anything. I just hate point buy, my players hate point buy and point buy will never be mentioned at any table where I'm running a game. If you enjoy point buy, that's great. You can go point buy till the cows come home for all i care. But nothing you've said so far has convinced me that point buy is better than rolling. Because rolling dice is just more fun than point buy, and no amount of math can convince me otherwise.
Sim_antix 12-14-06, 03:51 AM	No no no if you are going to debate the Pro Point Buyers you have to attack their main point. "Rolling is unfair and unbalances the game" Thats is the pro PB sentiment and I am calling shennanigans on it. Rolling for stats is not any more unfair and unbalancing than allowing someone to be a Druid or a Cleric when the rest of the part is Fighters and Bards. Its not any less fair than setting a PB limit too low for anyone to play a decent Paladin or Monk and forcing everyone to either play SAD characters or fall behind in power thus leading to an imbalance in the game. Rolling allows everyone the same chance to get the scores they need to play a character that they want to play therefor it is even more fair and balanced than point buy could ever be.
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 04:44 AM	Inequality Ineshmality.D&D characters are'nt supposed to be equal. Uncertainty is part of the fun. No one's supposed to know what they're getting going in. It's D&D not some videogame. Unequal stats are a small part of the fun of the game, but all the quirks and imperfections of the game add up to the total sum of what makes D&D fun. I'm not rationalizing anything. I just hate point buy, my players hate point buy and point buy will never be mentioned at any table where I'm running a game. If you enjoy point buy, that's great. You can go point buy till the cows come home for all i care. But nothing you've said so far has convinced me that point buy is better than rolling. Because rolling dice is just more fun than point buy, and no amount of math can convince me otherwise. It's not math bubby, it's simple common sense. Why should anyone (the DM in this instance) create yet another problem to be solved in a game so full of them? Why nail your foot to the floor before you begin the race? There is nothing, at all, in any manner, to Point Buy that is any less fun, or any more mechanical or soulless than Roll to Generate. No one is trying to convince you of anything. I doubt anyone here gives a flying frig in a hurricane how you do things. You like Die Roll...super. have fun. But the question posed by the OP, what is being discussed, is the benefits of point buy versus dice rolling, so, that's what's being done. Isshia
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 04:54 AM	No no no if you are going to debate the Pro Point Buyers you have to attack their main point. "Rolling is unfair and unbalances the game" Thats is the pro PB sentiment and I am calling shennanigans on it. Rolling for stats is not any more unfair and unbalancing than allowing someone to be a Druid or a Cleric when the rest of the part is Fighters and Bards. Its not any less fair than setting a PB limit too low for anyone to play a decent Paladin or Monk and forcing everyone to either play SAD characters or fall behind in power thus leading to an imbalance in the game. Rolling allows everyone the same chance to get the scores they need to play a character that they want to play therefor it is even more fair and balanced than point buy could ever be. Complete BS. If the classes are played with all of their requirements and possibilities in place (instead of ignoring the main ones for Druids and Clerics as most people do, the fact that they are SERVANTS of an outside force and must adhere, closely, to what that force wants) then the classes are VERY well balanced. Sure, some are better at one thing or another, but why not? We WANT diversity. Sure, some classes shine more at certain levels than others. Sure, spell slingers of any type are more powerful comparitively to other classes the higher they get in levels, but with them getting there is the problem, so that should be so. And no, you do not need to have massive points to play any class. Neither Monk nor Paladin needs to have a larger Point Buy than Sorcerer or Cleric. They have more areas where they gain benefit from a higher score, but they do not in any manner NEED more points. That's just childish whinning. Nor does it have anything to do with actual Point Buy. You want enough points for a powerful Paladin? Fine, set it that high. But then don't tie the hands of everyone else by making them play with lower stats. And especially, do not whine when the DM sets the difficulty of encounters a couple of CR higher to compensate for the power creep. This again REALLY highlights why the Roll for Generate crowd is so adamant about rolling...to have any excuse to munchkin out. "Ohhh, we didn't set the point buy so high that everything is too easy at the normal CRs for our level...we rolled really well." You want to call shennaigans. THOSE are the shennanigans. Isshia
Sphyre 12-14-06, 05:16 AM	Complete BS. If the classes are played with all of their requirements and possibilities in place (instead of ignoring the main ones for Druids and Clerics as most people do, the fact that they are SERVANTS of an outside force and must adhere, closely, to what that force wants) then the classes are VERY well balanced. Sure, some are better at one thing or another, but why not? We WANT diversity. Sure, some classes shine more at certain levels than others. Sure, spell slingers of any type are more powerful comparitively to other classes the higher they get in levels, but with them getting there is the problem, so that should be so. ~snip!~ You want to call shennaigans. THOSE are the shennanigans. Perhaps those would be shennanigans if you are calling shennanigans on yourself. Clerics and Druids don't have strict requirements. Perhaps they do in your game but that doesn't apply to everyone. Sure they have requirements, but they are no more a suggestion than "a fighter should be someone who likes to fight." Clerics don't even need a freaking deity! They can worshiped dieties or alignments as much as they want too. Druids don't need to either. They have to be at least one part neutral, and revere nature. Whoopie. That still doesn't negate that they are widely accepted as overpowered. Saying a fighter is very close to balanced with a cleric or druid I call shennanigans on. The classes aren't balanced. I happen to agree with Sim_antix. I don't agree with how controversial Sim is or how it seems to imply pointbuy has no merits, but it's a valid response to hardcore pointbuy only. There are bigger imbalancing factors in the game than just stats. If you accept the imbalance of CoDzilla over poor little fighter, then you'll be more prone to understanding the concept behind liking Rolling. This whole discussion is rediculous. There's merits and disadvantages of both. Depending on your preference, you'll like one or the other. There is no way to prove someone's preference is wrong anymore than you can prove that someone shouldn't like whatever color shirt they are wearing. The post was about the benefits of one over another, and depending on your preferences certain things can be good or bad in your opinion. This conversation has gotten more into an argument about which is better rather than what some people see as advantageous or disadvantageous for a given method.
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 05:24 AM	Aaaaaaaaah, there are no rules that say that water is wet anywhere in D&D. But you know what, most people are going to assume that it is. Most will also, doubtless, assume that when you receive a ton of advantages from being the servant of an ideal (if you don't like deities fine, we don't have them either, but that doesn't give clerics or druids a free lunch) that the thing granting those advantages will want to have it's rules followed. It's no tougher than water is wet. If you stay in Core (outside of it, there are no garauntees at all) the game is well balanced. Perfect? No. Well balanced? Yep, definately. And it is very obvious what the designers are trying to acheive. So why introduce something that works against that? ONLY to have excuses. Period. Isshia
Ongorth 12-14-06, 08:04 AM	You tell them Isshia! In my game monks have AWESOME SUPER KUNG FU POWERS! They rock the socks off of everyone! No one ever thinks they are underpowered when they are pWNing bugbears with the "Crooked Unicorn Horn Striku!" I mean, how can other people not know this stuff? They are monks! Its implied! P.S. The wetness of water has no mechanics.
Sphyre 12-14-06, 08:07 AM	Wow. Since when did I say water wasn't wet? Nor did I say anything akin to that. And only to make excuses? Neither that either. Simply mentioning something that has no relavence to the conversation and then claiming it has parallel to the statement of the poster you are responding to does not actually cause it to be that way. It's simply a nifty distraction technique, rather than responding to the points addressed, but it doesn't invalidate what anyone's said. Regardless, you seem to be judging an opinion as wrong. The very quote of C.o.D.zilla was mentioned to convince a DM that core has imbalances too. That's a value judgement (an opinion), but it's one that's commonly shared. If you disagree with an appeal to the masses, you may very well have a different opinion, I don't claim that you can't. But for that very same reason, others can claim the very same thing about balance between rolling and stats in general. If you can hold the opinion that classes are either balanced or not, you can also hold the opinion of whether rolling is fun and desired or not. Those that have the opinion don't cry about balance, they say they like it for better or for worse. Balance is an abstract concept, that only in pure numbers can it truely be proven. You can prove that a commoner is inferior in combat compared to an otherwise equal level and race, and stats etc fighter. You cannot prove that a commoner is, in fact, a worse class, because it gets 10 class skills that it gets to choose to be class skills. Someone could very well argue that as the advantage they needed to outclass a fighter in certain scenarios. (For example, that commoner will always have a higher cap on use magic device if he chooses that as a class skill, he also could take tumble, as most classes that have either one don't have the other as a class skill) Opinions, that's all there is. There is no need to get upset that people's opinions aren't the same as yours.
CharlieRock 12-14-06, 08:12 AM	1st I ask you would you mind if the DM said, ok this is gonna be 4D6 drop the lowest or point buy, and everyone makes there character, and then another guy shows up late and the DM says 4D6 drop the lowest or point-buy, and the other player is like cool, I already got a point-buy character made, lets play, and it turns out he is using a 96 point buy. The acceptance of using point-buy in a dice rolled game would be that the player is uncomfortable with taking the chance on playing stats that are too low. Is anything under a 96 point buy too low? If you think so. :rolleyes: If you think party members should be roughly equal in power, then you should consider point-buy rather than rolling. I think the team should enjoy their game. And if the team is that intra-competitive I wouldn't enjoy playing on it. it comes from letting your imagination flow and creating the character that you envision, yes you can do this with die rolling too, IMO there is no enjoyment to be gained by rolling D6s, I can do that any time anywhere. The enjoyment comes from building your character, not just the rolling fo stats. I let my imagination flow into a set of numbers I had no accurate preconception over just fine. And since you don't roll for feats or skills, I still get to customize my character with that imagination. If I'm willing to take what I get in rolls, then I'm willing to deal with it as is. Not with a wink and a nudge to the DM that he'll "make it ok." The 'choice' method of character generation would not allow you that choice. :smirk: So, if everyone else rolled their stats and the other person wnated to Point Buy his at say, 22 points above the highest rolled stat characters total, that would be ok? Again, since one main concern of point-buyers is getting stuck with too low stats ;is under 22 points leading the rest of the team too low? I can see if someone was worrying themselves over getting 'stuck' with low stats and rather point buy it. I can't see that player telling everyone else in the team they may not choose to take that chance. If a player was willing to take the chance to roll under the point total, they should be allowed. Or, do you plan on telling them what they may or may not do in-game as well? Edit: Is a 30 point buy too low? Since most previous posters have stated they usually use 25-28 I think 30 is being generous. Then you could make your character worry free of being 'stat-holed' too low. No need to get nauseous, everything is okay. What makes you think I would not allow the rest of the team that wants to, and willingly keep whatever they roll up, make that choice for themselves.
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 08:55 AM	There is however only a single thing that you can not acheive with Point Buy that can be acheived with die rolled generation: FURTHER imbalance. If you want random, and are really after just the "inspiration" provided by the die rolls; roll, but keep to an upper limit that is not to be by passed. Anyone who chooses may ADD to their rolls, if they are lower than this limit, either in any manner they choose, or by a random method that could be easily determined as needed. Likewise, if the rolls provide too much, they can be reduced in the same manner. The random, you never know what you're going to get remains, but the problems that be thus created do not. The ONLY reason you can complain about this would be that you wouldn't get as many points if you rolled too high...so we are back to what it's really all about, an excuse for higher stats without having to admit that THAT was what the object was all along. This isn't about opinion. This is about what the advantages and disadvantages ARE. What they really are, stripped of the rationalizing and the BSing around. With Point Buy you can have EVERYTHING provided by Die Roll Generation with one exception: EXCUSES. Isshia
CharlieRock 12-14-06, 08:59 AM	If you want random, and are really after just the "inspiration" provided by the die rolls; roll, but keep to an upper limit that is not to be by passed. Anyone who chooses may ADD to their rolls, if they are lower than this limit, either in any manner they choose, or by a random method that could be easily determined as needed. Likewise, if the rolls provide too much, they can be reduced in the same manner. The random, you never know what you're going to get remains, but the problems that be thus created do not. Thats not taking a chance on rolling, which is where the inherent thrill comes from. That's simply 'go ahead and roll, but your going to end up with these stats anyway'. That would be like a dice roller telling a point buyer they should individually roll for points. :bored:
CharlieRock 12-14-06, 09:01 AM	The ONLY reason you can complain about this would be that you wouldn't get as many points if you rolled too high...so we are back to what it's really all about, an excuse for higher stats without having to admit that THAT was what the object was all along. Not at all. It is about taking chances. Which (IMO) is what D&D is about. Edit: Talk about having your cake and eating it ,too. "I don't want to roll, because I might have to play with sucky stats. But, I don't want you to roll either. Because, you might roll higher then me."
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 09:04 AM	P.S. The wetness of water has no mechanics. You know, not every part of the rules system in this game HAS a mechanic. Some things are more nebulous than that, but they only provide problems IF YOU WANT THEM TOO. What's the mechanic for Alignment changes? Isshia
starfire311 12-14-06, 09:04 AM	No no no if you are going to debate the Pro Point Buyers you have to attack their main point. "Rolling is unfair and unbalances the game" Thats is the pro PB sentiment and I am calling shennanigans on it. Rolling for stats is not any more unfair and unbalancing than allowing someone to be a Druid or a Cleric when the rest of the part is Fighters and Bards. Its not any less fair than setting a PB limit too low for anyone to play a decent Paladin or Monk and forcing everyone to either play SAD characters or fall behind in power thus leading to an imbalance in the game. Rolling allows everyone the same chance to get the scores they need to play a character that they want to play therefor it is even more fair and balanced than point buy could ever be. So you do not ascribe to any of the attempts to balance or re-balance the classes, so they aer indeed balanced, I know I do... I am always striving to improve the balance between classes, I also try to keep the wealth balanced bewteen classes, and I am constantly tweaking feats to try and improve balance bewteen them... these are the things the game designers intended, just because they feel short of perfect balance, doesn't mean that wasn't their goal. Their goal was to make all the classes balance that 1 XP=1 XP doesn't matter what class it is in. Yes they did not succeed, but most of the community feels the need to continue trying were they left off, and I am starting to be happy with how my "fixes" are shaping up. I can also argue that it doesn't matter that the classes are imbalanced, because those are all choices made by the player, If I choose skill focus (basketweaving), that is my choice to play a character like that is a bit below the standard power curve, or if I heavily optimize, it is my choice to play one above the standard power curve, but if I am rolling this takes my choice away, and may penalize me through no fault of my own, is this fair. I dont think so, many people would argue that this shouldn't be fair anyway, since it is a game, and why should games be fair, oh wait that isnt the argument, but meh.
starfire311 12-14-06, 09:07 AM	Not at all. It is about taking chances. Which (IMO) is what D&D is about. Edit: Talk about having your cake and eating it ,too. "I don't want to roll, because I might have to play with sucky stats. But, I don't want you to roll either. Because, you might roll higher then me." So would you be wiling to roll 4D6 drop lowest if the DM also gave the option for a 65 Point Buy?
Sphyre 12-14-06, 09:12 AM	This isn't about opinion. This is about what the advantages and disadvantages ARE. What they really are, stripped of the rationalizing and the BSing around. With Point Buy you can have EVERYTHING provided by Die Roll Generation with one exception: EXCUSES. Or perhaps... maybe... randomness? Maybe that's fun. I mean come on there are people who gamble, they like randomness. Are you saying that people who like randomness (you know we play a game where you roll a d20 to hit, not take 10 to hit) don't exist? You're assuming people rationalize having high stats. You're assuming that the only reason why people like rolling is only because they have the chance to have higher stats. Yes. Indeed, you can have higher stats. But that's not where the opinion of where rolling is fun. You also can have lower stats, and that's fun as well. In point buy you can have lower if you want to not spend your points... but what's the fun in that, if fate didn't deal the cards that way? Sure if you bring it down to one thing and start claiming that's the one and only reason why people like rolling, your argument might work, but that's simply not the case. Apparently you seem to not only not see other people's point of veiws, but refuse to beleive they even exist.
CharlieRock 12-14-06, 09:13 AM	I can also argue that it doesn't matter that the classes are imbalanced, because those are all choices made by the player, If I choose skill focus (basketweaving), that is my choice to play a character like that is a bit below the standard power curve, or if I heavily optimize, it is my choice to play one above the standard power curve, but if I am rolling this takes my choice away, and may penalize me through no fault of my own, is this fair. I dont think so, many people would argue that this shouldn't be fair anyway, since it is a game, and why should games be fair, oh wait that isnt the argument, but meh. So, what exactly is the problem with choosing to roll? So would you be wiling to roll 4D6 drop lowest if the DM also gave the option for a 65 Point Buy? If that is how low you think you need to go to be 'playable' then ,ok. Doesn't matter to me what your stats are, really. I'm not the one with a hang-up on them. (Although, I will tease the team rather consistantly that they have odd standards on what is 'playable' :P)
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 09:16 AM	Not at all. It is about taking chances. Which (IMO) is what D&D is about. Edit: Talk about having your cake and eating it ,too. "I don't want to roll, because I might have to play with sucky stats. But, I don't want you to roll either. Because, you might roll higher then me." That has nothing to do with it and you know it. As I've said, roll away...but set an upper limit. It's not about chances. One set of rolls that modify thousands of others does not have the same value as any other possible single roll. Period.If you fail a save and a single character dies as a result, that does nothing to the basis of a campaign, But if the rest of the party is in the 22-28 PB range, which could easily use the CR set up as it stands, and one guy is in the 60+ range, which can not easily be accomidated by the CR set up without putting the rest of the party into an INTENSELY disadvantaged position, that single set of rolls DOES damage the fabric of the campaign. Can a DM try to compensate for it? Sure. But he could also mountain climb handcuffed. It'd be stupid, it'd sure be taking a bigger chance, but it could be done. And why? So that a Player can Munchkin without admitting he's being a munchkin. Isshia
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 09:18 AM	Or perhaps... maybe... randomness? Maybe that's fun. I mean come on there are people who gamble, they like randomness. Are you saying that people who like randomness (you know we play a game where you roll a d20 to hit, not take 10 to hit) don't exist? You're assuming people rationalize having high stats. You're assuming that the only reason why people like rolling is only because they have the chance to have higher stats. Yes. Indeed, you can have higher stats. But that's not where the opinion of where rolling is fun. You also can have lower stats, and that's fun as well. In point buy you can have lower if you want to not spend your points... but what's the fun in that, if fate didn't deal the cards that way? Sure if you bring it down to one thing and start claiming that's the one and only reason why people like rolling, your argument might work, but that's simply not the case. Apparently you seem to not only not see other people's point of veiws, but refuse to beleive they even exist. You can have your randomness. You can roll your stats...with an upper limit. They only thing you can't do is have a game breaking character because of a single set of rolls. Isshia
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 09:21 AM	Let's make this all real clear: Upper limit, equal to a 28 point buy. Roll if you like, Point Buy if you like. The only difference is the upper limit. NOW; where does any complaint come from? Or an upper limit equal to a 25 PB? Or a 22 PB? Roll to your little hearts content...as long as the upper limit is maintained. Now, where is the complaint? Isshia
Sphyre 12-14-06, 09:28 AM	Yeah the upper limit is 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18 with most conventional methods, but have I ever rolled even close to that before? No. I've rolled at most 2 18s, and that's with a very generous method because the DM likes the characters to be robust, and there were only 2 players so i just went along with it. (5d6 reroll 1s, drop two lowest) Game breaking character off of stats? Not that I've played or had in any of my games. Game breaking characters aren't off stats. They are off munchkins, and all-around bad players who attempt to break the game. Pun-Pun doesn't need all 18s to reach his ascension. Besides, you're telling me what I can and can't do based off your circumstancial point of veiw. There is no universal truth to preferences. One thing that I can surmise that might have caused your mental trauma so much as to loathe rolling so much is the very fact that you in fact do play with munchkins (defined by those who will actively destroy your game) and you try to keep them in check rather than find mature players who you want to mutually game with. Rolling: Not for you. Pointbuy: For you. I would say "Sorry, I'm not you," but I can't say I'm sorry.
Zumarai 12-14-06, 09:45 AM	Okay, my problem with "rolling" is this: First of all, I don't like to force my players to play a class/concept they don't want. So: Player 1 wants to play a psion, and rolls 18, 17, 17, 15, 13, 13. Player 2 is dying to play a monk, and rolls 14, 13, 11, 11, 10, 10 Obviously you can see the problem here. My consensus: Rolling = beer & pretzels Point Buy = serious/calibrated
CharlieRock 12-14-06, 09:50 AM	Let's make this all real clear: Upper limit, equal to a 28 point buy. Roll if you like, Point Buy if you like. The only difference is the upper limit. NOW; where does any complaint come from? In other words :"I don't want you to roll either. Because, you might roll higher then me." Which as this same poster claims : That has nothing to do with it and you know it. As I've said, roll away with the addage: ...but set an upper limit. Because your not allowed to take the chance and end up better from it.
CharlieRock 12-14-06, 09:52 AM	Okay, my problem with "rolling" is this: First of all, I don't like to force my players to play a class/concept they don't want. So: Player 1 wants to play a psion, and rolls 18, 17, 17, 15, 13, 13. Player 2 is dying to play a monk, and rolls 14, 13, 11, 11, 10, 10 Obviously you can see the problem here. My consensus: Rolling = beer & pretzels Point Buy = serious/calibrated That's the chance you take. Then when you do roll something like player 1 you can get celebratory. Edit: The cake: "I don't want to roll my stats and get sucky scores"...
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 09:52 AM	The game as it stands with the CR system is predicated on the idea of the 25 point buy for characters. The iconic characters used in creating the system were built in just this manner. This includes the built in advantage that PCs get, to whit, the standard array is the equivalent of a 15PB. If you increase the array to the equivalent of the PCs 25PB, by using an Elite Array, this increases the CR of the encountered being by +1. People, this is the way that the game is constructed. A base CR*3 being with an elite array (the equal of the 25 PB) for stats is now a CR*4 being. Even the SMALL shift provided here, the difference of +6 worth of total statistical bonuses, changes the basis of an entire encounter. Guys, thems the rules, as it were. Now, when you roll for generation in a party and someone rolls the equivalent of a 22 PB say, (so for example: 14,8,11,11,13,13) and another person rolls the eqiuvalent of a 55 PB (for example: 14,15,9,15,18,18) does this not seem to effect the basis of campaign to you? The CR of an encountered creature is altered by the difference between a the equivalents of a 15 and 25 PB. THAT is how the game is constructed. If the DM doesn't want to metaphoricly handcuff himself before climbing the campaign mountain, he NEEDS to keep in mind the DOWNSIDE of Die Rolled Generation; to whit, it can wreck the basis on which the game itself is predicated. Since that is what this thread is about, let's put it out in the open and compare it to "die rolling is cool". So, advantage Die Rolling? "It's cool". Downside Die Rolling? It can break the game. Errr, is it just me, or does the disadvantage there make the advantage seem fairly inocuous. Isshia
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 09:57 AM	That's the chance you take. Then when you do roll something like player 1 you can get celebratory. And the DM gets a headache. Hey, this game is supposed to be fun for him too. Isshia
CharlieRock 12-14-06, 10:10 AM	NOW; where does any complaint come from? The complaint is that is not 'dice rolled'. The chance I want to take to get high attributes is the risk of lower ones. If your not into taking chances, or you like being 'scientific' ,then we are playing different games.
Sphyre 12-14-06, 10:13 AM	So, advantage Die Rolling? "It's cool". Downside Die Rolling? It can break the game. Errr, is it just me, or does the disadvantage there make the advantage seem fairly inocuous. First of all: in·noc·u·ous /ɪˈnɒkyuəs/[i-nok-yoo-uhs] –adjective 1. not harmful or injurious; harmless: an innocuous home remedy. 2. not likely to irritate or offend; inoffensive; an innocuous remark. 3. not interesting, stimulating, or significant; pallid; insipid: an innocuous novel. I assume you're using you're using the third definition? Thank you for introducing me to a new word. (Odd that I've never encountered it before) Yes. I agree with you, it has the ability to completely break the game. It also has the ability to make it more fun for those of us who like to roll. As I stated earlier in this thread, pointbuy is much better for keeping everything balanced. I know exactly why people use it, it garuntees you won't have arguments or worries over imbalances of stats. But simply because something has an advantage doesn't mean you can't weigh it against the advantages of another method and only one can be a possible choice. Rolling has advantages too, as well as disadvantages, much like pointbuy has advantages along with disadvantages. Everyone weighs them differently based on their values. Since I don't value balance much anymore, due to my acceptance of the game being imbalanced and I just like to play the game for better or for worse, the disadvantage of rolling and the advantage of pointbuy are much less valuable to someone like me. Much like if you were to take a person who cares about balance more than anything else, the advantage of pointbuy is much stronger and the disadvantage of rolling is much stronger, and one would be more prone to prefering pointbuy. Notice though, that it is our difference in valuing balance of stats that makes us prefer different methods of stat generation.
CharlieRock 12-14-06, 10:14 AM	And the DM gets a headache. Hey, this game is supposed to be fun for him too. Isshia Why the headache? Because you let the players choose? Because you gave them what they wanted? Those players are then immature to not accept the consequences of their decisions.
Zumarai 12-14-06, 10:16 AM	That's the chance you take. Then when you do roll something like player 1 you can get celebratory. Edit: The cake: "I don't want to roll my stats and get sucky scores"... Wow, that's not a very healthy way to look at it. So they both have to keep those scores that could affect their character for years, and one of them is dancing around the living room whistling, while the other one is crying into his soup. …No thanks. What if a player doesn't want to take that chance (like me), would you let him use PB, or would you force him/her to roll?
Zumarai 12-14-06, 10:20 AM	If your not into taking chances, or you like being 'scientific' ,then we are playing different games. Absolutely, categorically untrue.
CharlieRock 12-14-06, 10:27 AM	Wow, that's not a very healthy way to look at it. So they both have to keep those scores that could affect their character for years, and one of them is dancing around the living room whistling, while the other one is crying into his soup. …No thanks. What if a player doesn't want to take that chance (like me), would you let him use PB, or would you force him/her to roll? You must not have read me earlier posts. If you want to points buy, then decide that. But, if you want to take that chance, that decision is also binding. If you would rather not risk it, or get quesey thinknig about it, then points buy. If you want to take the chance then deal with it. If a player cannot deal with their decisions' consequences, then that makes me not a Dungeon Master(DM) but a Baby-Sitter(and that's ... well, that's BS :P).
Sphyre 12-14-06, 10:29 AM	Absolutely, categorically untrue. They are different games. Pointbuy, at least by Cantankerous's point of veiw, is an effort to painstakingly acheive the ultimate level of balance. The D&D I play? I play with the imbalance and enjoy it anyway. The only game that I wouldn't want to play with imbalance is a player vs player game where it was a competition. How can you determine who has better skill if it's not a level playing field? You can't. But in D&D you're not trying to prove you have better min/max skills, you're adventuring and role-playing. It doesn't exactly need to be balanced because roles aren't balanced. Play what you like.
Zumarai 12-14-06, 10:37 AM	You must not have read me earlier posts. If you want to points buy, then decide that. But, if you want to take that chance, that decision is also binding. If you would rather not risk it, or get quesey thinknig about it, then points buy. If you want to take the chance then deal with it. If a player cannot deal with their decisions' consequences, then that makes me not a Dungeon Master(DM) but a Baby-Sitter(and that's ... well, that's BS :P). Oh, that's cool - I can dig it. If a player has accepted/wants to roll his/her ability scores, then suck it up and take what you got. Like we did in the summer of 69!
Zumarai 12-14-06, 10:40 AM	They are different games. Pointbuy, at least by Cantankerous's point of veiw, is an effort to painstakingly acheive the ultimate level of balance. The D&D I play? I play with the imbalance and enjoy it anyway. The only game that I wouldn't want to play with imbalance is a player vs player game where it was a competition. How can you determine who has better skill if it's not a level playing field? You can't. But in D&D you're not trying to prove you have better min/max skills, you're adventuring and role-playing. It doesn't exactly need to be balanced because roles aren't balanced. Play what you like. Exactly, I look at it as we're all playing the same game, just with a different style/emphasis/set-up etc.
CharlieRock 12-14-06, 10:48 AM	Like we did in the summer of 69! Did you know Bryan Adams was 12 in '69? :D
Zumarai 12-14-06, 10:58 AM	Did you know Bryan Adams was 12 in '69? :D I was -5.
CharlieRock 12-14-06, 11:01 AM	I was -5. I thought 12 was rather young for 'Jimmy quit, Jody got married, shoulda known ...' ,but those were the 60s. ;)
Olskool 12-14-06, 01:06 PM	You can have your randomness. You can roll your stats...with an upper limit. They only thing you can't do is have a game breaking character because of a single set of rolls. Isshia High rolls don't break a game. Only one thing can break a game; an incompetent DM. If stuff is broken in your games, odds are it's not the fault of dice. It 's the fault of a DM that does'nt know what he's doing. Dice are blemeless, they do what they do. Only a DM can make decisions that "Break the game."
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 01:37 PM	Why the headache? Because you let the players choose? Because you gave them what they wanted? Those players are then immature to not accept the consequences of their decisions. It would give a headache to the poor DM involved because a 55 and 22 together break the system. You either have to set the thing at baseline, which the 22 can handle, if with difficulty, or a few CR up (which the 55 should still handle easily), which SHOULD be more than the 22 can handle if the DM isn't being kind to him. That is a fine recipe for a DM headache. Again, all YOU are worried about is those high stats. Admit it Charlie, you're a nasceant munchkin in deep denial. Hell search the web hard enough and there's probably a 12 step program to help you. ;) Isshia One day at a time Charlie, one day at a time.
Cantankerous 12-14-06, 01:39 PM	High rolls don't break a game. Only one thing can break a game; an incompetent DM. If stuff is broken in your games, odds are it's not the fault of dice. It 's the fault of a DM that does'nt know what he's doing. Dice are blemeless, they do what they do. Only a DM can make decisions that "Break the game." Dice are blameless. If the DM is stupid enough to allow this kind of idiocy, then he IS to blame. That is the point, your right. BUT, allowing the descrepancy, which is what I've been arguing against, DOES breeak the design. Isshia
Olskool 12-14-06, 01:46 PM	Dice are blameless. If the DM is stupid enough to allow this kind of idiocy, then he IS to blame. That is the point, your right. BUT, allowing the descrepancy, which is what I've been arguing against, DOES breeak the design. Isshia Broken schmoken. Nothing is broken in A good DM's campaign . Point buy is a relic from a less enlightened age of gaming; it should be left in the dust with Thaco, the Flumph, and epic levels.
Sim_antix 12-14-06, 02:07 PM	It would give a headache to the poor DM involved because a 55 and 22 together break the system. You either have to set the thing at baseline, which the 22 can handle, if with difficulty, or a few CR up (which the 55 should still handle easily), which SHOULD be more than the 22 can handle if the DM isn't being kind to him. That is a fine recipe for a DM headache. Hence why there is an option to re-roll if your scores are too low...
boozerker 12-14-06, 02:49 PM	If you offered a point-buyer the ability to generate their stats with points, while allowing you to roll your own; what do you suppose the response would be? Of course not! You can't be allowed to undertake such a chance because if you roll well, it will still ruin their game. So, what you are really saying is, the only reason not to point buy is so that you can have stats higher than everybody elses. I've been saying that that IS the real reason for people who insist on rolled stats too. Well, atleast now it's clear. In defense, that's really not what CharlieRock said. Nonsense. Since instituting Point Buy I've seen more, far more in fact, diversity than without it. I've seen... What anyone's seen doesn't matter, we just don't know if it's true -- unless we've all experienced it (or could somehow relate). Rationalizations are rationalizations no matter how you try to window dress them. Pretty good rationalization there ;) If you stay in Core (outside of it, there are no garauntees at all) the game is well balanced. Perfect? No. Well balanced? Yep, definately. And it is very obvious what the designers are trying to acheive. So why introduce something that works against that? Perfect! You'll be happy to know rolling is core. Why introduce something that works against that? :P I could accomodate a player who insisted on point-buy stat generation (especially if it made one nauseous). Why rag on someone for admitting how they feel? :rolleyes:
boozerker 12-14-06, 03:26 PM	So would you be wiling to roll 4D6 drop lowest if the DM also gave the option for a 65 Point Buy? The idea with rolling is you can go higher, lower, or equal to the point-buy amount -- impossible with your scenario. Player 1 wants to play a psion, and rolls 18, 17, 17, 15, 13, 13. Player 2 is dying to play a monk, and rolls 14, 13, 11, 11, 10, 10 The monk can't get #1 with point-buy anyway. Yet if the monk's player chooses point-buy, the results would beat #2. Dice are blemeless, they do what they do. Only a DM can make decisions that "Break the game." Dice are blameless. If the DM is stupid enough to allow this kind of idiocy, then he IS to blame. That is the point, your right. That isn't Olskool's point. At least not from this vantage.
boozerker 12-14-06, 03:35 PM	What's needed is a sliding scale for rolling, depending on what point-buy amount is used in a game. For example, 25 point-buy is the "median" amount of 4d6 drop lowest. So a 15 point-buy would probably need something close to 4d4 drop lowest. A 42 point-buy might require 5d6 drop 2 lowest. Anyone with the math skills is welcome to give it a shot.
Leo 12-14-06, 03:36 PM	So whenever you roll bad the game sucks and whenver you role good it's broken... D&D is a game of luck and skill. As my DM says, you don't choose what you get, you choose what to do with it. Dice reward creativity. Point buy doesn't. Also, with point buy you'll nver get anything below 8, wich simply doesn't make sense. Are all heroes guys who praticed sports and studied reguralray to keep all their abilities balanced?
starfire311 12-14-06, 04:01 PM	Yeah the upper limit is 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18 with most conventional methods, but have I ever rolled even close to that before? No. Ok, since this came up, I once played a game where I did roll 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18 Check this out it was 2nd ED. Die Roll method was Roll 5D6 1s count as 6s and re-roll 2s and 3s, drop 2 lowest Roll 12 times keep the best 6 out of 5 players we had 4 get straight 18s, on had a 4 18s a 17 and a 16. If you got straight 18s you also had access to some uber homebrew class he made. This was probably one of the absolut worst games I had ever played, and I should have seen it coming when he explained the die rolling. Now back to the regularly scheduled program BTW My opinion hasn't changed and I really don't have a whole lot more to say, at this point everyone is just repeating themselves.
BoringInfoGuy 12-14-06, 04:43 PM	There is however only a single thing that you can not acheive with Point Buy that can be acheived with die rolled generation: FURTHER imbalance. If you want random, and are really after just the "inspiration" provided by the die rolls; roll, but keep to an upper limit that is not to be by passed. Anyone who chooses may ADD to their rolls, if they are lower than this limit, either in any manner they choose, or by a random method that could be easily determined as needed. Likewise, if the rolls provide too much, they can be reduced in the same manner. The random, you never know what you're going to get remains, but the problems that be thus created do not. The ONLY reason you can complain about this would be that you wouldn't get as many points if you rolled too high...so we are back to what it's really all about, an excuse for higher stats without having to admit that THAT was what the object was all along. This isn't about opinion. This is about what the advantages and disadvantages ARE. What they really are, stripped of the rationalizing and the BSing around. With Point Buy you can have EVERYTHING provided by Die Roll Generation with one exception: EXCUSES. Isshia So, if I still say that I want to take my rolls as is, then I must be really wanting to create a higher stat character than point buy will allow. Anything else I say you can now safely discount as an excuse. That still does not need to be the case. People who actually game with me know that I'm not BSing or making excuses when I say what I say. If I really was just wanting to have better stats, then I'd accept if a DM made me the opposite offer. I.E. You can keep rolling stats until you come up with something that is equal to or better than the PB total of the group. If you get better, you MAY drop your stats down if you want. Guess what. I don't want the high or equal option either. Good AND bad, I want my rolls as is. The ability score rolls are the most important in the game. Of course I want to roll them.
UAMDB 12-14-06, 05:45 PM	i have never really liked the point buy system. i feel(and maybe wrongly) that i have some power over my character when i roll my stats. Also when I DM i have players create their stats by rolling 4d6 reroll 1's and drop the lowest. This can cause some slightly above average stats, but I look at it this way. We are playing a fanasty game where the players are the Heros. The whole reason that they are heros is beacuse they are better than everyone else. By everyone else i am commoners. Do stats help you in the game? YES Do stats cause the game to be broken? NO If everyone had 18's in every stat then it could get out of hand. The likelyhood of that happings is off the charts. The fact is how you play and plan you character is more important that what your stats are.
starfire311 12-14-06, 05:53 PM	High rolls don't break a game. Only one thing can break a game; an incompetent DM. If stuff is broken in your games, odds are it's not the fault of dice. It 's the fault of a DM that does'nt know what he's doing. Dice are blemeless, they do what they do. Only a DM can make decisions that "Break the game." Ok you are right dice don't break the game, its the whacky stats that do. unless ofcourse, you are the kinda DM to compensate for a player who rolled poorly. And everyone at the table can make decisions that break the table, but that is a different thread.
Olskool 12-14-06, 06:58 PM	Ok you are right dice don't break the game, its the whacky stats that do. First off, higher stats arent wacky stats. They're just higher. And the only thing that can break a game is a bad DM. A DM who can't handle characters with a 4 point difference in total stats probably just needs to put in a little more practice. If you get flustered by such a small part of the game maybe you should let someone else DM and just be a player for a while.
Reversefigure4 12-14-06, 07:57 PM	Perhaps someone could provide some advice for these bad DMs, instead of merely telling them they should stop DMing altogether? Since Mr All-18 will mow through an encounter that Mr 12 would struggle with, any encounter that challenges Mr 18 will absolutely crush Mr 12. Given they're both going to be fighting on the same team, how does a DM provide a suitable challenge for both at the same time? The closest my feeble mind came come to it is stat-stacked enemies - Mr 18's Orc is build with stats like his own, and Mr 12's Orc is build with stats like his... right up until the point where Mr 12 engages the wrong Orc and is horribly killed.
Sim_antix 12-14-06, 08:03 PM	Perhaps someone could provide some advice for these bad DMs, instead of merely telling them they should stop DMing altogether? Since Mr All-18 will mow through an encounter that Mr 12 would struggle with, any encounter that challenges Mr 18 will absolutely crush Mr 12. Given they're both going to be fighting on the same team, how does a DM provide a suitable challenge for both at the same time? The closest my feeble mind came come to it is stat-stacked enemies - Mr 18's Orc is build with stats like his own, and Mr 12's Orc is build with stats like his... right up until the point where Mr 12 engages the wrong Orc and is horribly killed. +1 vs +4 is horribly unbalanced?
Reversefigure4 12-14-06, 08:14 PM	+1 vs +4 is horribly unbalanced? +1 vs +4? (Edit: Ah, right, sorry, I get what you're say. 12 v 18 is +1 vs +4, I didn't get where you'd gotten that from. I was talking about an ALL 18 character vs and ALL 12 one (which isn't quite legal, but see below for a better example).) One player rolls 18, 17, 16, 16, 14, 14. Nowhere near the absolute best stat set he can get rolling, but a damn good one (I've seen better). +4, +3, +3, +3, +2, +2 = +20. Player Two rolls 10, 11, 9, 10, 14, 12. -1, +2, +1 = +2. A low roll, but not low enough to qualify for rerolling. Hell, even amping that up to a 25point buyish score gives 10, 11, 10, 14, 14, 14, only a +6. Player One still has a massive advantage. That's a hell of a difference, but quite a possible one with rolling. The smaller the difference, the easier it is for the DM to adapt. The wider the diff, the harder. If stats don't break the game, only bad DMs, then I'm looking for info on how DMs can adapt, providing a suitable challenge for both players at the same time.
Sim_antix 12-14-06, 08:18 PM	One thing I do is if someones highest score is equal to or lower than anothers lowest score I allow them to reroll, thus ensuring that everyone get at least a few decent scores while still allowing for some randomness. Seriously though if your highest score was a 14 I would allow a reroll even if there werent any other players at all.
Chimaera2000 12-14-06, 09:47 PM	Though I know this has been mentioned before, it bears repeating: the best compromise for these two methods is two have the entire gaming group roll a set of stats that every character will use. Voila, each player has the excitment of rolling for stats, but all of them are equal in terms of their capabilities. I personally prefer point-buy (I know what it's like to be on the low end of the stat and HP spectrum), but I find that my above suggestion works very well.
CharlieRock 12-14-06, 10:08 PM	What's needed is a sliding scale for rolling, depending on what point-buy amount is used in a game. For example, 25 point-buy is the "median" amount of 4d6 drop lowest. So a 15 point-buy would probably need something close to 4d4 drop lowest. A 42 point-buy might require 5d6 drop 2 lowest. Anyone with the math skills is welcome to give it a shot. :noway: (maybe at work,later) Why rag on someone for admitting how they feel? :rolleyes: Sorry. Although that IMO is the best reason to point-buy I've seen yet. So whenever you roll bad the game sucks and whenver you role good it's broken... :clap: <succinct way with words> Perhaps someone could provide some advice for these bad DMs, instead of merely telling them they should stop DMing altogether? I believe more practice was suggested. ;) One player rolls 18, 17, 16, 16, 14, 14. Nowhere near the absolute best stat set he can get rolling, but a damn good one (I've seen better). +4, +3, +3, +3, +2, +2 = +20. Player Two rolls 10, 11, 9, 10, 14, 12. -1, +2, +1 = +2. A low roll, but not low enough to qualify for rerolling. Hell, even amping that up to a 25point buyish score gives 10, 11, 10, 14, 14, 14, only a +6. Player One still has a massive advantage. If stats don't break the game, only bad DMs, then I'm looking for info on how DMs can adapt, providing a suitable challenge for both players at the same time. That is the inherent risk in rolling for stats. The highs and the lows. I'd take the risk. :cool: Though I know this has been mentioned before, it bears repeating: the best compromise for these two methods is two have the entire gaming group roll a set of stats that every character will use. Voila, each player has the excitment of rolling for stats, but all of them are equal in terms of their capabilities. I personally prefer point-buy (I know what it's like to be on the low end of the stat and HP spectrum), but I find that my above suggestion works very well. Neh, the best compromise I seen was Boozerker's at the top of this post. I'm going to use your method for the next Paranoia game, though. :D
starfire311 12-14-06, 10:23 PM	First off, higher stats arent wacky stats. They're just higher. I didnt say anything about high stats, I said whacky in that really low and really high can break a game. One thing I do is if someones highest score is equal to or lower than anothers lowest score I allow them to reroll, thus ensuring that everyone get at least a few decent scores while still allowing for some randomness. Seriously though if your highest score was a 14 I would allow a reroll even if there werent any other players at all. how many re-rolls and safty nets do you guys use, any true lover of random generation would roll once and take them as they lay, be that a net mod of -5 or net mod of +18, if you really loved just rolling the dice and making the best with what you got, then that is what you would do.
Sim_antix 12-14-06, 10:32 PM	I never said that i "just loved rolling dice and making the best of what I got" I am a DM first of all so its not "my" characters being created here. Secondly I and my players like the randomness but with some balance as well.
theotherdraxen 12-14-06, 10:39 PM	High rolls don't break a game. Only one thing can break a game; an incompetent DM. Right, because all of D&D is assumed to be balanced by DMs with perfect clarity. :rolleyes: Broken schmoken. Nothing is broken in A good DM's campaign . Point buy is a relic from a less enlightened age of gaming; it should be left in the dust with Thaco, the Flumph, and epic levels. IMO, a good DM doesn't allow rolling, and tells his players to use point-buy. Point-buy is balanced, dice rolling, by it's very nature, is not. So whenever you roll bad the game sucks and whenver you role good it's broken... About sums it up. D&D is a game of luck and skill. As my DM says, you don't choose what you get, you choose what to do with it. I recall lifting weights, running laps, doing math exercises, and forcing myself to talk to people and be persuasive. As a result, I am stronger, more enduring, smarter, and I have a degree of charisma. I made me who I am. Luck had nothing to do with it. Dice reward creativity. Point buy doesn't. Dice rewards lucky players. Point-buy rewards skillful players. They have nothing to do with creativity. In fact, I'd argue that the more creative one is point-buy, seeing as that's the only one that lets you actually create your character. Also, with point buy you'll nver get anything below 8, wich simply doesn't make sense. Are all heroes guys who praticed sports and studied reguralray to keep all their abilities balanced? I do agree that it would be nice to see stats lower than 8 with point-buy, but I'd rather have that than have one player be simply stronger than another. how many re-rolls and safty nets do you guys use, any true lover of random generation would roll once and take them as they lay, be that a net mod of -5 or net mod of +18, if you really loved just rolling the dice and making the best with what you got, then that is what you would do. QFT. Besides, saftey nets can't be used in defense of rolling, seeing as that would be the Oberoni Fallacy.
