Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-26-05, 01:06 PM	The average of your ability scores should be no less than 10, and no greater than 14. You must have an ability score of at least 13. I had a DM say that to me last week. I'm pondering whether to play or not.
TheraerTheWanderingBard 06-26-05, 01:18 PM	i would play, its only the average of your ability scores...that still leaves room for two 18s...granted...you would need to have two 10s or lower to get the average right...but thats fine with me
Jonnadiah 06-26-05, 01:27 PM	Sounds rather like your DM is being a bit of a control freak. I can't say whether the DM will be like this the entire campaign, but you should at least play the first session. If the DM tries to control the players actions and resorts to NPC overuse and/or Deus ex Machina, then you should either drop or talk to him/her and tell him/her to tone it down.
Veton 06-26-05, 01:41 PM	You could try and suggest point buy. I think that if s/he's trying to control the ranges of ability scores this much, they should probably use point buy anyway.
Ragey 06-26-05, 02:10 PM	Eh, why not give it a game session, see how it feels?
BeyondFated 06-26-05, 02:11 PM	If there's two things that I really hate, is people telling me how to make/play my character, and point buy. Don't like the three 18s i rolled? :censored: off, I got lucky and I'm keeping them. Wanna tell me I got 22 points so that I can have a horribly underpoewred character that will die a gruesome death? :censored: me, I'm out. And that, as they say, is that.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-26-05, 02:15 PM	If there's two things that I really hate, is people telling me how to make/play my character, and point buy. Don't like the three 18s i rolled? :censored: off, I got lucky and I'm keeping them. Wanna tell me I got 22 points so that I can have a horribly underpoewred character that will die a gruesome death? :censored: me, I'm out. And that, as they say, is that. And what would you say if you rolled three 3's? "Oh, too bad, you got unlucky and you have to keep them."
Ut-Napishtim 06-26-05, 03:13 PM	So then the DM is letting you roll your ability scores on your own? I'd say that's his first mistake right there, and probably why he feels the need to set out some 'guidelines' so folks don't get carried away. The funny thing is that some folks are getting their panties in a bunch, but he could be simply paraphrasing the PHB. In the PHB it says a character who's ability mods net zero or less, or who's highest score is a 13 or less is 'unplayable' and the player can roll again. Sounds rather similar to the 'average no less than 10 and at least one 14' to me. The only odd thing seems to be the 'no higher an average than 14' part, but if you're rolling them on your own statistically an average higher than 14 is pretty unlikely (outside of Faerun anyway) so it makes sense. Personally I don't let players show up with their own stat sets in hand, but if he's trusting you to do it on your own already what's the big deal? :confused:
Evangelos 06-26-05, 03:21 PM	I have to agree that book Point Buy is a joke, even at 32, which is ridiculously labeled, "high power." I use 45 Point Buy in my games and it works out just fine. A typical character will have stats like this: 18, 16, 14, 14, 12, 11 On the other hand, I HATE rolling for ability scores. I think it's an archaic and unfair method that either punishes you for getting low scores or punishes everyone else if you have high scores. What if there are two fighters in the campaign, one with low scores and one with high? The guy with the low scores is constantly going to be overshadowed by the one with good stats. If rolling makes you happy, then more power to you...but i'd personally never play in a game where ability scores were generated randomly, DnD or otherwise. In any case, i'd tell the guy to just use Point Buy if he wants to have that much control over your ability scores. It's probably worth giving it a session just to see if he's going to be a control freak or not.
Scion of Coldshard 06-26-05, 03:40 PM	The average of your ability scores should be no less than 10, and no greater than 14. You must have an ability score of at least 13. I had a DM say that to me last week. I'm pondering whether to play or not. why would this cause you to wonder about playing? Too high powered? too much disparity? too muc choice about the character? Did he tell you the highest stat you could use? Time to grab a barbarian, pop a 24 in str and con, and make up for it in the other 4 stats. Or some other random combination. A straight 14's monk is definately an interesting idea, a little good at everything. Go for it, if this is the biggest rule for character generation I dont see a problem. At least it isnt a horribly underpowered way like I have seen before (like one guy and his 'special chart' which we arent allowed to see.. it wound up being about Point buy 10 or so, lower if you wanted a stat above 13). Just have fun with it, sounds like you could make just about any character concept with the guidelines he gave.
