Post/Author/DateTime	Post
henebry 06-08-06, 12:42 PM	I recently returned to D&D after at 20 year hiatus to run a campaign for my kids and their friends (ages 10-12). We started before I had copies of all the new rulebooks, and some of my early practices turned out to be simply incorrect. In particular, I used a method for rolling up abilities which was probably way too generous. In essence, I let them roll up 6 characters (4d6 take the top 3 for each ability), then choose the best of the six to play. More recently, in an effort to normalize characters, I shifted to an array system (18, 15, 14, 12, 10, 10). When I look at the DMG point buy system (p169) and at the elite array, my campaign is off the chart: it would cost 38 pts to buy my array, by contrast to 32 points allotted for a "High-Powered campaign" and only 25 pts for the DMG's elite array. Is this a problem? My guess is that it has made the characters a bit more powerful (or perhaps a lot more powerful?) than is typical for their class level. This might explain why they sometimes blow away creatures that would seem to be beyond their CR (though at other times low CR creatures have eaten them for lunch when they've acted rashly). I'm hoping that this error hasn't unbalanced the game too badly. It's my sense that asking them to lower their abilities will distress them—D&D is all about increasing your scores, after all. On the other hand, they've been pretty understanding of errors I've made in past, and if this is a significant problem, I think they'd be willing to undergo a mass "conversion" of their characters, just so long as everyone is subject to the same new rule. Alternatively, I guess I could fix the problem by commensurately increasing NPCs' and monsters' ability scores—though this would significantly increase my workload in preparing adventures.
Finarin Panjoro 06-08-06, 01:09 PM	I wound up in a similar situation in my last campaign. We started with three players so I let them use a higher point buy to generate more durable characters. Then after two adventures we found a fourth player. As a result I typically threw encounters at them that were CR+1 for their level, but I only awarded experience as though it was CR. So there were probably an extra orc or zombie or two in each encounter at low levels or I might add a few hit dice to the monsters at higher levels (according to the guidelines for advancing monsters). This seemed to balance things out pretty nicely for me.
Nobody_ 06-08-06, 01:22 PM	I don't really mind giving my players exceptionally high character stats. It makes them feel good to know that they have insane stat scores, but in the long run, they don't really change the game that much. Even a very high system (I use 10 plus 1d8) does not change too much, but it does make players feel like it does. Think about it. Even a perfect 20 in a stat (18 +2 for racial bonus) only gives you a +5. Skill ranks match that by second level, and BAB matches that by 5th. Armor matches Dex bonus inversely, and so by the time characters have reached 10th level, those stats don't change the game too much, in my humble opinion. I usually let them have those nice scores, and encourage them to brag a little about their "insane" character build, even going so far as to complement them. Of course, I may be too generous, and I am now considering going normal, and calling it a low powered campaign (and then I can let them brag about having normal stats despite a low powered campaign). However, if you want to lower their scores, do it in game. Wait until their next blunder, and have them captured and experimented on, or have part of their life force sent to an evil deity in a sacrificial ritual, or have some kind of parasite attached to their body as part of a ritual that has been passed down for generations. -Nobody
john_045412 06-08-06, 05:40 PM	I am playing in a high powered campaign right now (the group as a whole decided on a similar stat array with the ability to trade off points). I personally would much rather start out PCs with lower stats and provide bonus stat points as rewards later on. Starting out with a warrior with 15 strength and ending up with 19 after a few levels is much more satisfying than starting out with 18 and ending up with 19 in my mind. From a statistical standpoint, its effect on your game can be extreme in some cases and trivial in others. An example. Extreme If a melee character is fighting a high AC opponent and can only hit on a 20 (ignoring criticals) they have a 5% chance to hit. If because of extreme stats they now can hit on an 18-20 they have a 15% chance to hit. Based on averages they should kill the monster 3 times as fast. (the same works in reverse with the players AC vs. monster to hit) Trivial Same case, but the melee character hits on a 11-20 (ac opponent). That would be 50% of the time. Increasing their bonus by two makes it a 9-20 or 60% of the time. Thus they would win 20% faster. Melee vs. Caster balance The other problem is a bit more hidden. Extreme stats tend to support melee characters more than casters. A strenght increase from 15-18 adds +2 to hit and +2 to damage. An increase in intellegence adds 2 spells and a +2 DC. If you are interested I'll run the numbers... but needless to say at low levels this is an extreme advantage for melee and even at higher levels it still tends to be a stronger advantage to melee than casters.