Boshi 12-14-06, 10:48 PM	Except your wisdom of a lemming is still only a -1 and can not go lower by point buy standards whereas with rolling you could get 5 10 12 12 14 16 and viola your perfect character concept... I could indeed roll such stats but why the hell should I use a system that only "could" allow me to roll stats that fit my concept? It just seems bizarre to me to use a character generation system that precludes a whole lot of character concepts. For example if I roll 13's across the board with dice rolling there's all kinds of characters that I just can't play because of how the dice fell. That's stupid. I want to play the character that I want to play, not the character that the dice want to play. And in any case if you want to play a really randomized character why not roll the stats in order and allow no swapping? Now THAT would result in some interesting characters. It just seems to me that roll and then assign the stats how you want combines the worst of point buy (people tending to always assign the stats in the same order) and the worst of organic rolling (inflexibility). Blech. Don't worry! If he makes it to 4th then your good to go. That CHA bumps up to 16 (which is where you had it anyway). But my wisdom is still 11 :( Far too high. I may have some basic concepts in mind, but it's not until I have those rolls on paper, and start working out how to place them that his personality developes. It seems a bit strange to me that people use stats rolled on the paper to get their character's personality. I start with a character concept and THEN think about what class/stats/whatever would fit that character concept the best and its annoying as all hell to have to shoehorn that character concept into rolled stats. "Inequality Ineshmality.D&D characters are'nt supposed to be equal." In no game is there complete inequality. But going out of your way to INTRODUCE more inequality just seems piontless to me. "Rolling for stats is not any more unfair and unbalancing than allowing someone to be a Druid or a Cleric when the rest of the part is Fighters and Bards." Indeed. But just because one part of the game is unbalanced doesn't mean adding MORE things that are imbalanced is a good thing. Also with classes things are at least debatable but with rolling you get very cut and dry imbalance. That's kind of like saying that making katanas do 2d20 damage is OK because druids are so powerful. Rolling allows everyone the same chance to get the scores they need to play a character that they want to play therefor it is even more fair and balanced than point buy could ever be. I don't want to have a "chance" to make the character I want. When I make a character I want to make the character I want (as long as what I want isn't "a very very powerful character"). What could be simplier than that? "I mean come on there are people who gamble, they like randomness." I think that's what it really comes down to a personality divide between the gamblers and the non-gamblers. "I don't want you to roll either. Because, you might roll higher then me." Indeed. What's the fun of constantly being overshadowed? "Point buy is a relic from a less enlightened age of gaming; it should be left in the dust with Thaco, the Flumph, and epic levels." Bald assertion. Also having the first few hours of a new campaign taken up by people rolling up character is a big pain in the ass. Its so much easier to have everyone make their characters at home first and let me look over their character sheets at my leisure. This is much much easier to do with point buy.
justdmjeff 12-14-06, 11:50 PM	IMO, a good DM doesn't allow rolling, and tells his players to use point-buy. Point-buy is balanced, dice rolling, by it's very nature, is not. IMO, a good DM let's his players decide how they want to create their characters. In your DM world, does the DM also tell the players which class and race they must play? Does the DM pick the feats and the skills for them? Do the players make any decisions on their own?
justdmjeff 12-14-06, 11:56 PM	Dice rewards lucky players. Point-buy rewards skillful players. They have nothing to do with creativity. I'd rather be lucky than good. By the way, who said that? Skill doesn't reward you much when you need a 15 or higher on an attack roll. Do you roll any dice in your game?
boozerker 12-14-06, 11:56 PM	how many re-rolls and safty nets do you guys use... The same as skydivers, and yet many people fear the sport despite the excellent safety precautions. ...any true lover of random generation would roll once and take them as they lay, be that a net mod of -5 or net mod of +18, if you really loved just rolling the dice and making the best with what you got, then that is what you would do. Who can dictate what they "love"? And besides... Even with random generation, there is a balanced approach to it. A previous example where someone's DM let them roll over and over, drop two dice and reroll 1s does not provide balanced rolls. I recall lifting weights, running laps, doing math exercises, and forcing myself to talk to people and be persuasive. As a result, I am stronger, more enduring, smarter, and I have a degree of charisma. I made me who I am. Luck had nothing to do with it. A PC's stats are inherent traits and/or prior training before 1st level, not what you do after leveling in a class.
Sim_antix 12-14-06, 11:57 PM	IMO a good DM doesn't allow players to roll for anything. Everyone gets a set amount that they add to any roll that way the d20 can't unfairly favor one character over another. Nope you add 10 or 15 or whatever you decide to any attack, save or skill check. Now thats what I call balanced!
theotherdraxen 12-14-06, 11:58 PM	IMO, a good DM let's his players decide how they want to create their characters. In your DM world, does the DM also tell the players which class and race they must play? Does the DM pick the feats and the skills for them? Do the players make any decisions on their own? Normally, I'd agree, and this is what I did with my group. However, this resulted in two players with 32 point-buy, one player with about 40, and one that would have had 50+ had I not caught it (her first two rolls were less than 20, so I told her to reroll). I believe that rolling dice is inheirintly unbalanced, and thus, I prefer to see games with point-buy. I don't let players bring in GURPS rules, I tell them to use D&D rules only. I don't let players play Dragons or Experts. I don't let them take feats from unapproved sources, or put ranks into skills like Iaijutsu focus. This does not mean that they are without options. Not letting them roll dice is a balancing tool. I don't think it's horribly restrictive, and they can still make the character they want: any rolled dice that are balanced with the other players can be achieved with point-buy: I just don't see why rolling is necessary, save to get stats that are too high for the campaign.
theotherdraxen 12-15-06, 12:11 AM	I'd rather be lucky than good. By the way, who said that? Skill doesn't reward you much when you need a 15 or higher on an attack roll. Do you roll any dice in your game? Sure. I just don't gamble with what I'm not willing to lose. A bad attack roll affects your character once. A bad stat roll affects your character for the rest of the game. Even with random generation, there is a balanced approach to it. A previous example where someone's DM let them roll over and over, drop two dice and reroll 1s does not provide balanced rolls. There is still a great degree of unnecessary variation. Besides, we see the balance on a daily basis: try rolling 10 sets of stats for yourself, and say that they come out balanced every time. A PC's stats are inherent traits and/or prior training before 1st level, not what you do after leveling in a class. I was talking about me, not a D&D character. You see, the thing is, we know point buy is balanced, and fair, and it allows customization, and it gives the players real freedom to make the character they want. Unless rolling dice for stats is somehow part of their character concept, which would be some weird kind of metagaming. Whereas dice are the opposite: the odds of two balanced characters through dice are actually pretty low (one character rolling higher than another is likely, while both falling in the same range is a small mark to hit for a bunch of dice), they aren't fair (good rolls once means a more powerful character for the rest of the game), they restrict customization (a MAD character will be upset to find out he's got 4 18s and 2 3s, whereas a wizard will sob to see all his stats turn out to be 13s), and they actually remove freedom from the players (you are given what the dice rolls give you, and once you are through all the safety nets, you're stuck, regardless of how you wanted your character to turn out).
Olskool 12-15-06, 12:23 AM	You see, the thing is, we know point buy is balanced, and fair, and it allows customization, and it gives the players real freedom to make the character they want. Unless rolling dice for stats is somehow part of their character concept, which would be some weird kind of metagaming. Whereas dice are the opposite: the odds of two balanced characters through dice are actually pretty low (one character rolling higher than another is likely, while both falling in the same range is a small mark to hit for a bunch of dice), they aren't fair (good rolls once means a more powerful character for the rest of the game), they restrict customization (a MAD character will be upset to find out he's got 4 18s and 2 3s, whereas a wizard will sob to see all his stats turn out to be 13s), and they actually remove freedom from the players (you are given what the dice rolls give you, and once you are through all the safety nets, you're stuck, regardless of how you wanted your character to turn out). Yeah ,what you say might be true. Point buy may be the most balanced and fair thing in the whole wide world. But that does'nt matter. Because rolling dice is fun. I play this game to have the most fun I can. Not to have the most "fair and balanced" time that I can. Dice win.
theotherdraxen 12-15-06, 12:37 AM	Yeah ,what you say might be true. Point buy may be the most balanced and fair thing in the whole wide world. But that does'nt matter. Because rolling dice is fun. I play this game to have the most fun I can. Not to have the most "fair and balanced" time that I can. Dice win. Do whatever makes you happy. :D You know what makes me happy? http://www.diediedie.com/images/kitty.jpg Okay, thread derailing over!
Sphyre 12-15-06, 12:51 AM	IMO, a good DM doesn't allow rolling, and tells his players to use point-buy. Point-buy is balanced, dice rolling, by it's very nature, is not. Normally, I'd agree, and this is what I did with my group. However, this resulted in two players with 32 point-buy, one player with about 40, and one that would have had 50+ had I not caught it (her first two rolls were less than 20, so I told her to reroll). Who complained? Them or you? A good DM does everything in his power to make sure everyone has fun. If pointbuy makes it more fun for your group, then you're being a good DM. If rolling makes everything more fun for the players, then your statement wouldn't hold true, because the players would roll their stats, and the DM would be a good DM. I believe that rolling dice is inheirintly unbalanced, and thus, I prefer to see games with point-buy. I quote this for example purposes. Unlike this quote, people in this thread are having a hard time noticing the differences between preferences and fact. One can state point-buy can create better balance between players, but not that it in all ways is better than rolling. Value judgements are being made that are not universal, but are being claimed as universal. I point out my thread on critical fumbles. While I can prove that statistically, as a fighter gains more attacks he will fumble more often than a level 1 commoner, I cannot claim that critical fumbles are undesirable by others. I cannot claim that it does not bring excitement to some peoples games. I, in fact, can only claim that I have an extremely strong preference for not having critical fumbles. This is directly related to the conversation at hand, that point-buy can be proven that stats are much more in control with pointbuy, you cannot prove that intangible things like taste don't exist. I understand that I never want to play in a game with critical fumbles for that reason, much like many people would never want to play in a game with stats made through rolling. One must at least take note that whether or not pointbuy or rolling is mechanically fool-proof it still has a level unmeasurable draw to it that can't be proven. You may be able to note that even despite the fact that I can prove that fighters kill themselves more often than commoners, a large mass of people posted in the thread saying "Yeah, I use pointbuy anyway, look at my version." If fact, the whole point of that hinged on the fact that I presumed that a Fighter, as he gains BAB should be at least equally skilled or more skilled at not fumbling in any give amount of time fighting. If you disagreed on that then you obviously would disagree with the whole concept. For the same reason, if you disagree that the imbalance of stats is detrimental to a game's balance, then you wouldn't agree with the arguments that Cantankerous has been presenting. In my opinion, Dice Rolling has become a sacred cow much like wizards and their d4 hit die and lack of ability to cast well in armor. It's an age old institution that's just there even though pointbuy is possible. It's immune to criticism as much as grandpa can say "When I was your age I walked 15 miles buck naked to school and back." If you do it, it's your bag of chips, simply because it's a fun tradition. If you don't that's cool too.
Boshi 12-15-06, 01:05 AM	IMO, a good DM let's his players decide how they want to create their characters. In your DM world, does the DM also tell the players which class and race they must play? Does the DM pick the feats and the skills for them? Do the players make any decisions on their own? Now this is just a ridiculous straw man. All that point buy does it allow players the greatest possible flexibility to design their own characters. Its not a case of the DM being restrictive, its exactly the opposite! Do you make your players roll to see which race they're going to play? Have them roll to see if there's going to be a fighter or a cleric? If not why not? Probably because you want to let your players choose what their character is going to be like. This is exactly what point buy does with regard to stats. Yeah ,what you say might be true. Point buy may be the most balanced and fair thing in the whole wide world. But that does'nt matter. Because rolling dice is fun. I play this game to have the most fun I can. Not to have the most "fair and balanced" time that I can. Dice win. Now that's a good reason to not use point buy, the only good reason I've seen on this entire thread. If you enjoy gambling and get a rush out of rolling for your stats, then if your group feels the same way then rolling for stats is definately the way to do. All of the other arguements about point buy I just don't understand at all. In my opinion, Dice Rolling has become a sacred cow much like wizards and their d4 hit die and lack of ability to cast well in armor. It's an age old institution that's just there even though pointbuy is possible. Agreed. However I think that in the future you'll see less and less die-rolling for stats/HPs but things like Vancian spell-casting are probably here to stay...
theotherdraxen 12-15-06, 01:06 AM	Who complained? Them or you? A good DM does everything in his power to make sure everyone has fun. If pointbuy makes it more fun for your group, then you're being a good DM. If rolling makes everything more fun for the players, then your statement wouldn't hold true, because the players would roll their stats, and the DM would be a good DM. Some like point-buy, others like rolling. The point-buy users felt kind of cheated when the rollers got really good stats, while theirs were stagnant. <snip> All good points, and I agree, do whatever makes you and your group happy. I'm not making anyone use one system or another (even my players).
GoofsterStud 12-15-06, 01:12 AM	Rolling! Otherwise you'd never see decent paladins or monks. Without the stat boost they suck. It's way to weak for point buys because of MAD. Here is what we do. Everyone 4d6 (reroll ones) drop the lowest. This at least makes the lowest possible score a 6. They can choose between three sets. We play pretty tough campaigns or self made ones so it benefits doing things this way. Because they have three sets to choose from, usually any idea works. Granted I'll fudge if someone is having a bad day for stats and I'll roll a 4th choice for them.
Boshi 12-15-06, 01:21 AM	MAD can do OK with point buy. A 28 Point-buy wizard would look get 18 Int, bring everything up to 10 and then only have two points left over. A 28 point-buy paladin could do something like: Str: 14 Dex: 10 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 14 Cha: 14 which is very playable.
justdmjeff 12-15-06, 01:22 AM	Now this is just a ridiculous straw man. All that point buy does it allow players the greatest possible flexibility to design their own characters. Its not a case of the DM being restrictive, its exactly the opposite! Do you make your players roll to see which race they're going to play? Have them roll to see if there's going to be a fighter or a cleric? If not why not? Probably because you want to let your players choose what their character is going to be like. This is exactly what point buy does with regard to stats. It is a case of being restrictive if the player has no desire to use point-buy. But if you make your players use point-buy, why not make them do whatever else you want? I didn't say that I make my players roll. I said that... You know what, did you actually read my post?? Where did I claim I make my players do anything when it comes to creating a character? Why would I make my players roll for race and class just because they decided to roll for their stats? That has got to be the worst counter-point I have ever read. If they want to roll for those things then, fine. It could create a very interesting character. And fun.
GoofsterStud 12-15-06, 01:23 AM	Sorry but the wizard would beat the paladin everytime. They can easily make up for their other stats with spells.
archcomponent 12-15-06, 02:51 AM	Sorry but the wizard would beat the paladin everytime. They can easily make up for their other stats with spells. That is the real benefit of point buy. Spellcasters (Druids in particular) can be assured an 18, stick it in their casting stat, and then laugh at all the other classes that have a higher level of MAD. You know what one giant flaw in point buy is? When you roll very high, that once in a while you get the chance to play a character that takes a lot of high abilities to make work. With point buy you never get to play that character. Not without shooting yourself in the foot. Really. Point buy is like a mild way of cheating at rolling stats.
Zumarai 12-15-06, 04:33 AM	Seriously though if your highest score was a 14 I would allow a reroll even if there werent any other players at all. By stating this you seem to admit that you are a power gamer who needs really high scores to enjoy the game. Remember in 1st/2nd edition, you didn't get shite unless you had at least a 15 in an ability score. Hell, even a 17 Str only gave you a +1 to hit and +1 to damage – what a 12 gives you in 3rd edition. Everyone knows that 16 is the new 18, and a 14 rocks the free world!
Captain_Willard 12-15-06, 05:08 AM	Really. Point buy is like a mild way of cheating at rolling stats. Now that is truly hysterical. I think you meant the opposite. That "rolling" for scores seems to encourage mild cheating – how many times have we DM's had a player saunter up to us and say, "Hey, check it out, I rolled these!" …Yeah, sure you did…
GoofsterStud 12-15-06, 05:24 AM	28 point buy: 8th level druid. Str 8, Dex 8, Con 8, Wis 20, Int 14, Cha 12 So he now walks around all day as a dire bear all day casting spells and attacking in this form. Str 31, Dex 13, Con 19, Wis 20, Int 14, Cha 12 And this is before aging. Yep, simple cheating.
Captain_Willard 12-15-06, 05:33 AM	28 point buy: 8th level druid. Str 8, Dex 8, Con 8, Wis 20, Int 14, Cha 12 So he now walks around all day as a dire bear all day casting spells and attacking in this form. Str 31, Dex 13, Con 19, Wis 20, Int 14, Cha 12 And this is before aging. Yep, simple cheating. Using the druid as an example for anything is really tired. Let's not turn this into a druid and cleric rule the universe thread.
GoofsterStud 12-15-06, 05:43 AM	So then would a wizard with polymorph be better? :P
Reversefigure4 12-15-06, 06:27 PM	28 point buy: 8th level druid. Str 8, Dex 8, Con 8, Wis 20, Int 14, Cha 12 So he now walks around all day as a dire bear all day casting spells and attacking in this form. Str 31, Dex 13, Con 19, Wis 20, Int 14, Cha 12 And this is before aging. Yep, simple cheating. For one thing, Wild Shape no longer alters his CON. For another thing, you seem to be suggesting it would be 'less cheating' if the Druid had rolled 10, 13, 14, 18 (upped to 20), 14 ,12, giving him all over higher scores. How do you figure?
GoofsterStud 12-15-06, 06:32 PM	You right. It's easier to unbalance things through point buy. BTW I didn't realise wildshape doesn't change con anymore, good to know. Just pic the right classes. BTW: I just checked the D20srd and it still states that con is replaced. Druid str 10, con 14, dex 13, wis, 18, int 14, cha 12 This druid using the point-buy system while utilizine wildshape is no different then the higher stat druid in this case. Regardless of witch the extra 2 points would go in wis. Paladin Str 14, Con 14, Dex 12, Int 10, wis 13, cha 18 or you can use variety and make one that values strength. The extra 2 points are valuable anywhere. This is really the only way to do it, which makes it quite boring. Str 14, Con, 14, Dex 10, int 10, wis 14, cha 14 So druid looses nothing and a paladin could have more fun focusing on their extreme while maintaining MAD. Barbarian could be very charismatic utilising intimidate.
Sim_antix 12-15-06, 06:33 PM	By stating this you seem to admit that you are a power gamer who needs really high scores to enjoy the game. Remember in 1st/2nd edition, you didn't get shite unless you had at least a 15 in an ability score. Hell, even a 17 Str only gave you a +1 to hit and +1 to damage – what a 12 gives you in 3rd edition. Everyone knows that 16 is the new 18, and a 14 rocks the free world! I am a DM. I do not make characters nor need high scores to enjoy the game. I am stating that for my players benefit I would allow them to re-roll if they had no score higher than a 14 because I tend to run fairly tough campaigns and they need all the help they can get. I also have a minimum of half for hp per level, does that make me a power gaming DM too?
archcomponent 12-15-06, 07:31 PM	For one thing, Wild Shape no longer alters his CON. For another thing, you seem to be suggesting it would be 'less cheating' if the Druid had rolled Ah, the point buy mentality strikes again. You are assuming that you have your class set before you roll the dice. That is great if you love playing casters and get to play point buy every time. Here, let me see if this has you understand how this works: I am going to run a point buy game with 0 points available, all abilities start at 14. You can call it 'fair' all you want, but the person who wants to play a class that has more in the way of MAD and does not need a singular high ability is going to be snickering at you. The standard point buy favors a min/max in the most classic of senses. It rewards people who have already decided to play a class that can dump as many stats as possible to skyrocket the one that they need, and it ensures they can do this every single time. Head yourself over to the character optimization boards, and ask what class gets favored by this 'standard' point buy. If you went over there and framed it as a serious and unbiased question, as if you were just a new player looking for help, there is no doubt what they would tell you. It is a simple and fairly easy to understand fact: point buy by its nature invariably favors certain classes.
Sim_antix 12-15-06, 07:49 PM	For one thing, Wild Shape no longer alters his CON. For another thing, you seem to be suggesting it would be 'less cheating' if the Druid had rolled 10, 13, 14, 18 (upped to 20), 14 ,12, giving him all over higher scores. How do you figure? Because he rolled those scores honestly rather than just dumping all his points into the only stat that matters. He might not have gotten an 18 when rolling whereas he is assured to get one with point buy unless its one of those ridiculous 15 point buys...
GoofsterStud 12-15-06, 10:08 PM	Sorry to break the topic. I love hearing all are viewpoints and believe that as long as we are having fun, playing the way we play their isn't any right way. :-P Back to the question: Where does it state that con is no longer replaced for wildshape? Found it: Wow they made druids wildshape complicated. Still says con is changed though. Meaning upping fort saves and concentration checks, however hitpoints don't change, that's why I was confused. Guess that druid would now have his 14 in con and 12 in int. :-P
theotherdraxen 12-15-06, 11:16 PM	It is a case of being restrictive if the player has no desire to use point-buy. But if you make your players use point-buy, why not make them do whatever else you want? Yeah, because making players play by your rules is just so restrictive. :rolleyes: It's easier to unbalance things through point buy. Really? And having players with unequal stats is more balanced? Druid ... Paladin Okay, so let's compare one of the most overpowered classes in the game with one of the most underpowered. You haven't proved which system is better: you've just proven that CoDzilla is better than a Paladin. You are assuming that you have your class set before you roll the dice. Wh...are you serious? You go into games thinking, "Man I wonder what class the dice are gonna have me play today"? The standard point buy favors a min/max in the most classic of senses. By this, you mean you can build the character you want and have him be good at what he does. It rewards people who have already decided to play a class that can dump as many stats as possible to skyrocket the one that they need, and it ensures they can do this every single time. Oh really? Allow me to introduce you to one of my favorite characters: Codos Iberas. Codos was trained to be an officer by his father from an early age, but like all good officers, he also needed to know how to fight alongside the men he would lead. He took up a classic position: that of a cavarlyman. Skipping the rest of the story, let's see what roles he has to fill and what stats this requires: He's a hard-charging cavarly man, going in with full-plate and a lance. He regards himself as a bit of a knight. Thus, he needs the strength to hit effectively and deal out damage. He's good from the back of a horse, a natural rider. While he doesn't need a high dex, his dex can't be bad, or he won't be able to ride a horse at low levels, which would really fly in the face of the concept. The problem with being a cavalry man is that you have to be able to take a good number of hits and shrug off illnesses quickly. He needs a high-con. He is also a general. He has a number of skills that he excels in, and like all good generals, he knows that it takes brains to win a war. He needs a good int. No hardened general flees before the enemy. They are bastions of resilience, inspiring the men into great deeds. He is also a skilled diplomat, and is difficult to catch in a lie. Thus, he needs a good wis, or his will and his sense-motive will be too bad to match the concept. Of course, the inspirational general is nothing without charisma: this is his key stat. Being a Marshal, he draws a good deal of his class powers from his force of personality. He needs an excellent charisma. So, here is a very MAD character that can afford to dump nothing. Dice, in their sporadic ways, can with one low roll, break the concept. For this incredibly MAD character, point-buy is the best option.
BoringInfoGuy 12-15-06, 11:31 PM	Though I know this has been mentioned before, it bears repeating: the best compromise for these two methods is two have the entire gaming group roll a set of stats that every character will use. Voila, each player has the excitment of rolling for stats, but all of them are equal in terms of their capabilities. I personally prefer point-buy (I know what it's like to be on the low end of the stat and HP spectrum), but I find that my above suggestion works very well. I habitualy roll poorly. Having the rest of the group stuck with what I get. . . Nah. As for some of my characters. Toral was very much on the low end. (A very successful +13 high, total +3 mod halfing rogue.) My current charater is Ren of Rotellus, a human paladin. Rolled a 32 PB equivalent*, with stats placed as follows. Str 13, Dex 7, Con 10, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 18. With the 10 Con, I was really hoping to get some good rolls on my HD for level. Unfortunetly, I've learned the roll of HP. "The lower your con mod, the lower your HP rolls." Started with 10 HP. At level 2, I rolled a 1. At level 3, I joked "Watch me roll another 1." Turns out I wasn't joking. (I am now banned from saying that when rolling HP). Since it was level three, I took Toughness to raise my total to 15. Pretty low, but better than 12. Then I came across the vampire. Level drain. Failed the check, so make that Permanent level drain. Lose 5 HP. Brings me down to 10. Opps, lost Toughness also. Brings me down to 7 hp. Regained level 3 by the long path. Rolled an 8 for hp. Since that again put me at 15, I didn't take toughness again. For level 4 HP, I rolled a 2. Bringing my current total to 17. Both times I rolled a 1 for Hit dice, the DM offered to let me re roll. But I declined. (If re rolling 1's for HP was a house rule, that would be different. But this was not the case). I chose the 10 for Con. I knew that I could roll low. Trust me, the pressure was high from my fellow players to take the re roll. After the game, the first time it happened, the DM said he respected my integrity. The second time, he apologized for giving the offer at all. Does this put the entire party at a disadvantage? Yes. Are disadvantages bad? Yes and no. Rolling cr@p for HP is not good. But disadvantages also create reasons for the party to work together. In our case, the cleric offered to cast shield other on Ren. The cleric hates melee combat anyway, so this way, it's like he's healing me while remaining where he can use his crossbow. Speaking about disadvantages, we have been working as a 3 man group for a few months now. We had 4, but the first guy moved out of the country for school. We replaced him but his replacement moved out of state. The remaining player is a rogue. The DM has kept the CR for a 4 person group of our level, so the paladin and rogue make certain that both get into flanking position when both enter melee. Or the rogue will also work ranged, while the paladin gets up close to keep them safe. I've played with both these players in several games, but we've never had this level of cohesion. To bring it back on topic, are our stats balanced? No, but not too badly. The rogue is a 36 PB equivalent, the cleric is a 38 PB equivalent. (Becuase of this topic, I asked if I could figure out thier PB equivlanet). Am I bummed at being the low man? Never been before. Why start now? Besides, this game has been a blast. One of the most fun I've played in for years. *Note: By Point Buy equivilant, I mean that we rolled out stats with the standard 4d6 drop lowest method, but I later calculated how many points it would have taken in the PB system to get the same statistics.
archcomponent 12-15-06, 11:35 PM	You haven't proved which system is better: you've just proven that CoDzilla is better than a Paladin. Point buy means classes with focused abilities and dump stats > classes with MAD. Period. I do not see how hard that is to understand. Retreat to bemoaning the "CoD" all you like, because as eggregious as the Druid's complete dump stats are, any caster has the same tendency - just to a less extreme extent. I would bet you then cherry pick feats and broken PrCs to put that one stat to every ability you can. You the type to grab up a Sun Elf with Mind Over Body? Dice, in their sporadic ways, can with one low roll, break the concept. For this incredibly MAD character, point-buy is the best option. I would love to see this in a game. A powergamer whose 'concept' is all in the numbers begins crying when he has a single low roll because he needs all of his precious numbers. Why not make up a story about a living god and start whining about things less than 18 ruining the 20 page backstory? I would honestly start laughing at somsone telling me how they walked in with an immutable concept of someone with no low ability scores and how they need their numbers. How about the all-14 0 point buy? You want to play a caster in that environment?
theotherdraxen 12-15-06, 11:49 PM	I would love to see this in a game. A powergamer whose 'concept' is all in the numbers begins crying when he has a single low roll because he needs all of his precious numbers. Why not make up a story about a living god and start whining about things less than 18 ruining the 20 page backstory? Or you could point out the obvious flaws in this character: he isn't good at anything. He has no real speciality that exceeds what a more focused person could do. You call it 'powergaming' to be dealing 130 damage at 17th level? That's all he can do, and this is on a charge. When he can't charge, he's useless. A living god? He was inches from death in every battle! It was only through careful rebuilding and munchkin multiclassing (courtesy of the CO boards) that he now simply doesn't suck. He's far from optimized. I would honestly start laughing at somsone telling me how they walked in with an immutable concept of someone with no low ability scores and how they need their numbers. Take a look at that concept again. What you have there is a good build for Julis Caesar. Name his dump-stat for me, will you? How about the all-14 0 point buy? You want to play a caster in that environment? I wouldn't know. I don't play casters.
archcomponent 12-16-06, 12:07 AM	Take a look at that concept again. What you have there is a good build for Julis Caesar. Name his dump-stat for me, will you? This is hilarious. I would love to see this happen. When such a player had a single low roll, I would tell them that they were right - I guess it totally ruins their concept and they have to go home. Then I would laugh at them all night. Not quite as much if they actually squirted some tears over the idea of their character actually having a weak point. I am sure Olskool knows what I am talking about. Looking back, he was absolutely right about point buy.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 12:19 AM	This is hilarious. I would love to see this happen. When such a player had a single low roll, I would tell them that they were right - I guess it totally ruins their concept and they have to go home. But, but, but- Then I would laugh at them all night. Not quite as much if they actually squirted some tears over the idea of their character actually having a weak point. But I *sniff*, but- I am sure Olskool knows what I am talking about. Looking back, he was absolutely right about point buy. :weep: Okay, joking aside, I really don't want to get into a flame war over this. I'm sure it's okay for someone to have a character concept that you find ridiculous. Besides, if I had to dump a stat, it would be Dex, followed by Wis, then Con, then Int, then Str, and finally Cha. I could dump stats, but I'd rather not be forced to by random dice rolls. I'd much rather play a renaissance man than a specialist, but that's what I like to do. It is fun to focus on a role every so often, but I prefer to cover multiple. Rolling for stats isn't a deal-breaker for Codos, but I'd still rather make him with points. To be honest, when I was rebuilding him, I was desperate for ways to reduce the MAD, not for build purposes, but because of the very reasons that you stated: a character that is good at everything just isn't interesting. I would have loved to dump dex and wis, but those stats provide mechanical support for the concept, and I didn't have the feats to spare to help make up for it (Force of Personality would have solved my Will save dillema, and ranks can make up for a poor Sense Motive). Still, can you suggest any good dump-stats for Caesar? I'd rather not derail the thread, but seeing some for him might help me find ways to reduce my own character's MAD.
BoringInfoGuy 12-16-06, 12:20 AM	True fairness is granting equality of oppurtunity, not forcing equality of results. Neither method is better or worse in granting fairness of oppurtunity. In rolling for stats, every player rolls by the same rules. In point buy, everyone has the same base points to work from. Rolling grants more diverse - or unbalanced depending on view - stats than point buy. But point buy does not gaurantee equality of results either. Some classes can do better with point buy. (Wizards, Sorcerers). Some players have more experiance around the table. Some really know how to build effective characters. Some may have most of the rules memorized. Some are better at acting in character. Some people are more outgoing, so naturaly end up taking more time in the spotlight. One player may have been playing with a certain DM for so long, that he's subconciously learned to "read" the DM, so he always knows what to expect. These can be very real advantages. If you are really focused on equality of results, what do you do? Try to figure out who the "weaker" players are, and give them more points than "stronger" players? How would you even be able to figure that out?
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 12:23 AM	Yeah, sure. Leave it up to BoringInfoGuy to post information truly relevant to the original post. Sheesh, you certainly can ruin a good flaming derailement. :P
BoringInfoGuy 12-16-06, 12:28 AM	Well, my name isn't InterestingIrrelevantGuy. :P
starfire311 12-16-06, 01:44 AM	IMO, a good DM let's his players decide how they want to create their characters. In your DM world, does the DM also tell the players which class and race they must play? Does the DM pick the feats and the skills for them? Do the players make any decisions on their own? This is actually one of the worst posts ever - it isn't even taking the fallacy to its slippery slope conclusion. if the DM is making them choose their stats using point-buy it should read. "In your DM world, does the DM also make the players choose which class and race they must play? Does the DM force the players to pick the feats and the skills for them? Do the players make all decisions on their own" My changes in bold.
starfire311 12-16-06, 01:51 AM	28 point buy: 8th level druid. Str 8, Dex 8, Con 8, Wis 20, Int 14, Cha 12 So he now walks around all day as a dire bear all day casting spells and attacking in this form. Str 31, Dex 13, Con 19, Wis 20, Int 14, Cha 12 And this is before aging. Yep, simple cheating. How the heck did that druid ever live to see level 8? and nearly the same thing can happen with Die rolling You would just rank your stats as wis 1 int 2 cha 3 Con 4 dex 5 str 6 Except he may end up a bit stronger
justdmjeff 12-16-06, 08:19 AM	This is actually one of the worst posts ever you arent even taking the fallacy to its slippery slope conclusion. if the DM is making them choose their stats using point-buy it should read. "In your DM world, does the DM also make the players choose which class and race they must play? Does the DM force the players to pick the feats and the skills for them? Do the players make all decisions on their own" My changes in bold. So for all of those of the point-buy crowd that states for their first argument against rolling " Why not roll for class, feats, skills, race....?", their remark is okay because you are a point-buy fan? I don't see any posts from you slamming their thought process. I guess you just want to pick and choose which posters you want to attack based on whether they agree with your view of character generation. Yes, my statement was just as ridiculous as the one some point-buy fans want to use. That was the whole point. I'll try to type slower next time so everyone gets it.
Matthew77 12-16-06, 08:44 AM	I'm very puzzled by everyone that implies dice-rolling = freedom of choice and that pointbuy = DM imposed restrictions. Huh? With pointbuy I get to build my character exactly the way I choose. With dice-rolling I lose all freedom and my character is a set of random numbers instead of a carefully constructed concept. Sometimes I have a clear character idea long before I get to the ability score stage. Point buy is perfect because I can fit my concept. Sometimes I don't have a clue what I want to play in a game, so I take the elite array and roll randomly for placement. In this case, pointbuy is just as good as rolling. Since pointbuy is never worse than rolling, and sometimes better, pointbuy > rolling.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 10:28 AM	So for all of those of the point-buy crowd that states for their first argument against rolling " Why not roll for class, feats, skills, race....?", their remark is okay because you are a point-buy fan? I don't see any posts from you slamming their thought process. I guess you just want to pick and choose which posters you want to attack based on whether they agree with your view of character generation. Yes, my statement was just as ridiculous as the one some point-buy fans want to use. That was the whole point. I'll try to type slower next time so everyone gets it. No, the point we are making here is that rolling for stats doesn't give people the freedom to really make their own characters. We are saying that it makes as much sense and is a balanced as rolling for race, class, feats, etc. We aren't saying that a DM that chooses rolling may as well roll for those other things: that would just make things worse. The point-buy people want to have the most freedom in making their characters. The dice-rolling people (if I understand things right) want to have a great deal of freedom in making characters, but also enjoy seeing 'the luck of the draw' when it comes to dice. I'm very puzzled by everyone that implies dice-rolling = freedom of choice and that pointbuy = DM imposed restrictions. Most DMs that I play with either let me choose or make me roll. There is a kind of balance in letting player's choose: with rolling stats, you tend to get higher numbers, but you're helpless to do anything with them to your advantage. With point-buy, you can carefully manage your stats, but while these stats may be optimized for your character, they are lower than the less-optimized rolling. FFT: The most balanced thing in the game is using the Elite Array.
Ongorth 12-16-06, 10:32 AM	Since pointbuy is never worse than rolling, and sometimes better, pointbuy > rolling. If you want the widest variety of character types available while maintaining a level of mechaincal balance, rolling is superior. You just can't make certain character concepts balanced with the (relatively) optimized designs while using the same number of points. Rolling doesn't guarantee for any particular concept, but it allows the chance for many that point buy cannot. Rolling also shifts which concepts are viable every single game depending on the array of rolls, while in a point buy it remains stagnant. I think people assume that when rolling, if you get high numbers, these numbers are automatically optimized and the character gets to kill all butts at the expense of the groups fun. That is one possible use of the rolling system. It can also be used to allow the lucky individual with high stats to play a character concept that, using point buy, would be wall paste or an ankle chain on the party. Obviously, picking your stats is superior to rolling in both these regards (as it is the answer to all stat generation problems), but to say their is no situation where rolling is better then point buy is misleading.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 11:15 AM	Rolling doesn't guarantee for any particular concept, but it allows the chance for many that point buy cannot. So we roll because it offers the *chance* to play the character we want? Take my example of playing Caesar. The concept doesn't allow for a lot of dumping. Now, we could optimize this concept by rolling high in virtually every stat while everyone else gets lower -or- we could really try to optimize him by building him. The 'charging cavalry general' that I made isn't a Marshal 20: he's a Marshal 4/Fighter 4/Legendary Leader 5/Purple Dragon Knight 5/Warmaster 2. It took some serious, raking, optimization in order to get this guy to do everything I wanted him to, and even then: He can tank, but not nearly as well as a focused tank He can charge, but not nearly as well as a focused charger He can be diplomatic, but not nearly as well as a focused diplomancer He can inspire, but not nearly as well as a focused, er, inspirational character. He can do a lot of crap, but none of it well. If we use point-buy, we can certainly create this character, and have no worries about him. If we roll stats, I'll just have to hope the dice fall in my favor. In short: the luck of the draw ain't good enough for me.
boozerker 12-16-06, 11:41 AM	Point-buy is for picking your character before your stats, rolling is for picking your character after your stats. They are preferences, none are worse or better. However, this resulted in two players with 32 point-buy, one player with about 40, and one that would have had 50+ had I not caught it There is no such thing as rolling a "point-buy" equivalent. The reason point-buy can sometimes end up lower than rolling stats is because that's the price for choice. The DMG says point-buy is "ultimate customization", so WotC affixed a price -- lower possible scores. It's not a flaw, it doesn't make rolling "broken", the variation is part of the mechanics. It's designed that way. I point out my thread on critical fumbles. While I can prove that statistically, as a fighter gains more attacks he will fumble more often than a level 1 commoner, I cannot claim that critical fumbles are undesirable by others. "Clumsy" rules are just mechanics for which an efficient system hasn't been made yet. What if only the last attack during your turn could result in a critical fumble (and then only if, additionally, you missed the target by 10 or more)? Now that's a good reason to not use point buy, the only good reason I've seen on this entire thread. If you enjoy gambling and get a rush out of rolling for your stats, then if your group feels the same way then rolling for stats is definately the way to do. CharlieRock said the same before. Remember in 1st/2nd edition, you didn't get shite unless you had at least a 15 in an ability score. Hell, even a 17 Str only gave you a +1 to hit and +1 to damage – what a 12 gives you in 3rd edition. Everyone knows that 16 is the new 18, and a 14 rocks the free world! If WotC saw a need to give higher modifiers, then rolling possibly fits their design even better. Still, can you suggest any good dump-stats for Caesar? Strength and Dexterity and Constitution are probably dump stats. Ceaser got assassinated, so Dex and Con must've been low. Probably a d4 hit die, but a high level commander-type with Leadership feat, perhaps ranks in Diplomacy (maxed out), Knowldege and Intimidate. Ceaser likely rolled an 18 in Charisma, and got a class bonus as well. 1/2 or 3/4 BAB progression. :king: I'm very puzzled by everyone that implies dice-rolling = freedom of choice and that pointbuy = DM imposed restrictions. Huh? With pointbuy I get to build my character exactly the way I choose. With dice-rolling I lose all freedom and my character is a set of random numbers instead of a carefully constructed concept. With a DM that gives you a 15 point-buy limit you lose your PC concept too. But if you MUST roll in your game, it's a matter of DM restriction rather than any "flaw" inherent with rolling.
Ongorth 12-16-06, 12:16 PM	So we roll because it offers the *chance* to play the character we want? I have no idea what you do, but I just pick my stats. Both point buy and rolling are horribly inefficient at making the character you want. They are both allow for, but do not guarantee balance. Seriosly, if your number one concern is "Making the character you want" why are you endorsing point buy? The real strength of point buy is that it supports mastery. However, as this is at the expense of custimizability (that is, the number of viable options power-wise is strictly limited) the system falls short under the needs of a wide variety of games.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 12:23 PM	Seriosly, if your number one concern is "Making the character you want" why are you endorsing point buy? Right now, the two options are point-buy or rolling. With point-buy, I get to pick and choose my stats within reason. With rolling, all I have to hope for is luck (and I'm not a very lucky person: my DMs almost always have someone else roll my stats:()
Ongorth 12-16-06, 12:31 PM	Right now, the two options are point-buy or rolling. Only two options? The dreaded two party system strikes again! The class system does seriously restrict the amount of character creation systems you can use in D&D. Archetypes just don't work because of the leveling system. Point buy based on class doesn't work because of multiclassing. "Organic" systems are also lacking for similiar reasons, as well as the strict link between abilities scores and class abilities. Of all the standardized systems you COULD make, point buy and rolling are probably the best two, barring some super-system that no one has conceived yet. I'm not sure why people feel the need to fight over them. They both have appropriate uses.
archcomponent 12-16-06, 12:59 PM	Seriosly, if your number one concern is "Making the character you want" why are you endorsing point buy? The real strength of point buy is that it supports mastery. Here is the real issue: when a player walks through the door with an inflexible "concept" that is going to dictate to other players and the DM the elements of the game, he has overstepped his bounds. Whether it is his social status, his ability scores, his starting wealth, the characters that he would travel with, the background history of the world, or the flow of the campaign plot. And the example here is rigged. You have someone walking through the door with a set of ability scores that he will not change and he "needs" to play his character concept. He is, in essense, dictating his ability scores - the concept is crafted to match what is being pushed here. Keep the same behavior and reasoning and change the concept and you will see how ridiculous this is. You will have a player who needs a higher point buy or some broken template or to start as a prince or have a magical tiny dragon as a pet. Just slap that sheet on the table along with a 20 page backstory and tell the DM that you need a point buy that covers those stats, and a world that fits your background, a starting level to fit your LA, and the inclusion of all the splatbooks you used to make the character. And if he changes any of that, he is not letting you play the character you want and he must be against roleplaying. Not directed at anyone in particular: If you really think that a low roll ruins your character concept, do feel free to start throwing a tantrum when you get a 16 instead of an 18 or you have to place a 7 instead of having all positive modifiers. If you do, make sure to self-righteously rail about your concept and how you are not being allowed to play your character. For bonus points, tearfully wail about how the 7 has ruined your chance to play the character you want. And if you do not think that point buy leads to plenty of players who make sure all of their characters need to be casters with an 18 in the casting stat, you are kidding yourself. Would point buy be pushed for with such force if it did not allow this? Ask yourself, then, why the standard array gets completely overlooked as an option. Or how well your 'must have' character would work if the point buy was so incredibly low that you could not reach the abilities you 'need'.
starfire311 12-16-06, 02:14 PM	So for all of those of the point-buy crowd that states for their first argument against rolling " Why not roll for class, feats, skills, race....?", their remark is okay because you are a point-buy fan? I don't see any posts from you slamming their thought process. I guess you just want to pick and choose which posters you want to attack based on whether they agree with your view of character generation. Yes, my statement was just as ridiculous as the one some point-buy fans want to use. That was the whole point. I'll try to type slower next time so everyone gets it. No, I wasn't taking about how rediculous either statement is, although when the random is taken to the extreme it is rediculous, while when the PB is taken to the extreme the game is unchanged... Bascally you have 2 schools of thought 1)Random--- roll for stats--- conclusion: if you like randomness why not roll for Classes, races etc etc 2)Player choosen--- Point buy--- Conclusion: if you like having choices why not make the players choose everything Classes, races etc etc No one on either side was arguing the DM should make any choices in character creation, other than the method of doing it, yet you said that the PB crowd indeed was having the DMs make all the decisions. If you applied your argument to the random method of generation it would be "If you are gonna force them to rool randomly why not do everything for them pick their class, race, etc etc" This argument does not work when applied to random either just as it was very very bad when applied to PB.
LiefKarakse 12-16-06, 02:23 PM	hey guys sorry to pop in but i need a good straight up good PB system because my players are begging for one. i thought to start all their stats at 8 so how many points should i give them? should i set a cap on points?