Ut-Napishtim 06-26-05, 05:45 PM	...but i'd personally never play in a game where ability scores were generated randomly, DnD or otherwise. Wow, I never realised there were so many games to choose from in Cleveland, TN that players could be that picky. :eek:
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 06-26-05, 06:46 PM	The average of your ability scores should be no less than 10, and no greater than 14. You must have an ability score of at least 13. I had a DM say that to me last week. I'm pondering whether to play or not. Considering that straight 3d6 (which I'm assuming is what you will be using) will likely fall into that category, I don't see how it is that much of a restriction. Seems to me that its a way of ensuring against getting really horrible rolls. Assuming 1e uses the same scale that 2e does, a 6 gives more penalties than a 14 gives bonuses.
green_yawgmoth 06-26-05, 06:54 PM	I have to agree that book Point Buy is a joke, even at 32, which is ridiculously labeled, "high power." I use 45 Point Buy in my games and it works out just fine. A typical character will have stats like this: 18, 16, 14, 14, 12, 11 On the other hand, I HATE rolling for ability scores. I think it's an archaic and unfair method that either punishes you for getting low scores or punishes everyone else if you have high scores. What if there are two fighters in the campaign, one with low scores and one with high? The guy with the low scores is constantly going to be overshadowed by the one with good stats. If rolling makes you happy, then more power to you...but i'd personally never play in a game where ability scores were generated randomly, DnD or otherwise. In any case, i'd tell the guy to just use Point Buy if he wants to have that much control over your ability scores. It's probably worth giving it a session just to see if he's going to be a control freak or not.I agree that the point buy given in the books is a farce. 22 point buy? Oh yay, I get to have a character who is either mediocre or a one trick pony. I don't mind rolling for stats, usually. We do 4d6 drop, roll 7 numbers and drop the lowest. I've never seen anyone fail to roll at least playable stats from it (and I mean actually playable, not "oh good I got a 14 and all 10s"). http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
cambric 06-26-05, 08:37 PM	I have to agree that book Point Buy is a joke, even at 32, which is ridiculously labeled, "high power." I use 45 Point Buy in my games and it works out just fine. A typical character will have stats like this: 18, 16, 14, 14, 12, 11 On the other hand, I HATE rolling for ability scores. I think it's an archaic and unfair method that either punishes you for getting low scores or punishes everyone else if you have high scores. What if there are two fighters in the campaign, one with low scores and one with high? The guy with the low scores is constantly going to be overshadowed by the one with good stats. If rolling makes you happy, then more power to you...but i'd personally never play in a game where ability scores were generated randomly, DnD or otherwise. In any case, i'd tell the guy to just use Point Buy if he wants to have that much control over your ability scores. It's probably worth giving it a session just to see if he's going to be a control freak or not. I agree with the above scores, I went with: 18,17,16,15,14,12 for their first PC. If they decided to start over, after the 3rd session, they had to roll for new scores. I only had one person do so and he still rocked!! I did the 4d6 drop the lowest, reroll ones. I do like a high powered campaign...the players love it too...and if they die, which only one has, they say, "it's not like you throw something too tough at us and we have weak characters." Eliza, That's a tough decision...I don't like to be told that my scores have to be in a certain range...I accept if I roll low, the DM should accept if I roll high. I've had both happen: my current pc, a gnome bard, rolled: 10,14,14,15,16,17 before racial adjustments...it's the lowest of everyone in the group and I don't care, having a blast with him. I couldn't really complain, because my first PC, when 1e, I rolled, in order with 3d6 and you HAD to keep the scores the way they happened and he ruled no rerolls: 17,18,18,14,14,18. That was 25+ years ago and he said, "you blew your rolling for the rest of your life"...yep, but so what. I would start the campaign and see what everyone does...who knows, you might find out the DM has his/her reasons...maybe they're new and worried about too high of scores...or scared that someone might roll a bunch of 18's and someone else roll 10's and not know what to do. Cam
Trevan0 06-26-05, 09:14 PM	That's a funny method of deciding stats. While we're at it, ask if it's the mean, median, or mode. Or give him some stats blatantly out of whack with the mean. You know, like 14 14 14 14 17 18. My dream job is to be a paid smart ass.