Witch 06-08-06, 05:43 PM	It's not a real issue. I even allow my players a 46 Point Buy. Just see to it that they are challenged :)
Nom 06-09-06, 11:05 AM	The main problem with upping ability scores is that it throws out the balancing mechanics. It's possible to demonstrate that +8-10 points (equivalent) is roughly as valuable as a free level and that +20-24 points (equivalent) is roughly 2 free levels. This has knock-on effects on CR and thus on rate of advancement. It also makes a lot of ability pre-reqs on feats redundant. Note that almost every DM who posts on these boards saying "my PCs are too powerful and CRs don't work" is found to have done one or more of the following: * used high-value ability scores * given way too much treasure * allowed open-slather on expansions without keeping a careful eye on game balance. The more subtle issue is that it makes combat more deadly. Basically, increasing ability scores increases your ability to deal damage faster than your ability to take damage. This increases the effect of luck in combat, and particularly gives a smaller margin of error to absorb bad luck. None of these issues are insurmountable, but you do need to be aware of them.
BRJN 06-09-06, 10:46 PM	Your original plan is about how I handle my Gamma World characters (although I don't give them 5 do-overs) - but then, if your parents and grandparents managed to survive the devastation of the Last World War, you ought to have better-than-average stats. I have always rolled up my characters, and hae not tried a point-buy or an array method. So I don't know if I would like how they work. I currently play a character with STR and DEX 8. Which gives me a to-hit and damage penalty with any physical weapon you care to name. :embarrass My solution: be a Bard, who doesn't really do fighting anyway. Having a bunch of low stats is not a crippling difficulty if there is a character class available that emphasizes something else - something you can be good at. Having ALL low stats is probably a sign that you need to roll up (or buy or whatever) a new character.
Gargs454 06-09-06, 11:00 PM	Personally, my advice would be to just let them keep their characters the way that they are. The easiest solution to their being overpowered is to up the challenges they face slightly. Start small and then add more as needed. As previously mentioned, adding an extra orc or two per encounter could make all the difference. Additionally, I would certainly use the same ability generation on any BBEG's or even "mini-bosses". This puts those characters on the same footing as your PC's. You don't need to do this for all of their enemies, just the big guns. Another important consideration is that it sounds as though your players are pretty new to the game, and certainly, based on their ages, are probably not the most tactically sound players around. Assuming that this is the case, their higher abilities might actually serve as a balancing mechanism -- particularly when they go up against smarter opponents who would know how to use better tactics. In any event, leave the PC's as they are (IMHO) and just start slowing ramping up the encounters. If you find mid-fight that you overly ramped up an encounter, then there's nothing wrong with fudging a few dice rolls if need be. Finally, if you should experience a TPK, or else just a campaign end/reload, then you can use a more standard generation method if you feel the need.
Pegasos989 06-10-06, 09:47 AM	We are currently using elite array +2 in one campaign. So 17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 10. I personally think that they are far too high, and when it is next time my turn to be the DM, I will make these used-to-high-power players use 25 point buy. Even if these are extremy high stats, it is not really a problem as the current DM can put decent opponents. If I was a DM in this high powered campaign, I would add all saving throws and ACs of non-player-creatures by 1 (saves) or 2 (ac). Or then just put creatures more above their CR than usual. Also, you can balance this by giving them slightly less wealth that it is assumed by DMG.