Olskool 12-16-06, 02:33 PM	Bascally you have 2 schools of thought 1)Random--- roll for stats--- conclusion: if you like randomness why not roll for Classes, races etc etc 2)Player choosen--- Point buy--- Conclusion: if you like having choices why not make the players choose everything Classes, races etc etc . I think that's a flawed argument. You come to that conclusion with an obvious point buy bias. I can do the same thing with a rolling bias. 1) Random--- roll for stats--- conclusion: if you like randomness, why not see how the campaign plays out and develop your character organically etc etc 2) point buy--- pick everthing you want---Conclusion: if you don't like adapting to variation, play a videogame where your character will be the same every time with zero variation. etc etc
starfire311 12-16-06, 02:37 PM	hey guys sorry to pop in but i need a good straight up good PB system because my players are begging for one. i thought to start all their stats at 8 so how many points should i give them? should i set a cap on points? in the DMG there is a point buy system, that works like the follow Stat = points 8=0 9=1 10=2 11=3 12=4 13=5 14=6 15=8 16=10 17=13 18=16 and generally anywhere from 25-32 points are given out Living greyhawk uses 28 points, and my friend just started a game using 25 points, all the games I run(currently 2) and have run(numerous) have not used PB, I prefer getting creative and doing some random stuff for stat generation, that always leads to at least somewhat balanced if not completly balanced stats. OH I almost forgot I having been playing in an on and off campaign where the DM gave everyone a 17, 15, 13 and then had use roll 4D6 drop lowest 3 times for the other 3 stats. Yes, I rolled the best in the group but the character I wanted to play will most definatly not overshadow anyone, although I am starting to... I wanted to play a 15 y.o. squire, and I am the squire to a PC playing a knight, the funny thing is currently we are both 2nd level I am a level 2 fighter he is a level 2 knight, and I do overshadow him in combat since I have better stats, but I always play it off in character as being just lucky to be able to help him out.
starfire311 12-16-06, 02:41 PM	I think that's a flawed argument. You come to that conclusion with an obvious point buy bias. I can do the same thing with a rolling bias. I didnt say they weren't flawed, actually both of them were fallacious, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. 1) Random--- roll for stats--- conclusion: if you like randomness, why not see how the campaign plays out and develop your character organically etc etc 2) point buy--- pick everthing you want---Conclusion: if you don't like adapting to variation, play a videogame where your character will be the same every time with zero variation. etc etc huh, your premises have almost nothing to do with your conclusions, you arguments make no sense. Random == liking to see how a campign plays out pont-buy == not wanting to play a game with any variation this doesn't make any sense. BTW you do realize that you can vary the amount of points given out, I have one friend who has ran nothing but point buy games, and has never once used the same amount of points for 2 different campaigns. One other thing, the draw for me for Point buy has nothing to do with reducing randomness, it has to do with assuring party balance with in itself, like I said earlier I wouldnt mind running a game where players all players had straight 18s or a game where all players had straight 12s, however I do not wnat to run a game where one player has straight 18s and another has straight 12s
Ongorth 12-16-06, 03:02 PM	adadadadada. Well, in most cases, customization of concept ('the character') isn't the sole determinent for what a group wants out of a game. There might be some element of mastery, some element of balance and some element of challenge as well, and probably some element of consistancy. Your ability score system should be able to accomodate all of these things in the amount you want in your game. The only way you will ever get this is with a non-standardized ability generation system. That means picking your stats based on the needs of your group. That means deciding the person whose concept MUST use a broken template and the Jesus Array (18/17/16/15/15/14) probably doesn't belong in your game that intends to use standard power level concepts. Rolling and Point Buy are useful because they are standardized. You can tell some tool that walks in the door "4d6 drop" or "25 PB" and not have to explain anything. However, it really doesn't get at the heart of what you want out of game. In most cases.
GoofsterStud 12-16-06, 03:12 PM	My final thought! Go with the group preference. This is the ultimate benefit as it improves moral! Their prefence is more fun to them.
Ekranoplan 12-16-06, 03:31 PM	The PCs should be heroic and varied. A method of rolling stats that I have recently been introduced to is this: Roll 4D6 six times, rerolling ones. The numbers are assigned to str, con, dex, int, wis, and cha in order. The DM sees to it that every player has atleast one 18 and one 8. The player can then exchange two stats. Naturally, if the PC get some werid set of a stats that do not work in anyway for any characters they want to make, changes and/or rerolls can be made. Rolling 4D6 six times rerolling ones is generally overpowered, but the PCs dont have so much customization. And ofcourse other methods of rolling can be used such as dropping the lowest D6, and 5D4. This ensures the character's main stat is good, and generally there is no real dump stat. It creates organic characters. Maybe you are making a sorceror and roll a 16 for your charisma. Even though you could switch an 18 into charisma, you may not want to. Perhaps the 18 would be more usefull in dexterity or constition? Perhaps your a half orc who happened to get a 15 in charisma, and thus you happen to be one of the rare examples of a half-orc with social skills. This allows for a good bit of rolling and keeps things open for a dialogue between the PCs and DM to make a character that everyone is happy with. At the very least, its something different.
pierow37 12-16-06, 03:33 PM	Ok.could someone tlel me where I can find an explanation of what point buy reall is?
starfire311 12-16-06, 03:39 PM	Ok.could someone tlel me where I can find an explanation of what point buy reall is? Page 169 of the DMG I also explain it some in post 588 of this thread here PB explanation (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10928232&postcount=588)
pierow37 12-16-06, 03:42 PM	Page 169 of the DMG I also explain it some in post 588 of this thread here PB explanation (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10928232&postcount=588) thanks a ton. I'll go check it out.
Sphyre 12-16-06, 05:04 PM	"Clumsy" rules are just mechanics for which an efficient system hasn't been made yet. What if only the last attack during your turn could result in a critical fumble (and then only if, additionally, you missed the target by 10 or more)? That's addressed in the thread. Additionally, I've even mentioned in the thread that is linked in that thread, otto the bugbear's fumble tables, that "miss by" certain amounts doesn't make conceptual sense either. Assuming you're rolling again to confirm a critical fumble: If you roll a 16 you're more accurate than if you roll a 15. Yet if you roll a 15 at something with a 16 AC, and don't fumble. Yet you roll a 16 and fumble against something with 60. You're being more accurate except now you fumble, simply because your foe is hard to damage? But I digress, this is not the proper thread for discussing that. I referenced it because it helped explain my point through parallel ideas, not because I wanted another thing to debate.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 06:14 PM	I've never played a video game that randomly determines your stats. My players feel they have more choices with rolling than with point buy. But since you said I can't make that argument, I guess I did'nt just say that.DMs (not GMs) who use point buy decide how many points they give their players, so that's someone else deciding what your player's gonna be right there. All you ponit buy, power to players type people seem to frequently overlook that fact. But, like I said before, point buy is kinda off topic in this thread. There's a whole nother thread active about point buyright now, so if you want, we can argue about this over there. SO instead you prefer - on the basis of 'having more control' - rolling, where someTHING else (dice) decides, essentially, how many points you have AND how they are distributed, instead of some ONE else deciding just how many you have but not their distribution?? As for video games. . you haven't? Are you just talking console games, which admittedly I don't have alot of experience in? In PC games, you find plenty where randomly determined statistics or other primary attributes exist. For example, off the top of my head, the "Might and Magic" series used randomly determined stats.
Olskool 12-16-06, 06:19 PM	SO instead you prefer - on the basis of 'having more control' - rolling, where someTHING else (dice) decides, essentially, how many points you have AND how they are distributed, instead of some ONE else deciding just how many you have but not their distribution?? As for video games. . you haven't? Are you just talking console games, which admittedly I don't have alot of experience in? In PC games, you find plenty where randomly determined statistics or other primary attributes exist. For example, off the top of my head, the "Might and Magic" series used randomly determined stats. If I were a player, yes I'd rather have dice determine my stats than my DM. As a DM, I extend that same courtesy to my players. And I don't play a lot of videogames. They're just not that fun for me. Which may in part explain my aversion to point buy.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 06:20 PM	Only two options? The dreaded two party system strikes again! In this particular thread, there are only two options. If you want more, I personally favor a high-powered elite-array. Totally directed at theotherdraxen There, fixed for you. :P But I get your point, and yeah, demanding more than the campaign offers is ludicrous. I prefer point-buy still, but my future characters will certainly have more dump-stats, because being good at everything kind of sucks (for RP reasons).
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 06:22 PM	If I were a player, yes I'd rather have dice determine my stats than my DM. As a DM, I extend that same courtesy to my players. And I don't play a lot of videogames. They're just not that fun for me. Which may in part explain my aversion to point buy. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=683273 Stop assuming that people who use PB are entering D&D from a video-game perspective.
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 06:23 PM	If I were a player, yes I'd rather have dice determine my stats than my DM. As a DM, I extend that same courtesy to my players. And I don't play a lot of videogames. They're just not that fun for me. Which may in part explain my aversion to point buy. Precisely. I would rather roll for my own stats than have a DM determine how many points I can have and so I allow my players to choose that option as well. If they wanted point buy I would allow it, I wouldn't like it but its their characters not mine.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 06:24 PM	If I were a player, yes I'd rather have dice determine my stats than my DM. As a DM, I extend that same courtesy to my players. And I don't play a lot of videogames. They're just not that fun for me. Which may in part explain my aversion to point buy. THe DM does not determine your stats with a point buy, however, only their range. Aned why do you prefer the dice to determine both placement and range as opposed to you getting to choose one out of two? Or more accurately, HOW does NOT being ao chose either increase your range of choice? I have no objection to your preferring to roll, but the premise here really seems to make no sense.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 06:27 PM	Precisely. I would rather roll for my own stats than have a DM determine how many points I can have and so I allow my players to choose that option as well. If they wanted point buy I would allow it, I wouldn't like it but its their characters not mine. YO&U have a somewhat better choice argument as you are allowing them to choose which method they want. There is a tangible "Choice increase" there. But movign to ONLY rolling and NOT ALLOWING point buy, I dpon't see how choice is increase, however on the opposite, quite frankly, the ability to CHOOSE DOES go up. YOu might not LIKE that method of chosing, but arguing that there is LESS choice availiable?
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 06:28 PM	THe DM does not determine your stats with a point buy, however, only their range. Aned why do you prefer the dice to determine both placement and range as opposed to you getting to choose one out of two? Or more accurately, HOW does NOT being ao chose either increase your range of choice? I have no objection to your preferring to roll, but the premise here really seems to make no sense. Its simple really. With rolling nobody has control over what stats you get while you still retain control over their placement.
Olskool 12-16-06, 06:29 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=683273 Stop assuming that people who use PB are entering D&D from a video-game perspective. Maybe the reason so many people think that is because there's some truth to it. Nah, they must all be unreasonable grognards. and you and only you are right.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 06:30 PM	Its simple really. With rolling nobody has control over what stats you get while you still retain control over their placement. Yes, something DOES have control when rolling. The dice. There are three elements possible to choose. THe amount of points, the distribution of the points (What the stat numbers are), and the placement of the stats(WHich ability gets each) Point buy gives you two out of three. Rolling gives you one out of three. How is that equal to more choice availiable TO YOU?
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 06:31 PM	YO&U have a somewhat better choice argument as you are allowing them to choose which method they want. There is a tangible "Choice increase" there. But movign to ONLY rolling and NOT ALLOWING point buy, I dpon't see how choice is increase, however on the opposite, quite frankly, the ability to CHOOSE DOES go up. YOu might not LIKE that method of chosing, but arguing that there is LESS choice availiable? It is wrong either way if you ask me. The players and DM as a group need to vote and decide what method they will use and if someone can't live with the groups decision then they should find a new group.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 06:31 PM	Its simple really. With rolling nobody has control over what stats you get while you still retain control over their placement. So then, doesn't rolling limit freedom?
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 06:34 PM	Yes, somethign DOES have control> The diuce. There are three elements possible to choose. THe amount of points, the distribution of the points (What the stat numbers are), and the placement of the stats(WHich ability gets each) Point buy gives you two out of three. Rolling gives you one out of three. How is that equal to more choice availiable TO YOU? Listen carefully... with point buy the DM gets to decide how many points you get, with rolling nobody does. Rather than have someone decide how many points they get alot of players would rather let the dice decide since they are inanimate, impartial objects and not a person making a decision.
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 06:35 PM	It is wrong either way if you ask me. The players and DM as a group need to vote and decide what method they will use and if someone can't live with the groups decision then they should find a new group. Just to add to this, if you limit your players to point buy when they would prefer to roll then you aren't really giving them any more freedom at all, you are taking it away at that point.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 06:37 PM	Just to add to this, if you limit your players to point buy when they would prefer to roll then you aren't really giving them any more freedom at all, you are taking it away at that point. MY main point is that they DO have "More choice" when being limited to ONLY point buy than a situation in which they are limited to ONLY rolling. More choice is lost in the rolling scenario than the other. They go from having control of two out of three to one out of three. THat is an increase in choice?
Lethanic 12-16-06, 06:40 PM	Listen carefully... with point buy the DM gets to decide how many points you get, with rolling nobody does. Rather than have someone decide how many points they get alot of players would rather let the dice decide since they are inanimate, impartial objects and not a person making a decision. THat STILL doesn't answer the question> YOU varifiably have less choice when ROlling than with point buy. . and why, other than having petty control issues, woudl you object to the DM< who presumably knows the power level of the world and the opposition in it, to setting the general power level of the campaign? So you less care about having more control YOURSELF and more about making sure the DM has none?
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 06:42 PM	MY main point is that they DO have "More choice" when being limited to ONLY point buy than a situation in which they are limited to ONLY rolling. More choice is lost in the rolling scenario than the other. They go from having control of two out of three to one out of three. THat is an increase in choice? No but it takes the choice of how many points away from the DM therefor the only ones making any decisions are you and the dice. Also as I said limiting your players to only the option that you prefer is wrong in and of itself. First things first is deciding as a group what method to use thus ensuring that everyone has been given the choice that really matters.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 06:42 PM	Listen carefully... with point buy the DM gets to decide how many points you get, with rolling nobody does. Rather than have someone decide how many points they get alot of players would rather let the dice decide since they are inanimate, impartial objects and not a person making a decision. DMs are supposed to hand out the same number of points to everyone. Just to add to this, if you limit your players to point buy when they would prefer to roll then you aren't really giving them any more freedom at all, you are taking it away at that point. True, but doing both still results in unfair stats. Especially for the point-buyers. Rolling almost always ends up higher than even high-powered point-buy, and it really isn't too much worse optimized than points. Personally, if all my players wanted there to be chocolate dragons, then there would be chocolate dragons. If they wanted to roll, they roll. Not everyone wants to, however.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 06:42 PM	ANd of course the group shoudl decide ahead of time, obviously - although if the DM says "I want to run a campaign where we use a 28 point buy in a world where blah blah blah, arguably the player does have the choice to play or not. . .
Olskool 12-16-06, 06:42 PM	YO&U have a somewhat better choice argument as you are allowing them to choose which method they want. There is a tangible "Choice increase" there. But movign to ONLY rolling and NOT ALLOWING point buy, I dpon't see how choice is increase, however on the opposite, quite frankly, the ability to CHOOSE DOES go up. YOu might not LIKE that method of chosing, but arguing that there is LESS choice availiable? The players' choice is to roll for stats. If I let them roll for stats, then they have made a choice. If instead I say ,no we are using point buy, they have not made a choice. In your theory about my game, yes, there's less choice. But in the reality that is my game, there is actually more choice with rolling than with point buy.
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 06:43 PM	THat STILL doesn't answer the question> YOU varifiably have less choice when ROlling than with point buy. . and why, other than having petty control issues, woudl you object to the DM< who presumably knows the power level of the world and the opposition in it, to setting the general power level of the campaign? So you less care about having more control YOURSELF and more about making sure the DM has none? Let me say this for the 10,000th time... I AM A DM NOT A PLAYER! I care deeply about making sure that my players have full control over their characters and that I have full control over the rest of the world, as it should be. Only railroading DMs need control over a PC in any way shape or form.
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 06:44 PM	ANd of course the group shoudl decide ahead of time, obviously - although if the DM says "I want to run a campaign where we use a 28 point buy in a world where blah blah blah, arguably the player does have the choice to play or not. . . And what if they would love to play but 3 out of 4 would prefer to roll?
Lethanic 12-16-06, 06:44 PM	No but it takes the choice of how many points away from the DM therefor the only ones making any decisions are you and the dice. Also as I said limiting your players to only the option that you prefer is wrong in and of itself. First things first is deciding as a group what method to use thus ensuring that everyone has been given the choice that really matters. .. .so it comes to a petty dislike of the DM having any influence over your character stats, in other words, you woudl rather relinquish YOUR control than to give the DM any?
Lethanic 12-16-06, 06:49 PM	And what if they would love to play but 3 out of 4 would prefer to roll? THen quite frankly, they probably wouldn't enjoy my worlds, and I'll sit that one out and let someone else DM. In my case, I like not having huge disparities between characters at the beginning. I also like starting at first level, where those disparities are greatly magnified. Therefore, if they want to alter those starting conditions, they can ALSO do the work to come up with the whole thing.
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 06:52 PM	.. .so it comes to a petty dislike of the DM having any influence over your character stats, in other words, you woudl rather relinquish YOUR control than to give the DM any? 10,001... I am a DM and blah blah blah And they are not relinquishing anything. With point buy they can choose how many points go where. With rolling they can choose which scores go where. With point buy the DM determines how many points you get. With rolling the dice determines how many points you get. The only one relinquishing anything is the DM...
Lethanic 12-16-06, 06:57 PM	10,001... I am a DM and blah blah blah And they are not relinquishing anything. With point buy they can choose how many points go where. With rolling they can choose which scores go where. With point buy the DM determines how many points you get. With rolling the dice determines how many points you get. The only one relinquishing anything is the DM... NOt true. Point buy you pick both WHAT scores are aquired with the points and WHERE those scores go. With rolling, you chose only where those scores go - the dice decide what the total value of those stats are, and what the specific value of EACH stat is, for the umpteeth time to repeat. .
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 06:58 PM	Missed this one. Maybe the reason so many people think that is because there's some truth to it. Nah, they must all be unreasonable grognards. and you and only you are right. I don't play very many video games. Besides, you have made an assumption for which there is no solid, legitimate proof.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 06:59 PM	10,001... I am a DM and blah blah blah And they are not relinquishing anything. With point buy they can choose how many points go where. With rolling they can choose which scores go where. With point buy the DM determines how many points you get. With rolling the dice determines how many points you get. The only one relinquishing anything is the DM... Would you be up for a combination of the systems? Rolling for stats that the players agree are acceptable, and them boiling them down to points? This way, the DM relinquishes everything, and the players get more freedom than just rolling or just point-buy would allow.
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 06:59 PM	NOt true. Point buy you pick both WHAT scores are aquired with the points and WHERE those scores go. With rolling, you chose only where those scores go, for the umpteeth time to repeat. . Picking what scores are aquired only goes as far as the points that the DM allows, it is no different from the DM deciding which method of rolling will be used thus giving different ranges for scores.
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 07:01 PM	Would you be up for a combination of the systems? Rolling for stats that the players agree are acceptable, and them boiling them down to points? This way, the DM relinquishes everything, and the players get more freedom than just rolling or just point-buy would allow. I would be up for anything that my players enjoy. I especially like it when it leads to more realism since I prefer a Realistic Fantasy.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 07:06 PM	I would be up for anything that my players enjoy. I especially like it when it leads to more realism since I prefer a Realistic Fantasy. Then maybe a neutral ground can be found between the two sides. My question is: would *you* like to play/DM with above stated suggestion, disregarding (for just a moment) what your players would like/not like to do.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 07:07 PM	Picking what scores are aquired only goes as far as the points that the DM allows, it is no different from the DM deciding which method of rolling will be used thus giving different ranges for scores. Actually, to turn your argument back on you, the GM picking what dice rolling method is being used is equivalent to picking what level of point buy you have. But you are going to continue to argue that it gives you more control when it FACTUALLY and PATENTLY isn't so. I don't mind that you like it, but sheez. With dice rolling the _Only_ thing a player has _any_ control over is where to put the stats that are predetermined by the dice. Really it isn't different than giving someone a randomly predetermined 'stat array' YOu have a point buy, you can choose if you want that fifteen, if you want a whole lot of stats with low bonuses, a few stats with high bonuses or any combination inbetween> With rolling. .you take what you get. AGain, this is not an increase in choice. .
Olskool 12-16-06, 07:08 PM	Missed this one. I don't play very many video games. Besides, you have made an assumption for which there is no solid, legitimate proof. Likewise, you have no solid legitimate proof that Point buy is NOT videogamish. So ,since there's no proof either way, I'm jst gonna trust my gut and do what my DMs instincts tell me. No point buy in my games because it's no fun and it feels too much like a videogame.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 07:09 PM	I would be up for anything that my players enjoy. I especially like it when it leads to more realism since I prefer a Realistic Fantasy. Randomly determined bell - curve stats are no more realistic that point buy stats, and often leads to wildly improbable stat sets itself. .
Lethanic 12-16-06, 07:10 PM	Likewise, you have no solid legitimate proof that Point buy is NOT videogamish. So ,since there's no proof either way, I'm jst gonna trust my gut and do what my DMs instincts tell me. No point buy in my games because it's no fun and it feels too much like a videogame. THe burden of proof in an argument is to the person making the claim, not the one the claim is being made about.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 07:15 PM	Likewise, you have no solid legitimate proof that Point buy is NOT videogamish. So ,since there's no proof either way, I'm jst gonna trust my gut and do what my DMs instincts tell me. No point buy in my games because it's no fun and it feels too much like a videogame. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html "Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true." What you're doing is as bad as saying, "There's no proof that the moon is made of cheese, so I'm going to trust my gut and assume that there is. I just feel like the moon is made of cheese, so I'm going to assume it is."
Lethanic 12-16-06, 07:19 PM	http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html "Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true." What you're doing is as bad as saying, "There's no proof that the moon is made of cheese, so I'm going to trust my gut and assume that there is. I just feel like the moon is made of cheese, so I'm going to assume it is." Easier way to say would be "The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim."
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 07:24 PM	Then maybe a neutral ground can be found between the two sides. My question is: would *you* like to play/DM with above stated suggestion, disregarding (for just a moment) what your players would like/not like to do. Probably not. I just prefer rolling though I have never been a player therfor never tried point buy so I might try it just to try it. Don't mistake me having never tried it with me not understanding how it works and therefor having a decent undertanding of whether I would like something like that or not. Randomly determined bell - curve stats are no more realistic that point buy stats, and often leads to wildly improbable stat sets itself. . Yes they are more realistic. They are random and follow a bell curve just like real peoples attributes, whereas with point buy you load up on the stat(s) that you need and leave the rest at 10s or 8s... not very realistic at all.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 07:29 PM	Probably not. I just prefer rolling though I have never been a player therfor never tried point buy so I might try it just to try it. Don't mistake me having never tried it with me not understanding how it works and therefor having a decent undertanding of whether I would like something like that or not. Yes they are more realistic. They are random and follow a bell curve just like real peoples attributes, whereas with point buy you load up on the stat(s) that you need and leave the rest at 10s or 8s... not very realistic at all. Real people are NOT on a bell curve with stats. Bell curves don't describe all distributions i life, and for example, very often you have a bell curve, for example, with a cut off tail. Actually, many biological features are notoriously KNOWN for not following normal distributions. ALso, actually. .why allow a player to choose their height? Apply a bell curve for realism. Way too many tall characters out there. Not enough fat and really skinny ones. TOo many redheads, too many green eyes. .
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 07:29 PM	D&D isn't about realism: it's about heroism! If I want ridiculously min/maxed stats, then I should get them! Why? Because it's heroic! :fight!: Anyway, on a more serious note, I use point-buy to match a concept I have. I rarely come up with a concept that involves 'dumping all the unnecessary stats'. I like to RP more than powergame, so I just don't min/max all that much.
Olskool 12-16-06, 07:32 PM	http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html "Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true." What you're doing is as bad as saying, "There's no proof that the moon is made of cheese, so I'm going to trust my gut and assume that there is. I just feel like the moon is made of cheese, so I'm going to assume it is." If that's true, I find it funny that you don't realize you're doing the exact same thing. Neither of us are able to substantiate our claims. I'm just treating my position as an opinion. My opinion is point buy feels videogamish. Your is that it does'nt. Neither of our positions is any more outlandish than the other's I'm not challenging you to prove your position beyond the shadow of a doubt, because you just can't do it. There's proof that the moon is not made of green cheese. There's proof that global warming is real. There's no proof that point buy does'nt feel like a videogame. Also, that's the first time today someone's implied that I'm ignorant in a dead language. Maybe later I'll see if I can return the favor in Aramaic.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 07:33 PM	Real people are NOT on a bell curve with stats. Yeah, but it's probably a little closer than 10, 16, 10, 10, 10, 16. I just run under the assumption that my players aren't going to be horribly abusive with stuff, and will create characters that look realistic. For example: a Gnome Barbarian is an unusual concept, but makes for an effective character. It's pretty hard to come up with a good backstory for such a character (though undoubtedly it could be done, and to great effect). None of my players want to make a Gnome Barbarian, and for this reason, I don't run into problems with my players abusing point-buy in such a fashion (even though exactly half of them want to roll:mad:)
Lethanic 12-16-06, 07:37 PM	Yeah, but it's probably a little closer than 10, 16, 10, 10, 10, 16. I just run under the assumption that my players aren't going to be horribly abusive with stuff, and will create characters that look realistic. For example: a Gnome Barbarian is an unusual concept, but makes for an effective character. It's pretty hard to come up with a good backstory for such a character (though undoubtedly it could be done, and to great effect). None of my players want to make a Gnome Barbarian, and for this reason, I don't run into problems with my players abusing point-buy in such a fashion (even though exactly half of them want to roll:mad:) Usually mine end up as clustering around the middle with either a bit higher physical or mental. BUt I do know PLENTY of people that are strictly average except for one or two things they are good at. QUite frankly, my players actually only rarely do 16's, and then its usually one of 'em. Haven't had one try to start with an eighteen in a long time.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 07:43 PM	If that's true, I find it funny that you don't realize you're doing the exact same thing. As Lethanic said, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Besides, I did offer proof: that's what the link was for. I'm just treating my position as an opinion. Okay. Also, that's the first time today someone's implied that I'm ignorant in a dead language. Maybe later I'll see if I can return the favor in Aramaic. I don't make these up. That's what the link was for. Besides, what's the problem with using Latin?
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 07:44 PM	Usually mine end up as clustering around the middle with either a bit higher physical or mental. BUt I do know PLENTY of people that are strictly average except for one or two things they are good at. QUite frankly, my players actually only rarely do 16's, and then its usually one of 'em. Haven't had one try to start with an eighteen in a long time. I usually only get one 18, and only 1 or 2 dumps. The rest are actually pretty reasonable, and my players pick their stats for RP reasons, so they don't end up too bad.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 07:52 PM	If that's true, I find it funny that you don't realize you're doing the exact same thing. Neither of us are able to substantiate our claims. I'm just treating my position as an opinion. My opinion is point buy feels videogamish. Your is that it does'nt. Neither of our positions is any more outlandish than the other's I'm not challenging you to prove your position beyond the shadow of a doubt, because you just can't do it. There's proof that the moon is not made of green cheese. There's proof that global warming is real. There's no proof that point buy does'nt feel like a videogame. Also, that's the first time today someone's implied that I'm ignorant in a dead language. Maybe later I'll see if I can return the favor in Aramaic. Actually, the logical fallacy is not arguing that YOU are ignorant. Its merely stating that the lack of proof AGAINST something is not proof FOR it. It says that the statement :"Its true because you don't know that it isn't" is not a true one.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 07:54 PM	I usually only get one 18, and only 1 or 2 dumps. The rest are actually pretty reasonable, and my players pick their stats for RP reasons, so they don't end up too bad. I get some low stats, but usually not as "Dumps" but part of the character. On the other hand, they don't view having an 8 or nine as being a cripple.
BoringInfoGuy 12-16-06, 08:00 PM	Now, it's been asked why the game developers worked so hard in the core rules to create a balanced system, to just leave in rolling 4d6 drop the lowest as the default method of rolling attributes. They put balance into the rolls when they came up with the rerolling rule. If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and roll all six scores again. Your scores are consiered too low if the sum of your modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if your highest score is 13 or lower. So you need to have at least one score at 14, AND a total modifier of at least +1 to have a character who isn't too low by RAW. The 14 is not a randomly picked number. First, that is the minimum score a spell castor needs start with to be able to cast 9th level spells by 20th level. But it's also something more. Since a standard game assumes a group of heros working together, problems with one player having rolled better stats arise when those high stats let one player outdo another in that character's role. The minimums were set to prevent this. As long as you have at least a 14 in your prime stat, another class can't completely outdo you in your specialty. Lets look at the all 18 bard vs a 14 high, low 8, rest 10 fighter. At first level, the Bard has a +4 to hit. At first level, the Fighter can have a +4 to hit. BAB + STR + Weapon focus. The Bard had +4 damage. The Fighter has +2 damage. At level 3, the Bard can also take Weapon Focus, raising his attack to one above the fighters. At 4th, the Fighter can take weapon specialization. His damage is now +4, equal to the bards. Both raise Str, to no difference in modifier. At 5th, the fighters attack is again equal to the bard. At this point, the bard can only cast two 2nd levels spells. (I've looked into the bard spell list. Combat buffs start at 2nd level, unless you include expiditious retreat at 1st). Rage and Heroism. Rage's duration is Concentration +1 round per level. (D) Heroism's duration is 10 min per level. So, at 5th level, the bard can choose to buff himself, or the fighter. At 6th, the fighter and bard have the same attack modifier, but the fighter also has a second attack. So the bard can choose to buff himself, or the fighter, who has the same attack and damage, but one more attack per round. At 8th, greater weapon focus raises the fighters attack one higher than the bard. Both raise Str again, adding +1 to thier modifiers. At 9th, the bard's attack drops one more behind the fighter. At 12th, the fighter takes Greater Weapon specialization, raising his damage to +7. The bard is at +5. The fighter has a better chance to hit, more damage when he does hit, and more chances to hit. Now, 12th level is still a magic number, but the fighter reaches equality on attack and damage at 5th. And at no point is he very far behind. The bard has various abilities that can buff. Most of them will also give the same or more benefit to the fighter. The fighter has many extra feats he can still assign to affect his combat ability. The bard will remain a good melee combatant. The fighter will be a better one. Now, notice that this was a high stat bard vs a low stat fighter. This is was a delibrate choice. A bard is built to be ok at combat, skills, divine magic, and arcane magic, with bardic music and knowledge on top of that. I wasn't asked about playing a low stat wizard in a party with an all 18 fighter. Regardless of the fighters Int, he can never cast spells. His ability scores will never let him out wizard the wizard. The fighter has the ability that seems easist to emulate. What more do you need than high to hit and damage? Hopefully, I have demonstrated that the fighter can outfight the bard. See my earlier posts for more detail. Now, what about an all 18 wizard trying to out fight the fighter? How long does a wizard of any stats last trying to go toe to toe in the front line? How about the +18 bard trying to out wizard the wizard? With an 18, the bard gets a bonus spell at 1st through 4th level. The wizard gets a bonus spell at 1st and 2nd. The bard still doesn't get 1st level spells until level three. The wizard is getting his second level spells by then. And compare the spell lists. The sorcerer / wizard spell list is the largest of any class. The base spells per day seem equal, since both classes have 4 spells per day at 20th level. The higher stats would make the difference, right? Wrong. There is one more factor. The bard spell list stops at 6th level spells. The wizard goes to 9th level. Spells known? Advantage, wizard. Compare to the sorcerer instead, and the Bard gets an extra spell known at 3rd to 6th level. The sorcerer still gets up to 9th level spells. More total spells known. Even with the bard's better stats, the sorcerer has more spells per day. All 18 bard vs 14 high cleric? 6th level spells max vs 9th level spell max? More spells per day, even with the stat differential? A larger spell list. The fact that clerics can prepare every spell on thier spell list(of spell levels they can cast)? All 18 bard vs 14 high rogue? Both are strong skill users. Harder to say where a rogue would put his 14. Str for a combat focused rogue. Dex for better AC and using many of his skills. Int to get more skills. Cha for a con style rogue. The rogue is a very mallable class. But the rogue is gauranteed to get sneak attack, trapfinding, and a special ability almost every level. Whatever the stats, the rogue can do things the bard can not. So, all the basic classes - Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue - have some class based abilities that keep them from being overshadowed by an all 18 bard. Now, if we stop looking at the fear of being overshadowed, and instead look at what they can do together, we get a different picture. The bards buffing abilities grant typicaly moral or competance bonuses. So it stacks with the bonuses that the cleric and wizard can put out. Not competitive buffing, improved buffing. The bard can choose healing spells also, to take some of that burden off the cleric. And if the cleric gets dropped below zero hp, there is someone to heal him. The more the bard heals, the less the cleric has to burn his prepared spells for healing. Or, to put it another way, the more the bard acts like the cleric, the better off the cleric is. "I'm more than a band aid!" The bard gets all the knowledge skills for class skills, and all the skills the rogue can get. With a bit of planning between them, the bard, rogue, and wizard can together cover a wide spread of important skills, instead of just duplicating skills. I'm too tired to work it out, but I think that the wizard and bard can cover all the knowledge skills together, and still leave the bard some Skill Points to add some skills the rogue didn't take. Not that there isn't an advantage with having important skills doubled up. In combat, the bard can wade into the thick of it with the fighter. Two people spreading the damage recieved between them can last longer than one. Two characters attacking together take out opponents faster. The rogue has two allies to try to get into flanking position with. Which means more chances to use his sneak attack ability. The cleric can choose to focus on casting or join in the fray himself. The wizard does what wizards do. Stay out of combat and cast spells. But he has more blockers to keep opponents off of him. No one feels over shadowed. The bard makes everyone better at what they do, while he gets to enjoy his versitility.
Olskool 12-16-06, 08:14 PM	As Lethanic said, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Besides, I did offer proof: that's what the link was for. Okay. I don't make these up. That's what the link was for. Besides, what's the problem with using Latin? Look man. Just because you pointed me to another thread with a bunch of geeks arguing about this same subject does'nt mean you've proved your point. A bunch of geeks arguing is'nt undisputable proof. It's just a bunch of geeks arguing. I find it funny that you think any of this stuff can be proven. It's all just people's opinions. I don't need to offer rock solid proof anymore than you do. Which is a good thing because neither of us can. Remember, this is all just personal opinions about how the game should be played here, your opinion, my opinion, neither is inherently more scientifically provable than the other. You like point buy, I hate point buy. Those are our opinions.
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 08:14 PM	Usually mine end up as clustering around the middle with either a bit higher physical or mental. BUt I do know PLENTY of people that are strictly average except for one or two things they are good at. QUite frankly, my players actually only rarely do 16's, and then its usually one of 'em. Haven't had one try to start with an eighteen in a long time. And why is that?
Olskool 12-16-06, 08:18 PM	Easier way to say would be "The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim." I say point buy feels video gamish. He says point buy does not feel that way. Either both of these are extraordinary claims, or neither of them are. You can't have it both ways in an argument. Just because you agree with him instead of me does'nt mean that my claim is "extraordinary" and his is'nt. If you guys can't grasp this, maybe you need to go back to the basics before you start throwing around the old timey Latin.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 08:25 PM	Look man. Just because you pointed me to another thread with a bunch of geeks arguing about this same subject does'nt mean you've proved your point. A bunch of geeks arguing is'nt undisputable proof. It's just a bunch of geeks arguing. I find it funny that you think any of this stuff can be proven. It's all just people's opinions. I don't need to offer rock solid proof anymore than you do. Which is a good thing because neither of us can. Remember, this is all just personal opinions about how the game should be played here, your opinion, my opinion, neither is inherently more scientifically provable than the other. You like point buy, I hate point buy. Those are our opinions. Okay, let's see if this is an opinion: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=683273 Stop assuming that people who use PB are entering D&D from a video-game perspective. Maybe the reason so many people think that is because there's some truth to it. Nah, they must all be unreasonable grognards. and you and only you are right. I'm assuming that you were being sarcastic with that last sentence. If there is truth to it, present it!
Lethanic 12-16-06, 08:32 PM	And why is that? NO idea. Its not because I discourage them, per se. They just seem to like a more balanced stat array.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 08:35 PM	I say point buy feels video gamish. He says point buy does not feel that way. Either both of these are extraordinary claims, or neither of them are. You can't have it both ways in an argument. Just because you agree with him instead of me does'nt mean that my claim is "extraordinary" and his is'nt. If you guys can't grasp this, maybe you need to go back to the basics before you start throwing around the old timey Latin. YOu are making the assumption that all or the vast majority of a group is sharing a specific perspective. We are arguing that they don't - YOU are making the positive claim - we aren't. Burden of proof isn't on the people saying somethign ISN'T true unless the thing being claimed as true is accepted as a general truth by most of the population, and I think the statement that "Point - buyers like point buy because they think of it like video games" woudl not garner the support of the majorrity opinion.
Olskool 12-16-06, 08:43 PM	Okay, let's see if this is an opinion: I'm assuming that you were being sarcastic with that last sentence. If there is truth to it, present it! Have you ever heard the expression "maybe there's some truth to that" before? It's a somewhat folksy expression who's literal meaning is "maybe it might be true". It certainly does'nt mean "I am offering this extraordinary statement to all those gathered as incontrovertable truth." as you seem to think it does. See, round these parts where me and mah kin hails from we tend to use folksy terminology in our speech. I daresay one may even refer to it , were one of a mind to use such a vulgar term, as slang. I apologize for this misunderstanding, and any others we may have due to circumstantial differences in speechifying. Next time, I'll try and throw some latin for you, so my gutterspeech is'nt so undecipherable to your rarified ears.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 08:44 PM	And why is that? I do it because, while I try to optimize enough to pull my weight, I RP everything else. Making OP characters isn't fun for anyone. Here ([QUOTE=rydi123;10365678]no. you simply did not comprehend my arguement.)'s one post that I feel summarizes pretty well why people might intentionally make less than maximized characters for themselves. You don't have to agree with it, just understand that some players like to play this way.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 08:47 PM	Have you ever heard the expression "maybe there's some truth to that" before? It's a somewhat folksy expression who's literal meaning is "maybe it might be true". It certainly does'nt mean "I am offering this extraordinary statement to all those gathered as incontrovertable truth." as you seem to think it does. See, round these parts where me and mah kin hails from we tend to use folksy terminology in our speech. I daresay one may even refer to it , were one of a mind to use such a vulgar term, as slang. I apologize for this misunderstanding, and any others we may have due to circumstantial differences in speechifying. Next time, I'll try and throw some latin for you, so my gutterspeech is'nt so undecipherable to your rarified ears. Do you or do you not believe there to be truth to it?
Olskool 12-16-06, 08:47 PM	I think the statement that "Point - buyers like point buy because they think of it like video games" woudl not garner the support of the majorrity opinion. Yeah, if that's what I'd said I'd feel terrible; but I did'nt say that. I said I don't like point buy because it reminds ME of videogames. See the difference there? You guys are now telling me to prove that statement. You see the disconnect here? Or am I just screaming at a wall so to speak.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 08:54 PM	Yeah, if that's what I'd said I'd feel terrible; but I did'nt say that. I said I don't like point buy because it reminds ME of videogames. See the difference there? You guys are now telling me to prove that statement. You see the disconnect here? Or am I just screaming at a wall so to speak. Stop assuming that people who use PB are entering D&D from a video-game perspective. (First said by my 'companion in crime) Maybe the reason so many people think that is because there's some truth to it. Nah, they must all be unreasonable grognards. and you and only you are right.(Said by you) It sure does SEEM you are asserting that the statement is true. .
Olskool 12-16-06, 08:57 PM	Do you or do you not believe there to be truth to it? Oh yeah, you better believe I believe it. That's my opinion and I stand by it. I believe it to the fullest. Point Buy stinks.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 09:02 PM	Oh yeah, you better believe I believe it. That's my opinion and I stand by it. I believe it to the fullest. Point Buy stinks. Okay. On what ground(s) do you believe it to be true?
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 09:05 PM	NO idea. Its not because I discourage them, per se. They just seem to like a more balanced stat array. Well good, I was concerned that this might have been the case and although I would never presume to tell someone else how to DM I would suggest that penalizing someone for wanting an 18 in their primary stat kind of goes against the spirit of the game. I do it because, while I try to optimize enough to pull my weight, I RP everything else. Making OP characters isn't fun for anyone. Here ([QUOTE=rydi123;10365678]no. you simply did not comprehend my arguement.)'s one post that I feel summarizes pretty well why people might intentionally make less than maximized characters for themselves. You don't have to agree with it, just understand that some players like to play this way. I fully understand this, I just would hate to see someone punish their players for not feeling that way.
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 09:18 PM	I fully understand this, I just would hate to see someone punish their players for not feeling that way. Yeah, you can't exclude someone just because they want to optimize. I handle it simply by asking them not to break my game, but that won't always work (they can be elusive little buggers).
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 09:22 PM	Yeah, you can't exclude someone just because they want to optimize. I handle it simply by asking them not to break my game, but that won't always work (they can be elusive little buggers). For powergamers interested only in breaking your game just remember... There is always a bigger fish (and they will not like some upstart threatening their carefully built base of power)
theotherdraxen 12-16-06, 09:26 PM	For powergamers interested only in breaking your game just remember... There is always a bigger fish (and they will not like some upstart threatening their carefully built base of power) QTF, and damn useful advice. Thanks!
Ongorth 12-16-06, 11:21 PM	Considering this is the OP: I prefer to have all my players use the poin-buy method of stats, it keeps one person from being extremely unbalanced compared to the others. What do you more experienced DMs prefer and why? I don't see why we are needlessly restricting ourselves to talking about PB and rolling. Even though the thread title is "Benefits of point-buy vs dice rolling stats" the entire point is to discuss the method of generating that we find most useful, which it seems the OP mistook as a dichotomy when it actually isn't. Honestly, arguing the pros and cons of PB versus dice rolling is sort of silly. They fill very different needs, to the point where proponents of one can often not even conceive how one would find merit in the other, as has been seen countless times in this thread. It is ever so much easier to simply call the person who disagrees with you a moron rather then just admit you have no conception of how they play the game. It would be far better to simply discuss the merits and flaws of each, as well as various alternative systems that the OP (and many others) might not even have realized existed that might suit their needs better. There has certainly been a good amount of this and scattered good discussion, but people call into question preferences or ascribe motives to the actions of others it really derails and progress and gets us no where.
starfire311 12-17-06, 01:11 AM	10,001... I am a DM and blah blah blah And they are not relinquishing anything. With point buy they can choose how many points go where. With rolling they can choose which scores go where. With point buy the DM determines how many points you get. With rolling the dice determines how many points you get. The only one relinquishing anything is the DM... This is false though, as you have already said that you let your players re-roll the dice, so thus you still have control over the stats since you make the decision on whether or not they can re-roll, you also make the decision on what die rolling method to use, so you are still doubly contolling the stats. If you choose a 28 point buy for example you are setting the power level of the stats, you do the same thing when you say you are doing 3D6 inorder vs 5D6 reroll ones and drop 2 lowest, if you have no stats higher than 15 then you can reroll the whole set. The only difference is you have a wider range of results with PB than rolling.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 07:40 AM	Considering this is the OP: I don't see why we are needlessly restricting ourselves to talking about PB and rolling. Even though the thread title is "Benefits of point-buy vs dice rolling stats" the entire point is to discuss the method of generating that we find most useful, which it seems the OP mistook as a dichotomy when it actually isn't. Honestly, arguing the pros and cons of PB versus dice rolling is sort of silly. They fill very different needs, to the point where proponents of one can often not even conceive how one would find merit in the other, as has been seen countless times in this thread. It is ever so much easier to simply call the person who disagrees with you a moron rather then just admit you have no conception of how they play the game. It would be far better to simply discuss the merits and flaws of each, as well as various alternative systems that the OP (and many others) might not even have realized existed that might suit their needs better. There has certainly been a good amount of this and scattered good discussion, but people call into question preferences or ascribe motives to the actions of others it really derails and progress and gets us no where. No, I can actually see why he might prefer it, but what I dispute ius his stated reason - to whit - the claim that rolling the dice for stats gives you MORE choice than a point buy. There are plenty of reasns - I don't share them, but that doesn't make them invalid for him - that he might like rolling better. If he likes the feel and his players do - cool> THats what makes 'em happy. If he likes the randaomness of stats and the imbalance - cool, if that works for him and his players. JUst.. .don't try the claim tat randomly rolling stats gives you MORE choice than actually deciding, within parameters EXACTLY what your stats are.