Nom 06-26-05, 10:24 PM	I agree that the point buy given in the books is a farce. 22 point buy? Oh yay, I get to have a character who is either mediocre or a one trick ponyI know what you mean. It's like playing Monopoly with only the regulation $900 for starting money. Real men play with $3000! Or these silly "balance" and "game design" fanatics who insist that a soccer team should have 8 men just like in the rulebooks. I think anyone who starts with less than 15 is just afraid to play the real game. ;) (PS: the correct numbers are 25, $1500, and 11)
Ut-Napishtim 06-26-05, 11:00 PM	I honestly don't see this as a huge deal, seriously. If I were going to play in a game and the DM said we only got a 22 point buy I'd ask: So are all the monsters, NPC's, and other players only going to be getting a 22 point buy as well? If he said yes then I'd say: Cool, so what's the party got already - need a Wizard? Seriously, as long as everything's balanced what's the big deal if your character doesn't get a bonus out of a couple stats or <GASP!> actually draws a small -1 penalty from one? Is that so unimaginably horrible that you just can't stand to play such a character? I'm not saying the DM's not being a little power-trippy, but anyone who's checked out the 'My Crazy DM's House Rules' thread knows there's a lot more DM's out there that are pulling a lot worse every weekend. Keep in mind we haven't even established conclusively yet whether or not the DM's letting the players do their stats on their own. If he is that's a huge amount of leeway right there, and some minor conditions are bound to come with getting such a long leash. Although if he's not it does seem a bit odd to implement such conditions since the characters are rolled right in front of him. Personally I let my players opt for the old PHB 4d6 or a DMG 28 point buy at their discretion. If they decide to roll though they have to do it in front of the other players so everyone knows they got the same fair shake as everyone else. I know, I know, that's 'controlling' and 'unfair' of me - but by the RAW there's nothing wrong with it and it's perfectly PC. I don't run FR games either, so you can't counter and convict me of anything by the standards set out in any of those books - they're supplemental. :P
Sargon 06-27-05, 12:22 AM	WE ussually roll 4d6 and re-roll 1's and then drop the lowest score... makes for good heroic characters.
celtredleg 06-27-05, 01:24 AM	Last game I allowed 5d6, reroll 1&2. Big OOPS!! The party blew through many encounters I thought would give them a challenge. Oh well, at least they had a blast.
Phrennzy 06-27-05, 10:45 AM	Make a PC using those guidelines, and try playing. The worst thing that happens is you waste a night playing. I'm sure you'll know soon if his style and yours meshes. I plan on using 28 or 32 point buy with the next game.
ajmastrean 06-27-05, 11:41 AM	I did some serious analysis of the 4d6-drop-lowest method, arguably the most common stat generation method. Over anywhere from 10 to 2000 sets of 6 stats the average minimum is 8-9, average maximum is 15-16, average is 12-13 (as stated in PHB!). I also calculated the related point buy of the 4d6-drop-lowest method. Over a few hundred test, the max is 55-60, min 5-10, average 28-29 (lower # of tests are unstable). What I'm getting at is that the 4d6-drop-lowest and the 28 pt. buy are pretty close. A 22 pt buy isn't even listed in the DMG, the lowest was 25 right? Anyway, a 45 point buy?! that's freakin' ridiculous. I have used 4d6-drop-lowest exclusively (from both player and DM side) and have never forced anyone to use crappy stats (you are allowed to roll a few sets to juice up your dice). And I also will not allow one player to be so far above the rest of the players, and if they are mature, they will accept that they have a responsibility to cooperate and play nice with others. *on my methods... if you want a copy of the Excel sheet (built in VBA) that I used or have questions on my methods, PM me.