Lokathor 06-10-06, 10:44 AM	25 point buy is marginally better than the elite array because a player won't actually buy that many odd stats (and definately not a 15). The method I was temped to use for my players in a recent new game was "Elite Array +2", but in a very different way from your version of +2. I was going to have all players use the elite array, and then a single ability could be increased by 2. Players could either shore up the 8 or they could make a 17. In the end, they insisted on the Otto Array (after I'd explained both options) and they rolled something very similar anyways.
Man in the Funny Hat 06-10-06, 12:14 PM	In particular, I used a method for rolling up abilities which was probably way too generous. In essence, I let them roll up 6 characters (4d6 take the top 3 for each ability), then choose the best of the six to play. More recently, in an effort to normalize characters, I shifted to an array system (18, 15, 14, 12, 10, 10).Even I would call that overly generous for rolling as well as for an array. Low scores, scores with actual penalties, need to be possible or built-in with the case of arrays or you're definitely over-powering the PC's. Now "over-powering" is a relative phrasing. It does have the advantage of helping lower-level characters survive by giving them higher physical stats (the non-phyiscal stats don't have the same impact at all). That may be what you want. It becomes less relevant as the game progresses and the characters advance. While the bonus for the higher scores is always there, their total of bonuses comes much more from magic weapons, spells, feats, and so forth than ability scores. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just keep it in mind when giving out treasure and setting the CR of opponents. I'm hoping that this error hasn't unbalanced the game too badly. It's my sense that asking them to lower their abilities will distress them—D&D is all about increasing your scores, after all. On the other hand, they've been pretty understanding of errors I've made in past, and if this is a significant problem, I think they'd be willing to undergo a mass "conversion" of their characters, just so long as everyone is subject to the same new rule. Alternatively, I guess I could fix the problem by commensurately increasing NPCs' and monsters' ability scores—though this would significantly increase my workload in preparing adventures. I suspect that the effect on the game is NOT really that significant other than, as you describe, occasionally blowing out opponents that you thought should have been more of a challenge. That's going to happen ANYWAY, the higher scores just makes it a little more frequent. DON'T try to counter it with increasing monster ability scores. Choose a few more higher CR encounters rather than adjusting ability scores in EVERY encounter. Be willing to adjust XP and treasure downwards a bit for those occasional encounters where you think their stats might have made it easier than it ought to have been. Not all the time mind you, just occasionally. The possibility of a mass "conversion" is possible too and has its own advantages. They may not even need to know WHY. If the adventure and it's follow-ups is fun, interesting, exciting they probably won't care that their PC's have all taken a hit on power-level. Moreso if you're then careful to adjust encounters downward again immediately so that they don't FEEL as if the power-drain has had a big effect on their practical, in-game play. But again, except for needing to keep a consistent power level for replacement PC's this shouldn't be TOO concerning to you. Oh, BTW, you mind find this interesting/useful: http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/stat_generation.htm
Sir Knight 06-10-06, 02:21 PM	My standard campaigns use 32 points for PCs and notable NPCs. This new campaign we're starting is using 36 points for PCs, 32 points for notable NPCs. The reason is that I am having them go through a tougher than normal campaign with a slight decrease in magic items. Now, that said I think 36 points works just fine for us. We used to roll using 4d6, drop lowest, method and I tallied the normal range of ability scores in the point-buy method and MOST characters were in the 40-50 point range. Without cheating or exaggeration. SO, 36 points to put everyone on an even playing field? Not a big deal.
Dragonsblood 06-10-06, 02:29 PM	At 10-12 years old they'd probably have more fun plowing through monsters than getting challenged. I'd keep their ability scores as is.