Ongorth 12-17-06, 08:47 AM	Except for the fact that rolling dice does not make for any differences in the balance of the game and does provide for a greater possible array of mechanically viable options, particularly if you value balance highly as many Point Buy proponents do. I know, I know, this thread is gigantic, so I can understand if you missed these posts, but basically its about your combination of virtues that you desire, which include: 1) Balance 2) Consistency 3) Mastery 4) Customization 5) Variability
pres_man 12-17-06, 10:03 AM	I have a question, those against point-buy, when you DM, do you roll for the stats of all monsters and NPCs? Or do you use the given stats (usually based on 10's and 11's + racial bonuses) or some array of one type or another ([15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8] or [13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8] or [10's and 11's])?
Lethanic 12-17-06, 10:14 AM	Except for the fact that rolling dice does not make for any differences in the balance of the game and does provide for a greater possible array of mechanically viable options, particularly if you value balance highly as many Point Buy proponents do. I know, I know, this thread is gigantic, so I can understand if you missed these posts, but basically its about your combination of virtues that you desire, which include: 1) Balance 2) Consistency 3) Mastery 4) Customization 5) Variability . . How do you figure that it doesn't effect balance when some players coudl have the equivalent of a 50 point buy while others coudl have a 25? YOu must have a strange definition pof balance.
Ongorth 12-17-06, 10:14 AM	I have a question, those against point-buy, when you DM, do you roll for the stats of all monsters and NPCs? Or do you use the given stats (usually based on 10's and 11's + racial bonuses) or some array of one type or another ([15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8] or [13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8] or [10's and 11's])? Personally, I just pick stats. I do, though have a few pre-set arrays I keep handy for more generic monsters and NPCs. 1) The generic array, which is also the standard array (11/11/11/10/10/10) 2) The Jesus array (18/17/16/15/14/14) 3) The Bad Guy array (16/15/14/12/12/8) 4) The Specialist array (18/16/14/12/8/6) 5) The Goon array, which is also the elite array (15/14/13/12/10/8) Personally, I'm of the opinion that the challenge-level-wealth system is busted beyond repair, so I don't really use it. This is extra handy for me, as I use a lot of 3rd party books (especially for monsters) so I don't have to worry about their CRs being off or that they are written with 3.0 in mind as I'm going to judge them on the individual creature and the power level of the party rather then a standardized number.
Ongorth 12-17-06, 10:27 AM	. . How do you figure that it doesn't effect balance when some players coudl have the equivalent of a 50 point buy while others coudl have a 25? YOu must have a strange definition pof balance. Nope. Let's say we're rolling, playing in a game that is somewhat biased towards hack. We could do the following: Charming Monk Socialite (50 PB) Str 12 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 16 Wis 16 Cha 18 Some Human Druid (25 PB) Str 8 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 17 Cha 8 See, here's the thing with balance in D&D: its up to you. You can make optimal and subpoptimal choices that get you to the power level you want. Like giving a monk 18 charisma so he can pwn up his Perform (Kata) checks. In Point Buy, you can easily have characters way more powerful then each other, because D&D is a mastery system (and becomes some character designs like high charisma monk just are terrible). Its nice to say that point buy gives you more options, but when you value balance most of those options are irrelevant.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 11:28 AM	Nope. Let's say we're rolling, playing in a game that is somewhat biased towards hack. We could do the following: Charming Monk Socialite (50 PB) Str 12 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 16 Wis 16 Cha 18 Some Human Druid (25 PB) Str 8 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 17 Cha 8 See, here's the thing with balance in D&D: its up to you. You can make optimal and subpoptimal choices that get you to the power level you want. Like giving a monk 18 charisma so he can pwn up his Perform (Kata) checks. In Point Buy, you can easily have characters way more powerful then each other, because D&D is a mastery system (and becomes some character designs like high charisma monk just are terrible). Its nice to say that point buy gives you more options, but when you value balance most of those options are irrelevant. . . . .SO because SOME people COULD design and MAKE UP for weaknesses. .that makes it balanced? Sorry, that STILL doesn't work. Just because its possible to get around it - presuming the other person isn't ALSO making use of all of the same tricks - doesn't make it balanced LEts say both want to play druid. . In your case, you think the rolling chunks of plastic shoudl dictate which classes it is and is not practical to play, and call it balanced? .
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 12:53 PM	Remember: just because it can be made powerful doesn't mean it is powerful.
Ongorth 12-17-06, 01:23 PM	. . . .SO because SOME people COULD design and MAKE UP for weaknesses. .that makes it balanced? Sorry, that STILL doesn't work. Just because its possible to get around it - presuming the other person isn't ALSO making use of all of the same tricks - doesn't make it balanced LEts say both want to play druid. . In your case, you think the rolling chunks of plastic shoudl dictate which classes it is and is not practical to play, and call it balanced? . Actually, I think both point buy and rolling are terrible systems. I've said this at least 10 times now. But, on to your issue, point buy does the exact same thing. Under a 25 point buy, most options are just completely unplayable because they break power level. If one person in the group going to play an optimized druid, 99% of possible character concepts will not be balanced because they can't keep up. Not just "wierdo" stuff like charming monk socialite. Normal options. Like fighter. So yes, I don't see a problem with letting dice decide which classes are playable and which aren't. Point buy does the same thing. Now, if you wanted actual options and customization, you would use a nonstandardized system of character creation. Like, I don't know, picking your stats?
Lethanic 12-17-06, 01:46 PM	Actually, I think both point buy and rolling are terrible systems. I've said this at least 10 times now. But, on to your issue, point buy does the exact same thing. Under a 25 point buy, most options are just completely unplayable because they break power level. If one person in the group going to play an optimized druid, 99% of possible character concepts will not be balanced because they can't keep up. Not just "wierdo" stuff like charming monk socialite. Normal options. Like fighter. So yes, I don't see a problem with letting dice decide which classes are playable and which aren't. Point buy does the same thing. Now, if you wanted actual options and customization, you would use a nonstandardized system of character creation. Like, I don't know, picking your stats? Note I didn't specify '25 point point buy> But the main point - under point buy the SAME options are availiable to ALL the players rather than the ones that roll luckily. All rolling does is say that SOME players randomly get to have MORE options than other players.
bitnine 12-17-06, 04:30 PM	Note I didn't specify '25 point point buy> But the main point - under point buy the SAME options are availiable to ALL the players rather than the ones that roll luckily. All rolling does is say that SOME players randomly get to have MORE options than other players.Having the same options available to each player does not mean that a system is not biased; I could make a stat generation system that is very generous to players who selected classes that start with the letter "B", for example. In one sense, I have a system that provides the same options to all players. However, the bias is clear, and in the sense of taking into account that some players won't want to take classes that start with the letter "B" it could be said to quite unfair. Okay, the old model T color quote is probably a better example. Does its uniformaty prove that it is fair? Well, you could make a case using selected criteria. But you'd probably only make that case if you're a fan of black. [Edit: Wait, I've got an example that tickles me even more. In my next game I will add the character generation criteria of "Either play a rogue or I murder your family." There, everyone has the same options available to them, therefore it can be said to be a superior method to rolling. Correct? /Edit]
Leo 12-17-06, 04:38 PM	Note I didn't specify '25 point point buy> But the main point - under point buy the SAME options are availiable to ALL the players rather than the ones that roll luckily. All rolling does is say that SOME players randomly get to have MORE options than other players. And...? Isn't treasure random? DM:so you find 3 scrolls and some gold in the bodies. Wizard:Wohoo! 3rd time in a row:D Barbarian:Meee, sucks:( And monsters? DM:you see some zombies Cleric:muahahahah!(readies turn undead) Rogue:ok, you guys have fun, I'll go sit back there. Or simply... Druid:MUAHAHA TREMBLE AT MY POWER PUNY MORTALS. DM: The kobold attacks you. 20...20...20, roll a fortitude save Druid:1...:( DM:you're dead. Druid::weep: D&D is also about randomess. My DM not only uses dice rolling, but also makes the results stick where they are, so we got things like: the professor(cleric with 18 wisdom, 17 cha, 16 int 9str, 8 dex, 10 con). The vermin(rogue 8 str, 17 dex, 11 wisd, 14 int, 15 cha) The true barbarian(barbarian with 18 str, 12 dex, 12 con, 4 int, 15 wisd, 11 cha) And hell, it's fun. This way we have tom play creatively to make up for the character's weakness.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 05:46 PM	And...? Isn't treasure random? DM:so you find 3 scrolls and some gold in the bodies. Wizard:Wohoo! 3rd time in a row:D Barbarian:Meee, sucks:( And monsters? DM:you see some zombies Cleric:muahahahah!(readies turn undead) Rogue:ok, you guys have fun, I'll go sit back there. Or simply... Druid:MUAHAHA TREMBLE AT MY POWER PUNY MORTALS. DM: The kobold attacks you. 20...20...20, roll a fortitude save Druid:1...:( DM:you're dead. Druid::weep: D&D is also about randomess. My DM not only uses dice rolling, but also makes the results stick where they are, so we got things like: the professor(cleric with 18 wisdom, 17 cha, 16 int 9str, 8 dex, 10 con). The vermin(rogue 8 str, 17 dex, 11 wisd, 14 int, 15 cha) The true barbarian(barbarian with 18 str, 12 dex, 12 con, 4 int, 15 wisd, 11 cha) And hell, it's fun. This way we have tom play creatively to make up for the character's weakness. . .first off, if you go technically, no, treaure SHOULDN'T be just random. . . Neither should monsters or encounters be. ANd as to the others. .that STILL doesn't make rolling MORE balanced or even as balanced. It STILL gives a whole host of options to one individual players that are not availiable to another individual player who rolled not as well. That disparity won't go away no matter how many ways you try to work around it. With a point buy the spolution to the disparity is simple, if you feel its there: Raise the points. For everyone.
Sim_antix 12-17-06, 06:19 PM	bitnine put it well with his letter B analogy. Point Buy especially low point buy favors certain classes over others and the more you try to compensate by raising the point value the more powerful those classes then become.
Wopple 12-17-06, 06:25 PM	Well, while of course crazy rolls can happen, it usually does not. You are thinking of rolls like point buy, I roll 20 higher than you in total, so I can do whatever I want, but that's not so. You are thinking of a roll like this: 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 Obviously a clear advantage. But it is FAR more often something like this, if there is a gap. 18, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 16, 16, 11, 10, 9, 7 Now, the guy with the 18 has way more points, but far LESS options. For example, the guy with the 18 would make an okay fighter, but with crap dex and hit points, a decent wizard, but again easy death. Don't even try to be a rogue or palidan or samurai with those stats! The 16 guy? Would be a much better fighter, cleric, etc than 18 guy. In fact, from a pure power gamer perspective, I can't imagine two same-class builds where the 18 guy would be able to beat the other in a fight. But you're right, in some VERY RARE (as in I have yet to see it) circumstances, someone can just have better stats period. And.. well too bad? As someone else said, too bad you got killed by the Kobold, too bad you are the only one with heavy armor and no ranks in swim when you plummit into a raging river, etc. In the end, Your character is going to shine (or not) SO MANY times in so many ways that it won't matter that much. Also, good dms usually put down those with bad attituded about better stats pretty wuickly, as everyone has a weakness. And last, tho I bet this is a dirty word for you, you can also.. roleplay..! It can sometimes be fun to not be better than everyone else, or even on par with them. Maybe then you devote yourself to one single thing, like diplomacy, or crafting, or something of that nature, to help the party. Maybe you suck and you know it, and if other characters givbe you a hard time about it, you end up working for the badguy. Maybe you get all the good magic items from the other players because of your weakness. Who knows, I just find point buy annoying, because, as others have said, 99% of all people of the same class will have the EXACT SAME STATS and that just gets annoying.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 06:26 PM	bitnine put it well with his letter B analogy. Point Buy especially low point buy favors certain classes over others and the more you try to compensate by raising the point value the more powerful those classes then become. . .and tell me why that supposed imbalance does not exist with rolling, only worse, unless you BAN people with high stat totals from playing the classes you are talking about?
Lethanic 12-17-06, 06:28 PM	Well, while of course crazy rolls can happen, it usually does not. You are thinking of rolls like point buy, I roll 20 higher than you in total, so I can do whatever I want, but that's not so. You are thinking of a roll like this: 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 Obviously a clear advantage. But it is FAR more often something like this, if there is a gap. 18, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 16, 16, 11, 10, 9, 7 Now, the guy with the 18 has way more points, but far LESS options. For example, the guy with the 18 would make an okay fighter, but with crap dex and hit points, a decent wizard, but again easy death. Don't even try to be a rogue or palidan or samurai with those stats! The 16 guy? Would be a much better fighter, cleric, etc than 18 guy. In fact, from a pure power gamer perspective, I can't imagine two same-class builds where the 18 guy would be able to beat the other in a fight. But you're right, in some VERY RARE (as in I have yet to see it) circumstances, someone can just have better stats period. And.. well too bad? As someone else said, too bad you got killed by the Kobold, too bad you are the only one with heavy armor and no ranks in swim when you plummit into a raging river, etc. In the end, Your character is going to shine (or not) SO MANY times in so many ways that it won't matter that much. Also, good dms usually put down those with bad attituded about better stats pretty wuickly, as everyone has a weakness. And last, tho I bet this is a dirty word for you, you can also.. roleplay..! It can sometimes be fun to not be better than everyone else, or even on par with them. Maybe then you devote yourself to one single thing, like diplomacy, or crafting, or something of that nature, to help the party. Maybe you suck and you know it, and if other characters givbe you a hard time about it, you end up working for the badguy. Maybe you get all the good magic items from the other players because of your weakness. Who knows, I just find point buy annoying, because, as others have said, 99% of all people of the same class will have the EXACT SAME STATS and that just gets annoying. Actually, roleplaying is SPECIFICALLY why I like point buy much more than rolling. ANd in many of my games actual combats are few and far between and most of the challenges take other forms, so you are barking way up the wrong tree. ANd wi5th rolling 99% end up with the exact same stat distribution, but with slightly different numbers attached. Big whoop.
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 06:30 PM	And...? Isn't treasure random? DM:so you find 3 scrolls and some gold in the bodies. Wizard:Wohoo! 3rd time in a row:D Barbarian:Meee, sucks:( And monsters? DM:you see some zombies Cleric:muahahahah!(readies turn undead) Rogue:ok, you guys have fun, I'll go sit back there. Or simply... Druid:MUAHAHA TREMBLE AT MY POWER PUNY MORTALS. DM: The kobold attacks you. 20...20...20, roll a fortitude save Druid:1...:( DM:you're dead. Druid::weep: D&D is also about randomess. My DM not only uses dice rolling, but also makes the results stick where they are, so we got things like: the professor(cleric with 18 wisdom, 17 cha, 16 int 9str, 8 dex, 10 con). The vermin(rogue 8 str, 17 dex, 11 wisd, 14 int, 15 cha) The true barbarian(barbarian with 18 str, 12 dex, 12 con, 4 int, 15 wisd, 11 cha) And hell, it's fun. This way we have tom play creatively to make up for the character's weakness. These are supposed to be the random variables. I don't like random stuff happening that permanently affects my character. Sure, in-game variables are fine, but mechanical variables such as stats and hit points? No thank you, I'd rather have enough consistency to make my own concept rather than hope that the dice fall in my favor. Having the same options available to each player does not mean that a system is not biased; I could make a stat generation system that is very generous to players who selected classes that start with the letter "B", for example. In one sense, I have a system that provides the same options to all players. However, the bias is clear, and in the sense of taking into account that some players won't want to take classes that start with the letter "B" it could be said to quite unfair. Okay, the old model T color quote is probably a better example. Does its uniformaty prove that it is fair? Well, you could make a case using selected criteria. But you'd probably only make that case if you're a fan of black. [Edit: Wait, I've got an example that tickles me even more. In my next game I will add the character generation criteria of "Either play a rogue or I murder your family." There, everyone has the same options available to them, therefore it can be said to be a superior method to rolling. Correct? /Edit] Rolling dice favors those that roll well. Basically, you randomly choose who gets to be letter B, and who gets stuck getting Cs and Ds.
Sim_antix 12-17-06, 06:36 PM	Or even the dreaded F!
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 06:45 PM	Well, while of course crazy rolls can happen, it usually does not. You are thinking of rolls like point buy, I roll 20 higher than you in total, so I can do whatever I want, but that's not so. You are thinking of a roll like this: 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 Obviously a clear advantage. But it is FAR more often something like this, if there is a gap. 18, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 16, 16, 11, 10, 9, 7 No, I'm thinking of stats like this: 18, 16, 11, 10, 9, 7 14, 14, 12, 10, 9, 7 In a group with two people covering the same role or two people that enter in the same role (Warblade and Cleric for example) stats mean everything. We all know the Warblade is supposed to shine, but the Cleric might end up outshining the warrior on stats alone. This becomes less and less true as people advance in levels, but for the early part of the game, stats mean quite a lot. But you're right, in some VERY RARE (as in I have yet to see it) circumstances, someone can just have better stats period. And.. well too bad? As someone else said, too bad you got killed by the Kobold, too bad you are the only one with heavy armor and no ranks in swim when you plummit into a raging river, etc. In the end, Your character is going to shine (or not) SO MANY times in so many ways that it won't matter that much. Also, good dms usually put down those with bad attituded about better stats pretty wuickly, as everyone has a weakness. Some with more weaknesses than others. I am a DM, and I happen to think that those with higher stats than others tend to disrupt the game. And last, tho I bet this is a dirty word for you, you can also.. roleplay..! Roleplaying is no excuse for a poor mechanic, or a poor character. The Paladin has tons of flavor, and is fun to roleplay (for those that know how). This does not make it a good class. It can sometimes be fun to not be better than everyone else, or even on par with them. Maybe then you devote yourself to one single thing, like diplomacy, or crafting, or something of that nature, to help the party. Maybe you suck and you know it, and if other characters givbe you a hard time about it, you end up working for the badguy. At which point you make a new character, and hope the dice don't screw you over again. Maybe you get all the good magic items from the other players because of your weakness. How would that be fun? Who knows, I just find point buy annoying, because, as others have said, 99% of all people of the same class will have the EXACT SAME STATS and that just gets annoying. This is only true if optimization is all you care about. I can take the same class, even if it's a non-MAD spellcaster class, and make it interesting to play without gimping it out.
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 06:46 PM	Or even the dreaded F! Yep, you got it! :D
Wopple 12-17-06, 06:53 PM	Actually, roleplaying is SPECIFICALLY why I like point buy much more than rolling. ANd in many of my games actual combats are few and far between and most of the challenges take other forms, so you are barking way up the wrong tree. ANd wi5th rolling 99% end up with the exact same stat distribution, but with slightly different numbers attached. Big whoop. Not really. I mean sure, alot of people will put highest in this, second highest in that, etc. but not only will those vary ALOT, they can also end up with weird **** in other places, like an int 14 barbarian, etc.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 06:56 PM	Not really. I mean sure, alot of people will put highest in this, second highest in that, etc. but not only will those vary ALOT, they can also end up with weird **** in other places, like an int 14 barbarian, etc. WHich I still often end up with in my games using point buy. Next?
bitnine 12-17-06, 07:02 PM	Rolling dice favors those that roll well. Basically, you randomly choose who gets to be letter B, and who gets stuck getting Cs and Ds.While that is certainly an issue, it is an across the board trend for these systems; it would not do to say that it does not following that rolling is superior because of this exclusion (because of your example), but likewise it does not follow that point buy has a boast in this regard. But yes, "favored by a standing system" as an element might occur in both, not just the point buy "can focus and dump" but also the "happens to roll high across the board". Though I suppose you could say that one difference is that at least rolling variates the possibility; over the course of your gaming career, different options will be available with rolling, whereas options closed off or discouraged by point buy will never become available. Though I suppose at least a character can plan for it - "Hey, this stat-intensive gish idea that you have, while not overpowered, will never be covered by point buy, so just let go now and don't bother even keeping it in the back of your head 'cause its never going to happen." But yeah, point buy says B, whereas rolling says everyone gets a letter or two - but different letters at random. Of course, "more" options is probably an incorrect statement as well. In most cases, "different option sets" is what you will see. And rolling methodologies do not necessarily entail desparity in total ability sets; you could, for example, have a system wherein the highest ability set is coverted to a point equivelent and each other ability set is scaled up to such, but keeping the distrobution profile. Or a rolling system where ability sets get put into a pool that any player can select.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 07:36 PM	While that is certainly an issue, it is an across the board trend for these systems; it would not do to say that it does not following that rolling is superior because of this exclusion (because of your example), but likewise it does not follow that point buy has a boast in this regard. But yes, "favored by a standing system" as an element might occur in both, not just the point buy "can focus and dump" but also the "happens to roll high across the board". Though I suppose you could say that one difference is that at least rolling variates the possibility; over the course of your gaming career, different options will be available with rolling, whereas options closed off or discouraged by point buy will never become available. Though I suppose at least a character can plan for it - "Hey, this stat-intensive gish idea that you have, while not overpowered, will never be covered by point buy, so just let go now and don't bother even keeping it in the back of your head 'cause its never going to happen." But yeah, point buy says B, whereas rolling says everyone gets a letter or two - but different letters at random. Of course, "more" options is probably an incorrect statement as well. In most cases, "different option sets" is what you will see. And rolling methodologies do not necessarily entail desparity in total ability sets; you could, for example, have a system wherein the highest ability set is coverted to a point equivelent and each other ability set is scaled up to such, but keeping the distrobution profile. Or a rolling system where ability sets get put into a pool that any player can select. . .this is all about the 17's and 18's. isn't it?
bitnine 12-17-06, 07:52 PM	. .this is all about the 17's and 18's. isn't it?Yes, obviously that must be the real reason behind all that text I just typed, so please go ahead and ignore everything I said.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 07:56 PM	Yes, obviously that must be the real reason behind all that text I just typed, so please go ahead and ignore everything I said. A winner is you. THere are very few possibilitioes you can have not involving 17's and 18's with rolling that you can't also get with a point buy, unless you are doing "NOthing lower than fifteen or sixteen" or somesuch. So your argument STILL makes little sense.
Wopple 12-17-06, 07:56 PM	. .this is all about the 17's and 18's. isn't it? That's not as small an issue as you seem to think it, but it's not just about that. A few things. if I have a 16 and a 12, and I want to be a fighter, sure, I'll go 16 str and 12 charisma, but that's not the same as going 18 str by just destroying my charisma and other stats. In a perfect world, everyone would be able to nicely roleplay and they could just PICK their stats. They could be an evil rogue deadset on revenge, but who was crippled by the disease that wiped out his village, with all sub-10 stats. THere could also be someone with straight 20's, but his weakness is some curse that leaves his will save constantly at 0, no chance for a roll, ever. The only time anyone ever has a problem is when they have envy for another player, or simply want dem big numbaz. I like rolling because it offers the fun of randomness, and while I sometimes have to be the loser chump (which can be fun, btw) I also get to be the superhero spotlight man other times. It lets everyone have a richer experience, I think. If you disagree, use point buy. I'm not in your game, nor you in mine, so why, again, is there an issue like this on the board? It's all alot of ego posturing combined with whiny players who want something to throw back at their dm's face "SEE! THEY think so too!!!" If a group can't deal with an issue like this, they won't be together long. if they can, then chances are they are going to have fun no matter what the result is, and if they can't get past it, they need to be in diffrent groups. Is anyone actualy planning on convincing anyone of anything here?
bitnine 12-17-06, 08:02 PM	So your argument STILL makes little sense.Yeah, looking back its a bunch of nonsense that's obsessing over 17s and 18s and isn't even really coherent. Sorry about that.
Sim_antix 12-17-06, 08:07 PM	Yeah, looking back its a bunch of nonsense that's obsessing over 17s and 18s and isn't even really coherent. Sorry about that. Well really thats all us rollers care about. All we want is that once in a lifetime all 18s character so that we can shove it in your point buying faces and say "See how much better my character is than yours?!?!" :evillaugh
a_psh 12-17-06, 08:18 PM	bitnine put it well with his letter B analogy. Point Buy especially low point buy favors certain classes over others and the more you try to compensate by raising the point value the more powerful those classes then become.Conclusion: D&D's classes are poorly designed.
bitnine 12-17-06, 08:19 PM	Well really thats all us rollers care about.I don't know what you're talking about, I actually prefer point buy myself. I was trying to point out comparitive differences and traits between the systems and hybridized versions thereof, but apparently I've had too much to drink tonight and a stream of senseless babble issued forth instead. For which I apologize deeply.
a_psh 12-17-06, 08:23 PM	In a perfect world, everyone would be able to nicely roleplay and they could just PICK their stats.So, what's stopping you?
Sim_antix 12-17-06, 08:25 PM	Why is it that 17 and 18s are so sought after? Because thats the best you can start with and many players have ideas for characters that include being the strongest, fastest, smartest, etc person around and without 17s and 18s available to them they cant ever make those characters. Also my earlier post was a joke for anyone that didn't understand that just from reading it.
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 08:32 PM	Why is it that 17 and 18s are so sought after? Because thats the best you can start with and many players have ideas for characters that include being the strongest, fastest, smartest, etc person around and without 17s and 18s available to them they cant ever make those characters. Also my earlier post was a joke for anyone that didn't understand that just from reading it. This is not what first level is for. First level is for starting out above average, but still average. Lvl 1 fighter is still behind the lvl 4 veteran warrior. Being the best happens at about 8th level. And yes, rolling dice and point-buy are pretty much all about preferences. I actually kind of like using the Elite Array: it seems about fair for everyone. Spellcasters do get one stat that's not so high it's overpowering, and MAD characters aren't forced to dump vital stats. In my opinion, Eilte Array is the very best system.
Sim_antix 12-17-06, 08:34 PM	This is not what first level is for. First level is for starting out above average, but still average. Lvl 1 fighter is still behind the lvl 4 veteran warrior. Being the best happens at about 8th level. And yes, rolling dice and point-buy are pretty much all about preferences. I actually kind of like using the Elite Array: it seems about fair for everyone. Spellcasters do get one stat that's not so high it's overpowering, and MAD characters aren't forced to dump vital stats. In my opinion, Eilte Array is the very best system. If you dont start with an 18 then the guy who did is still going to be better than you at level 8...
Lethanic 12-17-06, 08:52 PM	Wwell MY concept needs stright eigh5teens, damn it! I have this concept for a guy with a cape and a red 's' on his chest. .
Croix Ragnan 12-17-06, 09:02 PM	What I don’t understand is why it has to be ability scores. Why not roll for level? Or race? (and please, stating that it’s RAW is not the point. The point is that RAW, in this case, doesn’t make sense) It’s ridiculous that the average half-dragon PC is weaker than his/her comrades, when s/he has the blood of DRAGONS :dragon: in his/her veins. Some creatures are just BETTER than others, but because of balance, it’s decided that powerful (and often very intelligent) creatures arbitrarily learn more slowly. And they don’t even learn more consistently slowly :rolleyes: . After the human half-dragon has reached 4th level, s/he levels up at the exact same rate as everybody else. If I want to challenge myself, and force my mind to adapt, I’ll roll for race, class, and gender. Maybe even ask the DM for a lower amount of points (a guy in my group did that), or play in a campaign where we started at different levels. If I want my character creation to be a lottery, I’ll play with a DM that lets us roll for our starting level, for whether or not we’re allowed to be spellcasters (not everybody has that talent :mage: ), and for starting wealth (some people are born rich, so why not some adventures?). I did have a DM that essentially randomly determined every character's maximum ability for magic use (slash whether they could even use it) and based the character's skills on back story. He was using a home-brew system that needed the bugs worked out, but it was still a good, realistic system. Magic ability was determined by genetics (with every character's parents being basically arbitrarily decided for this purpose), and maximum ability for just about everything else was based off of point-buy attributes of strength, dexterity, etc. I was playing a solid mage type who could in D&D terms only advance to about 12th level. I had to distribute the years of my character's life between meager martial ability, day to day living skills, magic, psionics, and education. meaning that a character could theoretically start as an uberpowerful mage or a master swordsman. Final conclusion: how about both ways? I have to agree with a_psh: both sides of the argument suck. Why does the enjoyment of a game (or just about anything else) have to boil down to an argument of "My way is better than your way?" I've played point buy games that were fun, I've played roll your stats game that were fun, and the most fun of all was the "pick-your-stats-and-if-the-DM-approves-them-taking-into-account-your-back-story-you-get-those-scores." The group had a power gamer whose lowest stat was 13, and a character whose lowest was a 6 and whose highest was a 17 (without horribly abusing class abilities). That character was mine: STR 6 DEX 12 CON 13 INT 17 WIS 16 CHA 11 Point Buy states that this character is overpowered. I say it was fun and balanced (most of the others agreed). Six is a very fun ability score to role-play (since, I think, it is the lowest "playable" score, meaning high enough where the character is not so feeble, sluggish, sickly, stupid, lacking in sense, or loathsome as to be nonviable), and while I groan about it when I roll it it means I have to seriously consider how I want to play. In point buy, you willingly cripple yourself in a "balanced" environment to do this, while in rolling it simply presents you with a choice (albeit sometimes a hard one). While you may argue that wasn't I crippling myself with that cleric, I say not really, since there existed no arbitrary measure of "balance" to begin with. I'd say the third option is the best one, but the problem is that most groups (point-buyers or rollers) aren't mature enough for it. Sorry if I'm ranting.
Sim_antix 12-17-06, 09:29 PM	Wwell MY concept needs stright eigh5teens, damn it! I have this concept for a guy with a cape and a red 's' on his chest. . Yes please I never get enough of the "All rollers are power gamers" fallacy
Lethanic 12-17-06, 09:31 PM	SInce I didn't say it, I don't know where you got that idea. However, I do get rather suspicious of concepts which 'require' really high stats across the board. Just call it guts.
archcomponent 12-17-06, 09:34 PM	However, I do get rather suspicious of concepts which 'require' really high stats across the board. Just call it guts. Why, because your beloved point buy druid only needs the one mandatory 18 and can afford to dump like hell?
Lethanic 12-17-06, 09:36 PM	RIght. Sure. I have never even PLAYED a druid. Moreover, I pretty much don't take eighteens and rarely a seventeen. My preference in playing is actually rogues. However, its actually been a good bit since I;'ve actually had an opportunity to PLAY since I keep gettign pressed into GMing.
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 10:05 PM	If you dont start with an 18 then the guy who did is still going to be better than you at level 8... No, I mean Elite Array for everyone, as opposed to rolling or point-buy. But I can see how this wouldn't appeal to people. Yes please I never get enough of the "All rollers are power gamers" fallacy And I never get enough of the converse ("All point-buy users are magic-loving power gamers" fallacy). SInce I didn't say it, I don't know where you got that idea. However, I do get rather suspicious of concepts which 'require' really high stats across the board. Just call it guts. I have a tendency to create such characters. They either suck to role-play (no flaws) or they suck mechanically (you end up with flaws, which wasn't the concept).
Sim_antix 12-17-06, 10:10 PM	SInce I didn't say it, I don't know where you got that idea. However, I do get rather suspicious of concepts which 'require' really high stats across the board. Just call it guts. I never said that the concepts involved more than one 18 ever and certainly never implied that it needed high stats across the board. And I never get enough of the converse ("All point-buy users are magic-loving power gamers" fallacy). I never said anything of the sort. I pointed out that while screaming about balance and fairness point buyers are forgeting that point buy itself is neither fair nor balanced depending on the class/race/point buy amount combinations.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 10:12 PM	I never said that the concepts involved more than one 18 ever and certainly never implied that it needed high stats across the board. I never said anything of the sort. I pointed out that while screaming about balance and fairness point buyers are forgeting that point buy itself is neither fair nor balanced depending on the class/race/point buy amount combinations. No. .however just about any concept that DOESN'T require high stats across the board is doable under point buy, so I'm having trouble understanding what you referr to.
Sim_antix 12-17-06, 10:17 PM	No. .however just about any concept that DOESN'T require high stats across the board is doable under point buy, so I'm having trouble understanding what you referr to. So a concept that involved being a great martial artist with something along the lines of 14 Str 16 Dex 12 Con 10 Int 18 Wis 12 Cha is doable under point buy without unbalancing everyone elses choices with the amount of points that would have to be available?
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 10:21 PM	I never said that the concepts involved more than one 18 ever and certainly never implied that it needed high stats across the board. Why would you want to play with more than one 18? With PB, even in a high-powered game, that's all your points. With rolling, the odds of that are astronomical. I never said anything of the sort. I pointed out that while screaming about balance and fairness point buyers are forgeting that point buy itself is neither fair nor balanced depending on the class/race/point buy amount combinations. No, you didn't, but I have heard it before. You've been more than civil here. Hell, I'm surprised you're not a member of the TWF.
Sim_antix 12-17-06, 10:27 PM	Why would you want to play with more than one 18? With PB, even in a high-powered game, that's all your points. With rolling, the odds of that are astronomical. Thats just it though is there is still a chance with rolling whereas with point buy there isn't really or if there is there are way too many points being handed out by most standards. And the why is simple, I want to play a quick thinking quick moving rogue or swashbuckler type and because I want to be the absolute best at those I want 18s in Dex and Int. Or I want to be the beefiest most punishing tank of a barbarian so I want 18 Str and Con.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 10:31 PM	So a concept that involved being a great martial artist with something along the lines of 14 Str 16 Dex 12 Con 10 Int 18 Wis 12 Cha is doable under point buy without unbalancing everyone elses choices with the amount of points that would have to be available? And a great martial artist REQUIRES having a 18 intelligence to be considered smart? YOu can have a smart martial artist with a 14. WHy is the 18 needed?
Lethanic 12-17-06, 10:33 PM	Thats just it though is there is still a chance with rolling whereas with point buy there isn't really or if there is there are way too many points being handed out by most standards. And the why is simple, I want to play a quick thinking quick moving rogue or swashbuckler type and because I want to be the absolute best at those I want 18s in Dex and Int. Or I want to be the beefiest most punishing tank of a barbarian so I want 18 Str and Con. Well then, why not start you out at level twenty as well? I mean. .so you can be the "ABsolute best"? To me, at least, "My concept REQUIRES multiple eighteens" is a bit of a copout.
Ongorth 12-17-06, 10:38 PM	Note I didn't specify '25 point point buy> But the main point - under point buy the SAME options are availiable to ALL the players rather than the ones that roll luckily. All rolling does is say that SOME players randomly get to have MORE options than other players. Since we are assuming that we are playing with balance as a virtue, when you are rolling each player's set of options is about equally vast. The player who rolls high can't play any of the more powerful builds while the player who rolls low can't play the weaker ones. The same thing happens when you play with a point buy. If you want balance, the players have to self-select options that are balanced with one another. For four reasons discussed earlier, point buy does NOT guarantee balance. All you end up with is people picking from the same pool of options, a system that embraces mastery. If the option isn't in the pool, you have to break balance, either by playing something more powerful then everyone else (and getting called all manner of rude things) or playing something less powerful then everyone else (and getting the same). With rolling, you get people picking from four different pools, which is a system that embraces variance. Again, if you want something outside the pool, you break balance and upset everyone else. If you want balance, use archetypes with set progressions. You lose all variance, but if balance is your goal its the only way. Indeed, someone who uses archetypes would think you were insane for even suggesting that point buy gets close to supporting balance. So, what's stopping you [from picking your stats]? I've been wondering this for a LONG time.
Sim_antix 12-17-06, 10:38 PM	And a great martial artist REQUIRES having a 18 intelligence to be considered smart? YOu can have a smart martial artist with a 14. WHy is the 18 needed? Thats an 18 Wis that he requires to be the most effective monk he can be. Well then, why not start you out at level twenty as well? I mean. .so you can be the "ABsolute best"? To me, at least, "My concept REQUIRES multiple eighteens and no weaknesses" is a bit of a copout. You start out at level 1 to show that you may have the raw physical qualities but there are many things to learn before you become the best. And its not that they have no weaknesses they just enhance their strengths to the fullest. Also the tank of a barb might have no Int, Wis or Cha while the quick guy might have no real Str, Con or Cha.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 10:41 PM	Thats an 18 Wis that he requires to be the most effective monk he can be. You start out at level 1 to show that you may have the raw physical qualities but there are many things to learn before you become the best. And its not that they have no weaknesses they just enhance their strengths to the fullest. Also the tank of a barb might have no Int, Wis or Cha while the quick guy might have no real Str, Con or Cha. . .a concept "Requiring' multiple eighteens is a bit of a copout. YOu can be a physically fit and "In the absolute upper echelons of physical fitness'. .at 16. YOu don't require eighteen.
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 10:45 PM	Someone with a 15 str and a 15 con is healthier than someone with an 18 str and a 12 con or 12 str and 18 con. Edit: this is my opinion, of course, not a fact.
Sim_antix 12-17-06, 10:45 PM	. .a concept "Requiring' multiple eighteens is a bit of a copout. YOu can be a physically fit and "In the absolute upper echelons of physical fitness'. .at 16. YOu don't require eighteen. If I want to be the absolute best then yes I do require an 18. And what is so wrong with having something like 18 18 14 14 8 8?
archcomponent 12-17-06, 10:46 PM	. .a concept "Requiring' multiple eighteens is a bit of a copout. I know. They should have a proper concept that is not a cop-out. Something that requires only the one 18 that point buy assures them. Like a druid with natural spell.
Sim_antix 12-17-06, 10:48 PM	I know. They should have a proper concept that is not a cop-out. Something that requires only the one 18 that point buy assures them. Like a druid with natural spell. I know they keep forgetting that true munchkins do not need multiple 18s and would jump all over point buy because they can min/max til their power gaming hearts are content.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 10:49 PM	I know. They should have a proper concept that is not a cop-out. Something that requires only the one 18 that point buy assures them. Like a druid with natural spell. YOu are really :rolleyes: stuck on druids, aren't you?
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 10:49 PM	I know. They should have a proper concept that is not a cop-out. Something that requires only the one 18 that point buy assures them. Like a druid with natural spell. This is part of the problem with Druids. I don't think that rolling fixes this.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 10:51 PM	I know they keep forgetting that true munchkins do not need multiple 18s and would jump all over point buy because they can min/max til their power gaming hearts are content. I have yet to hear why, other than in truly contrived concepts, you NEED the stat set that can't be accomodated by a reasonable point buy. And I Know your answer is going to be " DRUID" But please, try something else?
Lethanic 12-17-06, 10:54 PM	I know. They should have a proper concept that is not a cop-out. Something that requires only the one 18 that point buy assures them. Like a druid with natural spell. II had been unaware that a effetive Druid REQUIRED an 18. INteresting.
archcomponent 12-17-06, 10:57 PM	II had been unaware that a effetive Druid REQUIRED an 18. INteresting. Just for the maximum munchkin effect. Which is why point buy is so exciting, as it gives that to them all the time. Do you not see? Having the maximum is part of their 'concept'. I thought that being obsessed with point buy, you would already have this well under hand. This is part of the problem with Druids. I don't think that rolling fixes this. It is worse with Druids, but it certain exists for others. Compare a 25 point buy Monk against a Wizard.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 11:00 PM	Just for the maximum munchkin effect. Which is why point buy is so exciting, as it gives that to them all the time. Do you not see? Having the maximum is part of their 'concept'. I thought that being obsessed with point buy, you would already have this well under hand. It is worse with Druids, but it certain exists for others. Compare a 25 point buy Monk against a Wizard. If a player insisted on playing that. . . however, I tend not to play with people who are that petty. Perhaps you do. I guess point buy works better if you have mature players instead, true.
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 11:00 PM	Just for the maximum munchkin effect. Which is why point buy is so exciting, as it gives that to them all the time. Do you not see? Having the maximum is part of their 'concept'. I thought that being obsessed with point buy, you would already have this well under hand. No one's obsessed. And what's exciting to me is being able to make the character the way I want to. PB is subject to munchkins, but I don't play with Munchkins. Problem solved. It is worse with Druids, but it certain exists for others. Compare a 25 point buy Monk against a Wizard. Compare a rolled Monk against a Wizard. Still the same problem.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 11:02 PM	Just for the maximum munchkin effect. Which is why point buy is so exciting, as it gives that to them all the time. Do you not see? Having the maximum is part of their 'concept'. I thought that being obsessed with point buy, you would already have this well under hand. It is worse with Druids, but it certain exists for others. Compare a 25 point buy Monk against a Wizard. UNlike you, who obviously is not 'obsessed' with rolling?
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 11:03 PM	UNlike you, who obviously is not 'obsessed' with rolling? Please, no one is really 'obsessed' with any of this. People just have preferences.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 11:05 PM	Please, no one is really 'obsessed' with any of this. People just have preferences. I agree with you, however. . . I wasn't the one making the accusation of being 'obsessed' - but pointing out how it sounded.
archcomponent 12-17-06, 11:05 PM	Compare a rolled Monk against a Wizard. Still the same problem. And yet to a much lesser extent. Chances of having an 18 in point buy? 100%. Chances of having an 18 rolling? Much less. While it is obvious that one roll will be the highest, rolling will result in a more even distrobution. If warrior classes with MAD happened to be more powerful than casters you might have something of a point. But max-and-dump casters are the high point and rule of the day.
Lethanic 12-17-06, 11:07 PM	And yet to a much lesser extent. Chances of having an 18 in point buy? 100%. Chances of having an 18 rolling? Much less. While it is obvious that one roll will be the highest, rolling will result in a more even distrobution. If warrior classes with MAD happened to be more powerful than casters you might have something of a point. But max-and-dump casters are the high point and rule of the day. I'm glad I play with friends who aren't like that. Geez. So are we, after these last few, still going to hear the argument that rolling gives you "More choice'? After all this time is being spent on arguing that the choice availiable in point buy is a problem?
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 11:08 PM	And yet to a much lesser extent. Chances of having an 18 in point buy? 100%. Chances of having an 18 rolling? Much less. While it is obvious that one roll will be the highest, rolling will result in a more even distrobution. If warrior classes with MAD happened to be more powerful than casters you might have something of a point. But max-and-dump casters are the high point and rule of the day. How is an 18 so much more powerful than a naturally rolled 16?
Lethanic 12-17-06, 11:10 PM	And yet to a much lesser extent. Chances of having an 18 in point buy? 100%. Chances of having an 18 rolling? Much less. While it is obvious that one roll will be the highest, rolling will result in a more even distrobution. If warrior classes with MAD happened to be more powerful than casters you might have something of a point. But max-and-dump casters are the high point and rule of the day. Chances of having an 18,18, 17 14, 12, 12 with ROlling?INfinitely higher than with point buy. Chances of two eighteens with rolling? ALmost infinitely higher than point buy. .
archcomponent 12-17-06, 11:15 PM	How is an 18 so much more powerful than a naturally rolled 16? I take it that you know how saving throw DCs work, so I will just assume you did not think of it. Plus, is that not the sort of 'concept-ruining' roll that would send a point buy advocate into a tear-filled tantrum? Chances of having an 18,18, 17 14, 12, 12 with ROlling?INfinitely higher than with point buy. Chances of two eighteens with rolling? ALmost infinitely higher than point buy. That is adorable. Are you sure you do not want to work in a division by zero in there to make your point even more fantastic?
a_psh 12-17-06, 11:17 PM	Three points: 1. Observation of personal preferences:I have to agree with a_psh: both sides of the argument suck.Now, just to inject some personal bias in here, I'd have to say that a well-designed point-based system beats the pants off of heavily random character generation. It's just that such a system lets you pick and choose everything, not just ability scores. One where you can trade social status for weapon proficiency or exchange a point of Strength for a few skill points. Alas, such as a design is pretty darn incompatible with D&D/d20's fundamental components. My favorite rolled character generation method uses dice to act out an initial formative experience (an initiation of sorts) rather than to actually predetermine ability scores. At the end of a scene, you get a trait representing what happened during that formative experience. Much cooler than rolling to see how much Int you get. But, overall, a truly awesome point system beats a truly awesome rolling system, just because there's only so much you can do to with random stat generation -- and, between rolling for stats and the reincarnate table, D&D's pretty much already done it. The problem here is that point-buy is a rather lame and tacked-on point system rather than an awesome one. ... 2. Cute tidbit for those who like the elite array: Consider this idea, yoinked from another game... Make several different arrays of roughly equal value. You can have a "standard array," a "multitalented" array with a lower max stat but a nice mix of 3-4 decent ones, maybe a "flawed hero" array with one really glaring weakness, &c. Maybe some are event slightly weaker or stronger than others but come with some kind of background element. This gives the players some more range but avoids the crazy point-buy things that everyone moans about (one-hit-wonder druids, &c.). ... 3. On ability scores and their interaction with other rules: Let's be honest here... Severe MAD is a design flaw of the classes, not the ability score generation system. Rolling really high stats across the board might help make a monk more functional, but it also makes our token battle cleric far beefier, too. Likewise, the one-stat druid is really a problem caused by shapechanging rules that let you ignore half your stats, not the ability score system. I think WotC has already admitted that they screwed up badly here. Over the past year, they've basically done everything they can to get rid of polymorph, short of sending every D&D player a personal letter telling him not to use it anymore.