Scion of Coldshard 06-27-05, 11:56 AM	Did you remember to throw away 'hopeless' characters? I have seen a few different threads go through the math and generally speaking people tend to come up with between 31 and 33 point buy equivalency with a standard deviation around 4 I believe (not that it is a bell curve, but hey). Typically in games I run I use 36 point buy and I tend to treat the characters as having a psuedo +1 LA whenever I make encounters. Not really a full +1 LA, but generally if we are talking run of the mill monsters out of the monstrous manual without any equipment and poor stats like they tend to have then sure.
Plateau Child 06-27-05, 12:02 PM	Point Buy doesnt feed the thrillseeking side of me enough. Rolling for abilities is like the genetic crapshoot for PCs. :cloud9: :dice: :dice: :dice:
ajmastrean 06-27-05, 12:36 PM	I did kill "illegal" sets of stats (total mod <= 0, max score <=13). And an interesting stat --> 6-7.5% of the sets were dropped despite the number of sets rolled (no real variance over 100 or 2000 sets).
eudas 06-27-05, 01:59 PM	The average of your ability scores should be no less than 10, and no greater than 14. You must have an ability score of at least 13. I had a DM say that to me last week. I'm pondering whether to play or not. Well, if you use 25, 28, or 30 point buy then you should have no difficulty fulfilling the requirement. Myself, I almost invariably find myself fitting that range as I'm usually unwilling to have 18 18 10 8 8 8 or some similarly silly set of stats. All the rule is saying is "Pick some stats that are above-average and make sense, and don't twink your character's stats out just so your 1st level scythe-wielding half-orc barbarian can deal 54 damage in 1 hit." But, you know, some people just can't get over the whole 2nd-edition stat rolling thing. "I'm just no good unless I have an 18 or two!" In all reality, in the current system, at mid to high levels, bonuses from stats are a pretty minor part of your overall totals anyway. A 12th level fighter with 18str is only +2 hit/dam different than a 12th level fighter with 14str. A 10th level rogue with 20dex and 13 ranks is only +2 different on his Move Silently check than a 10th level rogue with 16dex and 13 ranks. Etc. eudas
braindead345 06-28-05, 04:07 AM	Your average has to be 14? That's easy, 14 for every stat. If you play spell slingers, you can cast up to 4th level spells and you can use your +1 stat bonus to move that up as needed. The only place you will suffer are the spells' DC rolls. Low stats are only a handicap if you let them be. I had the misfortune of rolling a 6 CON for a character (rolling straight down the line) and then random rolled my race (Half-elf, no help there). Oddly, enough the DM ran with the concept. The tavern owners would take pity and give me larger portions of food because I looked underfed. Unfortunately, they also limited my drinking because they were afraid of the mess. In short, it was a fun character to play.
FreeTheSlaves 06-28-05, 06:57 AM	Why don't you discuss this with the dm? I get a consensus from the players before anyone picks up dice, having discussed what sort of characters we want to see in the particular campaign setting.
Ut-Napishtim 06-28-05, 10:59 AM	I don't mean to be rude here, but I think you might just have to work through some control issues, Eliza. I've been DMing over 15 years, and there was a time (about '95 to '99) where I was one of the worst players a DM could ask for. I was never satisfied with the game and constantly rules lawyering or causing other problems because it wasn't being done the way I'd do it, and being accustomed to DMing most of the time I was used to things being done my way. Eventually I learned and accepted that different DM's have different styles and it's more fun for everyone when I just chill out, sit back, and enjoy the ride. Anyone who frequents these boards knows you run your own games as well, and by the sound of it you do a good job. What we also know though is that about every week you have a new thread complaining about things another DM is doing - and most of the time (like this time) it's not exactly earth-shattering, super-traumatc stuff. It's only amplified by the fact that (IIRC) you're still playing 1E or 2E, and since those editions aren't as comprehensive as 3.5 there are going to be times every game where the DM will have to make judgement calls on what your character can and can't do for certain situations not covered in the rules. That ruling will probably not be the same call you would make if you were DMing. Personally I think you should upgrade to 3.5 because it will give you more power over your characters when you're not behind the screen, since almost every situation or possible action is well defined within the rules. More importantly though you need to learn to accept the fact that when you play you'll no longer be able to control some of the things you could as a DM (like character generation methods for example,) and it's best to just sit back and enjoy the freedom from that responsibility that players get - rather than hyperfocusing on the fact that this DM does things differently than you would if you were in control. It took me a couple years to get over it myself, but when I did I was much more fun to play with on either side of the screen :twocents:
snowlynx 06-28-05, 11:16 AM	I accept if I roll low, the DM should accept if I roll high. I've had both happen: my current pc, a gnome bard, rolled: 10,14,14,15,16,17 before racial adjustments...it's the lowest of everyone in the group and I don't care, having a blast with him. This may be the lowest of the group, but I assure you, those are not low stats. You have a 16 and a 17, and most of your scores give a nice +2 bonus. Eliza- the main thing that would bother me about what your DM has said is that it requires me to go through and calculate. This is extra work towards making a character that does nothing for the game. I would still play, were it me, but would do one of the following things: 1) roll anyway (3d6), find the average, and adjust the scores a little higher or lower so that the end result was an average of 13-14. 2) Start with all scores at 8, and add points until the average is closer to 13-14. (Add 36 points or less.) 3) Ask the DM for several sets of varied stats that equal what he wants; use the one that fits my character the most. If he won't give them, ask why he's made this extra unwieldy step in character creation.... Upon checking my character sheets, I see that 10-14 average isn't bad at all: 11,16, 12, 16, 16, 8 Is what one of my character has, and I don't consider those 'bad scores'; I would gladly accept such scores for a character, though there might be circumstances where I'd be displeased with the 8 (if the character's worst stat shouldn't be a weakness, for example, I would much rather have one of the 16's be a 14 and the 8 be a 10.)
Timlagor 06-28-05, 01:33 PM	2 points 1) Look for the "are my stats too good" (or very similar) thread. The restrictions don't seem unreasonable to me - you will get a decent character without unbalancing the team. 2) A thing to note about point buy is that you are much more likely to get min-maxxed/optimized builds than rolling dice. (they are more powerful, especially in a proper team). I wouldn't at all concerned about this restriction. EDIT: typo
Scion of Coldshard 06-28-05, 01:41 PM	2) A thing to note abou point buy is that you are much more likely to get min-maxxed/optimized builds than rolling dice. This is likely more because the game designers seem to assume 25 point buy and 4d6 drop the low are equivalent than anything else. When you are limited to 25 points you really need to focus on your strengths and min/max or your character will wind up being very blah. (If you want a single 16 in order to be very good at something you are left with 15 points for 5 other stats, so if you take the 16 to be good at what you want to be good at you are going to suck at pretty much everything else. Even two 14's cut you down to 13 points to spread over 4 stats. Forget about playing a monk at all) Whereas with the rolling method you are much more likely to have 'much' better overall stats. Other than the above issues which force someone to min/max more for their character concept I dont see anything else that would support what you have said.
windquake 06-28-05, 02:28 PM	Wow, I never realised there were so many games to choose from in Cleveland, TN that players could be that picky. :eek: I was going to say the same thing. I have seen multiple people take either side (3d6 vs. Point Buy) and refuse to play any other way. -Windquake
nightwing 06-28-05, 04:20 PM	I've always used the PHB method exactly. Roll 4d6, lose the lowest roll, add the other three, repeat 6 times, arrange as desired, apply racial modifiers. Sometimes one character has a slightly higher or lower average, but it has never been anything that players have complained about. If he's letting your average be as high as 14, be happy, that's WAY higher than the average average (12 points higher!!!!). I'd consider this campaign to be "high powered."
^Graff_EpsilonIX 06-29-05, 02:14 PM	If you are playing 1st or 2nd ed. why does it really matter that you have high ability scores? Isn't the point to RP? With "different" ability scores, you can do something close to that. That said, give it a shot.
FreeTheSlaves 06-30-05, 01:56 AM	This is likely more because the game designers seem to assume 25 point buy and 4d6 drop the low are equivalent than anything else. ... Whereas with the rolling method you are much more likely to have 'much' better overall stats. I disagree. When you have the choice of a guaranteed 25pts (+5 total mod with default array) or 4d6dl (+1 or better total mod) which is going to be for the next 30+ sessions, the choice is very even. There are 2 players in our group that rolled up the equivalent of 20 & 23 pt buy and that is that for the next year real-time worth of the campaign; furthermore they are not optimized with heaps of odd stats. I expected only 1 character out of 4 to get a bum character but in this case I got 2. When you pick up those 4d6 you are taking the chance, with 25 pt buy you are guaranteed a modest but decent character. Btw we are playing in another campaign with 25pt & there is a monk & paladin there, they are contributing quite nicely I think. The key is to recalibrate individual expectations downward & focus on team tactics, no lone rangers.