Nom 06-10-06, 11:31 PM	The best (as in most robust) way to power-up characters is to just give them an extra level and/or under-EL the opponents slightly. You increase PC survivability and whatnot without skewing the rest of the game system.
green_yawgmoth 06-11-06, 12:49 AM	I have had characters with stats of 18, 18, 17, 16, 16, 16 before racial mods and it worked out just fine. By your array, I'd take it just about every time over rolling or point buy, and I tend to roll either amazingly well, or so badly that I get a reroll. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Cantankerous 06-11-06, 02:38 AM	As long as you pay attention to what having those high buys do, sure, no problem. For a 38 point buy I'd simply up their effective ECL by 1 to 2 (at low levels I'd up it by one for survivability reasons, at mid to high levels by 2 so that you don't get a Monte game sneak up on you, and at very high levels I'd knock it back down to one) when figuring out what CR main opponent creatures I wanted to throw at them. Notice, not every encounter has to be upgraded...but to make the fights that should be tough actually tough you'll either have to up the EL by enhancing the opponents or you'll want to use higher CR creatures. Isshia
Malakai_Demonos 06-11-06, 02:57 AM	However, if you want to lower their scores, do it in game. Wait until their next blunder, and have them captured and experimented on, or have part of their life force sent to an evil deity in a sacrificial ritual, or have some kind of parasite attached to their body as part of a ritual that has been passed down for generations. -Nobody Yeah, that would be some great stuff to do to a party played by a bunch of 10-12 year olds. Heck, in my current campaign, I gave my players 100 pts to distribute, everything starts at 0 and it costs 1 per 1 the whole way. And they are gestalt monsters, I have no problem making a challenge for them.
Rasmus 06-11-06, 04:24 AM	IMO the problem with characters having really high stats overall, is not the game balance, but the roleplaying. Characters with flaws are simply more interesting in stead of perfect superheroes. Since you have a young group of players it probably isn't that big an issue :) But the unwise wizard or the cleric clutch can be nice for roleplaying with more mature players. I agree that high stats might alleviate some problems the players might have by not being that tactically savy. Don't worry about it :) Your players will probably also enjoy it more when they kick a.. , instead of getting beat all the time.
matrix_king3 06-11-06, 09:52 AM	The problem with your idea of giving 18, 15, 14, 12, 10, 10, is that you dont have any malus. Change it for 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8 is a good solution. Because if you give 18, a player that wanna do a rogue just taking a elf rogue and he going to get a Dex 20. So +5 def. Its dangerous. Me Im doing exacly like you for my campaign. I giving great stats to my player because im giving challenge like 20 goblins with 1 Troll...they are lvl 2. My stats are : 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 8. I explain it because they are chosen from the dragon to save Khorvaire. and my player are more experimented than me :D
High Octane 06-11-06, 10:00 AM	Took a look at the stats. Thats not overpowered enough to cause trouble. There is only one 18 so its not too bad.
Sunrider 06-11-06, 10:32 AM	Playing in FR (a relatively high-powered setting) I find that 32-36 points works well for a party of four or more players. For a solo character, or a team of two, 42-45 points seems to work just fine (with standard encounters). Even with 45 points, I find that solo characters are still reluctant to get into fights - it's all about manipulation, subterfuge, sneakiness and generally playing smart, rather than bulldozing your way through a campaign (mind you, I tend to favour rogues and other sneaky types in the first place). In solo campaigns (especially) many of these extra points go into increasing Int anyway, for the purpose of gaining more skill points (since you have to cover all bases by yourself). IMO 25-28 points only allows for 'bare-bones' characters - you may be able to get a good score in your primary ability, but your 'dump stats' will all be 8. Every fighter will have 8 Cha (and 8 Int if the player has no intention of using combat manoeuvres), every wizard will have 8 Str and 8 Cha, etc. Increasing the point buy allows much more variety and customisation of characters, without hurting balance; also, it makes certain character builds much more viable (especially solo characters). This is especially true at higher levels, where skill points and magic items (if available) trump base ability scores, and the most valuable things in the game are actions. As for higher point-buys helping melee more than casters, that doesn't bother me one bit... it's not like casters are underpowered anyway.
The_Unfan 06-11-06, 10:50 AM	Not sure if this helps at all, but we (my group) always did 4d6 drop the lowest which sometimes resulted in some insane stats. However, we always fought 1 or 2 CR higher than us and it never seemed imbalanced.