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 11:20 PM	I take it that you know how saving throw DCs work, so I will just assume you did not think of it. Plus, is that not the sort of 'concept-ruining' roll that would send a point buy advocate into a tear-filled tantrum? A plus one to save DCs? This is where the game breaks?
archcomponent 12-17-06, 11:25 PM	Likewise, the one-stat druid is really a problem caused by shapechanging rules that let you ignore half your stats, not the ability score system. True. Yet forcing all players to take a 3 3 3 12 12 18 array obviously aggravates the problem. No matter whose 'fault' you get to say it is, you look at the end result. A plus one to save DCs? This is where the game breaks? Wow. I did not notice where I mentioned a prominent feature and you pulled a nice switheroo where you subtely replaced all of the differences between the systems with a +1 to save DCs and then feigned surprise at the triviality. Man, you must be a member of a debate team. That is some slick stuff right there.
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 11:26 PM	1. Observation of personal preferences:Now, just to inject some personal bias in here, I'd have to say that a well-designed point-based system beats the pants off of heavily random character generation. It's just that such a system lets you pick and choose everything, not just ability scores. One where you can trade social status for weapon proficiency or exchange a point of Strength for a few skill points. Alas, such as a design is pretty darn incompatible with D&D/d20's fundamental components. Actually, this is something that I like about D&D. With other systems, role-playing and power-gaming meet head-to-head. If I want to play a rich noble, I have to spend points, and thus be mechanically inferior to other players in other areas. You are forced to choose between pulling your weight and playing the character you want. 2. Cute tidbit for those who like the elite array: Like me! Consider this idea, yoinked from another game... Make several different arrays of roughly equal value. You can have a "standard array," a "multitalented" array with a lower max stat but a nice mix of 3-4 decent ones, maybe a "flawed hero" array with one really glaring weakness, &c. Maybe some are event slightly weaker or stronger than others but come with some kind of background element. This gives the players some more range but avoids the crazy point-buy things that everyone moans about (one-hit-wonder druids, &c.). You writing articles about this? 'Cause I'd love to hear more. 3. On ability scores and their interaction with other rules: Let's be honest here... Severe MAD is a design flaw of the classes, not the ability score generation system. Rolling really high stats across the board might help make a monk more functional, but it also makes our token battle cleric far beefier, too. Likewise, the one-stat druid is really a problem caused by shapechanging rules that let you ignore half your stats, not the ability score system. I think WotC has already admitted that they screwed up badly here. Over the past year, they've basically done everything they can to get rid of polymorph, short of sending every D&D player a personal letter telling him not to use it anymore. Well, WotC doesn't admit their mistakes (that would be horribly unmanly:P). The Warblade is obviously for those that want to play Fighters that don't suck, and yet they refuse to say that the WArblade is the new fighter (so to speak).
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 11:31 PM	Wow. I did not notice where I mentioned a prominent feature and you pulled a nice switheroo where you subtely replaced all of the differences between the systems with a +1 to save DCs and then feigned surprise at the triviality. Man, you must be a member of a debate team. That is some slick stuff right there. First, calm down. It's okay to debate with people, and it's okay for people to disagree with you. No one's attacking you (or at least, I'm not), and even if they were, reporting them would be the best option. I just want to have a civil debate here, so please, stop flaming/trolling/baiting. Second, if what I have said offended you, then let me know. I meant no harm with my words, but that does not leave me unaccountable for them. Third, the difference between an 18 and a 16 is a +1. How is this not trivial?
a_psh 12-17-06, 11:33 PM	All this talk of concepts reminds me of something... Do ability scores have to simulate something? What happens when you separate "stats" from "concept"? It seems like if you really, really want the combination of "play anything you could possible come up with" and "everybody gets the same mechanical power to start with," one way to go is to just separate character concepts and descriptors from actual mechanics. Write down "I'm smart" on your character sheet even if your Int is 10 and be done with it. Given that the game is so highly abstract in certain places anyway, I don't think that much is necessarily lost. Not my own cup of tea, but I think the general approach is viable.
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 11:44 PM	All this talk of concepts reminds me of something... Do ability scores have to simulate something? What happens when you separate "stats" from "concept"? It seems like if you really, really want the combination of "play anything you could possible come up with" and "everybody gets the same mechanical power to start with," one way to go is to just separate character concepts and descriptors from actual mechanics. Write down "I'm smart" on your character sheet even if your Int is 10 and be done with it. Given that the game is so highly abstract in certain places anyway, I don't think that much is necessarily lost. Not my own cup of tea, but I think the general approach is viable. For the most part, the concept is an excuse to get a really high stat. Not many people find the "I'm the absolute best at x at level one" a genuinely interesting concept to play, as opposed to "my character is a charming fool", which doesn't immediately demand an 18 charisma or a complete dump of wisdom.
archcomponent 12-17-06, 11:45 PM	Third, the difference between an 18 and a 16 is a +1. How is this not trivial? Oh, then maybe you are not being disingenuous and honestly do not understand. In short, the difference between a +3 and a +4 is greater than the difference between a +0 and a +1. Higher they get, more it matters.You do not happen to remember the conversations that occured when people discussed the change of spell focus in 3.5 for very much non 'trivial' reasons? Because some people were very helpful in pointing out how the math actually pans out.
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 11:48 PM	Oh, then maybe you are not being disingenuous and honestly do not understand. In short, the difference between a +3 and a +4 is greater than the difference between a +0 and a +1. Higher they get, more it matters.You do not happen to remember the conversations that occured when people discussed the change of spell focus in 3.5 for very much non 'trivial' reasons? Because some people were very helpful in pointing out how the math actually pans out. I probably wasn't part of them. Do you have any links?
Wopple 12-17-06, 11:51 PM	So, what's stopping you? It not being a perfect world where no one would try to mess it up.
Wopple 12-17-06, 11:53 PM	Wwell MY concept needs stright eigh5teens, damn it! I have this concept for a guy with a cape and a red 's' on his chest. . That's more like straight 45's. Which would still make you somewhat vulnerable at lower levels (that 17 extra hp per level can only do so much!)
archcomponent 12-17-06, 11:58 PM	I probably wasn't part of them. Do you have any links? Curse the prune, but I think it is fairly easy to show if you think about it for a bit. To the extreme case, a caster with a DC 11 and another with a DC 19 save at first level, either of which get a +1 to their saves. When targetting will save +0 creatures, that +1 causes the latter to double his effectiveness, whereas the former sees a much more mild benefit. So when something is high, things that push it higher and stack freely have more of an impact than the baseline numbers. Every little stacking bit cannot be overlooked as 'trivial +1' because they will combine and be applied to much greater effect. Consider the 18-bought point buy ECL 0 +2 int elf with 3.0 save focus and greater save focus. You cannot singularly isolate each element and discount it, because the end result is clear. The discussions at hand were long drawn out analysis of this where many people initially decried the nerfs because spell focus was "only a +2" and undeserving of such attention.
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 11:59 PM	That's more like straight 45's. Which would still make you somewhat vulnerable at lower levels (that 17 extra hp per level can only do so much!) Don't forget the DR 1,000,000,000/Rare element all the bad guys have tons of.
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 12:05 AM	Curse the prune, but I think it is fairly easy to show if you think about it for a bit. To the extreme case, a caster with a DC 11 and another with a DC 19 save at first level, either of which get a +1 to their saves. When targetting will save +0 creatures, that +1 causes the latter to double his effectiveness, whereas the former sees a much more mild benefit. So when something is high, things that push it higher and stack freely have more of an impact than the baseline numbers. Every little stacking bit cannot be overlooked as 'trivial +1' because they will combine and be applied to much greater effect. Consider the 18-bought point buy ECL 0 +2 int elf with 3.0 save focus and greater save focus. You cannot singularly isolate each element and discount it, because the end result is clear. Ah, I get it. It's not the +1 that's the sole problem: it's all the other 'trivial' plus ones that add up into a monster.
Wopple 12-18-06, 12:09 AM	RIght. Sure. I have never even PLAYED a druid. Moreover, I pretty much don't take eighteens and rarely a seventeen. My preference in playing is actually rogues. However, its actually been a good bit since I;'ve actually had an opportunity to PLAY since I keep gettign pressed into GMing. Just make a PC. Everyone *****es about it but it is very simple: make a PC just as if you were a player, make it follow the party. Make it be about the most leadable sheep in the world. Never claim treasure for yourself, let it be given to you. Never give the party ideas. Never do anything other than by the book without running it by your players. This at first seems horrible and no fun at all, but it is fine. The character can still make wisecracks, still use by the book skills to help the party in simple ways (Hey, that scroll is up high on the wall! But none of us can climb well but dmpc guy!) and you can still fight as effectivley as anyone else, tho you may have to pretend you don't know a mob's weakness. Anyways, seriosuly try it. I have yet to NOT have a dmpc and it works out great. Anywaaaays... Point buys are fine. I don't have a problem with them either. I just don't think they are God's gift to stats. I also like a bit of dynamicness to a party. Not just like hey everyone, playing a campaign? What's the point buy? Oh, 28? Nice. I'll just pull out my fully constructed Barbarian with that point buy, ready to go! I feel rolls more customise the experience per campaign.
a_psh 12-18-06, 12:13 AM	Actually, this is something that I like about D&D. With other systems, role-playing and power-gaming meet head-to-head. If I want to play a rich noble, I have to spend points, and thus be mechanically inferior to other players in other areas. You are forced to choose between pulling your weight and playing the character you want.I tend to favor what I presume is also Ongorth's opinion on this: no amount of mechanics is better than "balance" enforced through the group's social consensus. My favorite priority-based systems come from games with an emphasis on relationships or thematic character elements, which ensure that your character always kicks at least some modicum of butt when he's in a situation that's most relevant to him, regardless of how you specced his proficiencies or skill dice. Also, in general, I find that the tradeoffs are a lot less of a problem when you can do things like buy up attributes in play. The decisions you make at character creation are rather less binding (and, therefore, less potentially crippling) as a result. But I do think you have a valid point: the more flexibility you have, the more min/maxing can happen. Insert the standard parapalegic telepath GURPS joke or whatever here. ;) You writing articles about this? 'Cause I'd love to hear more.I could give it a whack. I can't really think of more than three-four interesting standard arrays, though (but I guess that's all you need -- too many and it's indistinguishable from point-buy). I dunno, I've already said everything substantive I have to say about the idea, so you're just as qualified to embelish it further as I am. ;) Well, WotC doesn't admit their mistakes (that would be horribly unmanly:P). The Warblade is obviously for those that want to play Fighters that don't suck, and yet they refuse to say that the WArblade is the new fighter (so to speak).It gets a bit weird with a pen-and-paper game. In a video game, the publishers can release a patch and everybody gets converted to the new rules cleanly and nobody can really resist it. In a game based on books and whatnot, gamers have to work to switch over to new rules for something. And you get all these mini-schisms as some refuse to. So it's often easier to make a "stealth fix" by releasing a replacement that pretends to stand side-by-side with something than it is to actually replace the thing wholesale. It feels less intrusive, people feel like they're getting new content, and folks who like the old stuff aren't as ticked off.
archcomponent 12-18-06, 12:14 AM	Ah, I get it. It's not the +1 that's the sole problem: it's all the other 'trivial' plus ones that add up into a monster. Yeah, that is the context in which they exist. Really, the important trait for +1s becoming non-trivial is going to be their application towards an area of effective focus and their ability to stack. It happens that raw ability scores stack most freely of all and save DCs are one of the foremost areas of focus. Added with the strength of casters and even 1st level save or dies, and you have a real impact. I do get that some people may have players that overlook this aspect of point buy. But the assurances that it provides in every game, the way it allows players to so focus and push for that maximal result every time can be a bit tiring. You can insult players who choose strong casters to take advantage of the auto-18 every time as 'immature', but it is a simple fact that the system itself encourages this quite readily. And maybe some of this is frustration at such players who demand point buy every time and bash rolling to use it for their advantage in this manner. Perhaps you do not do this and have it work fine, but please keep in mind that it can and does get used in this manner at the time. You could run a test - tell players you are going to run a point buy with 15 as the highest ability score possible, and see how different the reaction to that is.
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 12:15 AM	Just make a PC. Everyone *****es about it but it is very simple: make a PC just as if you were a player, make it follow the party. Make it be about the most leadable sheep in the world. Never claim treasure for yourself, let it be given to you. Never give the party ideas. Never do anything other than by the book without running it by your players. This at first seems horrible and no fun at all, but it is fine. The character can still make wisecracks, still use by the book skills to help the party in simple ways (Hey, that scroll is up high on the wall! But none of us can climb well but dmpc guy!) and you can still fight as effectivley as anyone else, tho you may have to pretend you don't know a mob's weakness. Anyways, seriosuly try it. I have yet to NOT have a dmpc and it works out great. Anywaaaays... I prefer DMs that provide the party with healing. In a recent game, our DM gave us an almost literal 'heal bot': he was a cleric that wore full-plate mail, carried a tower shield in one hand and a wand of curing in the other. His religion prevented him from drawing blood, so basically all he did was heal and destroy undead. On the RP side of things, he was everyone's favorite character. Had our DM been so terrible as to have his DMPC steal the show, we may actually have not minded all that much.
Wopple 12-18-06, 12:15 AM	Chances of having an 18,18, 17 14, 12, 12 with ROlling?INfinitely higher than with point buy. Chances of two eighteens with rolling? ALmost infinitely higher than point buy. . Chances of 7, 4, 5, 3, 6, 3 with rolling? 100% infinitly larger with rolling than with point buy. Chances of two 3's with rolling? infinitly larger with rolling than with point buy. Please stop ******* on your feet...
Wopple 12-18-06, 12:18 AM	I prefer DMs that provide the party with healing. In a recent game, our DM gave us an almost literal 'heal bot': he was a cleric that wore full-plate mail, carried a tower shield in one hand and a wand of curing in the other. His religion prevented him from drawing blood, so basically all he did was heal and destroy undead. On the RP side of things, he was everyone's favorite character. Had our DM been so terrible as to have his DMPC steal the show, we may actually have not minded all that much. That's actualy what mine was. Only he had TWO shields (pathetic, but I believe, at least, allowed by the rules. Could be wrong. AC of 25 at level 7 with damage reduction 5). No one liekd him because he was an ass (because I am an ass) but he was a healbot, sure and true, and coulden't steal the show if he wanted to. Sadly, he recently gave his life grappling a litch off the top of a tower to defend them...
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 12:20 AM	Perhaps you do not do this and have it work fine, but please keep in mind that it can and does get used in this manner at the time. I just ask my players not to break my game. Why would you want to play with someone whose only goal is to have the most powerful character ever? Anyone can pull out Pun-pun if they want, it doesn't make the game fun for anyone but the optimizer. I guess I prefer PB because then you can point to the over-optimizer as to why their character is so powerful. With rolling, the OP player is 'under the radar', so to speak. You can ask for balance from PB, but not from the dice. I don't believe that either assures balance.
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 12:22 AM	That's actualy what mine was. Only he had TWO shields (pathetic, but I believe, at least, allowed by the rules. Could be wrong. AC of 25 at level 7 with damage reduction 5). No one liekd him because he was an ass (because I am an ass) but he was a healbot, sure and true, and coulden't steal the show if he wanted to. Sadly, he recently gave his life grappling a litch off the top of a tower to defend them... Shield bonuses do not stack.
Wopple 12-18-06, 12:59 AM	Shield bonuses do not stack. Yeah, I figured as much. But I had him continue to do it incase one was broken, as little sense as that made he coulden't do like.. ANY damage anyways. I always thought shields should give you a kind of concealment from melee and ranged attacks, and when the concealment succedsthe shield takes damage. But that's just me, and off topic.
Boshi 12-18-06, 01:06 AM	I think a lot of people are overestimating the power of a caster with an 18 in his primary stat and 10s in the rest (with the exception of classes that use pre-PHB II polymorph/shape change, but that's more of an issue with D&D polymorph/shape change being broken than anything else). With a 28 point-buy I know I'd rather have a wizard with 16 con and 16 int than one with 18 int and 12 con (same point-buy values). An extra 2 HP/level would be much more useful to me than a +1 bump to save DCs. In any case, later on the campaign it would be easier/cheaper to bump 16 Int up to 18 than 12 Con up to 16. Hell, one of the most effective wizards I've ever seen was a gnome with 20 starting Con. He could take a lot more risks than most casters and take the fight to the enemy instead of casting defensive spells. The high cost of getting one 18 with point buy is pretty much perfectly balanced and not munchkinable UNLESS there's polymorph/shape change cheese being used (which the PHB II rules fix nicely).
Wopple 12-18-06, 01:09 AM	I think a lot of people are overestimating the power of a caster with an 18 in his primary stat and 10s in the rest (with the exception of classes that use pre-PHB II polymorph/shape change, but that's more of an issue with D&D polymorph/shape change being broken than anything else). With a 28 point-buy I know I'd rather have a wizard with 16 con and 16 int than one with 18 int and 12 con (same point-buy values). An extra 2 HP/level would be much more useful to me than a +1 bump to save DCs. In any case, later on the campaign it would be easier/cheaper to bump 16 Int up to 18 than 12 Con up to 16. Hell, one of the most effective wizards I've ever seen was a gnome with 20 starting Con. He could take a lot more risks than most casters and take the fight to the enemy instead of casting defensive spells. The high cost of getting one 18 with point buy is pretty much perfectly balanced and not munchkinable UNLESS there's polymorph/shape change cheese being used (which the PHB II rules fix nicely). True. But a gay-ron-teed 18 is a gay-ron-teed 18. Either way, I don't think dice or PB are inheriently flawed, just diffrent.
Sim_antix 12-18-06, 02:13 AM	Guys we aren't allowed to discuss DMPCs so please refrain from making comments about them. Especially comments that paint them in a positive light since that can be considered baiting for someone like me who hates the very notion of a DMPC and would therefor feel compelled to point out why I feel that DMPCs are bad and should not be used thus turning this into a DMPC debate which we are not allowed to have at this time.
Zumarai 12-18-06, 04:46 AM	unless its one of those ridiculous 15 point buys... There's nothing ridiculous about a 15-point buy. It is a manly point buy for manly men. People have got to stop approaching this game with the "But this goes to eleven" syndrome.
Sim_antix 12-18-06, 05:24 AM	There's nothing ridiculous about a 15-poiny buy. It is a manly point buy for manly men. People have got to stop approaching this game with the "But this goes to eleven" syndrome. Of course nothing screams manly like a character with no score above 14 :rolleyes:
Zumarai 12-18-06, 05:49 AM	Of course nothing screams manly like a character with no score above 14 :rolleyes: *Starts humming the Men in Tights theme tune*
starfire311 12-18-06, 09:30 AM	Chances of 7, 4, 5, 3, 6, 3 with rolling? 100% infinitly larger with rolling than with point buy. actually there is 0 chance with both PB and rolling Chances of two 3's with rolling? infinitly larger with rolling than with point buy. Please stop ******* on your feet... Correct there is an infinitly larger chance of this happening, however I don't think it would happen in rolling, since it would take some extraordinary rolls such as 18, 18, 12, 12, 3, 3 and if this were to actually ever happen, odds are the player would ask to reroll and the DM would allow it. The odds of getting 2 3s in the same array are insane. BTW the odds of rolling a 3 is about 1 in 200, the odds of rolling 2, 3s is about 1 in 50,000, coupling that with the odds of rolling the stats to balance it into a net +2 modifier it becomes quite astronomical, however it is still infinitly more likely than with PB.
starfire311 12-18-06, 09:34 AM	Of course nothing screams manly like a character with no score above 14 :rolleyes: I regularly see characters played with nothing above a 14 in PB, although my most recent is a Dwarf Barbarian with a strength of 16, and con of 16 after racial mods. IME with PB you get one 16 and the rest of your stats are 8-14 Anecdotaly, I rarely ever see 15s, there are probably fewer 15s than 17s or 18s, and definatly fewer 15s than 16s
Elthbert 12-18-06, 09:40 AM	Im thinking you may have missed the real point there. When you come up with a method of rolling stats that is fair enough to both parties that you will be willing to take the worst set of numbers, call me, ill get on board the uneven character train. till then, im riding the point buy express. in my experience, people want rolling to get a chance to play a character that outshines everyone else in the group. Take that away, and the 'rolling coolness' factor fades rapidly If you let me roll both sets of 6 and keep them as sets, I wil gladly roll 2 sets and allow some one else to choose which set they would like to take--- no problem at all.
boozerker 12-18-06, 12:02 PM	http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html "Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. Fallacies are often personally useful in helping to determine if an argument is really a "cop out", but in public discussion they are mostly just challengeable techniques in debates where a winner is chosen by judges.
Wopple 12-18-06, 12:09 PM	Of course nothing screams manly like a character with no score above 14 :rolleyes: To a point, that's true. If you don't stuff them with magic items, and you don't adjust ECLs and such, it makes encounters alot harder, and "manly men" need to learn to use strategy and work as a team, even maybe generate and level in key group roles.
Wopple 12-18-06, 12:23 PM	actually there is 0 chance with both PB and rolling Correct there is an infinitly larger chance of this happening, however I don't think it would happen in rolling, since it would take some extraordinary rolls such as 18, 18, 12, 12, 3, 3 and if this were to actually ever happen, odds are the player would ask to reroll and the DM would allow it. The odds of getting 2 3s in the same array are insane. BTW the odds of rolling a 3 is about 1 in 200, the odds of rolling 2, 3s is about 1 in 50,000, coupling that with the odds of rolling the stats to balance it into a net +2 modifier it becomes quite astronomical, however it is still infinitly more likely than with PB. True, you technically could not roll all that low for the first one (although some dms ignore that rule, albeit some very mean ones). But something like 14, 10, 10, 10, 8, 8 is possible, and worse than what you could get with point buy. And also, you could get something like 16, 16, 12, 12, 3, 3. It was more of a comment against his kindof ridiculous well with rolling this COULD happen, thing. I mean hell, should we now get rid of attack rolls? With an optional rule, a level 1 COULD kill a Torrasque!! And at any level, they could at least hit it. It's just a weird argument. Rolling is not more powerful than point buy, tho it has the possibility of being. Arguing against either side here is kinda retarded, I mean trying to say point buy or rolling sucks on some kind of absolute, provable scale is impossible. It makes more sense to discuss the diffrences so those who are undecided can have input to make the decision, not attack a STAT GEN SYSTEM. It's just rediculous.
Doc225 12-18-06, 12:27 PM	Disclaimer: this applies to my group, it may or may not apply to yours, so please don't trash talk me or my group based on my comments I've been thinking about this thread for a while, and I have come to a realization about my group. I have noticed that in our group, everyone is "keeping up with the joneses." None of my players will make a character that (in their opinion) has a sub-par race/class combo, or a different fighting style, or anything similar. They all look at those 28-32 points and try to squeeze as much out of them as they can. No half-orc rogues or Gnome fighters in my game. They don't see the point in playing them. However.. I know for sure that one of my players wants to play a half-orc rogue, and another a gnome fighter. They don't though, because they kthink that they will lag behind everyone else by picking a race and close that don't click as well. We end up with more humans than anything, which isn't bad, but they only do it because they don't want to give up the feat or skill points. NOBODY WANTS TO BE THE WEAK LINK. I know for sure if I had them roll, and everyone rolled 16,14,13,12,11,10 except the guy who wants the half orc, and he rolled 18,18,16,15,14,14... that he would make his half-orc rogue, because he would put his 18's in Int and Cha, one of his 14's in str, and he wouldn't be the weak link. We would then have an interesting character, a half orc running around in light armor suprising everyone with his charm and wit.... I'd love it! Sure, he could play that character with PB 28, but I know he wouldn't, bacause of what everyone else would do with their characters. It seems that in my group, point buy actually limits creativity. It also tend to cause alot of indecision when deciding on characters. I know if one guy rolls 18 14 14 13 10 8, he'd play something like a fighter or wizard. Someone who rolls 16 16 16 15 14 14 will probably play somethiing like a monk or bard or rogue. They would lok at their rolls and make characters based on how they could arrange those rolls, instead of testing 12 different point buy arrays and 10 race/class combos, only to settle on the same human cleric build that one of the other guys played before the last TPK. I'm SERIOUSLY considering going back to rolling for the next time around, just to see what kind of variety pops up. One of our players still says his favorite character was the one he made years ago in 3.0 when we still rolled for stats. He had the lowest stats in the group by quite a bit, but he played him as a shifty little opportunist rogue, who made tried to make the best of everything and ended up being the hero in quite a few situations. It could be fun for someone to play "that guy." The sidekick who steals the show from time to time...
Wopple 12-18-06, 12:28 PM	If you let me roll both sets of 6 and keep them as sets, I wil gladly roll 2 sets and allow some one else to choose which set they would like to take--- no problem at all. Also someone mentioned, may have been in this thread or another, but they each roll a set of stats. Then the DM rolls a set as well (or 2 if they use a DMPC). Then you all roll a kind of.. player initative (to see picking order) and then they pick, like a draft. STR has to be from someone's STR, etc. Once the first round is over, you reverse, and back and fourth. This way, it is completly balanced. No matter how many people you have, there should always be a high stat, even for the low roller, especially considering their diffrent priorities. Even a min/maxer would find that balanced.
Wopple 12-18-06, 12:34 PM	Disclaimer: this applies to my group, it may or may not apply to yours, so please don't trash talk me or my group based on my comments I've been thinking about this thread for a while, and I have come to a realization about my group. I have noticed that in our group, everyone is "keeping up with the joneses." None of my players will make a character that (in their opinion) has a sub-par race/class combo, or a different fighting style, or anything similar. They all look at those 28-32 points and try to squeeze as much out of them as they can. No half-orc rogues or Gnome fighters in my game. They don't see the point in playing them. However.. I know for sure that one of my players wants to play a half-orc rogue, and another a gnome fighter. They don't though, because they kthink that they will lag behind everyone else by picking a race and close that don't click as well. We end up with more humans than anything, which isn't bad, but they only do it because they don't want to give up the feat or skill points. NOBODY WANTS TO BE THE WEAK LINK. I know for sure if I had them roll, and everyone rolled 16,14,13,12,11,10 except the guy who wants the half orc, and he rolled 18,18,16,15,14,14... that he would make his half-orc rogue, because he would put his 18's in Int and Cha, one of his 14's in str, and he wouldn't be the weak link. We would then have an interesting character, a half orc running around in light armor suprising everyone with his charm and wit.... I'd love it! Sure, he could play that character with PB 28, but I know he wouldn't, bacause of what everyone else would do with their characters. It seems that in my group, point buy actually limits creativity. It also tend to cause alot of indecision when deciding on characters. I know if one guy rolls 18 14 14 13 10 8, he'd play something like a fighter or wizard. Someone who rolls 16 16 16 15 14 14 will probably play somethiing like a monk or bard or rogue. They would lok at their rolls and make characters based on how they could arrange those rolls, instead of testing 12 different point buy arrays and 10 race/class combos, only to settle on the same human cleric build that one of the other guys played before the last TPK. I'm SERIOUSLY considering going back to rolling for the next time around, just to see what kind of variety pops up. One of our players still says his favorite character was the one he made years ago in 3.0 when we still rolled for stats. He had the lowest stats in the group by quite a bit, but he played him as a shifty little opportunist rogue, who made tried to make the best of everything and ended up being the hero in quite a few situations. It could be fun for someone to play "that guy." The sidekick who steals the show from time to time... Agree 200%. I also think it's alot less fun even just in character generation, tho that may just be me. Seems less forumlaic, and you have to put more thought into it right then, without the possibility of using some pre built guy.
archcomponent 12-18-06, 12:45 PM	I know for sure if I had them roll, and everyone rolled 16,14,13,12,11,10 except the guy who wants the half orc, and he rolled 18,18,16,15,14,14... that he would make his half-orc rogue, because he would put his 18's in Int and Cha, one of his 14's in str, and he wouldn't be the weak link. We would then have an interesting character, a half orc running around in light armor suprising everyone with his charm and wit.... I'd love it! Is not using high rolls to enact normally inefficient character concepts the same sort of balance by trust that theotherdraxen mentioned making use of in point buy? I would say this makes it very clear that it can exist in forms other than point buy. If it does not happen often, players will really enjoy the chance to play a sort of character they would not using PB.
Doc225 12-18-06, 12:57 PM	Is not using high rolls to enact normally inefficient character concepts the same sort of balance by trust that theotherdraxen mentioned making use of in point buy? I would say this makes it very clear that it can exist in forms other than point buy. If it does not happen often, players will really enjoy the chance to play a sort of character they would not using PB. Yeah, it is. It was actually one of the points that sunk in when I apllied the topic to my group. I wasn't sure who said it and didn't want to look through 25 pages to find it, but I did rememebr that point. I remember another player that had alot of high rolls making a fighter, but only using the bonus feats for his combat feats. the feats at 1st, 3rd, etc. went to feats like alertness, athletic, skill focus(craft weapon), and feats like that. He intentionally did that since he knew his abilities made him stronger than the rest of the group. It worked out pretty well, and resulted in a fighter that was more than just a beat stick/meat shield. I think I am going to have them roll for stats. I know they will all be glad to have that part of character creation come back. They accept point buy, but I know they'd rather roll.
a_psh 12-18-06, 01:55 PM	Anecdotaly, I rarely ever see 15s, there are probably fewer 15s than 17s or 18s, and definatly fewer 15s than 16sReally? Whenever anyone asks me for tips on how to make a functional character with point-buy in the 25-32 range, I tell them that it's most often a good idea to go for a 15 in their primary stat, which they can then boost to 16 at 4th level, since this gives you a decent score but plenty of points to spread around on other stuff.
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 02:18 PM	Fallacies are often personally useful in helping to determine if an argument is really a "cop out", but in public discussion they are mostly just challengeable techniques in debates where a winner is chosen by judges. Oh. I thought they were, you know, flaws in the person's logic (and I don't mean that sarcastically). So I couldn't call him out on the fallacy? Disclaimer: this applies to my group, it may or may not apply to yours, so please don't trash talk me or my group based on my comments [Generic trash talking directed at Doc255] It seems that in my group, point buy actually limits creativity. It also tend to cause alot of indecision when deciding on characters. I know if one guy rolls 18 14 14 13 10 8, he'd play something like a fighter or wizard. Someone who rolls 16 16 16 15 14 14 will probably play somethiing like a monk or bard or rogue. I disagree here. I think that creativity begins with the player, and not the dice. You see here the exact reason why I prefer PB: my character concept comes before the dice. I could roll a min/maxed set of stats that are really powerful, but I wouldn't be able to play the kung-fu monk that I wanted. I think I am going to have them roll for stats. I know they will all be glad to have that part of character creation come back. They accept point buy, but I know they'd rather roll. Please, then, switch to rolling! Do what your players want, not what some crazy guy on the internet tells you to!
Wopple 12-18-06, 02:36 PM	I disagree here. I think that creativity begins with the player, and not the dice. You see here the exact reason why I prefer PB: my character concept comes before the dice. I could roll a min/maxed set of stats that are really powerful, but I wouldn't be able to play the kung-fu monk that I wanted. Well, that's what we mean too. It's more fun (for many of us) to not just say I wasnt x, then build the best x. This way there are random chances that seriously affect what we make, and how we make them. Otherwise, we could just make up 20 characters by a bunch of concepts and pull them out whenever
Doc225 12-18-06, 03:21 PM	I disagree here. I think that creativity begins with the player, and not the dice. You see here the exact reason why I prefer PB: my character concept comes before the dice. I could roll a min/maxed set of stats that are really powerful, but I wouldn't be able to play the kung-fu monk that I wanted. That's part of the problem, also. I'm thinking back to the days when we sat around the table, rolled our stats, and then though, "Now what should I play with these?" Instead of rolling into the game with a premade concept, and hen getting crapped on because you didn't get the rolls we wanted. I'm thinking a "let the dice decide" feeling is something that has been missing. Our most memorable characters have been from the days where we rolled for stats. That's not to say that our PB characters have been bad, just that they aren't as memorable. I am a proponent of point buy, I've used it since 3.0 and always use it when I DM. I even encouraged my wife to use it for the game she is DMing. However, I can see the point of some of the supporters of die rolling. It all depends on your own point of view and your group.
starfire311 12-18-06, 03:28 PM	I don't mean to nitpick, but I can't help myself. True, you technically could not roll all that low for the first one (although some dms ignore that rule, albeit some very mean ones). But something like 14, 10, 10, 10, 8, 8 is possible, not not poosibile. yopu need a net modifier of +2 or greater or you could re-roll I guess the worst possible acceptable roll would be 14, 10,10,10,10,10 which is a point buy of 16 and the best possible acceptable roll is all 18s which is a point buy of 96 so when rolling you can get anywhere from a PB 16 to PB 96 and worse than what you could get with point buy. And also, you could get something like 16, 16, 12, 12, 3, 3. not possible, see above. It was more of a comment against his kindof ridiculous well with rolling this COULD happen, thing. I mean hell, should we now get rid of attack rolls? With an optional rule, a level 1 COULD kill a Torrasque!! And at any level, they could at least hit it. It's just a weird argument. You kinda lose me here, not sure what optional rule lets a 1st level character cast wish. Rolling is not more powerful than point buy, tho it has the possibility of being. Arguing against either side here is kinda retarded, But you can argue that the benefits of one system out-weigh its disadvantages more than the benefits of anotehr system out-weigh its disadvantages I mean trying to say point buy or rolling sucks on some kind of absolute, provable scale is impossible. It makes more sense to discuss the diffrences so those who are undecided can have input to make the decision, not attack a STAT GEN SYSTEM. It's just rediculous. well yeah nothing here is absoluty proovable when the best arguement is I like it casue it is fun.
bitnine 12-18-06, 03:34 PM	Instead of rolling into the game with a premade concept, and hen getting crapped on because you didn't get the rolls we wanted. I'm thinking a "let the dice decide" feeling is something that has been missing. You know, I'm pretty sure that plenty of people roll into a game with a broad-strokes and/or adaptable character concept such that it isn't a dichotomy there.
Solik 12-18-06, 03:36 PM	NOBODY WANTS TO BE THE WEAK LINK. Rolling dice does not solve this problem. Instead, it shifts the "wink link" from the person who is least skillful at building effective characters to the person who has the worst luck on character creation day. If you want to encourage people to use sub-optimal combinations in the interest of playing an entertaining character, consider the following real solutions: * Reward sub-optimal builds with a few extra points for PB. Make sure that the build is actually sub-optimal, though; a truly skilled powergamer could be pulling wool over your eyes to try to get a few more points out of you. * Re-balance the races. Half-orcs are underpowered to begin with, so toss it a few bones that makes it less of a bad decision for the player who wants to use it for something. * Stop scaring your players. If they feel that they need to be powerful to survive your games, then they're never going to pick a sub-optimal option. There are reasons to choose rolling over point-buy, but encouraging strange builds isn't one of them.
Wopple 12-18-06, 03:52 PM	WizO_Cat: Keep the discussion on the topic of the thread, not other guests. Thank you.
Wopple 12-18-06, 03:56 PM	Rolling dice does not solve this problem. Instead, it shifts the "wink link" from the person who is least skillful at building effective characters to the person who has the worst luck on character creation day. If you want to encourage people to use sub-optimal combinations in the interest of playing an entertaining character, consider the following real solutions: * Reward sub-optimal builds with a few extra points for PB. Make sure that the build is actually sub-optimal, though; a truly skilled powergamer could be pulling wool over your eyes to try to get a few more points out of you. * Re-balance the races. Half-orcs are underpowered to begin with, so toss it a few bones that makes it less of a bad decision for the player who wants to use it for something. * Stop scaring your players. If they feel that they need to be powerful to survive your games, then they're never going to pick a sub-optimal option. There are reasons to choose rolling over point-buy, but encouraging strange builds isn't one of them. I think if you have a group open enough to allow you to give out BP stuff based on character gen, you may as well have people picking their stats. You probably also won't have any problem with fun combos and great roleplaying, but I could be wrong here. I agree on last two points tho.
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 04:13 PM	Rolling dice does not solve this problem. Instead, it shifts the "wink link" from the person who is least skillful at building effective characters to the person who has the worst luck on character creation day. Which invariably ends up being me. :( But I wanted to get back to this: It all depends on your own point of view and your group. And here is the real answer. It's all preference. I like PB because it lets me play the concept I want. Others like rolling because it leaves room for a more random game, which means that your more powerful characters will be heroic, even by D&D standards. Granted, there are many different reasons for each of them, but I think we all need to stop kidding ourselves and admit that both PB and rolling are all about flavor, and have virtually nothing to do with balance one way or the other. Edit: Doc225, have a cookie. :cookie:
Doc225 12-18-06, 04:49 PM	I don't scare my players into optimizing or munchkinning or anything that you'd like to call it. They do that to each other. None of them want to fall behind the others in ability or be a hinderance on the party. My group tends to put a huge role on combat. It's just the way they play. i could go against that, or I could embrace it, which I do. I chose to run Red Hand of Doom instead of a game more steeped political and social intrigue. They wouldn't enjoy a game like that, especially if I didn't warn them first. They would have these amazingly strong combat characters that were pretty useless in any other circumstance. It then turns into a cycl, where I have to make combats stronger to challenge them, and then they make their characters better in combat yadda yadda yadda. At this point, I've decided that my job as the DM is not to run the kind of game that I want to, but the kind of game my players want to play. I can have fun with alot of diferrent play styles, and while I would like to play a less combat focused game, I know my guys, and that's not what they like. I know that 2 of my 4 guys want to roll for stats, but they accept point buy as the Dm's call. The other 2 could care less how we generate stats, as long as they "get to kill stuff." SO, I'm going to go with the flow... and have them roll stats. I can beef up or dumb down the challenges to fit them as I see fit. I would like to restate: At this point, I've decided that my job as the DM is not to run the kind of game that I want to, but the kind of game my players want to play. And they want to roll... Point buy vs rolling stats vs choose your stats..... Does it really matter as long everyone is having fun? Edit: Thank you for the cookie
Sim_antix 12-18-06, 04:53 PM	Thats right I want to see everyone on here say that its all preference and that neither is inherently better. Point buy and Rolling are just a matter of preference, do whats right for your group.
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 05:00 PM	Thats right I want to see everyone on here say that its all preference and that neither is inherently better. Point buy and Rolling are just a matter of preference, do whats right for your group. If these boards weren't so fallacy crazy as is, I'd write a fallacy (or another corollary) stating this (if it could be done).
Lethanic 12-18-06, 09:31 PM	Yeah, that is the context in which they exist. Really, the important trait for +1s becoming non-trivial is going to be their application towards an area of effective focus and their ability to stack. It happens that raw ability scores stack most freely of all and save DCs are one of the foremost areas of focus. Added with the strength of casters and even 1st level save or dies, and you have a real impact. I do get that some people may have players that overlook this aspect of point buy. But the assurances that it provides in every game, the way it allows players to so focus and push for that maximal result every time can be a bit tiring. You can insult players who choose strong casters to take advantage of the auto-18 every time as 'immature', but it is a simple fact that the system itself encourages this quite readily. And maybe some of this is frustration at such players who demand point buy every time and bash rolling to use it for their advantage in this manner. Perhaps you do not do this and have it work fine, but please keep in mind that it can and does get used in this manner at the time. You could run a test - tell players you are going to run a point buy with 15 as the highest ability score possible, and see how different the reaction to that is. I will say, the players I have had that are interested in, as it were, powergaming, munchkining, whatever you want to call it(ANd my definition is the people that abuse it, so if you aren't one of those, cool down> I'm not talking about you.) (ALso I am using the general you here rather than referring specifically to the quoted individual), tend to demand rolling instead of my usual point buy. Perhaps that isn't usual with the rest of you - but its been MY experience. At any rate, I don't have any problem with any groups using rolling, obviously - just not the games I am DMing. COnsider it the prioce of admission for playing in my games. THe players know it and accept it and have no problems with it, so. . My ONLY issues are the claims that rolling is somehow MORE balanced.
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 09:35 PM	\My ONLY issues are the claims that rolling is somehow MORE balanced. Right. I think it has been safely concluded that neither assure nor precludes balance. And the reason most power-gamers prefer rolling is probably because they don't quite have the gaming saavy that the people on the CharOp boards do. Rolling might offer better rolls, but as far as min/maxing goes, rolling doesn't help you very much. The power gamers I know still think that two-weapon fighting is awesome.
Sim_antix 12-18-06, 10:09 PM	Right. I think it has been safely concluded that neither assure nor precludes balance. Exactly. And as far as you feeling that most people who prefer rolling are power gamers it is fine to say that the ones you have known might be that way but it is far from the norm, in fact alot of people I know prefer rolling because it eliminates some of the min/max powergaming found in point buy.
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 10:12 PM	Exactly. And as far as you feeling that most people who prefer rolling are power gamers it is fine to say that the ones you have known might be that way but it is far from the norm, in fact alot of people I know prefer rolling because it eliminates some of the min/max powergaming found in point buy. It does. My powergamer friends seem to think it gives them an edge (which it doesn't always). I'm saying that, from a munchkin perspective, while rolling looks attractive, PB is probably better.
Sim_antix 12-18-06, 10:15 PM	It does. My powergamer friends seem to think it gives them an edge (which it doesn't always). I'm saying that, from a munchkin perspective, while rolling looks attractive, PB is probably better. Ahh my bad I knew where you stand on the issue that second part was meant for Lethanic but I forgot to make that clear :embarrass
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 10:18 PM	Ahh my bad I knew where you stand on the issue that second part was meant for Lethanic but I forgot to make that clear :embarrass Oh. Okay. (Damn, second time this has happened in the last 3 minutes!)
justdmjeff 12-18-06, 10:28 PM	Right. I think it has been safely concluded that neither assure nor precludes balance. Okay then, if that is the case then use whatever you have more fun with.
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 11:02 PM	Okay then, if that is the case then use whatever you have more fun with. This is what I wanted for Christmas. Thanks, Jeff, and Merry Christmas to you too. ;)
a_psh 12-18-06, 11:19 PM	Right. I think it has been safely concluded that neither assure nor precludes balance.Rolling does cause issue with "mastery," however. Oh, well. Mastery's a dumb idea for a roleplaying game, anyway. You're better off designing games that don't demand hours and hours of optimization.
starfire311 12-19-06, 08:49 AM	Rolling does cause issue with "mastery," however. Oh, well. Mastery's a dumb idea for a roleplaying game, anyway. You're better off designing games that don't demand hours and hours of optimization. True, you shouldn't have to know or understand the rules to make the character that you envision. But, I guess I can argue that it wouldn't be DnD without the rules. People would also argue that it wouldn't be DnD unless you have one player with vastly better stats than another player either.