FreeTheSlaves 06-30-05, 01:59 AM	Btw, with 1st & 2nd edition it doesn't matter if the stats are below 15, they give nothing regardless. Str is worse, it has to be 16 or higher but preferably 18 so you can roll for %. Man the stat situation in 1st/2nd is so bad, anything other than super fantastic scores are worthless - just like the system.
Timlagor 06-30-05, 08:51 AM	This is likely more because the game designers seem to assume 25 point buy and 4d6 drop the low are equivalent than anything else. When you are limited to 25 points you really need to focus on your strengths and min/max or your character will wind up being very blah. (If you want a single 16 in order to be very good at something you are left with 15 points for 5 other stats, so if you take the 16 to be good at what you want to be good at you are going to suck at pretty much everything else. Even two 14's cut you down to 13 points to spread over 4 stats. Forget about playing a monk at all) The over-all power level of the campaign is entirely up to the DM. The reason you are likely to get min-maxed characters is because people can choose to make them and most people (imale) like to play powerful/optimised characters. If you know youa re getting into a tough campaign then you may also feel pressure to build an optimisd character but I think most people would be inclined to do so anyway.
Scion of Coldshard 06-30-05, 11:10 AM	When you have the choice of a guaranteed 25pts (+5 total mod with default array) or 4d6dl (+1 or better total mod) which is going to be for the next 30+ sessions, the choice is very even. Since the average point buy value of that roll is above 30 it isnt exactly a huge penalty to pick the roll over the 25 point buy. Besides, the biggest problem with rolling is that one character might have a 20 point buy and another a 50 point buy. These are characters on a completely different power scale from one another. Disparities like this are a Bad Thing (tm). Also, as far as monks go with 25 point buy, they are pretty well hosed. The monk needs as many as all 6 stats to be decent, or he can try focusing down to a couple and ignore most of his abilities. Monks already have a tendency to be second class everything, but making them only second class in a single area and not even mentionable in the rest is a bit harsh. Primary fighter type? need a good str, dex, con, and wisdom. Primary grappler vs casters? you can cut this down to a good str and wisdom if you are really careful. But, being behind in BAB vs other fighter types is going to hurt a lot. Skill monkey for lots of stealthy stuff? going to need a decent int and good stats in the basis for your skills (dex, wis, cha). Even after all of this your AC is going to suck most of the time. If you hit 14 you are doing pretty well. Other fighter types will beat out that AC easily from very early on, while having a higher BAB, and likely doing more damage. For the skill guy the rogue would still be a better bet to take since sneak attack damage can make up for a lack of a good str sometimes. While a character can still have fun it tends to wear on most people when pretty much everyone is better than you at doing everything. But, roleplaying is different than balance, one can roleplay anything and have fun, I am talking specifically about balance above and then that some/most/all people will dislike being so far behind after awhile. Also, sometimes characters die. How common is raise dead in your world? Lets say it is just as common as the rules say it is, if you have the money and know of a church you can likely get one (probably owe them a favor, but ignoring that for now). Any player who feels his character is much weaker than the rest (+1 total mod in a group of +5's) may feel it would be better to get a new character instead. Try something new, likely get better rolls, have more fun by being able to contribute more. So then he comes back with a +12 total mod vs their +5's. Now we have the same problem, still massive disparity. Might as well just make the playing field even to begin with, it saves so much hassle. The over-all power level of the campaign is entirely up to the DM. The reason you are likely to get min-maxed characters is because people can choose to make them and most people (imale) like to play powerful/optimised characters. If you know youa re getting into a tough campaign then you may also feel pressure to build an optimisd character but I think most people would be inclined to do so anyway. Depends on what you mean by min/maxed in all likelyhood. I have met people who felt that putting your primary stat into dex or int as a rogue was 'min/maxing too much you powergamer'. Of course, these were also the people that told me having charisma was stupid because you should just roleplay it, all the while ignoring that their characters had things like 8 or less cha and they were 'roleplaying' as though they had double digits. Of course, this also goes back to the 'point buy vs rolling'. If you are useing point buy everyone will have similar levels of starting power, if you use dice then it is much more likely to have a huge disparity in stat power (you 'could' have a guy with all 18's roaming around with a guy who has a 13 and the rest 10's or 11's, although it isnt incredibly likely). If you have one guy whose total modifiers are +3 and another with +12 there are going to be some issues, especially if the first guy had really wanted to play a monk and really tries to while the second guy picks up any class and blows him out of the water in every area. Harsh.
Ut-Napishtim 06-30-05, 01:15 PM	I think it's probably moot anyway. Eliza's usually on the boards every day, and considering she hasn't even posted to clarify whether the players were rolling stats on their own or not I think it's safe to assume she decided not to play and forgot about the whole thing. Had she decided to go ahead with it, or if she was still interested in opinions, she would've posted an update on the situation for us long ago.
Mikal 06-30-05, 02:57 PM	And what would you say if you rolled three 3's? "Oh, too bad, you got unlucky and you have to keep them." Yup ;)
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-30-05, 03:00 PM	I think it's probably moot anyway. Eliza's usually on the boards every day, and considering she hasn't even posted to clarify whether the players were rolling stats on their own or not I think it's safe to assume she decided not to play and forgot about the whole thing. Had she decided to go ahead with it, or if she was still interested in opinions, she would've posted an update on the situation for us long ago. Schedules conflicted. I wouldn't have been able to play even if I'd wanted to, which I never really decided on.
20goingon1232 07-01-05, 01:13 AM	I did a 4d6, reroll 1s and drop the lowest on my group. Average stat was about 15, I believe. Everyone was level 2 (though there were a couple of Aasimars in there), three person party. A Darkmantle (CR1) nearly TPK them (only person still conscious was down to 3-4 hp). There is no such thing as overpowered stats-wise. Be more afraid of class and/or item combinations....
FreeTheSlaves 07-01-05, 01:41 AM	Since the average point buy value of that roll is above 30 it isnt exactly a huge penalty to pick the roll over the 25 point buy. If 4d6dl is equal to say 30pt buy (for example), 30pt buy still has the advantage of certainty over the wildly variable 4d6dl; the game designers believe it is worth 5 or whatever ability points & I agree, so long as the 4d6dl is adhered to strictly. When each of my friends picked up those dice, eschewing 25pt buy, I asked them if they could handle a rotten roll? Needless to say they thought that was pretty wierd but when those rotten rolls came up 1 player instinctively asked for a reroll. The same story is going to play out with hps I am sure because the 4d6dl have to roll & roll once. Besides, the biggest problem with rolling is that one character might have a 20 point buy and another a 50 point buy. These are characters on a completely different power scale from one another. Disparities like this are a Bad Thing (tm). Generally I agree but in the current campaign, which is the last one I'll run with my friends before heading off in a years time, we wanted it to be the core rules experience. As the dm I now have to jump through hoops to achieve game balance (which is essential & transcends ability score parity) but that was decided collectively. The other dm runs the ad-hoc, bendy rules campaign. Also, sometimes characters die. How common is raise dead in your world? Lets say it is just as common as the rules say it is, if you have the money and know of a church you can likely get one (probably owe them a favor, but ignoring that for now). Any player who feels his character is much weaker than the rest (+1 total mod in a group of +5's) may feel it would be better to get a new character instead. Try something new, likely get better rolls, have more fun by being able to contribute more. So then he comes back with a +12 total mod vs their +5's. Now we have the same problem, still massive disparity. Might as well just make the playing field even to begin with, it saves so much hassle. We play you can't choose to bring in a new character, 1 player has 1 character, choose carefully. After death you can then bring in a new character but 1 level lower than the would-be-raised, so in effect 2 levels lower, and there is still no guarantee you'll roll fantastic.