AaronDireBear 06-11-06, 11:14 AM	why is everyone in love with the point buy system? Its crippling and railroading...you can never have a character whose good at anything. 25 point buy you can only have one 18 and the rest will be 10's or less.... And why do you ALWAYS convert an aray into a point buy number? its really bloody annoying!! 18 17 16 15 13 13 is what I use. its a perfectly good high powered array and ims ick of people converting it to a point buy number and *****ing about how "mathematically unbalanced" it is. Just make stronger monsters, which is the point of a high powered campaign...stronger players, stronger creatures.
Korethr 06-11-06, 12:31 PM	In the campaign I play in, the DM allows a 36 point buy, enough for 14s across the board. Thus you end up with some characters that are certainly more powerful than average. As a player, I certainly have no problem with this at all, as my odds of surviving my first few levels improve. If I were running a game, I still wouldn't have any problem with it. The games I like to play in (and like to run) have more focus on the heroic characters do amazing and heroic things during the course of their fantastic adventures. Thus more powerful, above-average characters fit in well. And balance is not an issue. We deal with tougher than average encounters, and DM plays the monsters and other encounters intelligently, so it balances out. At 10-12 years old they'd probably have more fun plowing through monsters than getting challenged. I'd keep their ability scores as is. This is a good point. Even though I turn 23 this year, I'm still very much a child at heart and can totally understand how a 12 year old would much more enjoy beating up the evil orc raiding party with his powerful warrior hero (or wizard, monk, cleric, whatever) than barely surviving the encounter. Although some level of challenge is necessary to keep things from getting boring, at the age of 12, big heroic characters are likely to be more fun than ones that are only slightly above average.
BW0222 06-11-06, 12:57 PM	henebry, An array or point-buy is fair to the players. It gives each the same opportunities. However, an array much beyond 32 point-buy does create balance issues with encounters. Encounters are designed for 4 average PCs. This generally assumes a 28 point buy. High stats are figured into the CR and ECL system, since you can see that races with a lot of bonuses on their abilities scores gets an EL +1 adjustment. Using a 32 point buy is kind of like given everyone a few stat pluses. Now, it isn't exactly as good as racial pluses, since a) you can not exceed 18, and b) getting an 18 or so is far more expensive even with 32 than purchasing a 16 with a +2 racial bonus with a 28 point-buy. However, as some point, the two are really similiar. You are essentially a higher EL creature. The issue then comes when trying to balance combats. The DM sees that the PCs are kicking the snot out of what should normally be fair combat by the CR/ECL charts and begins up'ing the numbers and/or CRs. Unfortunately, higher stats and/or EL races only make part of you tougher... not the entire character. Remember that D&D tends to play strengths against weaknesses. If you increase the strength of the PCs through stats it isn't uniform. They might be able to easily defeat some CR 3 groups or they might get slaughtered by them. This leads to more unbalanced combats. A normal DM might have 40% of the fights easy, 50% average, and 10% difficult using the CR charts. Go to far field and you get 60% of the fights easy, 30% average, and 30% difficult. The first are just boarding, but worse the later can be campaign ending. Is it fair to toss two 4th-level enchanters against a 2nd-level party? Well, they managed to defeat a CR 5 ogre? The only difference is that their "edge" was higher stats, which isn't the same as actually being higher levels in all cases. That said, the DM needs to be mindful of all combat encounters. No DM can do well by blindly following the CR charts. However, high-end abilities scores does make finding balanced combats harder.
Always-Late 06-11-06, 01:47 PM	And for the record, high point-buys or generally high stats throw stuff out of balance in another way - feats. Many feats have certain wisdom requirements, strength requirements, dexterity requirements, intelligence requirements. Usually they are 13, 15, rarely 17, very rarely 19. Usually even the stat in 13 should be hard to deal with, and only a few fighters can take Combat Expertise or Two-Weapon Fighting (assuming Str/Con optimization.) But when everybody has a 14+ in everything besides their dump stat, feat limitations become rather useless. (For the record, I have a Favored Soul, 15 Cha, 16 Dex, 8 Str, 7 Wis, 12 Int, and 13 Con.)