BoringInfoGuy 12-19-06, 12:04 PM	actually there is 0 chance with both PB and rolling Correct there is an infinitly larger chance of this happening, however I don't think it would happen in rolling, since it would take some extraordinary rolls such as 18, 18, 12, 12, 3, 3 and if this were to actually ever happen, odds are the player would ask to reroll and the DM would allow it. The odds of getting 2 3s in the same array are insane. BTW the odds of rolling a 3 is about 1 in 200, the odds of rolling 2, 3s is about 1 in 50,000, coupling that with the odds of rolling the stats to balance it into a net +2 modifier it becomes quite astronomical, however it is still infinitly more likely than with PB. Actually, the chance of rolling a 3 in the standard 4d6 drop lowest system is 1 in 1296.
mightyix 12-19-06, 03:00 PM	My 3.x experience (and late 2nd Ed experience) with dice rolling has been uniformly poor. On one occasion (a 5 year long campaign) I was the one with the uber character and hogged significant spotlight time from the rest of my party. In other campaigns where we have used dice rolling, we've ended up with the vast majority of characters without a 25 total point buy equivilant and stats so unbalanced as to be nearly unplayable. An 18 in a stat does you no good if the rest of them are 10, 11, 8, 8, 8. In fact, the only player in our group who regularly supports dice rolling for stats is the one who regularly plays in campaigns with other people where the adherance to rules is questionable at best and the primary rule utilized starts with "Monty". Even he got upset and has attempted RP efforts to get himself killed in combat (through gallant and heroic sacrifice) when he was the one that ended up with a mediocre character. Through the heroic efforts of his adventuring friends, he never quite died before we moved on from that campaign. My 22 years of DnD experience (I'm 32 and have been playing since I was 10) has shown me time and again that it's the power gamers who want to roll dice to get the best ability scores possible and the best roleplayers don't care how they get their stats as long as they can make a playable character in a theme that they like - something that dice rolling sometimes, but often doesn't allow. So ask yourself... are you a roleplayer who can take on any roleplaying challenge, and it doesn't matter that you're playing a point buy or rolled character? Or are you someone who wants the opportunity to have the most twinked character you can build, based on stats outside of the standard point buy norms? Sure a roleplayer can take advantage of the dice as they are rolled, but they benefit more from having the ability to go in with a character concept without having to bow to the fickleness of the dice gods. It's your campaign, so do what you want, but understand that your high stat character has the opportunity to steal the spotlight time from everyone else on a regular basis and that most people don't appreciate playing a character that isn't on the same playing field as other people. -ix-
BoringInfoGuy 12-19-06, 04:42 PM	My 3.x experience (and late 2nd Ed experience) with dice rolling has been uniformly poor. On one occasion (a 5 year long campaign) I was the one with the uber character and hogged significant spotlight time from the rest of my party. In other campaigns where we have used dice rolling, we've ended up with the vast majority of characters without a 25 total point buy equivilant and stats so unbalanced as to be nearly unplayable. An 18 in a stat does you no good if the rest of them are 10, 11, 8, 8, 8. In fact, the only player in our group who regularly supports dice rolling for stats is the one who regularly plays in campaigns with other people where the adherance to rules is questionable at best and the primary rule utilized starts with "Monty". Even he got upset and has attempted RP efforts to get himself killed in combat (through gallant and heroic sacrifice) when he was the one that ended up with a mediocre character. Through the heroic efforts of his adventuring friends, he never quite died before we moved on from that campaign. My 22 years of DnD experience (I'm 32 and have been playing since I was 10) has shown me time and again that it's the power gamers who want to roll dice to get the best ability scores possible and the best roleplayers don't care how they get their stats as long as they can make a playable character in a theme that they like - something that dice rolling sometimes, but often doesn't allow. So ask yourself... are you a roleplayer who can take on any roleplaying challenge, and it doesn't matter that you're playing a point buy or rolled character? Or are you someone who wants the opportunity to have the most twinked character you can build, based on stats outside of the standard point buy norms? Sure a roleplayer can take advantage of the dice as they are rolled, but they benefit more from having the ability to go in with a character concept without having to bow to the fickleness of the dice gods. It's your campaign, so do what you want, but understand that your high stat character has the opportunity to steal the spotlight time from everyone else on a regular basis and that most people don't appreciate playing a character that isn't on the same playing field as other people. -ix- What this most shows to me is how different people can have very different experiances, even when playing the same game. I'm 30, and have been playing for about 20 years. I've been complimented by multiple groups for my roleplaying skills. Never have I been called a power gamer, or a twink. I particularly despise munchkin and Monty Haul gaming. Even my low stat characters I have to watch out about taking too much game time. (And I do make certain that I'm not hogging the show). The best compliment I recieved happened during a campaign where my schedule made me constanly late. Not wanting to hold up the game, I said that another player could proxy my character until I could arrive. But time after time, they would wait for me. When I asked why, the DM told me, "[Boring], when you show up and are into the game, everyone is into it. Without you, the game is less fun for everyone." Not exact words. And I do perfer rolling to point buy.
Solik 12-19-06, 05:20 PM	Rolling is a lot of fun, and I'd rather do it for one-shots or mini-campaigns. But long-term is too much of an investment for the luck of a single set of rolls.
Croix Ragnan 12-19-06, 06:29 PM	We have established that it is a matter of preference, and anyways, the only arguments being made have already been made 50 times. Which method you prefer is essentially like religion: you have your belief, and while you have reasoning as to why you are correct, you still can't convert people that are just as set in their way and preference. only a given person can change their views, i.e. I recently switched to the 6X6 matrix method. Every method sucks to someone, so it's basically just a matter of everyone agreeing to disagree.
starfire311 12-19-06, 06:40 PM	Actually, the chance of rolling a 3 in the standard 4d6 drop lowest system is 1 in 1296. that would be on a single roll, what about the chances of a character getting a 3, you know, what I was actually talking about.
theotherdraxen 12-19-06, 06:41 PM	Okay, but do you all (mightyix, BIG, and CR) at least agree that it is a matter of flavor and choice, and that neither one is objectively better than the other? Depending on your answer, you may ruin my christmas:(
Sim_antix 12-19-06, 07:22 PM	:teach: The problem is that people are looking at this as though their style of play and their group was the standard with which to measure the value of any game mechanic. What works for some wont work for others and as always your mileage may vary.
mightyix 12-19-06, 07:26 PM	Okay, but do you all (mightyix, BIG, and CR) at least agree that it is a matter of flavor and choice, and that neither one is objectively better than the other? Depending on your answer, you may ruin my christmas:( My post said, "It's your campaign, so do what you want, but understand that your high stat character has the opportunity to steal the spotlight time from everyone else on a regular basis and that most people don't appreciate playing a character that isn't on the same playing field as other people." So yes, I believe it is a matter of choice, and that each method serves different purposes for different reasons, and depending on why and how you prioritize your game experience, you'll pick one method over another. -ix-
Lethanic 12-19-06, 09:34 PM	Okay, but do you all (mightyix, BIG, and CR) at least agree that it is a matter of flavor and choice, and that neither one is objectively better than the other? Depending on your answer, you may ruin my christmas:( Point buy is objectively better. . . . . . for my style of campaign. Your style's results may differ.
Zumarai 12-20-06, 04:21 AM	My 3.x experience (and late 2nd Ed experience) with dice rolling has been uniformly poor. On one occasion (a 5 year long campaign) I was the one with the uber character and hogged significant spotlight time from the rest of my party. In other campaigns where we have used dice rolling, we've ended up with the vast majority of characters without a 25 total point buy equivilant and stats so unbalanced as to be nearly unplayable. An 18 in a stat does you no good if the rest of them are 10, 11, 8, 8, 8. In fact, the only player in our group who regularly supports dice rolling for stats is the one who regularly plays in campaigns with other people where the adherance to rules is questionable at best and the primary rule utilized starts with "Monty". Even he got upset and has attempted RP efforts to get himself killed in combat (through gallant and heroic sacrifice) when he was the one that ended up with a mediocre character. Through the heroic efforts of his adventuring friends, he never quite died before we moved on from that campaign. My 22 years of DnD experience (I'm 32 and have been playing since I was 10) has shown me time and again that it's the power gamers who want to roll dice to get the best ability scores possible and the best roleplayers don't care how they get their stats as long as they can make a playable character in a theme that they like - something that dice rolling sometimes, but often doesn't allow. So ask yourself... are you a roleplayer who can take on any roleplaying challenge, and it doesn't matter that you're playing a point buy or rolled character? Or are you someone who wants the opportunity to have the most twinked character you can build, based on stats outside of the standard point buy norms? Sure a roleplayer can take advantage of the dice as they are rolled, but they benefit more from having the ability to go in with a character concept without having to bow to the fickleness of the dice gods. It's your campaign, so do what you want, but understand that your high stat character has the opportunity to steal the spotlight time from everyone else on a regular basis and that most people don't appreciate playing a character that isn't on the same playing field as other people. -ix- This is interesting, I'm the same age as you, and I have also been playing for 22 years, and I totally agree with everything you've said. ...I like the way you think.
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 04:37 AM	Yes thats right rollers only care about trying to get uber stats to live out their munchkin fantasies :rolleyes:
Zumarai 12-20-06, 05:34 AM	Yes thats right rollers only care about trying to get uber stats to live out their munchkin fantasies :rolleyes: Well, at least you admit it…
Wopple 12-20-06, 11:09 AM	You can say that rollers want uber high stats so they can be crazy powerful, but you could also say that rollers just want their nice neat munchkinish character and don't want to take the risk of not getting EXACTLY what they want every time. This is all BS, how are you trying to make rollers look like the powergamers? It makes no sense. 8, 14, 12, 13, 14, 13 I just rolled those with the standard method. OMFG LOOK AT ME! I AM GOING TO OWN THE WORLD! MUA HA HA MY MARVELOUS STATS ARE UNSTOPPABLE!!! let's go again... 9, 14, 10, 13, 10, 15 Yes.. yes.. my army of unstoppable minions grow! 4, 12, 14, 16, 5, 14 (This is too high, by the rules, to be re-rolled, too) YES! check out that guy! He will kill you all! Don't even try to run a friggen pb guy against him, he will steal the spotlight and kick you all in the face!! Face it, on average, you get average results. BP gives you sometimes less, but you have total control. Rolls MAY give you more, but are about just as likely not to, and in both cases you have no control where those points end up, you could have 18 10 10 10 10 10 or 12 12 12 12 12 12. It's just preference, and arguing anything else is lunacy.
boozerker 12-20-06, 11:28 AM	Oh. I thought they were, you know, flaws in the person's logic (and I don't mean that sarcastically). So I couldn't call him out on the fallacy? Yeah they are flaws in a person's logic, however the link given has to do with tactics (for official debates) where you reveal the opposition's fallacies to judges who assign the scores.
pres_man 12-20-06, 11:35 AM	The reason I personally prefer point buy is, it is easier to balance the different players to each other. It is easier to trust one another ("Who saw you roll those stats? Your husband, like we can trust that). Also it keeps the insanely low stats out of the game (can't stand someone with a 3 INT). Now having said that, I run two games a week. In one game we use PB (35 points, yeah I'm a push over, but hey I like paladins, favored souls, and monks). In the other game, I suggested the same thing, for which I was shot down, they wanted to roll. Of course in that game we have had the most character deaths, and the most crazy situations ("Just because you have a 3 INT does not mean you have to try to kill the wizard each time he polymorphs into a creature.") But that is what they find fun, so who am I to say it is not. Frankly I could find it fun to make a character based totally on randomness. Not only on ability scores (done in order of abilities only), but also with a random race and random class (even if it does not work well with the stats, wizard with a 10 int for example). That can be fun. But I don't suggest it for everyone.
BoringInfoGuy 12-20-06, 12:02 PM	that would be on a single roll, what about the chances of a character getting a 3, you know, what I was actually talking about. Clarify. If you mean what is the chance of a character ending up having rolled a 3 for one of his stats, then it's the number I stated.
starfire311 12-20-06, 12:28 PM	Clarify. If you mean what is the chance of a character ending up having rolled a 3 for one of his stats, then it's the number I stated. the number you stated was Actually, the chance of rolling a 3 in the standard 4d6 drop lowest system is 1 in 1296. the chances of a character getting a 3 for one of his stats is 1-[ (1295/1296)*(1295/1296)*(1295/1296)*(1295/1296)*(1295/1296)*(1295/1296) ] or 1-(4,716,486,660,819,390,000/4,738,381,338,321,620,000) or 0.4621% or 1 in 216.417 or approximatly 1 in 200, as I stated. am I not doing this right? I havn't had a math class in years but basic probablities have never been tough for me.
boozerker 12-20-06, 12:42 PM	I havn't had a math class in years but basic probablities have never been tough for me. Can you also do the exact chances of two 18s, three 18s, four 18s, five 18s, or six 18s (out of six rolls each)? If so, thanks!
bitnine 12-20-06, 01:00 PM	am I not doing this right? I havn't had a math class in years but basic probablities have never been tough for me.1-(1-p)^n is indeed the way to go; that li'l gem will probably get you through about half the basic probability calculations that pop up here. Harder to figure in is the increased likelihood that a set with a 3 will be discarded because of its net modifier.
mightyix 12-20-06, 01:43 PM	Taken in context, my statement says (summarized) Power gamers prefer rolling because they have the best chance at getting a powerful character. Roleplayers don't care how their stats get generated. Rolling or point buy, they aren't as fixated on their stats and can play anything put in front of them. These are generalities, obviously, so they don't apply to everyone. It's your campaign, your rules, and your friends. You decide how you want to play, my experience has just taught me things and I shared what I had learned.
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 01:52 PM	Taken in context, my statement says (summarized) Power gamers prefer rolling because they have the best chance at getting a powerful character. Roleplayers don't care how their stats get generated. Rolling or point buy, they aren't as fixated on their stats and can play anything put in front of them. These are generalities, obviously, so they don't apply to everyone. It's your campaign, your rules, and your friends. You decide how you want to play, my experience has just taught me things and I shared what I had learned. True power gamers prefer PB because they can get the best min/max with no worries of rolling too low.
mightyix 12-20-06, 02:35 PM	Hey, you, powergamer. You get a 28 point point buy. Good luck with your ability to have 16s in more than one ability score without sucking everywhere else. At 28 points you spend more than a third of your available points to get a 16. You can do it twice, total. If you grab for an 18, you've spent more than half your available points. Let's take one of the more common ways of abusing characters - Charisma. Let's say you're a sorceror or warlock or bard. You want to create a diplomacy gained army. The 16 int is adequate for your Cha, but unless you add something somewhere to con and dex, you're not exactly as effective as you could be. Let's assume that you go with 14 Con and 12 Dex - that's another 10 points down the drain, leaving you with six points left for the other stats. This means you're not going to be able to carry much without being encumbered, get significant bonuses to your will save or spot, listen, and sense motive checks, and not much in the way of bonus skill points. Compare that to a high point buy or a rolled character. You have the opportunity to get multiple sixteens, something higher, or at least minimal bonuses all across your character. The rules for minimum bonuses, and just about every house rule for rolling that I've ever heard of allows you some way to dump bad dice rolls or roll multiple sets of dice. And the downside of rolling (getting an "unplayable" character in the party) is just as bad as having someone with an uber character. For the final time - it's your game, and your decisions. Just understand the potential consequences of your choices.
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 02:46 PM	Just because they are limited in how far they can min/max does not mean that it is any less favorable than throwing the dice and hoping to get lucky from a power gaming perspective. With PB you know exactly how much you have to work with so you can preplan the best combinations and know that with your min/maxing you will be far ahead of anyone else using the same PB.
theotherdraxen 12-20-06, 03:11 PM	Point buy is objectively better. . . . . . for my style of campaign. Your style's results may differ. Thanks. I'll go tell ma and pa to return my presents to the north pole.:weep: BTW: Sim_Antix, when you say 'true powergamer', do you mean min/maxer or munchkin?
starfire311 12-20-06, 03:38 PM	Can you also do the exact chances of two 18s, three 18s, four 18s, five 18s, or six 18s (out of six rolls each)? If so, thanks! Egads, this is kinda tricky and stretches my memory, so I will just make some generalizations... chance of rolling 18 on 3D6 is 1 in 216, chances or rolling 4 6s on 4D6 1 in 1296... now since we are droping 1 we have can accept a roll of 6,6,6,x this means basically we are 6 times more likly to get a roll with at least 3 6s so that brings us back to 1 in 216 of getting 6,6,6,x now also the x can come up in the anmy of the dies, so 6,6,6,X ; 6,6,x,6; 6,x,6,6; x,6,6,6 are all valid permutations that will give us a roll with 3 6s in it... so this makes it about 4 times more likly bringing it to 1 in 54 chance of getting an 18 on 4D6 drop lowest. given this we can do 1-(1-p)^n and get about a 10.6%(1 in 9.4) chance to have a character with an 18 now to get another 18 we multiply the chance to get 1 18 by the chance of getting an 18 in the other 5 dice, that works out to about 1%(1 in 105) and continuing this fuzzy math the chance to get 3 18s would be about 0.07%(1 in 1466) and 4 18s would be about 0.004% (1 in 27,000) and 5 18s would be about 0.0001% (1 in 730,000) and 6 18s would be about 0.000005% (1 in 40,000,000) Now, I made some fuzzy leaps, and I don't claim this to be 100% correct, I am sure we have beter mathematicians than me around here to corraborate the numbers. Note I found someone that did a computer model rolling 4D6 drop lowest 100,000 times saying that the chance of an 18 on a single roll was 1.6%, using my math I came up with 1.85% on a single roll, I was unable to find anyone that was willing to actually do the math to determine the odds, but meh.
mightyix 12-20-06, 03:51 PM	To clarify my position, a powergamer is a munchkin, not a min/maxer. I'm a min/maxer and roleplayer mix myself. I'm going to look at creating the best character possible within the limitations that I set for myself. Those traditional limits are: Human (suck it up other humanoids, we're going to rule it all :P ) Int bonus for additional skill points and out of combat flexibility Ability to fulfill specific party role based upon group dynamics. So I end up with less than 'optimized' non-wizards usually, since Int is never a dump stat and the two point difference between 10 and 12 isn't available to hit another stat. Since we play 28 point buy campaigns, it means that the warforged barbarian (who doesn't care about int, or cha) gets to run around as a more effective melee combatant than my more versatile fighter. Our group always seems to end up synergizing well, and we've got almost 10 years playing to prove it.
starfire311 12-20-06, 04:26 PM	Egads, this is kinda tricky and stretches my memory, so I will just make some generalizations... chance of rolling 18 on 3D6 is 1 in 216, chances or rolling 4 6s on 4D6 1 in 1296... now since we are droping 1 we have can accept a roll of 6,6,6,x this means basically we are 6 times more likly to get a roll with at least 3 6s so that brings us back to 1 in 216 of getting 6,6,6,x now also the x can come up in the anmy of the dies, so 6,6,6,X ; 6,6,x,6; 6,x,6,6; x,6,6,6 are all valid permutations that will give us a roll with 3 6s in it... so this makes it about 4 times more likly bringing it to 1 in 54 chance of getting an 18 on 4D6 drop lowest. given this we can do 1-(1-p)^n and get about a 10.6%(1 in 9.4) chance to have a character with an 18 now to get another 18 we multiply the chance to get 1 18 by the chance of getting an 18 in the other 5 dice, that works out to about 1%(1 in 105) and continuing this fuzzy math the chance to get 3 18s would be about 0.07%(1 in 1466) and 4 18s would be about 0.004% (1 in 27,000) and 5 18s would be about 0.0001% (1 in 730,000) and 6 18s would be about 0.000005% (1 in 40,000,000) Now, I made some fuzzy leaps, and I don't claim this to be 100% correct, I am sure we have beter mathematicians than me around here to corraborate the numbers. Note I found someone that did a computer model rolling 4D6 drop lowest 100,000 times saying that the chance of an 18 on a single roll was 1.6%, using my math I came up with 1.85% on a single roll, I was unable to find anyone that was willing to actually do the math to determine the odds, but meh. OMG I am such moron I did it all wrong, it just struck me, lol Chacne of getting an 18 on 4D6 drop lowest there are 1296 combinations We have 6 discrete combinations that yield (x666) we have 5 that yield (66x6) we have 5 that yield (666x) we have 5 that yield (6x66) this gives us 21 out of 1296 or 1.6% for an 18 on 4D6 drop lowest so chance of at least one 18 for a character is 9.3%(1 in 10.7) 2 18s .73%(1 in 137) 3 18s .046%(1 in 2200) 4 18s .002%( 1 in 45000) 5 18s .00007%(1 in 1,400,000) 6 18s .0000012%(1 in 86,652,760) Sorry about the mix up and wrong math
BoringInfoGuy 12-20-06, 04:39 PM	Okay, but do you all (mightyix, BIG, and CR) at least agree that it is a matter of flavor and choice, and that neither one is objectively better than the other? Depending on your answer, you may ruin my christmas:( While I have stated a STRONG preference for rolling stats, you may have noticed that I have also pointed out where PB makes more sense. I find that rolling for ability scores is more enjoyable, and inspires more interesting characters for me. Others find that they enjoy point buy more, and they find that lets them create character concepts they enjoy playing. So it is a matter of flavor and choice. Merry Christmas.
boozerker 12-20-06, 05:03 PM	<snippety> so this makes it about 4 times more likly bringing it to 1 in 54 chance of getting an 18 on 4D6 drop lowest. given this we can do 1-(1-p)^n and get about a 10.6%(1 in 9.4) chance to have a character with an 18 now to get another 18 we multiply the chance to get 1 18 by the chance of getting an 18 in the other 5 dice, that works out to about 1%(1 in 105) and continuing this fuzzy math the chance to get 3 18s would be about 0.07%(1 in 1466) and 4 18s would be about 0.004% (1 in 27,000) and 5 18s would be about 0.0001% (1 in 730,000) and 6 18s would be about 0.000005% (1 in 40,000,000) Now, I made some fuzzy leaps, and I don't claim this to be 100% correct, I am sure we have beter mathematicians than me around here to corraborate the numbers. Note I found someone that did a computer model rolling 4D6 drop lowest 100,000 times saying that the chance of an 18 on a single roll was 1.6%, using my math I came up with 1.85% on a single roll, I was unable to find anyone that was willing to actually do the math to determine the odds, but meh. Nice! Damn, one'd think finding a calculator on the internet (or someone who already posted the chances for all numbers) would be easy. (Judging from the odds involved, few groups will see a rolled PC hogging the spotlight)
Falln 12-20-06, 05:18 PM	We started by rolling the stats (12 years ago :-p ) But soon made our own system of point buying. The problem with rolling was the fact that players sometimes felt bad with a bad character. While other got extremely lucky. The bad "characters" were happy when their character died so they took very high risks with the characters. While the players with "good" characters wanted to play the characters as long as possible. The system we made was the following (2nd ed) place a 15 - 14 - 13 - 12 - 11 - 10, then you can add 1 to a stat IF you lower an other stat with 2 and add a 2 to one stat IF you lower an other stat with 4. One stat could never be taken twice. The characters made with this were better than the ones we got with the 4d6 system. The downside is we never got characters with an 18 in a stat anymore (but noone complained)
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 05:25 PM	Thanks. I'll go tell ma and pa to return my presents to the north pole.:weep: BTW: Sim_Antix, when you say 'true powergamer', do you mean min/maxer or munchkin? I mean both. Anyone interested in getting the most out of their character would not mind PB in the least since a characters power is all relative to the other PCs and any min/maxer or munchkin will be ahead of the pack with PB whereas they might not be with rolling thus ruining their power gaming fun.
Wopple 12-20-06, 06:26 PM	As I am sure we know, anecdotal evidence is the WORST kind, as it is always biased. (Don't get your friends together and ask them all who they know that does this and that, and then assume that to be the true average, no matter how large your sample size). Nonwithstanding.... all the Munchkins I know prefer Point Buy (with the exception of computer gen'd and away-from-dm rolled stats, where they can lie or re-click when the dm is not looking.) Imagine a munchkin who finds himself stuck with a 4 and a 10. He would crasterbate for like 5 days.
theotherdraxen 12-20-06, 06:28 PM	As I am sure we know, anecdotal evidence is the WORST kind, as it is always biased. (Don't get your friends together and ask them all who they know that does this and that, and then assume that to be the true average, no matter how large your sample size). Nonwithstanding.... all the Munchkins I know prefer Point Buy (with the exception of computer gen'd and away-from-dm rolled stats, where they can lie or re-click when the dm is not looking.) Imagine a munchkin who finds himself stuck with a 4 and a 10. He would crasterbate for like 5 days. All the Munchkins I know prefer rolling, but as I said before, thats cause they don't quite munchkin as well as they could. They're good for people that've never seen the CharOp board.
Wopple 12-20-06, 08:14 PM	Is the point buy system in DMG2, UA, or some other splat book? I am having trouble even finding the exact rules (I am very aware of the idea but have never done it, so not sure about them)
theotherdraxen 12-20-06, 09:33 PM	DMG pg 169.
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 09:44 PM	DMG pg 169. Pro Point Buy activists hate when you bring up the fact that rolling is still the standard method of character generation and Point Buy is a variant. And just because it is in the DMG doesn't make it any less of a variant.
theotherdraxen 12-20-06, 09:54 PM	Who said it wasn't a variant?
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 10:09 PM	Who said it wasn't a variant? Nobody yet in this thread, I was just stating a fact.
Lethanic 12-20-06, 10:12 PM	Pro Point Buy activists hate when you bring up the fact that rolling is still the standard method of character generation and Point Buy is a variant. And just because it is in the DMG doesn't make it any less of a variant. ANd how is this in ANY WAY relevant to the topic of the thread?
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 10:17 PM	ANd how is this in ANY WAY relevant to the topic of the thread? Because no matter how much some people like PB it is still a variant and therefor everyone should know that rolling is still the standard way of generating a character and should not feel "wrong" for doing so, no matter how much some pro PB posters want to make them feel that it is "unbalanced"
Lethanic 12-20-06, 10:19 PM	Because no matter how much some people like PB it is still a variant and therefor everyone should know that rolling is still the standard way of generating a character and should not feel "wrong" for doing so, no matter how much some pro PB posters want to make them feel that it is "unbalanced" THe fact that it is 'standard' has NO relevance whatsoever in a discussion of its balance, parity or other benefits and penalties. Its more an attempt to dodge the question and provide yourself a 'default win' without having to actually prove anything.
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 10:22 PM	THe fact that it is 'standard' has NO relevance whatsoever in a discussion of its balance, parity or other benefits and penalties. Its more an attempt to dodge the question and provide yourself a 'default win' without having to actually prove anything. Wrong. It is pointing out the fact that if point buy is so much better than rolling then why isn't it the standard? Because it is not clearly better. It is preferrable to some in some situations but not enough to change the way the game has been played for the last 30+ years.
Lethanic 12-20-06, 10:27 PM	Wrong. It is pointing out the fact that if point buy is so much better than rolling then why isn't it the standard? Because it is not clearly better. It is preferrable to some in some situations but not enough to change the way the game has been played for the last 30+ years. THe fact that somethign was picked as standard does not have any bearing on its superiority. You are making an "Argument to authority" which again, has no logical or factual bearing on the argument whatsoever and is an attempt to provide yourself a 'default win' without proving anything. . A: "The designers chose it as the default" B: "THey are the designers" C: "THerefore its better" One could easily argue that most subsequent designers of games went AWAY from rolling. If rolling was as self evidentially superiour as you seem to claim, why isn't it copied by new systems?
theotherdraxen 12-20-06, 10:28 PM	Wrong. It is pointing out the fact that if point buy is so much better than rolling then why isn't it the standard? Because it is not clearly better. It is preferrable to some in some situations but not enough to change the way the game has been played for the last 30+ years. These are my beliefs: Games have changed. Even when 3.5 came out, you could still see some of the 'old philosophy' that being a strong warrior meant taking levels in the fighter class, that being tough meant taking the toughness feat, ect. Spellcasters were supposed to be more powerful than warrior-types at high-levels, and weak at low levels. People want different things. It hasn't changed over the last 30+ years because the audience preferred it that way. If the audience wanted a pink bunny on every one hundred and elventh page of every book produced by Wizards, you can damn well bet there would be a pink bunny on every one hundred and eleventh page. New audience has new expectations. I'm not saying that point buy is going to be the norm in 4.0: in fact, I think that tradition will carry on. However, I do believe that point-buy will make its way closer to the front of the Dungeon Masters Guide, and possibly into the Players Handbook.
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 10:28 PM	One could easily argue that most subsequent designers of games went AWAY from rolling. If rolling was as self evidentially superiour as you seem to claim, why isn't it copied by new systems? Because other games suck :D ;)
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 10:30 PM	These are my beliefs: Games have changed. Even when 3.5 came out, you could still see some of the 'old philosophy' that being a strong warrior meant taking levels in the fighter class, that being tough meant taking the toughness feat, ect. Spellcasters were supposed to be more powerful than warrior-types at high-levels, and weak at low levels. People want different things. It hasn't changed over the last 30+ years because the audience preferred it that way. If the audience wanted a pink bunny on every one hundred and elventh page of every book produced by Wizards, you can damn well bet there would be a pink bunny on every one hundred and eleventh page. New audience has new expectations. I'm not saying that point buy is going to be the norm in 4.0: in fact, I think that tradition will carry on. However, I do believe that point-buy will make its way closer to the front of the Dungeon Masters Guide, and possibly into the Players Handbook. Well put and I agree completely. I have no problem with PB being a co-standard whatsoever, I just hate how the pro pb crowd always tries to prove how bad rolling is and how it should just be PB always and forever :rolleyes:
Lethanic 12-20-06, 10:32 PM	Because other games suck :D ;) Here, at least, I wasn't actually making ANY argument about quality, just pointing out that YOUR latest argument was utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. There is now a law that farting is punishable by lethal injection!" "Geez! What a bad law! WOuldn't some social ostracism be better?" "BUt it must be a better solution! After all, it IS the law!"
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 10:35 PM	Here, at least, I wasn't actually making ANY argument about quality, just pointing out that YOUR latest argument was utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. There is now a law that farting is punishable by lethal injection!" "Geez! What a bad law! WOuldn't some social ostracism be better?" "BUt it must be a better solution! After all, it IS the law!" Actually its not a "new law" its a foundation for the way the game has been played since oh I dont know DAY ONE
Lethanic 12-20-06, 10:35 PM	Well put and I agree completely. I have no problem with PB being a co-standard whatsoever, I just hate how the pro pb crowd always tries to prove how bad rolling is and how it should just be PB always and forever :rolleyes: Not actuall6y my argument,. MIne started when some people made the claims that somehow rolling was MORE balanced than point buy. Had a problem there. I wouldn't take rolling out of the book whatsoever. I would actually put it as the optional, and put the point buy. whicyh is more what the power level is stested around, as a standard. ..or. . . .just have a list of options , have none of them 'standard' and list some pros and cons of each. ]
Lethanic 12-20-06, 10:36 PM	Actually its not a "new law" its a foundation for the way the game has been played since oh I dont know DAY ONE FIne "Well, it SAYS eye for an eye! ANd that Adulturers should be stoned! It was in the original guidebook! THerefore its BETTER!:"
Lethanic 12-20-06, 10:38 PM	ANd on a seperate note, just because its traditional doesn't have any bearing on if its better or not. If it had been done that way for 5,000 years, it would have NO bearing on if its better or not.
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 10:41 PM	Not actuall6y my argument,. MIne started when some people made the claims that somehow rolling was MORE balanced than point buy. Had a problem there. I wouldn't take rolling out of the book whatsoever. I would actually put it as the optional, and put the point buy. whicyh is more what the power level is stested around, as a standard. ..or. . . .just have a list of options , have none of them 'standard' and list some pros and cons of each. ] Exactly my point and why I brought up the fact that PB is not standard for a reason FIne "Well, it SAYS eye for an eye! ANd that Adulturers should be stoned! It was in the original guidebook! THerefore its BETTER!:" No argument here. No bible thumper am I but if people were held to higher standards perhaps the world would not be in such a sorry state right now. Thieves should have their fingers, then hands cut off if they get caught twice. Sexual deviants should be stoned.
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 10:42 PM	ANd on a seperate note, just because its traditional doesn't have any bearing on if its better or not. If it had been done that way for 5,000 years, it would have NO bearing on if its better or not. And yet if PB were so much better wouldn't they have replaced rolling right along with Thac0 and decreasing AC?
Lethanic 12-20-06, 10:44 PM	Exactly my point and why I brought up the fact that PB is not standard for a reason No argument here. No bible thumper am I but if people were held to higher standards perhaps the world would not be in such a sorry state right now. Thieves should have their fingers, then hands cut off if they get caught twice. Sexual deviants should be stoned. Put ROLLING as optional. THe game was tested with "Elite array". IN essence .. . a point buy. A note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 10:46 PM	Put ROLLING as optional. THe game was tested with "Elite array". IN essence .. . a point buy. A note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority Elite Array is not a PB though a comparisson can be drawn in as much as every character will have roughly the same distribution of scores, one of the main reasons why those that prefer rolling dont like PB.
Lethanic 12-20-06, 10:53 PM	Elite Array is not a PB though a comparisson can be drawn in as much as every character will have roughly the same distribution of scores, one of the main reasons why those that prefer rolling dont like PB. Regardless, making the method you tested with the standard makes more sense than testing it with one method and making another standard. At any rate. .the other arguments you made are STILL irrelevant. HIstorical use has no impact whatsoever on utility, and is not an argument. Tradition does not make right. FOr most of history medicine and doctors did not use sterile practices. THat doesn't make their methods better. Note that this, right now, isn't even an argument about which is better, its just arguing against a style of argument I find particularly annoying - which is the attempt to sidestep a question by making irrelevant points or by answering a question not asked - the "Stormwind Fallacy" is another example.
Lethanic 12-20-06, 10:58 PM	ps: I don't despise rolling. I just don't like using it in my games for character generation. I have played in rolled games I enjoy. I can't say for certain that not rolling woudl have improved them> Nonetheless, as a whole, I will prefer the point buy as my means of character creation.
Sim_antix 12-20-06, 11:40 PM	ps: I don't despise rolling. I just don't like using it in my games for character generation. I have played in rolled games I enjoy. I can't say for certain that not rolling woudl have improved them> Nonetheless, as a whole, I will prefer the point buy as my means of character creation. And because you prefer it you think that it should be standard so that everyone else is forced to conform with what you prefer?
Doc225 12-20-06, 11:44 PM	One thing I have noticed of people that I know is this. "Point buyers" that I know like it because there is no chance at low stats unless you want it to be low. Point buyers like the "balance" and the fact that they'd rather have al decent scores than a chance at alot of low ones. "Die rollers" that I know don't worry about low rolls, because they have a chance for high rolls, and realize that past a certain level your ability scores don't mean as much as your ranks, BAB, etc. They'd rather have the chance for the high rolls instead of the assurance to have no lows. There are powergaming minmaxers in both groups. For everyone who says "die rollers are all powergamers," go over to the Character Optimization boards and see how many "builds*" require you to roll a certain way or have a certain point buy. I'm pretty sure they all do their "builds*" using PB 25. * I hate the term "builds." IMO Characters should be more than the numbers on the page. Alot of people who worry about their "builds" tend to not care about integrating themselves into the game and the gameworld. They care more about what numbers they get instead of letting their character grow and react to the game wold around them. I find it kind of annoying.
a_psh 12-21-06, 12:22 AM	Hey, you, powergamer. You get a 28 point point buy. Good luck with your ability to have 16s in more than one ability score without sucking everywhere else.Definitional assumption: a 'powergamer' is someone who seeks to achieve the "best" possible result through system mastery. He may ruleslawyer and split hairs, but he doesn't cheat -- that invalidates the point of mastery; when he triumphs, it's his skill and deep knowledge of the system that bring him there. This is how people use the phrase most commonly and coherently on the boards, so that's the term I'm sticking to. With that definition in mind, a devoted powergamer should, indeed, be prefering point-buy. Because he doesn't need tons and tons of 16s and 18s to win. He just needs a fair shot and a consistent set of rules. His whole shtick is being able to take what would otherwise be an average character and make him awesome... why should he risk having a totally gimptastic character just because there's a chance of getting an extra leg up that the powergamer doesn't actually need? If we're really just talking about someone who wants to redefine the rules and cheat a lot (which is not a "powergamer" anymore), then the method with the least accountability is preferable. Which, if we're talking PB-vs-rolling would be rolling just because nobody can really audit your character after-the-fact. But that only works if you can cheat the rolls, anyway. And if that's a big deal in your group, you've got a lot of other issues to work out, anyway.
TarlSS 12-21-06, 12:38 AM	The long and the short of it? Dice means someone can get screwed, someone cannot. You're already throwing the game off kilter from the beginning of the game. Set numbers mean none of this happens, ever. "Cookie Cutter Character Statistics" is rarely a problem in any campaign, whereas the "His character rolled much higher than ours" is always an issue. Hell, I've yet to see when anyone complained about problems that have arisen from Point Distribution style systems at all.
Kulthos 12-21-06, 12:48 AM	D&D has been migrating towards GURPS and the Hero system, and that is a good thing. The point buy for stats and replacing stupidity like "Save vs. Petrification" with will, fort, and reflex saves and adding variable DCs for spells and effects were huge improvements. I give players the option between a 32 point buy and the 4d6 method. I have to look away a lot when people roll really awful scores, however. At some point they will fix the class system, which has become a real mess.
BoringInfoGuy 12-21-06, 01:04 AM	OMG I am such moron I did it all wrong, it just struck me, lol Chacne of getting an 18 on 4D6 drop lowest there are 1296 combinations We have 6 discrete combinations that yield (x666) we have 5 that yield (66x6) we have 5 that yield (666x) we have 5 that yield (6x66) this gives us 21 out of 1296 or 1.6% for an 18 on 4D6 drop lowest Right, that is what I figured for the odds for getting a single 18. But instead of working it out by math, I imagened a table in my head. (No, I can't have all 1296 combinations worked out in my head. But I can have the shape of it.) Imagine all the combinations laid out from highest to lowest, with the result to the side. 1,1,1,1 = 3 1,1,1,2 = 4 1,1,1,3 = 5 1,1,1,4 = 6 1,1,1,5 = 7 1,1,1,6 = 8 1,1,2,1 = 4 1,1,2,2 = 5 etc till you get to 1,6,6,5 = 17 1,6,6,6 = 18 2,1,1,1 = 4 etc to 2,6,6,5 = 17 2,6,6,6 = 18 3,1,1,1 = 5 etc 3,6,6,6 = 18 etc 4,6,6,6 = 18 ect 5,6,6,6 = 18 6,1,6,6 = 18 6,2,6,6 = 18 6,3,6,6 = 18 6,4,6,6 = 18 6,5,6,6 = 18 6,6,1,6 = 18 6,6,6,1 = 18 6,6,6,6 = 18 x,6,6,6 = 18 6,x,6,6 = 18 6,6,x,6 = 18 6,6,6,x = 18 BTW, this is completely the same result as Starfire311. I only bothered to work it out becuase I was having trouble imagining which order the x's would appear in. (It's been bothering me). Has for how I came up with the chance of rolling a 3: Out of all 1296 combinations, only 1,1,1,1 can get you a result of 3. 0.07 percent. I find that the drop lowest part of the method screws up the math. so chance of at least one 18 for a character is 9.3%(1 in 10.7) 2 18s .73%(1 in 137) 3 18s .046%(1 in 2200) 4 18s .002%( 1 in 45000) 5 18s .00007%(1 in 1,400,000) 6 18s .0000012%(1 in 86,652,760) Sorry about the mix up and wrong math I'll be honest, I can't verify or disprove the odds of getting 18's. Can't wrap my head around it. Yet. But I've been working on it. Dang drop lowest complications. Now, if I'm not mistaken - and I could be - the odds of rolling all 3's is 1 in (6 to the 24th power). Or, to put it another way. 6 3s .000000000000000021%(1 in 4,738,381,338,321,616,896) For the curious, that would be 1 in 4.7 quintillion. Even if I'm off, the chances of rolling all 3's must be lower than the chance of rolling all 18's. Keep in mind the reroll rules. The minimum stats have at least a 14 for the lowest stat, and a minimum modifier of +1. So I have to wonder, what are the odds of rolling a character that has a score of 3 that is still a still above the re roll minimums? How about with two 3's? You can't have three 3's, because the -12 modifier would balance out with even three 18's +12 modifier. I'm also tempted to plot out the entire 1296 combinations, with a running tally on how many combinations can give each number between 3 and 18. 3 = 1 out of 1296. 4 = 4 out of 1296. (1,1,1,2 / 1,1,2,1 / 1,2,1,1 / 2,1,1,1 btw) 5 = x out of 1296. 6 = x out of 1296. etc 18 = 21 out of 1296.
BoringInfoGuy 12-21-06, 01:49 AM	Disclaimer: this applies to my group, it may or may not apply to yours, so please don't trash talk me or my group based on my comments I've been thinking about this thread for a while, and I have come to a realization about my group. I have noticed that in our group, everyone is "keeping up with the joneses." None of my players will make a character that (in their opinion) has a sub-par race/class combo, or a different fighting style, or anything similar. They all look at those 28-32 points and try to squeeze as much out of them as they can. No half-orc rogues or Gnome fighters in my game. They don't see the point in playing them. However.. I know for sure that one of my players wants to play a half-orc rogue, and another a gnome fighter. They don't though, because they kthink that they will lag behind everyone else by picking a race and close that don't click as well. We end up with more humans than anything, which isn't bad, but they only do it because they don't want to give up the feat or skill points. NOBODY WANTS TO BE THE WEAK LINK. I know for sure if I had them roll, and everyone rolled 16,14,13,12,11,10 except the guy who wants the half orc, and he rolled 18,18,16,15,14,14... that he would make his half-orc rogue, because he would put his 18's in Int and Cha, one of his 14's in str, and he wouldn't be the weak link. We would then have an interesting character, a half orc running around in light armor suprising everyone with his charm and wit.... I'd love it! Sure, he could play that character with PB 28, but I know he wouldn't, bacause of what everyone else would do with their characters. It seems that in my group, point buy actually limits creativity. It also tend to cause alot of indecision when deciding on characters. I know if one guy rolls 18 14 14 13 10 8, he'd play something like a fighter or wizard. Someone who rolls 16 16 16 15 14 14 will probably play somethiing like a monk or bard or rogue. They would lok at their rolls and make characters based on how they could arrange those rolls, instead of testing 12 different point buy arrays and 10 race/class combos, only to settle on the same human cleric build that one of the other guys played before the last TPK. I'm SERIOUSLY considering going back to rolling for the next time around, just to see what kind of variety pops up. One of our players still says his favorite character was the one he made years ago in 3.0 when we still rolled for stats. He had the lowest stats in the group by quite a bit, but he played him as a shifty little opportunist rogue, who made tried to make the best of everything and ended up being the hero in quite a few situations. It could be fun for someone to play "that guy." The sidekick who steals the show from time to time... BTW, I really wanted to comment on this post. (Now that I'm done having fun with probability). For every one who's said that this is all a matter of opinion, and there is no point in discussing it, pay close opinion to this part I've been thinking about this thread for a while, and I have come to a realization about my group. No, Cantankerous, CharlieRock, or I am not likely to change our views due to this thread. (Or in Cantankerous's part, change back). Die Hard's on any issue rarely change thier minds. Doc225 looked, and saw that some of the problems we've stated about PB was true for his group. So now he is considering going with rolled stats again. Someone else who rolls for stats may be reading this, and decide that his group is having problems with balance and spot light issues, and try PB his next game. I used to wonder why the PB seemed set so low. It's easy to roll stats that are "better" than the PB totals in the DMG. Then [someone] pointed out earlier that the differerance in points is the trade off you get from PB's ability to place your points exactly where you want. That makes sense. I still perfer rolling, but now I have a wider understanding
Lethanic 12-21-06, 05:28 AM	And because you prefer it you think that it should be standard so that everyone else is forced to conform with what you prefer? No. Because its what the game is balanced around . Or, as I said, all optional. But you fall prey to the fallacy of thinking 'its standard and is in the players handbook, therefore it muc st be 'superiour'. Just want to knock you off that pedestal.]
Lethanic 12-21-06, 05:30 AM	Right, that is what I figured for the odds for getting a single 18. But instead of working it out by math, I imagened a table in my head. (No, I can't have all 1296 combinations worked out in my head. But I can have the shape of it.) Imagine all the combinations laid out from highest to lowest, with the result to the side. 1,1,1,1 = 3 1,1,1,2 = 4 1,1,1,3 = 5 1,1,1,4 = 6 1,1,1,5 = 7 1,1,1,6 = 8 1,1,2,1 = 4 1,1,2,2 = 5 etc till you get to 1,6,6,5 = 17 1,6,6,6 = 18 2,1,1,1 = 4 etc to 2,6,6,5 = 17 2,6,6,6 = 18 3,1,1,1 = 5 etc 3,6,6,6 = 18 etc 4,6,6,6 = 18 ect 5,6,6,6 = 18 6,1,6,6 = 18 6,2,6,6 = 18 6,3,6,6 = 18 6,4,6,6 = 18 6,5,6,6 = 18 6,6,1,6 = 18 6,6,6,1 = 18 6,6,6,6 = 18 x,6,6,6 = 18 6,x,6,6 = 18 6,6,x,6 = 18 6,6,6,x = 18 BTW, this is completely the same result as Starfire311. I only bothered to work it out becuase I was having trouble imagining which order the x's would appear in. (It's been bothering me). Has for how I came up with the chance of rolling a 3: Out of all 1296 combinations, only 1,1,1,1 can get you a result of 3. 0.07 percent. I find that the drop lowest part of the method screws up the math. I'll be honest, I can't verify or disprove the odds of getting 18's. Can't wrap my head around it. Yet. But I've been working on it. Dang drop lowest complications. Now, if I'm not mistaken - and I could be - the odds of rolling all 3's is 1 in (6 to the 24th power). Or, to put it another way. 6 3s .000000000000000021%(1 in 4,738,381,338,321,616,896) For the curious, that would be 1 in 4.7 quintillion. Even if I'm off, the chances of rolling all 3's must be lower than the chance of rolling all 18's. Keep in mind the reroll rules. The minimum stats have at least a 14 for the lowest stat, and a minimum modifier of +1. So I have to wonder, what are the odds of rolling a character that has a score of 3 that is still a still above the re roll minimums? How about with two 3's? You can't have three 3's, because the -12 modifier would balance out with even three 18's +12 modifier. I'm also tempted to plot out the entire 1296 combinations, with a running tally on how many combinations can give each number between 3 and 18. 3 = 1 out of 1296. 4 = 4 out of 1296. (1,1,1,2 / 1,1,2,1 / 1,2,1,1 / 2,1,1,1 btw) 5 = x out of 1296. 6 = x out of 1296. etc 18 = 21 out of 1296. Its funny, but however low the odds of getting one or two eighteens, it seems to happen awfully disproportionately when rolling. . ]
Lethanic 12-21-06, 05:38 AM	One thing I have noticed of people that I know is this. "Point buyers" that I know like it because there is no chance at low stats unless you want it to be low. Point buyers like the "balance" and the fact that they'd rather have al decent scores than a chance at alot of low ones. "Die rollers" that I know don't worry about low rolls, because they have a chance for high rolls, and realize that past a certain level your ability scores don't mean as much as your ranks, BAB, etc. They'd rather have the chance for the high rolls instead of the assurance to have no lows. There are powergaming minmaxers in both groups. For everyone who says "die rollers are all powergamers," go over to the Character Optimization boards and see how many "builds*" require you to roll a certain way or have a certain point buy. I'm pretty sure they all do their "builds*" using PB 25. * I hate the term "builds." IMO Characters should be more than the numbers on the page. Alot of people who worry about their "builds" tend to not care about integrating themselves into the game and the gameworld. They care more about what numbers they get instead of letting their character grow and react to the game wold around them. I find it kind of annoying. As a player. .MY character has an image in my mind - I don't like having to warp that image out of shape because a random chunk of plastic says somethign other than that image. times I like haveing a stat low, and yes, I will lower a stat below eight even without gaining an additional benefit. (I know,. SOmewhere and optimizer or powergamer just keeled over in a seizure) MY character concepts start flowing from the moment I see the game world.
starfire311 12-21-06, 08:58 AM	Its funny, but however low the odds of getting one or two eighteens, it seems to happen awfully disproportionately when rolling. . ] it has to do with all the re-rolling and safety nets, most sets of stats that get re-rolled do not include an 18, so if you are in say a group of 6 and 2 people roll bad enough to reroll, then you have 8 sets of stats rolled, giving the group a chance of almost 55% that there is at least 1 18 in the group, the chance of 1 person in this group getting 2 18s is upto 6% while the reroll/safty drastically increase the chance of 18s, they really reduce the chance of 3s, so while random stat advocates will claim that they are risking the chacne at bad stats by rolling, this really isnt true, there is no risk at true awful stats and the worst possible array is what 14,10,10,10,10,8(this is in a standard game it has already been mentioned that many people that use random stats allow rerolls easier) which has probably about the same odds of happening as rolling 4 18s, I may actually do the math sometime, but I think it is a close guess. So what random stats are really wagering is the chance to get slightly above average stats vs the chance to get unbelievable stats
archcomponent 12-21-06, 11:20 AM	As a player. .MY character has an image in my mind - I don't like having to warp that image out of shape because a random chunk of plastic says somethign other than that image. I think it is about time someone came out and said it. Using rolled abilities is the same as announcing that you care about dice more than roleplaying and concept.
starfire311 12-21-06, 11:46 AM	I think it is about time someone came out and said it. Using rolled abilities is the same as announcing that you care about dice more than roleplaying and concept. I dont know if I would go that far, generally I like to create my concept independant of mechanics, then find the mechanics to back it. With rolling your concept is dependant on the rolls you get.
Man in the Funny Hat 12-21-06, 02:02 PM	Its funny, but however low the odds of getting one or two eighteens, it seems to happen awfully disproportionately when rolling.Racial adjustment bumps a lot of 16+ to 18+. Also, though this is purely anecdotal, when rolling you naturally get a lot of sets of stats that just don't look good at a glance, especially to grognards like me who were trained by earlier editions to really REALLY want those higher scores of 15+ because that's what was needed to get bonuses at ALL. It's my experience that even aside from minimum reroll thresholds, DM's will just eyeball it and often just allow rerolls as a matter of course (I do...), which again improves odds of seeing higher scores or at least more appealing point spreads on the resulting characters.
Wopple 12-21-06, 02:49 PM	IMPORTANT NOTE ON THE ISSUE Sorry about that, but I feel this is a somewhat important post and wanted it to stand out. I did a program which simulates the roll 4, drop lowest score thing. It then makes 6 scores in this way, and it drops them, as per the PHB, if the total mods are 0 or less, or if the highest score is 13 or less. it then calculates the point buy value of the stats. I had it simulate 10,000,000 character generations. TEN MILLION. with that number, chance falls due to the probability. I did the 10 million trials a few seperate times, and got the exact same results (with insignifigant variation) every time. First, if you consider scored under 8 to be worth 0 points (which is of course unfair, a 4 is much worse than an 8, but anyways) you get 27. To be more exact, 27.000 (+/- .001). If you, however, consider them to be negative, for example 7 is -1, 3 is -5, etc, this drops to 26.60 (+/- .01). If you take this further, considering a 3 to be just as bad as a +18 is (they do have equal and opposite bonuses, after all), then 4 to be as bad as a 17 is good, etc etc, you get this: 26.27 (+/- .005) Since the low numbers are pretty rare due to the re-roll rule, they don't change too much. But at any rate, you'll see this CRAZY rigged thing is basically exactly equal to Point Buy on average, and I think we can all agree that the 2 points you get extra on average are more than balanced out by not being able to choose where to place those points, and having to stick with your roll for whichever stat you pick. Hope this helps people who think rolling is overpowered gain a little perspective. EDIT: By the way, the chances of getting dual 18's on your character roll is about .38% (it'll happen 38 times in every 10,000) and the chance of getting just one 18 in your stats somewhere is 9.24% (according to my thingie). I think the discrepancy has something to do with the dropping of stats. You forget that all scores with a net bonus of 0 or less will be dropped (Tho, I suppose the player COULD keep them), so if you had say 3, 3, 10, 10, 18, 18, that would NOT count as one of them, tho I suppose a player could keep that character, odd as it would be. Edit edit: also, for 3 18's, I got 8.48E-5, much smaller than yours. I think you are combining the probability of getting multiple 18's incorrectly or something.
Keldir 12-21-06, 03:14 PM	My personal experience with random rolling are that people usually fudge rolls, or I feel bad when their scores are low and let them reroll. It don't mind seeing player's miss to hit rolls, because there is another roll next round that they can try again. A poor roll on ability scores or hit points can make a character hard to play. I utilize a 28 point buy system for stats, I give max HP at first level, and one half of hit dice+1 per level of advancement. For monsters, even unique NPC's I don't use the point buy I just go with elite arrays out of the book, because no matter how cool I want an NPC to be, it should never be cooler than my PC's. A lot of people give their PC's anywhere from 32 to 39 points for stat buy, and they wonder why there isn't a natural party cohesion, or why they need to work so hard to craft encounters. If everyone has an 18 in every stat, there isn't that much of a detriment to multi-classing. There is a lot less specializing, and less of a reason to do so. In my campaign you can get a 16 or 18, but to have the rest of your stats be decent you're going to have a bad one. Players tend to have an achille's heel or weakness. A lot of my players have low charisma, or wisdom, except for the bards and clerics, who are that much more appreciated for shoring up the weaknesses of the team. The higher your stats are, the less likely your team is to utilize teamwork to shore up weaknesses. If you are modifying the stats on every single monster and encounter to keep up with your overpowered PC's, how much less time are you devoting to other aspects of the encounter? How much of your overall time is being wasted? I've played with DM's that take a lot more time adjusting XP and stats for encounters to keep the level pace comfortable for them when the easy answer was to normalize stats.
wrecan 12-21-06, 03:20 PM	IMPORTANT NOTE ON THE ISSUE Wow. I'm only returning to this thread briefly and only to thank Wopple for this effort. This really does answer a lot of questions about stats. I was wondering if there is any way you could calculate a "standard deviation" for these rolls, such that we could know what an expected differential in stats would be. If four people used the PHB's standard rolling rules, what sort of discrepancy in scores could they expect? Two ability points? Four? None? By the way, I think this is worthy of being posted to Regdar's Repository.
starfire311 12-21-06, 03:43 PM	IMPORTANT NOTE ON THE ISSUE Thanks wopple, good stuff, and odds are I was calculating the chance of getting multiple 18s incorrectly, and as I mentioned, I was not taking into account if the generated array worked. Wow. I'm only returning to this thread briefly and only to thank Wopple for this effort. This really does answer a lot of questions about stats. I was wondering if there is any way you could calculate a "standard deviation" for these rolls, such that we could know what an expected differential in stats would be. If four people used the PHB's standard rolling rules, what sort of discrepancy in scores could they expect? Two ability points? Four? None? Yes wrecan it would be at least interesting to note at what point 25% of the rolled scores are lower, and at what point 25% are higher. IE are 25% of rolled scores 25 PB and lower and 25% of rolled scores 39 PB or higher? or even of the 10 million... how many came out to each point buy number 14-96. I know it would be a big chart but it would be very cool to see. so you can see the chance of rolling each PB.
Sphyre 12-21-06, 03:51 PM	By the way, I think this is worthy of being posted to Regdar's Repository. I thought it looked awfully similar to a thread already on Redgar's Repository with a little different emphasis.
wrecan 12-21-06, 04:00 PM	Ah, I had forgotten about that article. Thanks. So the standard deviation when rolling is about 8 points. Intriguing.
Olskool 12-21-06, 04:03 PM	Ah, I had forgotten about that article. Thanks. So the standard deviation when rolling is about 8 points. Intriguing. My god. If that's actually true... I'm gonna make my players roll stats instead of point buy from this moment on.
starfire311 12-21-06, 04:07 PM	Ah, I had forgotten about that article. Thanks. So the standard deviation when rolling is about 8 points. Intriguing. so, does that mean that you are likly to have a character with a PB 21 in the same group as a PB 37. Not sure how the std dev works in this case... IE I am not a mathematician or statistics major
wrecan 12-21-06, 04:34 PM	In practie it means that chances are the difference between each player's best stats is going to be 1 to 2 points.
Lethanic 12-21-06, 04:38 PM	In practie it means that chances are the difference between each player's best stats is going to be 1 to 2 points. Save that it doesn't happen in practice.
Dracon_Ian 12-21-06, 04:43 PM	In my view, as a DM, I believe that the dice-roll system will result in better and lower characters, but that's just the way people are born, some people are "born" intelligent. So it keeps it a little more life like, plus there is an option of re-rolls.
Dracon_Ian 12-21-06, 04:48 PM	Originally Posted by wrecan Ah, I had forgotten about that article. Thanks. So the standard deviation when rolling is about 8 points. Intriguing. Do you not know what standard deviation (SD) means?? It mean that in a normal distribution curve, that 65% of result will lay within 2 times the SD from either side of the mean, and that 90+%(not sure what but it's high) will lay within 3 times the SD of the mean. So if a mean is 12 (which in PHB it says it is) 65% of results will lay between -4 and 28. Not sure you got your facts right there, but maybe i am wrong (i will accept it if i am wrong).
Lethanic 12-21-06, 04:53 PM	In my view, as a DM, I believe that the dice-roll system will result in better and lower characters, but that's just the way people are born, some people are "born" intelligent. So it keeps it a little more life like, plus there is an option of re-rolls. LOwer? DIce rolling averages higher, not lower.
Sphyre 12-21-06, 04:57 PM	so, does that mean that you are likly to have a character with a PB 21 in the same group as a PB 37. Not sure how the std dev works in this case... IE I am not a mathematician or statistics major It's been at least 2 years since I took a statistics course, but from what i remember: Depending on the type of distribution, standard deviations can help you understand how likely something is to happen. I beleive on a normal bellcurve, you have 68.2% of the results will fall within one standard deviation of the mean. 95% of the results will fall within 2 standard deviations of the mean. 99.7% of results will fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean. (Someone correct me if my memory fails me on the numbers) Since it's lopsided, I don't quite remember how to interpret standard deviation on a non-normal distribution, but considering it's close to a normal we can know that it's not too far off. (or maybe it is? lol) Obviously, the smaller the standard deviation, the less variation in scores.
Sphyre 12-21-06, 05:07 PM	Do you not know what standard deviation (SD) means?? It mean that in a normal distribution curve, that 65% of result will lay within 2 times the SD from either side of the mean, and that 90+%(not sure what but it's high) will lay within 3 times the SD of the mean. So if a mean is 12 (which in PHB it says it is) 65% of results will lay between -4 and 28. Not sure you got your facts right there, but maybe i am wrong (i will accept it if i am wrong). I don't think he was claiming anything about standard deviations, just stating what it was. I looked it up on wikipedia and my numbers from my previous post are in congruence with wikipedia. It's not 2 times. For example the mean is 29 pointbuy with a standard deviation of 8, assuming the curve is normal (which it actually isn't) 68.2% of the rolled scores will end up being between 21 and 37 pointbuy. 95% of the rolled scores will end up being between 13 and 45 pointbuy. 97.2% of the rolled scores will be between 5 and 53 pointbuy.
a_psh 12-21-06, 05:15 PM	Do you not know what standard deviation (SD) means?? It mean that in a normal distribution curve, that 65% of result will lay within 2 times the SD from either side of the mean, and that 90+%(not sure what but it's high) will lay within 3 times the SD of the mean. So if a mean is 12 (which in PHB it says it is) 65% of results will lay between -4 and 28. Not sure you got your facts right there, but maybe i am wrong (i will accept it if i am wrong).RTFA, dude. It claims that the standard deviation of the point value of a set of rolled scores is 8.25 (and its mean is around 30). That's quite different from saying that the standard deviation of a single 4d6(keep3) roll is 8 (it's closer to 1, based on the data).
wrecan 12-21-06, 06:10 PM	I believe Sphyre has it right. Now, the curve is skewed towards higher numbers (thanks to dropping low dice and re-rollinn rules). That, generally, truncates the deviation. SO instead of 2/3 being within 21 and 37, 2/3 of the generated abilities will be somewhere between, say 24 and 37, which is still 13 point buy of difference, are probably 6-8 points in abilities (or an aggregate ability bonus differental of +3 - +4).
Wopple 12-21-06, 06:10 PM	I found the standard deviation to be about 8.2 "point buy points", using the system of 8 is 0, 7 is -1, 6 is -2, and so on linearly. So, assuming a normal curve, and I'll work later to see if we can, 68.2% of all scores rolled will be within 8.2 points of the average (26.6), and 95.4% will be within 2 standard deviations, so 95.4% will be within a 10.2 to 43 point buy range. You can tell this ins't an exact normal curve, because 10 is below the possibility of rolling, which is probably what messed up the curve in the first place (the re-roll drop off point). And of course that 68.2% will lie between 18.2 and 34.8. There is some math as can be done to figure out, using the standard deviation, how likly it is for someone to get a certain number of point buy points above or below a friend who rolled a particular score, but I have to go right now, anad my probability and statistics is rusty anyways... so have fun! ;)
starfire311 12-21-06, 06:11 PM	I don't think he was claiming anything about standard deviations, just stating what it was. I looked it up on wikipedia and my numbers from my previous post are in congruence with wikipedia. It's not 2 times. For example the mean is 29 pointbuy with a standard deviation of 8, assuming the curve is normal (which it actually isn't) 68.2% of the rolled scores will end up being between 21 and 37 pointbuy. 95% of the rolled scores will end up being between 13 and 45 pointbuy. 97.2% of the rolled scores will be between 5 and 53 pointbuy. I see, so looking at the jump from 95% to 97.2% the range goes from 13-45 to 5-53, it is safe to say that the entire 2.2% that is added is going to be added in the 48-53 side, since it is impossible to roll a PB equivalent between 5 and 12. so given this there would be about a 2.2%(for each player) chance of getting a PB in the range of 48-53, in a group of six this would not be unheard of, while there is a good chance, that no one else in the party will have above a 37, and also a decent chance someone will have a 21-29(aprox 34.1%, for each player) I just don't see it as fair for one person to have a 48-53 PB and another one to have a 21-29 in the same game. Yes I know it doesnt happen in every game, but there is a decent chance IMO.
theotherdraxen 12-21-06, 06:40 PM	Look, in either case, the DM is expected to play referee in assuring balance. When using dice, the DM isn't supposed to allow two players to end up with great desparity between their dice. When using PB, the DM is expected to look for overpowered/underpowered players and help them out. No matter what system you use, a munchkin will always be able to break it.
Olskool 12-21-06, 06:50 PM	Look, in either case, the DM is expected to play referee in assuring balance. When using dice, the DM isn't supposed to allow two players to end up with great desparity between their dice. Wrong. When using dice, the DM is supposed to sit back, shut up, and let the dice do their work.
Sim_antix 12-21-06, 06:51 PM	Wrong. When using dice, the DM is supposed to sit back, shut up, and let the dice do their work. Wrong. When using anything the DM is supposed to make the game fun and enjoyable for all, no matter what that entails.
Wopple 12-21-06, 07:25 PM	Wrong. When using anything the DM is supposed to make the game fun and enjoyable for all, no matter what that entails. Wrong. When using dice, the DM is supposed to sit back, shut up, and let the dice do their work. Wrong. The DM is supposed to do whichever he feels is best, and if his group has a problem with it, talk it over with them and come to a compromise. That is what is so weird about arguoing thi kind of stuff online: these arguments usualkly occur briefly and without anger between friends in a group.
theotherdraxen 12-21-06, 07:34 PM	Wrong. The DM is supposed to do whichever he feels is best, and if his group has a problem with it, talk it over with them and come to a compromise. That is what is so weird about arguoing thi kind of stuff online: these arguments usualkly occur briefly and without anger between friends in a group. Heh, all wrong. Jell_Moo principle. Can't tell other people how to play the game.
Sphyre 12-21-06, 07:49 PM	I see, so looking at the jump from 95% to 97.2% the range goes from 13-45 to 5-53, it is safe to say that the entire 2.2% that is added is going to be added in the 48-53 side, since it is impossible to roll a PB equivalent between 5 and 12. Well, you can look at it in a different light. "[approximately] 5% of all rolls will be 46+ pointbuy equivilent." Basically, you're saying to everyone when you roll up characters "roll a d20, if you roll a 20, you get to be 'overpowered'" I think by that light, you simply could say that since you can reroll scores that are too low, why not make people reroll scores that reach that 5% upper bound? I mean... if you care that they are that high. I just don't see it as fair for one person to have a 48-53 PB and another one to have a 21-29 in the same game. Yes I know it doesnt happen in every game, but there is a decent chance IMO. When I started playing back in 3e my group rolled. When someone rolled really high, or someone rolled really low, the DM arbitrarily changed some scores to even them out some, but this didn't happen that often. If you want to remove that arbitration, you can institute a pointbuy. That's one of the advantages of it. When I tried my hand at DMing for the first time, the way I tried to "offset" the imbalance was by making everyone's highest score an 18. This means if you rolled an 18 naturally, you gained nothing. If you didn't, it boosted you up. This was far from perfect (In hindsight, what if someone rolls all 14-17s, while another person rolls all 3 10s, 2 13s and a 14?), but it worked for that campaign, and everyone was happy. I currently have a different rolling system that is totally different, and it hasn't caused any unhappy players yet. The stats are quite varied and fun. It's partially controlled by pointbuy. The mean is much higher power, the minimum values are much more controlled, and it's harder to get consistently high scores, and you get a pointbuyish boosting system after you're done rolling to do with scores as you will if you saved points for it. By making it higher power, it means that those who have better scores have it by a lesser amount. By having it controlled, it's harder to get low scores. I could use pointbuy, but it's fun playing around with new ways to balance rolling without using pointbuy. I've actually rolled the equivilent of a 20 pointbuy in someone else's game, and it was my favorite character ever to play. He was still effective, and possibly more than others in the party simply based on how I chose to play him. So it's kind of obvious that I'm not all that concerned about balance of stats. The dice rolls inspired me to make a memorable character. Anyway... enough of my inane rambling. ;)
Wopple 12-21-06, 07:51 PM	Heh, all wrong. Jell_Moo principle. Can't tell other people how to play the game. Wrong. By saying I was wrong, you just told me how to NOT play it, which is telling me how to play it! Ah ha! Hoisted by your own petard!
starfire311 12-21-06, 07:56 PM	Wrong. By saying I was wrong, you just told me how to NOT play it, which is telling me how to play it! Ah ha! Hoisted by your own petard! actually he wasn't saying that your way was wrong, but you knew that, he was saying that you were wrong to tell someone else how they play is wrong.
Wopple 12-21-06, 08:00 PM	I see, so looking at the jump from 95% to 97.2% the range goes from 13-45 to 5-53, it is safe to say that the entire 2.2% that is added is going to be added in the 48-53 side, since it is impossible to roll a PB equivalent between 5 and 12. so given this there would be about a 2.2%(for each player) chance of getting a PB in the range of 48-53, in a group of six this would not be unheard of, while there is a good chance, that no one else in the party will have above a 37, and also a decent chance someone will have a 21-29(aprox 34.1%, for each player) I just don't see it as fair for one person to have a 48-53 PB and another one to have a 21-29 in the same game. Yes I know it doesnt happen in every game, but there is a decent chance IMO. That's just it. It dosen't matter to alot of us. I mean, what if you roll a wizard and then find yourself in a hack and slash game? What if you are a rogue and all the dungeons are straightforward? What if you're a Palidan and it's in Ravenloft? What if you roll all 1's for attacks? For hit dice? What if the DM randomly generates treasure and it always ends up being magic stuff you can't use. If you play enough, and roll everything like they say, and play a varied number of classes, everything evens out. The only way to take out "unfairness" is to make everyone the same class, force them to take the ssame skills, use the same weapons, take the same feats, and then have everyone "take 10" on every roll. A big part of rolling in D&D is to keep stuff interesting. Everyone has a diffrent breaking point on this, and I'll admit mine is pretty short. I think even point buying ruins alot of the game, as I can then say oh, this is my mage build, my cleric build, my pally build, etc. What forces me to change it? And if it's powerful, why should I? More or less points? Fine, I'll keep the ratios the same and distribute the points evenly. Rolling makes everything more interesting. Do alot of people WANT to play a wimpy, dwarfed character? No, but once "forced" to by the dice, alot of people like it. Also, most DMs don't allow great discrepancies. I think me or my friends, if something happened like an 18, 18, 18, 16, 12, 15 or something, would let that person keep it (why punish someone for rolling like that! That's once in a lifetime!) and give everyone else a freebe conversion - take one stat and make it an 18. That way it is still mostly balanced, and you don't jew someone out of their great roll. But remember, as someone said in.. maybe this, maybe another, thread, there is a GREAT alternative. Everyone rolls a stat set, including the dm. Then you take turns picking them until you are all set (the DM rolls one so there is more variaty, and no one gets stuck with the worst roll). THis allows for optimization and perfect balance. What do you say to that idea?
Wopple 12-21-06, 08:01 PM	actually he wasn't saying that your way was wrong, but you knew that, he was saying that you were wrong to tell someone else how they play is wrong. But what if telling others how to play is how I play! Ah ha! (and, as is obviosu to everyone including you, I was not too too serious)
theotherdraxen 12-21-06, 08:08 PM	Wrong. By saying I was wrong, you just told me how to NOT play it, which is telling me how to play it! Ah ha! Hoisted by your own petard! Well, actually, there is a wrong way to play (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10932289&postcount=14).
Wopple 12-21-06, 08:11 PM	Well, actually, there is a wrong way to play (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10932289&postcount=14). What if you all use the furries costumes, but don't have enough skill points to learn draconic?
starfire311 12-21-06, 08:59 PM	That's just it. It dosen't matter to alot of us. I mean, what if you roll a wizard and then find yourself in a hack and slash game? What if you are a rogue and all the dungeons are straightforward? What if you're a Palidan and it's in Ravenloft? What if you roll all 1's for attacks? For hit dice? What if the DM randomly generates treasure and it always ends up being magic stuff you can't use. not in my games, I don't randomly generate treasure, I place it there, not the dice, I also dont do random encounters, we also don't roll HD either, but if by some trick of fate you never rolled anything but a 1 on a D20, well you will be in trouble, not even the most balanced of DnD games can save you from a string of 1 million 1s on a D20. A wizard would do fine in a hack and slash game, rogue would do fine in a dungeon crawl with nothing to hide from and no traps to find or doors to open, as long as the rogue is on equal footing he can compete with a fighter. However if he never finds any of this stuff, odds are that the character would move onto a different set of skill such as fighter. A paldin in Ravenloft would be kinda interesting, never done it before, and can't even remember if it is possible, I guess the realm would grant your abilities, and having the palies abilities would be a nice advantage in a realm of evil. If you play enough, and roll everything like they say, and play a varied number of classes, everything evens out. maybe I dont play enough, I play in 2 diferent games that each run once aevery 2 weeks, one has been going on for about a year, and the other one just started but will likly go dor years just like the one it replaced, I also have a character I play at gen con, so currently I have 3 PCs, I have had less than 15 PCs since 3.0 came out and I have played in at least 1 game a week sometimes more ever since 3.0 came out. Se even though I have played at least 350+ times since 3E came out in Gen Con 2000, I have played only a handful of different characters, I don't have the time to wait for your "varied" clas system to work out. The only way to take out "unfairness" is to make everyone the same class, force them to take the ssame skills, use the same weapons, take the same feats, and then have everyone "take 10" on every roll. Working on that by balancing the classes, feats, magic items and spells so that one is not significantly more powerful than the an other one of same cost. A big part of rolling in D&D is to keep stuff interesting. Everyone has a diffrent breaking point on this, and I'll admit mine is pretty short. I think even point buying ruins alot of the game, as I can then say oh, this is my mage build, my cleric build, my pally build, etc. What forces me to change it? And if it's powerful, why should I? More or less points? Fine, I'll keep the ratios the same and distribute the points evenly. How many different characters do you get to play, and rarly if ever do I use a build (can't think of a time, but I don't want to say never), my newest character I wrote the backstory/character concept months before I ever knew the allowable classes/stat generation system, once I found a DM running a game that my backstory could fit into, with minor tweaking, all I had left to do was make the character, but unfortunatly my stats didn't correspond to well with my character, I rolled too high, my DM let me knock down a few stats, with the agreement that I can add them later on as the character got older. Rolling makes everything more interesting. Rolling does not make everything more interesting, if you feel that way you should bring a d20 everywhere you go and make tests to see if you should do things, like eat or drink or go to the bathroom, these are generally mundane tasks that could use some livening up of die rolling, man I keep faling my check to go to the bathroom, but keep passing it to drink, this is gonna be painful, well, I guess I was wrong it would definatly be more interesting, not sure if it would be better. Another good use of a D20 would be to check to see if you should go to school/work in the morning, sorry boss, my D20 came up nat 20 I get to stay home today. Yes more interesting, not better. Also, most DMs don't allow great discrepancies. I think me or my friends, if something happened like an 18, 18, 18, 16, 12, 15 or something, would let that person keep it (why punish someone for rolling like that! That's once in a lifetime!) and give everyone else a freebe conversion - take one stat and make it an 18. That way it is still mostly balanced, and you don't jew someone out of their great roll. if instead the DM were to give everyone the option to use those stats, would that be punishing the player that rolled them? But remember, as someone said in.. maybe this, maybe another, thread, there is a GREAT alternative. Everyone rolls a stat set, including the dm. Then you take turns picking them until you are all set (the DM rolls one so there is more variaty, and no one gets stuck with the worst roll). THis allows for optimization and perfect balance. What do you say to that idea? actually in my current game we used this system, and one player complained, because he drafted last and he wanted to play a gunfighter(D20 future game), but all the good dex scores were gone, and he got shafted in dex, He complained quite a bit, since he didnt know what was gonna happen next in character creation, I then gave them some discretionary points to spend on bumping up stats, or buying powers from mutants and masterminds that I converted to D20 future stats. He was then able to max out his dex, and pick up super-dex from M&M, this made him happy. I always try to make the characters as balanced within the group as possible, this system created some imbalances, but it was far better than just stragiht 4D6 drop lowest IMO, and it allowed the grognard in my to have fun rolling stats with my group, even if in the end it really didnt matter since I pretty much gaurenteed that they would come out pretty balanced with each other. I almost always do random stat generation for the group, that gaurntees that the group will be balanced within itself, but it allows the groups power level to varry wildly. The campaign I ran before the D20 future was a DnD game, and there was 6 of us including me, so we each rolled 3D6 then I wrote down each score with a stat inorder. then gave everyone those stats, they were able to switch 1 stat with another stat, then we each rolled 1D4 giving something like 11 on 6D4, they were each given 11 points points to spend raising their stats to a max of 18. OMG that was a lot longer than I thought it would be.
Sphyre 12-21-06, 09:11 PM	OMG that was a lot longer than I thought it would be. As do 99% of my posts :tongue:
Wopple 12-21-06, 09:21 PM	*shrug* I like not knowing what I am gunna get. I like being able to get lucky and roll high, and I don't mind rolling low, and I have even lowered stats for roleplaying reasons before. To be honest, stats are among the LEAST important things in a good character. Sure, an 18 18 18 18 18 18 will pretty much always beat a 3 3 3 3 3 3 in anything, but any common (or even uncommon) mixtures with few or no negative modifiers make nearly no difference. I can't believe people who don't roll hit dice either. The whole point of all this rolling is a loss of control. It seems skill checks, damage, and attack rolls are all you ever do, or close. And while saves, attacks, checks, etc, are all very important, it's also important to have a random charachter, in my book. It seems like you're just afraid of the unknown. I built a great fighter once, stacked for toe to toe hacking. But he rolled a 1 or 2 on his first SIX hit die (barring first level, of course, which is a manditory max), so I had to move him to ranged. It's the stuff like that, that you can't plan for, pad out of importance with some well placed skill points or magic items, etc etc, that makes the game fun for most, I'd wager.
Nom 12-21-06, 09:27 PM	I did a program which simulates the roll 4, drop lowest score thing. It then makes 6 scores in this way, and it drops them, as per the PHB, if the total mods are 0 or less, or if the highest score is 13 or less. it then calculates the point buy value of the stats. I had it simulate 10,000,000 character generations. TEN MILLION. with that number, chance falls due to the probability. I did the 10 million trials a few seperate times, and got the exact same results (with insignifigant variation) every time. First, if you consider scored under 8 to be worth 0 points (which is of course unfair, a 4 is much worse than an 8, but anyways) you get 27. To be more exact, 27.000 (+/- .001). If you, however, consider them to be negative, for example 7 is -1, 3 is -5, etc, this drops to 26.60 (+/- .01).Wopple, I think there's something wrong with your monte carlo generator. Use a 7 => -1, ... system the mean point-buy value of a single score is fractionally more than 4.75 points. Since the variables are IID (independent, identically distributed) the mean of the sum of the variables is the sum of the means, thus 6 * 4.75 or 28.5 points. Note that the mean total bonus is just over +5.22, which is slightly less than a flat 25 point buy will manage and definitely less than what could be achieved with an "efficient" (vs skewed) 28 points. I've not done explicit calculations, but the chance of triggering the "hopeless character" rule is roughly 25%; a group of four would expect to reroll one PC. Including this rule cuts the lower tail off the distribution, and thus bumps the mean and median upward. The real "balance" issue (if you care about it) is that rolling has a huge variance and large positive skew. The mean is above the median and mode, and the tail is very long. The net effect is that randomly generating 4 PCs is likely to produce 2 "normal-ish" (where normal is defined as 25 points) elites, 1 "hopless character", and one really exceptional character.
starfire311 12-21-06, 09:39 PM	Nothing personal, I just wanted to quote this before you thought better of it and edited it out. I just want to make sure you always remember you said something this retarded. Lol, I do not mind, I wrote it on purpose, it was tongue in cheek, sorry if it didn't carry well over the internet.
theotherdraxen 12-21-06, 09:44 PM	What if you all use the furries costumes, but don't have enough skill points to learn draconic? Tiamat comes first. You do not have the right to put your skill points anywhere else unless you have already learned Draconic.
Lethanic 12-21-06, 11:19 PM	That's just it. It dosen't matter to alot of us. I mean, what if you roll a wizard and then find yourself in a hack and slash game? What if you are a rogue and all the dungeons are straightforward? What if you're a Palidan and it's in Ravenloft? What if you roll all 1's for attacks? For hit dice? What if the DM randomly generates treasure and it always ends up being magic stuff you can't use. If you play enough, and roll everything like they say, and play a varied number of classes, everything evens out. The only way to take out "unfairness" is to make everyone the same class, force them to take the ssame skills, use the same weapons, take the same feats, and then have everyone "take 10" on every roll. A big part of rolling in D&D is to keep stuff interesting. Everyone has a diffrent breaking point on this, and I'll admit mine is pretty short. I think even point buying ruins alot of the game, as I can then say oh, this is my mage build, my cleric build, my pally build, etc. What forces me to change it? And if it's powerful, why should I? More or less points? Fine, I'll keep the ratios the same and distribute the points evenly. Rolling makes everything more interesting. Do alot of people WANT to play a wimpy, dwarfed character? No, but once "forced" to by the dice, alot of people like it. Also, most DMs don't allow great discrepancies. I think me or my friends, if something happened like an 18, 18, 18, 16, 12, 15 or something, would let that person keep it (why punish someone for rolling like that! That's once in a lifetime!) and give everyone else a freebe conversion - take one stat and make it an 18. That way it is still mostly balanced, and you don't jew someone out of their great roll. But remember, as someone said in.. maybe this, maybe another, thread, there is a GREAT alternative. Everyone rolls a stat set, including the dm. Then you take turns picking them until you are all set (the DM rolls one so there is more variaty, and no one gets stuck with the worst roll). THis allows for optimization and perfect balance. What do you say to that idea? YOu see. . some people don't play fifty - thousand characters to make i,mbalances "Even out" and care more about the imbalances in THIS CAMPAIGN not 'over the next five campaigns combined"
Wopple 12-22-06, 12:00 AM	Wopple, I think there's something wrong with your monte carlo generator. Use a 7 => -1, ... system the mean point-buy value of a single score is fractionally more than 4.75 points. Since the variables are IID (independent, identically distributed) the mean of the sum of the variables is the sum of the means, thus 6 * 4.75 or 28.5 points. Note that the mean total bonus is just over +5.22, which is slightly less than a flat 25 point buy will manage and definitely less than what could be achieved with an "efficient" (vs skewed) 28 points. I've not done explicit calculations, but the chance of triggering the "hopeless character" rule is roughly 25%; a group of four would expect to reroll one PC. Including this rule cuts the lower tail off the distribution, and thus bumps the mean and median upward. The real "balance" issue (if you care about it) is that rolling has a huge variance and large positive skew. The mean is above the median and mode, and the tail is very long. The net effect is that randomly generating 4 PCs is likely to produce 2 "normal-ish" (where normal is defined as 25 points) elites, 1 "hopless character", and one really exceptional character. *hem hem* ;) You can tell this isn't an exact normal curve, because 10 is below the possibility of rolling, which is probably what messed up the curve in the first place (the re-roll drop off point).
Wopple 12-22-06, 12:02 AM	YOu see. . some people don't play fifty - thousand characters to make i,mbalances "Even out" and care more about the imbalances in THIS CAMPAIGN not 'over the next five campaigns combined" Pfft... just play with the prestige class Chamelian... that'll teach ya *roll eyes* (friggen hate that class) I think it;s jsut that my friends for some reason have a short attention span, and also we have been doing alot of updating from 2 to 3.5, and in that getting lazy and just making new chars. Also, I roll my NPCs, so it's alot more generating.
Nom 12-22-06, 09:06 AM	*hem hem* ;)You can tell this isn't an exact normal curve, because 10 is below the possibility of rolling, which is probably what messed up the curve in the first place (the re-roll drop off point).That's irrelevant. I'm assuming you generated scores based on a discrete uniform 1..6 distribution, not an approximation to normal. The mean of n IID samples is the mean of a single sample. The variance of the sum of n IID samples is n times the variance of a single sample. Thus the variance of the mean (X1 + ... + Xn)/n is n/n^2 = 1/n times the variance of a single sample, and thus the SD is 1/sqrt(n) of the SD of a single sample. Considering you ran 10 M samples this puts your SD at 1/(1000*sqrt(10) of its original value, pretty close to 0. Given this, your output should have closely matched the theoretical value, which is ~28.5 without reroll or greater than up around 29-30 with reroll. But you got 26.6, which is many standard deviations too low. Thus either the algorithm has an error or there's a systematic low bias in your random number generator.
Cantankerous 12-22-06, 10:06 AM	That's irrelevant. I'm assuming you generated scores based on a discrete uniform 1..6 distribution, not an approximation to normal. The mean of n IID samples is the mean of a single sample. The variance of the sum of n IID samples is n times the variance of a single sample. Thus the variance of the mean (X1 + ... + Xn)/n is n/n^2 = 1/n times the variance of a single sample, and thus the SD is 1/sqrt(n) of the SD of a single sample. Considering you ran 10 M samples this puts your SD at 1/(1000*sqrt(10) of its original value, pretty close to 0. Given this, your output should have closely matched the theoretical value, which is ~28.5 without reroll or greater than up around 29-30 with reroll. But you got 26.6, which is many standard deviations too low. Thus either the algorithm has an error or there's a systematic low bias in your random number generator. You know, there are times you just want to hug this guy. ;) Isshia
Wopple 12-22-06, 02:35 PM	That's irrelevant. I'm assuming you generated scores based on a discrete uniform 1..6 distribution, not an approximation to normal. The mean of n IID samples is the mean of a single sample. The variance of the sum of n IID samples is n times the variance of a single sample. Thus the variance of the mean (X1 + ... + Xn)/n is n/n^2 = 1/n times the variance of a single sample, and thus the SD is 1/sqrt(n) of the SD of a single sample. Considering you ran 10 M samples this puts your SD at 1/(1000*sqrt(10) of its original value, pretty close to 0. Given this, your output should have closely matched the theoretical value, which is ~28.5 without reroll or greater than up around 29-30 with reroll. But you got 26.6, which is many standard deviations too low. Thus either the algorithm has an error or there's a systematic low bias in your random number generator. No... a roll on a die ois not a normal curve, obviously, as it's just even 1-6. However, something like this, a comnbination, should be a normal curve. Were it not for the re-roll rule, it WOULD be a normal curve. Make a graph of the probabilities for 2 1d6's, and you'll find that it is very close to a normal. Also, the standard deviation is MUCH larger than what you seem to think it is. If you are saying the point buy value is supposed to average out to 28.5, and the standard deviation is MANY times less than 1.9, that would mean the chances of someone rolling a point buy over 30 would be almost nil, 1 in a few billion. I think yuo need to get some facts straight about what standard deviation is, as opposed to standard error... And the "theoretical" point buy value of 28.5 is wrong. Plain and simple. If you'd like to look at my algorithm, be my guest.
Wopple 12-22-06, 02:37 PM	You know, there are times you just want to hug this guy. ;) Isshia You shoulden't want to. Apparantly he thinks Standard Error and Standard Deviation are the same. That's all I can figure. If it's not that... I don't even know WHAT the hell he is on. No offense to him, everyone can make mistakes, maybe I am making one now, but all I know for SURE is that he said the standard deviation was MANY times smaller than 2, which makes it utterly impossible to rull anything other than, say, 27-29 PB value, commonly...
Wopple 12-22-06, 02:52 PM	Results of an analysis of my random number generation. Because this is 10 million complete scores, that is 240 million dice rolls Rolled 0: 0.0% Rolled 1: 16.668449166666668% Rolled 2: 16.66719125% Rolled 3: 16.663382916666666% Rolled 4: 16.664588333333333% Rolled 5: 16.668155416666666% Rolled 6: 16.668232916666667% I think that's pretty accurate. The reason it prints out 0 is because the array I am storing them in is from 1 to 0, so I can directly store the results in the array bypulling a dist[randomnum]++. And no, no numbers could possibly have been generated outside this range to explain the problem, as that would try to go out of the array bounds, and give me an error.
Nom 12-22-06, 04:12 PM	but all I know for SURE is that he said the standard deviation was MANY times smaller than 2, which makes it utterly impossible to rull anything other than, say, 27-29 PB value, commonly...Misapplication. I said that the standard deviation of the mean PB of 10 M samples is way smaller than 2. The variance of a single point-weighted 4d6 drop lowest sample is ~13.83 (sd of 3.72), which means the variance of the sum of 6 samples is ~83.02 (sd 9.11). If we take the variance of the mean of 10 M such sums it is 83.02 * 10 M / (10 M)^2 or ~8.3 * 10^-6, with a standard deviation of 2.88*10^-3. Since your sample numbers look approximately correct, we can only assume a minor error in your algorithm.
BoringInfoGuy 12-22-06, 05:25 PM	I just don't see it as fair for one person to have a 48-53 PB and another one to have a 21-29 in the same game. Yes I know it doesnt happen in every game, but there is a decent chance IMO. That is becuase you are looking for fairness in results, not fairness in oppurtunity. EVERYONE, using the same system, has an EQUAL chance of getting good, bad, indifferent, or great scores. Yes, that means you may end up playing for YEARS with a character who has weaker stats than the rest of the group. So what? If you can turn those stats into a character who is interesting and fun to play, does it really matter that another player has a character with better stats? If the answer for you is yes, than you should be using point buy. Now, point buy makes it so everyone has equal points to work with. But what about those players who know the rules backwards and forwards, and can get more with less. Someone who is really talented at making characters who are more powerful than what thier level would indicate? And what about if he's sitting at the same table as a newb, working on his 1st, 2nd character? Do you start giving more points to the newb, or less to the other guy? Is it more fair for them to be sitting together? But would it then be fair to try and penalize someone for being more experianced? Or to try and force the new player to take build choices that he didn't want to, just so that he won't be "underpowered"? I say, let the experianced guy take advantage of his experiance. Let the new player find his own way - giving advice when he asks for it - so that he can develop his own style of play. * * * A question. Would you trust your child to a school where every student always got the same GPA?
Sim_antix 12-22-06, 06:10 PM	A question. Would you trust your child to a school where every student always got the same GPA? :heehee: A decent analogy that basically says what I have always been saying "Why should everyone be equal?"
pres_man 12-22-06, 06:40 PM	A decent analogy that basically says what I have always been saying "Why should everyone be equal?" Not really a good analogy. GPA is based on ongoing factors not starting factors. A better analogy would be "Would you trust your child to a school where every student came from the same social-economic background? Or had the same approximate IQ level? Or ..." The same GPA would be equivalent to a DM fudging rolls/stats so that everybody got the same number of successes and failures (or hits and misses). I understand the fun it can be to run a totally random character (heck I would find it even more fun to run a character where the stats are rolled in order, the starting class is rolled randomly, as is the race). But rolling is not a competition except with other players. Regardless of using PB or rolling for stats the PCs are always going to have better base stats (before racial mods) on average than the NPCs they face (except for that DM pet which will be better than them no matter what). So in the end the only thing you'd really be wanted to do is be better than the other PCs which rolling gives you the chance for.
Sim_antix 12-22-06, 07:41 PM	Not really a good analogy. GPA is based on ongoing factors not starting factors. A better analogy would be "Would you trust your child to a school where every student came from the same social-economic background? Or had the same approximate IQ level? Or ..." The same GPA would be equivalent to a DM fudging rolls/stats so that everybody got the same number of successes and failures (or hits and misses). I understand the fun it can be to run a totally random character (heck I would find it even more fun to run a character where the stats are rolled in order, the starting class is rolled randomly, as is the race). But rolling is not a competition except with other players. Regardless of using PB or rolling for stats the PCs are always going to have better base stats (before racial mods) on average than the NPCs they face (except for that DM pet which will be better than them no matter what). So in the end the only thing you'd really be wanted to do is be better than the other PCs which rolling gives you the chance for. Maybe they dont want to be "better" than anyone else and instead just dont want to be the same as everyone else.
starfire311 12-22-06, 07:58 PM	So what? If you can turn those stats into a character who is interesting and fun to play, does it really matter that another player has a character with better stats? If the answer for you is yes, than you should be using point buy. If relative power doesn't matter, why not start players with wildly different levels and wildly different starting wealth. maybe every starts with 1K to 100K GP rolled randomly, and starts with 1D4+int mod levels because smarter people will level up quicker, yeah true it wouldn't be fair, but then again it is like that in real life, I am regularly put on teams with people that have much more experience than me, and I also have the job of training and working with the new guy that has much less experience than me... so since it is like that in real life, why not in the game... same thing for wealth, some people are just born signifcantly wealthier than others, shouldn't that be represented in the game as well.
Croix Ragnan 12-22-06, 08:28 PM	The wealth thing has always bothered me. That's why I use A Game of Thrones d20's wealth system.
Sim_antix 12-22-06, 09:42 PM	If relative power doesn't matter, why not start players with wildly different levels and wildly different starting wealth. maybe every starts with 1K to 100K GP rolled randomly, and starts with 1D4+int mod levels because smarter people will level up quicker, yeah true it wouldn't be fair, but then again it is like that in real life, I am regularly put on teams with people that have much more experience than me, and I also have the job of training and working with the new guy that has much less experience than me... so since it is like that in real life, why not in the game... same thing for wealth, some people are just born signifcantly wealthier than others, shouldn't that be represented in the game as well. I do allow for players to start of wealthy, with the balance being that if the party is cohesive then they will help purchase gear for their comrades as well.
Wopple 12-23-06, 02:16 PM	Misapplication. I said that the standard deviation of the mean PB of 10 M samples is way smaller than 2. The variance of a single point-weighted 4d6 drop lowest sample is ~13.83 (sd of 3.72), which means the variance of the sum of 6 samples is ~83.02 (sd 9.11). If we take the variance of the mean of 10 M such sums it is 83.02 * 10 M / (10 M)^2 or ~8.3 * 10^-6, with a standard deviation of 2.88*10^-3. Since your sample numbers look approximately correct, we can only assume a minor error in your algorithm. That is only true if your theoretical number is correct. It is not. Stay tuned for a varying funland of debugging data of my program to prove such. (to be super clear, the rules as I understand them (and unless I am going crazy, is how they are stated in the book) are roll 4d6, drop the lowest. Do this 6 times. Those are your scores. You are entitled to a re-roll (for our purposes, this score is not at all counted, assuming someone would want said re-roll) if all your modifiers are equal to 0 or below (so 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 7 would bve a reroll) OR if your highest score is a 13 or below (so a 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13 would be a reroll). Also, for our purposes, I am counting them as standard point buy values, EXCEPT that anything below 8 results in a negative, as given by PB value = score -8. To be quiote honest I can't imagine a problem in my algorithm, as it is somewhat straightforward and I purpously kept it as such (cut no corners, etc) and tested it at every step.
Wopple 12-23-06, 02:46 PM	If relative power doesn't matter, why not start players with wildly different levels and wildly different starting wealth. maybe every starts with 1K to 100K GP rolled randomly, and starts with 1D4+int mod levels because smarter people will level up quicker, yeah true it wouldn't be fair, but then again it is like that in real life, I am regularly put on teams with people that have much more experience than me, and I also have the job of training and working with the new guy that has much less experience than me... so since it is like that in real life, why not in the game... same thing for wealth, some people are just born signifcantly wealthier than others, shouldn't that be represented in the game as well. The poroblem there is you said "wildly." There is nothing "wild" about these stat differences. Fine, say the EXTREME of EXTREMES. Say there is a 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 char and an 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18 char (by the way, the chances of this happening, even with a large party size of 10, are.... well I think we all know at this point). But take that as an example, as I think that is about the worst you could do rolling (higher plusses and lower other numbers lets you just use dump stats, so I think it's worse to have this) The compartive point buy values for these 2, by the way, are 12 and 96. Let's even look at the same class, Fighter. Dumps the 8 into char, the 14 into strenmgth. The diffrence here is +2 compared to +4 bonus on attack rolls, _2 vs +4 on damage, and then 4 AC, 4 hp per level, 4 more skill points per level, and some better saves. Is this signifigant? Sure. You'd expect the difference at this point to get there. But is it as wild as 1 to 1000 gold, or different levels? no. the 1 gold guy, say he was the 18 guy, would have AC 14, and have to hit with (I supposed improved unarmed feat and two wep fighting) 2x 1d6 fists (I believe) +3 to attack and +4 to damage (+2 for off). The other guy, let's give him a greatsword. +3 to attack, +3 to damage, 2d6. AC of 17 with half-plate. So here we have SUPER guy, doing an average of 13 damage when he hits with both, needing to roll at least a 14 to hit. Other guy? Average of 10 damage, needing to roll a 7 to hit. Hell, he could also have other goodies like Alchemist's fire. I think ti's safe to say that amount of gold difference is more overpowering. Also, remember there IS a difference in starting gold buddy. You roll it. It dosen't seem to vary that much, but that's because in the D&D model most are fairly poor, and a gold is ALOT of money to most folk, let alone the hordes of it you later get while adventuring. Now, as far as levels, let's take a "WILD" difference of 2 levels,. but equal gold. SUPER guy gets 14 hp. Normal guy? On average, 22. Attack? Evens out due to BAB. Damage? Super guy still wins here, although the normal guy gets TWO more feats to play with. And also, the SUPER guy only wins on damage by 2 with a shield, 3 dual wielding or using a 2-hander. AC? still only a +4, which is big-esque but still may not compensate. Given average rolls, the "OMFG HORRIBLE" guy has a great shot here, with great feat choices he would be basically a sure thing. SO both the things you jookingly proposed would be bigger imbalance issues than rolling. Also, of course DMs want to keep alot of things the same. The problem with this is you eventually have cookie cutter characters. Every class is better in certain situations, and diffrent stats are better in others (for example, a super buffed spotlight char is a very bright target (and usually has low will saves) for a dominate person spell, making him as big a liability to the party as he was a help before. So why don't you propose a new system? No rolls. Everything is take 10. No hit dice rolls, saves, attack rolls, variable damage, none of it. WE WILL NOT ALLOW SOME CHARACTER TO BECOME BETTER THAN OTHERS UNLESS THEY ARE POWERGAMERS WHO PLANNED IT FIRST! WE WILL ALSO NOT RUIN THE PLANS OF ANY POWERGAMERS BY GIVING THEM UNEXPECTED RESULTS! I mean seriously guys... You CAN take rolling too far, where you have a EL 20 guy and a EL 5 guy in the same party. But for litle differences, the game should be rich enough for everyone to have a nook to fill. edit: if anything above sounds mean, it was not meant to be. In earnest.
BoringInfoGuy 12-24-06, 03:33 AM	Not really a good analogy. GPA is based on ongoing factors not starting factors. A better analogy would be "Would you trust your child to a school where every student came from the same social-economic background? Or had the same approximate IQ level? Or ..." The same GPA would be equivalent to a DM fudging rolls/stats so that everybody got the same number of successes and failures (or hits and misses). I understand the fun it can be to run a totally random character (heck I would find it even more fun to run a character where the stats are rolled in order, the starting class is rolled randomly, as is the race). But rolling is not a competition except with other players. Regardless of using PB or rolling for stats the PCs are always going to have better base stats (before racial mods) on average than the NPCs they face (except for that DM pet which will be better than them no matter what). So in the end the only thing you'd really be wanted to do is be better than the other PCs which rolling gives you the chance for. No, think about it. I asked if you would trust your child to a school where everyone got the same GPA. I was illustrating the difference between seeking fairness in oppurtunity versus seeking fairness in results. Rolling and Pointbuy are both fair in that they give equal oppurtunity, right? Pointbuy gives less varation in results, but the players choices can create a character comparably more effective than another. If you are truely worried about being "fair" in results, than you DO need to make certain that everyone gets the same number of hits and misses, without the DM needing to fudge. No one can have any advantage or disadvantage against any other player. Not by the mechanics, not by the player's abilities. No high's, no lows. Completely medicore. To go back to my question, where every student, smart or stupid, dedicated or lazy, gets the same GPA. DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND. I am NOT claiming that this is what pointbuy is like. It's what happens when people don't understand what fair truely means. Pointbuy is a step closer, but only a short one. There are good reasons to use either system. There are good reasons to not use either system. But fairness is not one of them. That is the one argument that actually worries me.
Nom 12-24-06, 08:37 AM	That is only true if your theoretical number is correct. It is not. Stay tuned for a varying funland of debugging data of my program to prove such.Well, my theoretical data agrees with every other set I've seen except yours, but that's not necessarily reliable. Score Points Count Prob Weight 3 -5 1 0.08% -0.0039 4 -4 4 0.31% -0.0123 5 -3 10 0.77% -0.0231 6 -2 21 1.62% -0.0324 7 -1 38 2.93% -0.0293 8 0 62 4.78% 0.0000 9 1 91 7.02% 0.0702 10 2 122 9.41% 0.1883 11 3 148 11.42% 0.3426 12 4 167 12.89% 0.5154 13 5 172 13.27% 0.6636 14 6 160 12.35% 0.7407 15 8 131 10.11% 0.8086 16 10 94 7.25% 0.7253 17 13 54 4.17% 0.5417 18 16 21 1.62% 0.2593 Total 1296 100.00% 4.7546This gives a mean point value of 4.7546 per score, and thus ~28.5 for set of 6. Obviously, this doesn't include rerolls. Hmm. Did you remeber NOT to increment the counter when rerolling? If rerolls don't contribute to the sum but do contribute to the count of rolls then this would explain a lowering of the mean. Albeit by less than I would have expected.
Lethanic 12-24-06, 09:07 AM	The poroblem there is you said "wildly." There is nothing "wild" about these stat differences. Fine, say the EXTREME of EXTREMES. Say there is a 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 char and an 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18 char (by the way, the chances of this happening, even with a large party size of 10, are.... well I think we all know at this point). But take that as an example, as I think that is about the worst you could do rolling (higher plusses and lower other numbers lets you just use dump stats, so I think it's worse to have this) The compartive point buy values for these 2, by the way, are 12 and 96. Let's even look at the same class, Fighter. Dumps the 8 into char, the 14 into strenmgth. The diffrence here is +2 compared to +4 bonus on attack rolls, _2 vs +4 on damage, and then 4 AC, 4 hp per level, 4 more skill points per level, and some better saves. Is this signifigant? Sure. You'd expect the difference at this point to get there. But is it as wild as 1 to 1000 gold, or different levels? no. the 1 gold guy, say he was the 18 guy, would have AC 14, and have to hit with (I supposed improved unarmed feat and two wep fighting) 2x 1d6 fists (I believe) +3 to attack and +4 to damage (+2 for off). The other guy, let's give him a greatsword. +3 to attack, +3 to damage, 2d6. AC of 17 with half-plate. So here we have SUPER guy, doing an average of 13 damage when he hits with both, needing to roll at least a 14 to hit. Other guy? Average of 10 damage, needing to roll a 7 to hit. Hell, he could also have other goodies like Alchemist's fire. I think ti's safe to say that amount of gold difference is more overpowering. Also, remember there IS a difference in starting gold buddy. You roll it. It dosen't seem to vary that much, but that's because in the D&D model most are fairly poor, and a gold is ALOT of money to most folk, let alone the hordes of it you later get while adventuring. Now, as far as levels, let's take a "WILD" difference of 2 levels,. but equal gold. SUPER guy gets 14 hp. Normal guy? On average, 22. Attack? Evens out due to BAB. Damage? Super guy still wins here, although the normal guy gets TWO more feats to play with. And also, the SUPER guy only wins on damage by 2 with a shield, 3 dual wielding or using a 2-hander. AC? still only a +4, which is big-esque but still may not compensate. Given average rolls, the "OMFG HORRIBLE" guy has a great shot here, with great feat choices he would be basically a sure thing. SO both the things you jookingly proposed would be bigger imbalance issues than rolling. Also, of course DMs want to keep alot of things the same. The problem with this is you eventually have cookie cutter characters. Every class is better in certain situations, and diffrent stats are better in others (for example, a super buffed spotlight char is a very bright target (and usually has low will saves) for a dominate person spell, making him as big a liability to the party as he was a help before. So why don't you propose a new system? No rolls. Everything is take 10. No hit dice rolls, saves, attack rolls, variable damage, none of it. WE WILL NOT ALLOW SOME CHARACTER TO BECOME BETTER THAN OTHERS UNLESS THEY ARE POWERGAMERS WHO PLANNED IT FIRST! WE WILL ALSO NOT RUIN THE PLANS OF ANY POWERGAMERS BY GIVING THEM UNEXPECTED RESULTS! I mean seriously guys... You CAN take rolling too far, where you have a EL 20 guy and a EL 5 guy in the same party. But for litle differences, the game should be rich enough for everyone to have a nook to fill. edit: if anything above sounds mean, it was not meant to be. In earnest. . . a complete strawman argument. Noone is arguing absolutely everythign should be equal and noone should e allowed to get any better at anything. THey are arguing that the STARTING CONDITIONS should be as close to set equal as possible - "All men are created equal, but varry greatly, in the sequal." At low levels , a few plusses here and there IS the difference between levels - and I suspect much of the difference between peopel who don't think this is so, are people who like to start their games at, say, third, fourth or ven sixth where this starts to be LESS true(Note I didn't, even there, say "not true" Also, those of us that like playing lower magic campaigns, stat bonus differences become quite magnified.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 02:52 PM	FIne "Well, it SAYS eye for an eye! ANd that Adulturers should be stoned! It was in the original guidebook! THerefore its BETTER!:" Whats your point?
Elthbert 12-24-06, 02:58 PM	ANd on a seperate note, just because its traditional doesn't have any bearing on if its better or not. If it had been done that way for 5,000 years, it would have NO bearing on if its better or not. Actually it does--- if something has been done for 5000 years then it is assumed to be the best way to do it. Why, because of the fact that for 5000 years people determined that it was, in fact, the best way to do it and 5000 years of experiance is a LOT of expertise --- evidence that some other method was better would have to be provided and would have to be able to demonstrate that the new method was objectively better. That is not to say that new methods cannot be objectively better, the progress of technology is dependent on it, but new methods should always be assumed to be inferior until they are shown to be superior through argument or evidence, that requirement does not make one close minded, it makes one reasonable.
Lethanic 12-24-06, 03:08 PM	Actually it does--- if something has been done for 5000 years then it is assumed to be the best way to do it. Why, because of the fact that for 5000 years people determined that it was, in fact, the best way to do it and 5000 years of experiance is a LOT of expertise --- evidence that some other method was better would have to be provided and would have to be able to demonstrate that the new method was objectively better. That is not to say that new methods cannot be objectively better, the progress of technology is dependent on it, but new methods should always be assumed to be inferior until they are shown to be superior through argument or evidence, that requirement does not make one close minded, it makes one reasonable. HOwever it is not a relevant argument regarding the superuiority or not of a method. Again, the fact thaht it has been done that way has no bearing on if it is better. moreso, the other method is not NEW - it has been used, and succeesfully, in many other games. Tradition has no bearing on the inherant effectiveness or benefits of various methods and brining it up in such a discussion is simply asn attempt to win by default without presentintg logical arguments or refuting the same.,
Elthbert 12-24-06, 03:15 PM	Keep in mind the reroll rules. The minimum stats have at least a 14 for the lowest stat, and a minimum modifier of +1. did they change this in 3.5 I confess I have never even bothered to look at the reroll rules in 3.5 and do not have the book handy but in 3.0 it was at least a 13 and a total modifier of +0. Was that changed? If so then I would argue that the 3.5 designers are moving more torwards a munchkin point of view--- but I would like conformation that such has been changed.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 03:24 PM	HOwever it is not a relevant argument regarding the superuiority or not of a method. Again, the fact thaht it has been done that way has no bearing on if it is better. moreso, the other method is not NEW - it has been used, and succeesfully, in many other games. Tradition has no bearing on the inherant effectiveness or benefits of various methods and brining it up in such a discussion is simply asn attempt to win by default without presentintg logical arguments or refuting the same., No it does not effect the inherant effectiveness but it does get the favor of being assumed to be more effective. The old is always assumed to be better, unless it can be demonstrated to be inferior. This is a requirement for reasonable social interaction and relies on the experiance of those who came before, if tanners have been scraping hides for 10,000 years you are going to have to show why not scaping hides is superior to scaping them, the traditional method is not requireed to demonstrate its superiority, it is assumed to be superior. That is how it should be, experiance matters. Role playing games are sufficently new that hese ae competing methods, and I am not sure that a 10 or 15 year head start is sufficent to call rolling a "tradition" in gaming. However, D&D has always been based on rolled characters, with in it's framework that is the normal method, the "traditional" one, and something which wants to replace it should be able to be shown as objectively better.
Lethanic 12-24-06, 03:37 PM	No it does not effect the inherant effectiveness but it does get the favor of being assumed to be more effective. The old is always assumed to be better and unless it can be demonstrated to be inferior. This is a requirement for reasonable social interaction and relies on the experiance of those who came before, if tanners have been scraping hides for 10,000 years you are going to have to show why not scaping hides is superior to scaping them, the traditional method is not requireed to demonstrate its superiority, it is assumed to be superior. That is how it should be, experiance matters. Role playing games are sufficently new that hese ae competing methods, and I am not sure that a 10 or 15 year head start is sufficent to call rolling a "tradition" in gaming. However, D&D has always been based on rolled characters, with in it's framework that is the normal method, the "traditional" one, and something which wants to replace it should be able to be shown as objectively better. SO in other words, you are STILL leaning on that and avoiding any actual arguments. Waiting. .
Elthbert 12-24-06, 04:38 PM	SO in other words, you are STILL leaning on that and avoiding any actual arguments. Waiting. . No not leaning on anything-- I prefer rolling to point buy, that is the default of the game, I am happy. I do not NEED to make any arguements because my method is the traditonal method for D&D, I would not go to a Vampire game and ask to roll my stats, the game is not built for that, it is built with a point buy in mind. D&D was not, D&D was built to have a very wide range of stats for characters, based on a bell curve of 3 to 18. I rolled back in the day when we used 3d6 in decending order (which back then was a very differant order) I rolled 4d6 drop the lowest in decending order, and I have rolled 4d6 drop the lowest and arrange, I have never been in a group where differances in stats was a problem. I have been playing for about 27 years now and agian I have NEVER seen this as a problem. So I don't see that there is any reason to to make this change, if you think there is then I expect you to show me reasons, objective reasons that it is better to point buy in D&D. In the d20 system, it might be that point buy is better, but it is the PB camp that needs to show why, not vise versa. I like the variety in stats that rolling provides, I like that in a party where the stats have been rolled that characters will have differing strengths and weaknesses. Of course as a DM I require that you roleplay your stats--- if you have a 6 wisdom I expect you to play your character with poor judgement, a 7 intellegence--- play Gump, I have little mercy in this regard since I allow people to arrange their rolled scores, if you don't want to play a retarded adventurer don't put you lowest stat in int, if you don't want to play the guy with no judgement or the sickly person then arrange your stats accordingly.By the way I have never, ever rerolled my stats, including the character I once had with 2 3's so the whole reroll thing doesn't hold much wieght to me.
Lethanic 12-24-06, 05:10 PM	No not leaning on anything-- I prefer rolling to point buy, that is the default of the game, I am happy. I do not NEED to make any arguements because my method is the traditonal method for D&D, I would not go to a Vampire game and ask to roll my stats, the game is not built for that, it is built with a point buy in mind. D&D was not, D&D was built to have a very wide range of stats for characters, based on a bell curve of 3 to 18. I rolled back in the day when we used 3d6 in decending order (which back then was a very differant order) I rolled 4d6 drop the lowest in decending order, and I have rolled 4d6 drop the lowest and arrange, I have never been in a group where differances in stats was a problem. I have been playing for about 27 years now and agian I have NEVER seen this as a problem. So I don't see that there is any reason to to make this change, if you think there is then I expect you to show me reasons, objective reasons that it is better to point buy in D&D. In the d20 system, it might be that point buy is better, but it is the PB camp that needs to show why, not vise versa. I like the variety in stats that rolling provides, I like that in a party where the stats have been rolled that characters will have differing strengths and weaknesses. Of course as a DM I require that you rollplay your stats--- if you havea 6 wisdom I expect you to play your character with poor judgement, a 7 intellegence--- play Gump, I have little mercy int his regard since I allow people to arrange thier rolled scores, if you don't want to play a retarded adventurer don't put you lowest stat in int, if you don't wantto play the guy with no judgement or the sickly person then arrange your stats accordingly.By the way I have never, ever rerolled my stats, including the character I once had with 2 3's so the whole reroll thing doesn't hold much wieght to me. while that is a bit better. .still. Actually, d&D is, as stated by the designers, designed to be balanced around an elite array of stats, so based on your argument, I expect you will be transferring over to the ellite array immediately,
Elthbert 12-24-06, 05:26 PM	while that is a bit better. .still. Actually, d&D is, as stated by the designers, designed to be balanced around an elite array of stats, so based on your argument, I expect you will be transferring over to the ellite array immediately, No. 3rd edition was tested with the elite array of scores, it is balanced to account for those scores and with those stats But it was not "designed" for them. D&D was designed way back in the 70's to use rolled stats, it has used stats generated by dice since then, if you think that something else should be substituded for it then prove it.--- You make arguements as to why point buy is OBJECTIVELY BETTER, as I said, with the vast rule changes in the d 20 system it might be that it is better, but I have yet to see anyone on this thread make a real arguement as to why. Fairness, is an appeal to Pathos, I want an appeal to Logos, and I have yet to see one by any of the people proposing point buy-- though I have seen some statistical arguements put forth by Rolling proponants and responses from PB people I have yet to see Point Buyers introduce an arguement appealing to logos on this issue. I am not obliged to prove anything as I propose no change from the method whicih has been satisfactory for more than 30 years, you are obliged to produce the argument for change---- make them.
a_psh 12-24-06, 05:27 PM	However, D&D has always been based on rolled characters, with in it's framework that is the normal method, the "traditional" one, and something which wants to replace it should be able to be shown as objectively better.I get the thrust of your argument, but it applies poorly to the scenario at hand... Fortune-based character generation systems have been in D&D from the beginning. Fortuneless character generation systems have existed almost as long as fortune-based ones. Just not in D&D. D&D 3.x is very different from the D&D of the past, however. So... Games other than D&D3 and often quite different from it (e.g. GURPS) have used purely fortuneless character creation mechanics for a very long time. Games other than D&D3 and often quite different from it (AD&D, OD&D) have used fortune in character generation for a very long time. Where's the "tradition" exactly?
Lethanic 12-24-06, 05:31 PM	No. 3rd edition was tested with the elite array of scores, it is balanced to account for those scores and with those stats But it was not "designed" for them. D&D was designed way back in the 70's to use rolled stats, it has used stats generated by dice since then, if you think that something else should be substituded for it then prove it.--- You make arguements as to why point buy is OBJECTIVELY BETTER, as I said, with the vast rule changes in the d 20 system it might be that it is better, but I have yet to see anyone on this thread make a real arguement as to why. Fairness, is an appeal to Pathos, I want an appeal to Logos, and I have yet to see one by any of the people proposing point buy-- though I have seen some statistical arguements put forth by Rolling proponants and responses from PB people I have yet to see Point Buyers introduce an arguement appealing to logos on this issue. I am not obliged to prove anything as I propose no change from the method whicih has been satisfactory for more than 30 years, you are obliged to produce the argument for change---- make them. THis is D&D 3.5, not first edition. Itt is in manay ways a completelly different GAME. Invoking first edition and second edition in the argument is also not quite right. Telll me where 3.0/3.5 has existted for more than thirty years?
Elthbert 12-24-06, 05:41 PM	I get the thrust of your argument, but it applies poorly to the scenario at hand... Fortune-based character generation systems have been in D&D from the beginning. Fortuneless character generation systems have existed almost as long as fortune-based ones. Just not in D&D. D&D 3.x is very different from the D&D of the past, however. So... Games other than D&D3 and often quite different from it (e.g. GURPS) have used purely fortuneless character creation mechanics for a very long time. Games other than D&D3 and often quite different from it (AD&D, OD&D) have used fortune in character generation for a very long time. Where's the "tradition" exactly? I have already conceded that the d20 system might allow pb to be a better system, yet that is a contention that must be proven not the reverse. I also already said that other systems did not use it and that that was okay because they were designed witht hat in mind--- but D&D was not, and while the core mechanic has changed the game is certainly recognizable as D&D the class system and the classes reliance on attributes of a certian number to preform essential class functions is consistant with D&D the numbering of the stats and the reliance on a large array of potential stats is s also consistant with D&D since it's inception. I stated quite directly that rolling is the tradition in D&D not in gaming in general so that other games do not use it is not much of an argument.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 05:45 PM	THis is D&D 3.5, not first edition. Itt is in manay ways a completelly different GAME. Invoking first edition and second edition in the argument is also not quite right. Telll me where 3.0/3.5 has existted for more than thirty years? It is most certianly not a completly differant game--- that is like saying basket ball is a vcompletly differant game than before the 3 point shot--- the rules have changed, but it is NOT a completly differant game by any means. You don't like it, thats your porogative but it is the 3rd edition of a 30 year old game---- NOT a new game, most of it's core features were left completely intact. And that is not an arguement, it seems all you can do is attack other peoples post--- where is your arguement FOR point buy--- you have yet to justify it--- Why is it better?
a_psh 12-24-06, 05:47 PM	I have already conceded that the d20 system might allow pb to be a better system, yet that is a contention that must be proven not the reverse. I also already said that other systems did not use it and that that was okay because they were designed witht hat in mind--- but D&D was not...3e was, actually. Playtesting was mostly done with the elite array you see in the books. So both point-buy and rolling actually have to meet the same burden of proof here.
Lethanic 12-24-06, 06:04 PM	It is most certianly not a completly differant game--- that is like saying basket ball is a vcompletly differant game than before the 3 point shot--- the rules have changed, but it is NOT a completly differant game by any means. You don't like it, thats your porogative but it is the 3rd edition of a 30 year old game---- NOT a new game, most of it's core features were left completely intact. And that is not an arguement, it seems all you can do is attack other peoples post--- where is your arguement FOR point buy--- you have yet to justify it--- Why is it better? The CORE MECHANIC changed. That is more like the introduction of the 24 second clock thana the three pointer. It fundamentally changed alot of things. If you think that first edition and third edition are fundamentally the same, than we have no common basis on which to discuss. Try porting a third edition character into a second edition game and running them as is. You can't. Itts like the deefinition of a species. They can't ccross - breed. they are not the same species.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 06:05 PM	3e was, actually. Playtesting was mostly done with the elite array you see in the books. So both point-buy and rolling actually have to meet the same burden of proof here. Playtesting is only part of design (and really fits more in the area of development) not it's entirety, the game is disigned to have low stats as well as high and to have a large spead of stats not a tight group (like say white wolf or as I remmeber gurps, though I could be wrong there I hated the gurps system so I didn't play it long). That elite array was used to play test is only a refelection that that was thought to be a good representation of a good character which was ROLLED up, not that that is how it was intended to be done. And as an aside the rolling of characters is certianly not out in other systems --- Rifts is the 3rd most popular game and it uses rolling as the method of character creation.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 06:16 PM	The CORE MECHANIC changed. That is more like the introduction of the 24 second clock thana the three pointer. It fundamentally changed alot of things. If you think that first edition and third edition are fundamentally the same, than we have no common basis on which to discuss. Try porting a third edition character into a second edition game and running them as is. You can't.\ The Core mechanic is simpley an extrapolation of the to hit method from 1st edition, the inversion of AC is cosmetic and had little mathmatical effect on the actual rolling of to hits. Classes, reliance on attributes for class functions, Hit points, weapon selection and damage dice all have thier roots in 1st edition. I would note that all classes have the same hit die that they always have. The game is not a differant game, just an update.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 06:18 PM	Still no arguement? Are we ever going to get an appeal to logos on why p oint buy is superior?
Lethanic 12-24-06, 06:21 PM	Still no arguement? Are we ever going to get an appeal to logos on why p oint buy is superior? Not until you give up the false premise you are arguing under that you have a mythical 'high ground' to argue from.
Lethanic 12-24-06, 06:23 PM	The Core mechanic is simpley an extrapolation of the to hit method from 1st edition, the inversion of AC is cosmetic and had little mathmatical effect on the actual rolling of to hits. Classes, reliance on attributes for class functions, Hit points, weapon selection and damage dice all have thier roots in 1st edition. I would note that all classes have the same hit die that they always have. The game is not a differant game, just an update. Again> Try taking a third edition character and porting him to a first edition game. Or try directtly porting a first edition game meant for first edition characters to third edition and get back to me.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 06:23 PM	Not until you give up the false premise you are arguing under that you have a mythical 'high ground' to argue from. So you have none? It is not a mythical high ground D&D has always used rolling as the method of character generation---- including 3rd edition--- That is reality. You want to change it, you want to change the method in use in D&D for more than 30 years, then argue why it should be changed. I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you have given no reason to think that you are right, so there is no reason to change what works. You are the radical, justify your radicalism.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 06:27 PM	Again> Try taking a third edition character and porting him to a first edition game. Or try directtly porting a first edition game meant for first edition characters to third edition and get back to me. I have done the second--- it worked okay actually, a lot better than I expected. But that is niether here nor there. You have no arguement, so you attack others for supporting the status qou, you want to change the status qou then you are obliged to make arguements as to why your way is better, something you have failed to do.
Lethanic 12-24-06, 06:27 PM	Until you abandon that position, there is nothing to talk about. To have a discussion you have to share some basic premises, we don'tt, apparently. As long as you hold those premises. ..]
Elthbert 12-24-06, 06:28 PM	Until you abandon that position, there is nothing to talk about. To have a discussion you have to share some basic premises, we don'tt, apparently. As long as you hold those premises. ..] That d&D is a 30 year old game and that it has always used rolled characters--- no I am afriad I will not abandon that position, it is the truth.
Lethanic 12-24-06, 06:32 PM	That d&D is a 30 year old game and that it has always used rolled characters--- no I am afriad I will not abandon that position, it is the truth. FIrst, and even secoond edition, are not the same game. False premise.
Sim_antix 12-24-06, 06:33 PM	. . a complete strawman argument. Noone is arguing absolutely everythign should be equal and noone should e allowed to get any better at anything. THey are arguing that the STARTING CONDITIONS should be as close to set equal as possible - "All men are created equal, but varry greatly, in the sequal." At low levels , a few plusses here and there IS the difference between levels - and I suspect much of the difference between peopel who don't think this is so, are people who like to start their games at, say, third, fourth or ven sixth where this starts to be LESS true(Note I didn't, even there, say "not true" Also, those of us that like playing lower magic campaigns, stat bonus differences become quite magnified. Wrong again. I start my players at 1st level and run one of the most extreme low magic campaigns you will ever find.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 06:36 PM	FIrst, and even secoond edition, are not the same game. False premise. No not a false premise I am not the same as a women but we are both human, dispite all of the differances we are the same creature. D&D is not a new game it is an old one. The rules have been altered butthe game is in essense unchanged--- I already gave you a whole list of unaltered things-- a list you have ignored. The problem is that you have no position and you just cannot live with that. So you like point buy, I am happy for you, but because you like it does not make it better, make an arguement. If you can't then drop it.
Sim_antix 12-24-06, 06:36 PM	Still no arguement? Are we ever going to get an appeal to logos on why p oint buy is superior? Point Buy is not superior, but that doesn't make rolling superior either. Both are game mechanics that different groups will find works best for them, but not always for any other group. Theres even people claiming that they would have fun playing with 15 PB characters citinig that its "more realistic" something I disagree with and would never ever ever use but more power to them and their group and as always Good Gaming...
Lethanic 12-24-06, 06:37 PM	Wrong again. I start my players at 1st level and run one of the most extreme low magic campaigns you will ever find. . .so do I. Butt the anecdotal evideence of your campaign is no more valid than the anecdotal evidence of mine., Yet,m common sense: Bonuses mean more at low levels. In a low magic campaign you have less magical item bonuses. Therefore stat bonuses have more impact.
Lethanic 12-24-06, 06:40 PM	No not a false premise I am not the same as a women but we are both human, dispite all of the differances we are the same creature. D&D is not a new game it is an old one. The rules have been altered butthe game is in essense unchanged--- I already gave you a whole list of unaltered things-- a list you have ignored. The problem is that you have no position and you just cannot live with that. So you like point buy, I am happy for you, but because you like it does not make it better, make an arguement. If you can't then drop it. The problem is, I am not arguing its BETTER. I'm just arguing that YOU are using a bad argument. And you still are. A long ways back I said Point buy is better for MY CAMPAIGN for yours results may differ. YOu can look it up. Butt I'm not letting you sit here and get away with a bad argument.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 06:40 PM	Point Buy is not superior, but that doesn't make rolling superior either. Both are game mechanics that different groups will find works best for them, but not always for any other group. Theres even people claiming that they would have fun playing with 15 PB characters citinig that its "more realistic" something I disagree with and would never ever ever use but more power to them and their group and as always Good Gaming... rolling is assumed to be superior becasue it is the method used for so long--- it has worked satisfactorly so if eople want to change itthen they need to be able to explain why thier method is better. If they just want to use it in thier own game well okay, butthat is notwhat many here are saying, they are saying PB is better and should be the default method of character creation--- if that is so they should be able to prove it.
Lethanic 12-24-06, 06:41 PM	rolling is assumed to be superior becasue it is the method used for so long--- it has worked satisfactorly so if eople want to change itthen they need to be able to explain why thier method is better. If they just want to use it in thier own game well okay, butthat is notwhat many here are saying, they are saying PB is better and should be the default method of character creation--- if that is so they should be able to prove it. See, the only person currentlly arguing that one is better is YOu - and your only argument so far has been "TRADITION!"
Elthbert 12-24-06, 06:43 PM	The problem is, I am not arguing its BETTER. I'm just arguing that YOU are using a bad argument. And you still are. A long ways back I said Point buy is better for MY CAMPAIGN for yours results may differ. YOu can look it up. Butt I'm not letting you sit here and get away with a bad argument. No you said tradition was not a viale defense I said it is and gave reasons why--- you do not argue Lethanic you make assertions people respond to them and then you make new assertions--- that is not arguement that is badgering.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 06:49 PM	See, the only person currentlly arguing that one is better is YOu - and your only argument so far has been "TRADITION!" Actually I have made other arguements than that, but you didn't respond to them. That said, I didn't say rolling was superior, I said rolling should be assumed to be superior until it is shown not to be, because it is the traditional default method---- "if it aint broke don't fix it". Show me that its broken of show me that Point by is objectively better--- if not well then there is no argument beyond the mighty "BUT I WANT IT" invoked by preschoolers around the world.
Sim_antix 12-24-06, 06:50 PM	. .so do I. Butt the anecdotal evideence of your campaign is no more valid than the anecdotal evidence of mine., Yet,m common sense: Bonuses mean more at low levels. In a low magic campaign you have less magical item bonuses. Therefore stat bonuses have more impact. Of course stats have more impact at low levels and in low magic campaigns but that doesn't mean that rollers prefer playing in high level high magic campaigns. rolling is assumed to be superior becasue it is the method used for so long--- it has worked satisfactorly so if eople want to change itthen they need to be able to explain why thier method is better. If they just want to use it in thier own game well okay, butthat is notwhat many here are saying, they are saying PB is better and should be the default method of character creation--- if that is so they should be able to prove it. Point Buy is not better and no Rolling is not assumed to be superior just because it is the original method. The original methods for curing disease involved blood letting, would you prefer we went back to that?
Lethanic 12-24-06, 06:51 PM	No you said tradition was not a viale defense I said it is and gave reasons why--- you do not argue Lethanic you make assertions people respond to them and then you make new assertions--- that is not arguement that is badgering. I am making the same assertion, not new ones. The games, mechanically, are not the same from first, to second, to third. The balance issues are not the same. The character creation, from the distribution of what stats mean in bonuses to the addition of feats are different. Just the different distribution of bonuses among stats makes the entire ability score question be reset. Again, I allready admitted, way back, that the thing is down to a matter of preference, but YOU are making a superiority argument.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 06:53 PM	Of course stats have more impact at low levels and in low magic campaigns but that doesn't mean that rollers prefer playing in high level high magic campaigns. Point Buy is not better and no Rolling is not assumed to be superior just because it is the original method. The original methods for curing disease involved blood letting, would you prefer we went back to that? Blood letting actually has it's uses but in general NO however that is because you can objectively determine that not bloodletting is in general superior to blood letting. GO back and actually reread the post on the previous 2 pages, I think perhaps you will then understand the arguement.
Lethanic 12-24-06, 06:55 PM	Of course stats have more impact at low levels and in low magic campaigns but that doesn't mean that rollers prefer playing in high level high magic campaigns. Point Buy is not better and no Rolling is not assumed to be superior just because it is the original method. The original methods for curing disease involved blood letting, would you prefer we went back to that? I was arguing from a gM perspective, noto a player perspective - I'm talking about my effort that I have to put in to balancing a point buy in low magic vs rolling in low magic.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 06:59 PM	I am making the same assertion, not new ones. The games, mechanically, are not the same from first, to second, to third. The balance issues are not the same. The character creation, from the distribution of what stats mean in bonuses to the addition of feats are different. Just the different distribution of bonuses among stats makes the entire ability score question be reset. Again, I allready admitted, way back, that the thing is down to a matter of preference, but YOU are making a superiority argument. I think YOU need to go back and read your own post--- You have definantly been argueing that point Buy is superior--- all about how it was SOOOOO much more balanced--- blah blah blah. Try the pages in the early 20's read them and then honestly ssay that you are not arguenig for the superiority of point buy.
a_psh 12-24-06, 06:59 PM	That d&D is a 30 year old game and that it has always used rolled characters--- no I am afriad I will not abandon that position, it is the truth.And, for a long time, rolling was dysfunctional. Pure and utter crap. Back in the days of 3d6 and 15 being equal to a +1 bonus, of percentile strength and classes with required attributes and bonus XP for having a high attribute, rolling for stats was a miserable failure of a game mechanic. How many times did you have to reroll to get the right to play a paladin? Why was one fighter character you created capable of inflicting twice as much damage as another (that's 16 Str vs. a high 18)? How many people did you know who cheated on their attribute rolls? How many groups were rolling 4d6-drop-lowest of 5d6-drop-lowest-with-a-reroll just to get characters they considered "playable"? Changing the value of attributes (such that a 12 actually meant something) was a fix for a broken system. Changing to 4d6-drop-lowest for ability scores was a fix for a broken system. Giving PCs an extra stat boost every four levels and easy access to magical stat bonuses was a fix for a broken system. During the AD&D2e years, the Skills & Powers introduced the split ability scores just to let you turn those mediocre scores into something useful (who wouldn't sacrifice some carrying capacity to get way more damage?). If you're going to appeal to 20-25 years of a broken and crappy system as the main reason to keep around its descendant, lets talk about just how worthless the character generation system was during the entire AD&D age. (Point buy is crap, too. More on that later...)
Sim_antix 12-24-06, 07:01 PM	Blood letting actually has it's uses but in general NO however that is because you can objectively determine that not bloodletting is in general superior to blood letting. GO back and actually reread the post on the previous 2 pages, I think perhaps you will then understand the arguement. I have read the arguments and just because you cant objectively determine that PB is superior does not make Rolling superior because if you reveresed it you could not objectively prove that Rolling was superior to Point Buy, therefor if you had read the whole thread you would have seen that all of us agreed that in the end it comes down to what your group prefers. I was arguing from a gM perspective, noto a player perspective - I'm talking about my effort that I have to put in to balancing a point buy in low magic vs rolling in low magic. I am also arguing from a DMs perspective. I have also put much work into balancing out my low magic campaign and I still prefer rolling as do my players (it is after all their choice)
starfire311 12-24-06, 08:14 PM	Let's even look at the same class, Fighter. Dumps the 8 into char, the 14 into strenmgth. The diffrence here is +2 compared to +4 bonus on attack rolls, _2 vs +4 on damage, and then 4 AC, 4 hp per level, 4 more skill points per level, and some better saves. Is this signifigant? Sure. You'd expect the difference at this point to get there. But is it as wild as 1 to 1000 gold, or different levels? no. I can't believe you think the difference of 84 PB bewteen 2 characters is not as big or "wild" as a difference of 999 gp. You actually claim that +4 strength, +8 dex, +8 con, +8 Int, +8 Wis, +10 Cha is not worth an LA or even 999gp. If these are truly your beliefs then you can not be reasoned with, and there is really no point continuing the discussion.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 09:12 PM	And, for a long time, rolling was dysfunctional. Pure and utter crap. Back in the days of 3d6 and 15 being equal to a +1 bonus, of percentile strength and classes with required attributes and bonus XP for having a high attribute, rolling for stats was a miserable failure of a game mechanic. How many times did you have to reroll to get the right to play a paladin? Why was one fighter character you created capable of inflicting twice as much damage as another (that's 16 Str vs. a high 18)? How many people did you know who cheated on their attribute rolls? How many groups were rolling 4d6-drop-lowest of 5d6-drop-lowest-with-a-reroll just to get characters they considered "playable"? Changing the value of attributes (such that a 12 actually meant something) was a fix for a broken system. Changing to 4d6-drop-lowest for ability scores was a fix for a broken system. Giving PCs an extra stat boost every four levels and easy access to magical stat bonuses was a fix for a broken system. During the AD&D2e years, the Skills & Powers introduced the split ability scores just to let you turn those mediocre scores into something useful (who wouldn't sacrifice some carrying capacity to get way more damage?). If you're going to appeal to 20-25 years of a broken and crappy system as the main reason to keep around its descendant, lets talk about just how worthless the character generation system was during the entire AD&D age. (Point buy is crap, too. More on that later...) wow lots of questions-- I'll go in order. How many times did you have to reroll to get the right to play a paladin? Never rerolled a characeter in my life--- if I didn't have the stats I played something else and I would role play the fighter who desperatly wanted to be a paladin or whatever. Why was one fighter character you created capable of inflicting twice as much damage as another (that's 16 Str vs. a high 18)? Because people are differant some people are stronger than others, some people smarter and so on--- never saw a problem with it. Never had a problem with it--- cannot remember a single complaint about it. How many people did you know who cheated on their attribute rolls? None to my knowledge but all of the people I have eer played with have always rolled our characters in front of each other. That might help control that problem. How many groups were rolling 4d6-drop-lowest of 5d6-drop-lowest-with-a-reroll just to get characters they considered "playable"? I have no Idea but it was the late eighties before I met a group which used the 4d6 drop the lowest in order method. It was 1994, 15 years after I started playing before I played with a group which used 4d6 drop the lowest arrange them as you will. I was scandalized. I don't know who you were playing with but I was playing with pretty diverse groups and we just rolled the bones and saw what happpened. Of course we wanted good scores but we played what we rolled. I will have to answer the rest later, I have family obligations. Peace and Blessings on this Christmas Eve. If I don't get back to this untill tuesday may you all have a Merry and Blessed Christmas day.
Elthbert 12-24-06, 09:14 PM	I have read the arguments and just because you cant objectively determine that PB is superior does not make Rolling superior because if you reveresed it you could not objectively prove that Rolling was superior to Point Buy, therefor if you had read the whole thread you would have seen that all of us agreed that in the end it comes down to what your group prefers. I am also arguing from a DMs perspective. I have also put much work into balancing out my low magic campaign and I still prefer rolling as do my players (it is after all their choice) Just as a note--- I did read the whole thread.
WizO_Cat 12-25-06, 12:42 AM	Ok, the posts have gotten way too personal and I've already given enough warnings for it to stop. Thus, you know what is coming next ...