DarkRhystar 06-12-06, 12:48 AM	Is this a problem? My guess is that it has made the characters a bit more powerful (or perhaps a lot more powerful?) than is typical for their class level. This might explain why they sometimes blow away creatures that would seem to be beyond their CR (though at other times low CR creatures have eaten them for lunch when they've acted rashly). Cross that bridge when you come to it. High ability scores don't create overpowered characters, players do. If they want mega-characters they can do that with even a low point buy. Assuming that just because the ability scores are high that the characters will be too powerful is premature at best, a misconception at worst. Give the players a chance and see how things work out.
Sphyre 06-12-06, 03:54 AM	I don't really mind giving my players exceptionally high character stats. It makes them feel good to know that they have insane stat scores, but in the long run, they don't really change the game that much. I agree. Stats don't make THAT much of a difference in the game, esspecially when you can buy items to boost them too. A lot of people put too much emphasis on how stats are "too high" when it's not all that much of an increase. Yes it IS an increase, and it will make a difference over time. But it's not as big as you have to throw huge CRs at the players.
Sunrider 06-12-06, 05:07 AM	I agree. Stats don't make THAT much of a difference in the game, esspecially when you can buy items to boost them too. A lot of people put too much emphasis on how stats are "too high" when it's not all that much of an increase. Yes it IS an increase, and it will make a difference over time. But it's not as big as you have to throw huge CRs at the players. The biggest difference IMO is in skill points - more points means higher Int, meaning more skill points per level. Also, it means that most of the party can at least participate in social interactions, rather than dumping Cha in order to be good at their main focus. In a solo/2-player game, this is, IMO, vital - you need to cover all the bases by yourself, and skills will be in in short supply. Even in a standard party, the extra skill points give more character variety without unbalancing things. With regard to everything else, it doesn't really make much of a difference, apart from giving MAD characters a slight boost. After all, 28 or 42 points, the wizard or psion will still have 18 Int - with more points, she just becomes a more well-rounded character, rather than the stereotypical autistic nerd. Her combat effectiveness barely changes (spell/power DCs and bonus spells/powers for high Int don't change), but she becomes a much more interesting character rather than a bare-bones character. It's not so much the +4 to this stat or that which gives certain races ECL (even without other extraordinary, supernatural or spell-like abilities) - it's more the fact that the +4 allows for an intial stat of 22 and a maximum stat that's four higher than someone with a maximum initial stat of 18. After all, the main attraction of ability modifiers is to push boundaries. Higher point buy doesn't change the boundaries - it just allows for more well-rounded characters, since a SAD character (i.e. almost all casters) will have a maxed-out primary stat anyway. If it helps MAD melee characters a bit more, I don't have a problem with thatl.
Zaku 06-12-06, 05:11 AM	It's my sense that asking them to lower their abilities will distress them—D&D is all about increasing your scores, after all. Wrong. DnD is about playing the role of a given or chosen character. The point is not "Gosh, I wonder how long it will take to become a demi-god?" You're supposed to interact, and, when combat approaches, one must observe the environment and exploit an enemy weakness. I say take the online test and whatever their abilities are in real life, give them those. That'll teach those little rugrats to max out...
Sphyre 06-12-06, 05:23 AM	The biggest difference IMO is in skill points - more points means higher Int, meaning more skill points per level. Also, it means that most of the party can at least participate in social interactions, rather than dumping Cha in order to be good at their main focus. True, true. I tend to notice when I play a higher stat generation method, that I have more skills, yet you're still restricted to the class you play.
green_yawgmoth 06-12-06, 11:41 AM	The problem with your idea of giving 18, 15, 14, 12, 10, 10, is that you dont have any malus. Change it for 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8 is a good solution. Because if you give 18, a player that wanna do a rogue just taking a elf rogue and he going to get a Dex 20. So +5 def. Its dangerous. Me Im doing exacly like you for my campaign. I giving great stats to my player because im giving challenge like 20 goblins with 1 Troll...they are lvl 2. My stats are : 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 8. I explain it because they are chosen from the dragon to save Khorvaire. and my player are more experimented than me :D If having an 18 as a starting stat was so terrible, they wouldn't have made the rules to allow it. A 20 dex at level 1 isn't that great anyways; you've got a decent AC, so? Doesn't mean you're going to be God on rollerskates because it's a little harder to hit you. I see nothing wrong with not having a dump stat, because they'll use whatever they put as their dump stat even less than normal. Wrong. DnD is about playing the role of a given or chosen character. The point is not "Gosh, I wonder how long it will take to become a demi-god?" You're supposed to interact, and, when combat approaches, one must observe the environment and exploit an enemy weakness. I say take the online test and whatever their abilities are in real life, give them those. That'll teach those little rugrats to max out...Yes, how DARE they try to have fun! They should all have to play the same way I do because MY way is best! :rolleyes: D&D is about having fun. If min/maxing and going to the uber treasure is fun for them, then that's how they'll play. They're kids, for god's sake. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Zaku 06-12-06, 11:52 AM	Yes, how DARE they try to have fun! They should all have to play the same way I do because MY way is best! :rolleyes: D&D is about having fun. If min/maxing and going to the uber treasure is fun for them, then that's how they'll play. They're kids, for god's sake. Yes, kids who are suddenly teenagers with chars that are out of whack and suddenly they are confused because no one wants to deal with someone who's got a dexterity of 20.
babysamurai 06-12-06, 11:55 AM	I've been running a Planescape campaign for about 9 months now. The characters have just reached 9th level. But since I foolishly let them roll 5d6 drop the lowest two (I know, I know) - they are more like ECL 11 or even 12. It's not game-breaking, and the campaign is a blast for everyone, but let's just say for my next campaign; I'll be implementing 28 or 32 point buy. Despite what some people say, it is a big difference when the 1st level Psion in the party has: Str 17, Dex 17, Con 16, Int 18, Wis 14, Cha 13. ...That's like 3 levels of full BAB for free, and a bunch of other LA-worthy goodies.
Rolof 06-12-06, 01:15 PM	Our group's been playing for years, before there even was such a thing as pointbuy or arrays, we came up with a way to have all characters be relatively equal, and eliminate the luck factor of random die rolls (one person in the group is insanely lucky). All characters start with 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8. Now that there is a pointbuy system, that works out to 38 points. *shrugs* It works for us, and we have fun....is that not the point? And for anyone who may think that's horrible, and is way overpowered...consider this: a 32 point buy allows you to get 4 13's and 2 14's, which adds up to 80 total numbers in your stats...our way gives you 78.
Sphyre 06-12-06, 05:51 PM	I have had characters with stats of 18, 18, 17, 16, 16, 16 before racial mods and it worked out just fine. By your array, I'd take it just about every time over rolling or point buy, and I tend to roll either amazingly well, or so badly that I get a reroll. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif heh, I'm currently in a campaign that the group loves to have high stats... 4d6 drop the lowest, reroll 1s and 2s. In fact, I think it even may be 5d6.... Regardless, I rolled 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, damn near what you rolled. I'm playing a duskblade in a 2-person campaign, and at level 1 I'm destroying everything because one of those 18s is in str. The DM mentioned how powerful I am and the first thing I said was "well, I have high stats" lol. And I used color spray :P But I still would be a similarly strong character if I had lower stats. My strength is in my strategy. Color spray and a reach weapon. Things don't get close and if they do, they don't STAY close :P
green_yawgmoth 06-12-06, 09:14 PM	Yes, kids who are suddenly teenagers with chars that are out of whack and suddenly they are confused because no one wants to deal with someone who's got a dexterity of 20. A 20 dex at level 1 is no big deal; if it is for you, then you're a crappy DM. A child will mature and have his/her tastes change between the ages of 10 and 18, and if yours doesn't, then you're a failure as a parent as well. Just because they enjoy what MIGHT be a monty haul/easy game now doesn't mean they're going to be munchkin scrubs their whole lives. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif