Post/Author/DateTime	Post
maharai23 06-24-07, 09:31 PM	Ok, I've seen a lot of players here insisting that everyone in the party be equal, and, in a recent campaign under point buy, I had two characters who were nearly identical. One had a battle axe, one had a long sword, and one had 2 more points of con, and 2 less points of dex. Those were the only differences in these fighter builds. Both were high strength fighter builds. Yet, the player with the long sword did over twice as much damage as the other player, killing his foes much faster and thus, subjecting himself to less damage over the first 3 sessions. Both players played equally well... But one player consistently rolled high, and another player consistently rolled low. I say that the d20 in this game made one character stronger than another, and there has to be a different method of figuring out whether someone hits or misses. I mean, after all, to balance characters, we've eliminated dice in favor of points, can't we do the same for combat and everything else? Randomness makes the game unbalanced and ruins it!
Millenia 06-24-07, 09:41 PM	Heh. Nice one.
Sir_Chivalry 06-24-07, 09:50 PM	Wait, let me get this straight. You are complaining about the only thing that makes DnD different from say...chess(p.s. I love chess, just making a point). You don't like randomness? It is this randomness that allows for criticals, for random encounters, for the villain to fail when you arm wrestle him. Without randomness, PCs could be built so that they are indestrucable, and worse, so could villains. And as an afterthought, check the high roller is throwing his dice right.
Empiro 06-24-07, 10:05 PM	I think he's trying to be sarcastic, saying that we should just do away with rolling altogether. What he's really arguing is that you should roll for stats, because randomness in combat is good, and therefore randomness in stats generation is good too. But here's the simple reason why the two things are not the same. You only have to ask yourself the following questions: How many times do you typically roll stats in a campaign? How many times do you typically roll an attack roll or a skill check or a saving throw? The answer to the first question is probably once, or maybe twice. The answer to the second is "lots", and more importantly, after any given session, you expect to roll more attacks, saving throws, and skill checks in the next session. Sure you one player has had better luck so far in the game, but who knows what will happen next game? Perhaps the other player will get a lucky streak. You make enough rolls such that it more or less evens out in the long run. With rolling stats, you get one chance. If you get bad luck and a bad roll, then you're stuck with subpar stats for a long time. Lets take your example again, but this time, one player is doing much more damage because he's got +4 to strength and he's staying out of trouble because his other stats are all several points higher too. In this case, then what does the unlucky player have to look forward to? Essentially, he can look forward to plenty more sessions where the first player steals the show because he has better stats in practically every way. The point is, for rolling a character, one set of rolls influences what's to come for a long, long time, but for rolling in combat, it usually only affects what happens just then and there. And the second reason is that at least if you roll badly in combat one day, you can say to yourself, "well let's see what happens next adventure", but with rolling your stats, you can only say, "well, my character sucks and he'll probably die, so let's see what happens with my next character". There's simply no comparison between the two situations.
maharai23 06-24-07, 10:13 PM	What I'm really arguing is that nothing's fair. Stats, classes, none of it is 100% balanced. Let's look at 2 classes, Fighter and monk. on a 28 point build, which is better? The fighter, every time. Now, this is a case where equal stats have made unequal characters. Why? Because some of the classes are dependent on having multiple good stats. Usually, for a fighter, wisdom isn't so important. However, wisdom is worth gold to a monk, who gets AC from it. For a fighter, dex can often be unimportant, as the vast majority of fighter feats require no more than a 13, and you can get good armor with a +1 dex mod. Con and Str are important for a fighter, for survivability, and for HP. Cha is largely non-essential machanically. Int is more important for a monk, who is more skill dependent than a fighter. So, now, we can say that a character with 2 good stats and 1 slightly above average stat can play a successful fighter. (Str, Con, Dex). Monk, by constrast, will need at least 2 good stats, with 2 more above average ones. (Dex, Wis, then Str, Int). Even so, the monk will be easier to hit, and will hit less often and do less damage than the fighter. This will be the case throughout the 20 level build.
Empiro 06-24-07, 10:17 PM	That's still not a good argument -- "the game isn't 100% balanced and fair, therefore we ought to introduce another source of unfairness"?
ElberethSilverleaf 06-24-07, 10:24 PM	Thats why it's called roleplaying, you deal with what the fates have given you and become a hero despite the circumstances of your birth. My first character was a fighter/magic-user Grey elf s:10, i:16 w:9 d:15 co:9 ch10, he was and still is my favorite character until he was killed by vegepygmies in "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks". Granted this was under 1st edition rules but he was a hell of a fun character and I was proud to have gotten him to the point to where he could hold his own with more powerful PCs. We didn't have any monks in our party because no one was "born" with high enough stats to qualify for such a prestigious class, for the same reason we didn't have a paladin. We rolled 3die6 and placed the scores where we wanted. We did allow someone who was obviously gimped by having no rolls over a 10 to re-roll his character but that was it. Aslo if your hit points reached zero you were dead... period.
maharai23 06-24-07, 10:46 PM	That's still not a good argument -- "the game isn't 100% balanced and fair, therefore we ought to introduce another source of unfairness"? I'm not introducing anything. The PHb is where the rolling method is... Under that section about creating a character. All I'm saying is that, if you're going to balance the system, then build a balanced point build, one that takes into account that different classes need different amounts of points to be effective. The 28 point monk is as effective as the 15 point wizard. Why not, then, give the monk a handicap, if you're really trying to make the game balanced, rather than make all characters equally bad?
IceFractal 06-24-07, 10:58 PM	Actually, even with rolling, it's a lot more common to get one or two good rolls than four or five. So the Monk has it harder, no matter how you get your scores. At least with point buy you always have the option of playing a Monk. 28 PB, for example: Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 10 Str 16, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 8 Str 12, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 8 But if you roll: 18, 17, 11, 8, 8, 7 Then good luck playing a Monk, even though those could be fine for a Wizard or Druid.
Optimized_Commoner 06-24-07, 11:28 PM	Haha funny. Assuming for a moment that you were serious, if you find randomness broken, then you should employ a mechanism that uses a bellcurve. For example rolling 3d20 and choosing the median value. Or possibly using a 3d6 system (I believe one is presented in Unearthed Arcana).
blackjackg 06-24-07, 11:33 PM	I'm not entirely sure why I'm replying to this thread, since I'm pretty sure the OP didn't intend a serious debate on the subject. Still, I feel like pointing out why we try to randomize in-game roles but sometimes use PB for stats. In theory, we'll roll a d20 hundreds, maybe thousands of times in a campaign. Generally speaking, we'll get approximately as many 1s as 20s and everything between. Law of averages. Character creation, however, takes only six rolls, and affects every d20 roll from that point on. If you've got bad luck over six rolls, you're at a serious disadvantage against the kid who rolls three natural 18s for the course of the entire game.
Sir_Chivalry 06-24-07, 11:52 PM	I'm sorry, I retract my statement. Your point is valid.
Optimized_Commoner 06-24-07, 11:59 PM	What I'm really arguing is that nothing's fair. Stats, classes, none of it is 100% balanced. Yes unfortunately this is true. Note that a game system doesn't have to be unbalanced, it's just a sign of bad design. (No offence WoTC, I love D&D but you've got some huge glitches in there). Let's look at 2 classes, Fighter and monk. On a 28 point build, which is better? Depends on many factors but usually the fighter. This is why if you ask people on the Char-ops board, the usual consensus is that the monk is underpowered.
maharai23 06-25-07, 12:30 AM	Yes unfortunately this is true. Note that a game system doesn't have to be unbalanced, it's just a sign of bad design. (No offence WoTC, I love D&D but you've got some huge glitches in there). Depends on many factors but usually the fighter. This is why if you ask people on the Char-ops board, the usual consensus is that the monk is underpowered. The usual consensus is that the fighter is underpowered too. That's why I used it as a comparison. However, if you really wanted to take the idea seriously, let's remove unfair rollong from D&D. Every time you attack, you gain a number of attack points equal to your total attack bonus. If the total amount of points you have from attacking is greater than or equal to the opponent's AC-10, you subtract the character's (AC-10) from your attack points, and you hit. For every point of threat range you have, you add 1 point to your critical pool on each hit. When your critical pool reaches 20, you crit, and subtract 20 from your crit pool (weapons with different threat ranges don't stack crit points into your crit pool). Damage is always calculated as average damage (die size -1)*(total number of dice * 2) + modifiers. Skill checks are calculated in the same way. Now, this removes luck from the game, and makes randomness equal for everyone, while rewarding people who point buy more strength, etc. But would it be breakable? Certainly... Power attack for max when you only need a couple more points in your hit pool to nail the creature, etc. Is it fair? Yes. Does it add to the fun? Not really. Detract from it? Probably. For the people who like good stats, let them eat 4D6 drop low, reroll 1's and 2's. For the players who want the challenge, let them have the elite array, or the 22 point build, or whatever level of difficulty they want. That's a decision best left to each group, as different people have fun different ways.
Optimized_Commoner 06-25-07, 12:50 AM	However, if you really wanted to take the idea seriously, let's remove unfair rollong from D&D... System... Now, this removes luck from the game, and makes randomness equal for everyone, while rewarding people who point buy more strength, etc. Actually I like the sound of that system, sounds awesome. But would it be breakable? Certainly... Power attack for max when you only need a couple more points in your hit pool to nail the creature, etc. Well clearly you'd need to adjust the feats which are based on the existance of random chance... I mean, take the luck domain granted ability for example, that'd have to be changed. Does it add to the fun? Hell yes.
maharai23 06-25-07, 12:53 AM	Actually I like the sound of that system, sounds awesome. Well clearly you'd need to adjust the feats which are based on the existance of random chance... I mean, take the luck domain granted ability for example, that'd have to be changed. Hell yes. Ok... But now we're talking about significantly rewriting the rules enough to change the core mechanics of the game. At this point, it's no longer D&D. In fact, it's no longer technically a D20 system. Could it be balanced? Yes. Would it require a complete overhaul of the basic rules of the game? Yes. Am I willing to invest the year or two of time it would take to develop and playtest? I don't have that time to invest.
Optimized_Commoner 06-25-07, 02:09 AM	Ok... But now we're talking about significantly rewriting the rules enough to change the core mechanics of the game. At this point, it's no longer D&D. Well it's certainly not D20 for obvious reasons. Lol. Am I willing to invest the year or two of time it would take to develop and playtest? I don't have that time to invest. While I theoretically do, I'm working on other projects at the moment. However I think you're onto a very interesting and cool idea there. It would be a great way to make a game that you could play, on a long car trip for example or some other situation where all those dice are just in the way. Though if you were going to do that, you'd want to simplify it further. Still, I think it could be pretty awesome. Not really very D&D by the end of it though, no.
Kouk 06-25-07, 03:14 AM	Ok, I've seen a lot of players here insisting that everyone in the party be equal, and, in a recent campaign under point buy, I had two characters who were nearly identical. One had a battle axe, one had a long sword, and one had 2 more points of con, and 2 less points of dex. Those were the only differences in these fighter builds. Both were high strength fighter builds. Yet, the player with the long sword did over twice as much damage as the other player, killing his foes much faster and thus, subjecting himself to less damage over the first 3 sessions. Both players played equally well... But one player consistently rolled high, and another player consistently rolled low. Are you sure that you really dislike point buy, or the fact that someone was able to make a character similar to yours or your friend's and did better in combat? If he rolled the same stats, there would be no difference at all, so this is not something inherent to just point buy. You just personally dislike Point Buy, and would prefer that people would not have similar stats I think. He just as easily could have chosen to make a vastly different character. Rather than stats, feat selection really influences how a character plays out. Perhaps you should not have allowed two characters with the same feats, if you dislike similarity? Unless of course you just made the whole scenario up to try and bash Point Buy. Point Buy does not work for everyone, and neither does rolling. Luckily, nobody is twisting your arm to play a certain way, you can bring it up with your particular DM if you don't like it. And what do you mean one "killed his foes faster, taking less damage"? Why are they all splitting up and fighting their own guys and making a competition out of it? Doesn't seem very much like an adventuring team if you are fighting to see who kills the most by themselves the fastest.
maharai23 06-25-07, 03:58 AM	Are you sure that you really dislike point buy, or the fact that someone was able to make a character similar to yours or your friend's and did better in combat? If he rolled the same stats, there would be no difference at all, so this is not something inherent to just point buy. You just personally dislike Point Buy, and would prefer that people would not have similar stats I think. He just as easily could have chosen to make a vastly different character. Rather than stats, feat selection really influences how a character plays out. Perhaps you should not have allowed two characters with the same feats, if you dislike similarity? Unless of course you just made the whole scenario up to try and bash Point Buy. Point Buy does not work for everyone, and neither does rolling. Luckily, nobody is twisting your arm to play a certain way, you can bring it up with your particular DM if you don't like it. And what do you mean one "killed his foes faster, taking less damage"? Why are they all splitting up and fighting their own guys and making a competition out of it? Doesn't seem very much like an adventuring team if you are fighting to see who kills the most by themselves the fastest. You misunderstand. I was RUNNING the game. I was DM. And it's not common sense for all the players to gang up on the gobbos one at a time. No, they set up a good battle line, and supported each other. But when creature low HP means hit = kill, and one person kills faster, he no longer is being attacked. He moves on to the next. Until there's no more left.
AAB 06-25-07, 04:24 AM	Are you sure that you really dislike point buy, or the fact that someone was able to make a character similar to yours or your friend's and did better in combat? If he rolled the same stats, there would be no difference at all, so this is not something inherent to just point buy. You just personally dislike Point Buy, and would prefer that people would not have similar stats I think. He just as easily could have chosen to make a vastly different character. Rather than stats, feat selection really influences how a character plays out. Perhaps you should not have allowed two characters with the same feats, if you dislike similarity? Unless of course you just made the whole scenario up to try and bash Point Buy. Point Buy does not work for everyone, and neither does rolling. Luckily, nobody is twisting your arm to play a certain way, you can bring it up with your particular DM if you don't like it. And what do you mean one "killed his foes faster, taking less damage"? Why are they all splitting up and fighting their own guys and making a competition out of it? Doesn't seem very much like an adventuring team if you are fighting to see who kills the most by themselves the fastest. actually, from what i read, he wasn't bashing point-buy at all. he was bashing making attack rolls.
maharai23 06-25-07, 04:35 AM	actually, from what i read, he wasn't bashing point-buy at all. he was bashing making attack rolls. Then you failed to read between the lines, my friend. Sometimes I use a dash of sarcasm to illustrate my points.
maharai23 06-25-07, 04:48 AM	Ok, according to Optimized Commoner, this could be an interesting idea, so let's run with it a bit... For Power attack: Changing any weapon or player choice which lowers your attack accuracy (including power attack) resets your attack pool to 0, if that effect has a positive effect on damage. It also prevents your next hit from being a critical hit, regardless of the total of the critical pool. Note, this doesn't affect Combat Expertise, Fighting Defensively, or equipping a tower shield. For Opposed rolls: Only the winner of an opposed roll removes the points from his action pool. Example: Bob, with a Grapple of +12, tries to grapple Jim with a grapple of +11. He steps in, and succeeds. Bob's action pool was 12 to Jim's 11. Bob subtracts 11 points from his action pool, leaving him with 1. Next round, Jim attempts to pin bob. Bob's pool goes to 13, Jim's goes to 22. Jim wins, and Jim's pool goes down by 12. New results. Bob 13, Jim 11. Bob attempts to break pin, pools 25 and 22. Bob succeeds, pool goes to 14. Jim, seeing Bob is a better grappler, tries to break grapple. Pools go to 25 and 22. Bob wins, new totals 14 and 22. This requires a totally different element of strategy, things still go back and forth, but things tend to fall in a pattern between nearly matched opponents. I know, on my car trips, I can plug a laptop into the lighter plug, and use the dice roller downloaded from Wizard's Tools link. That way, I could play D&D even cross country.
AAB 06-25-07, 05:05 AM	Then you failed to read between the lines, my friend. Sometimes I use a dash of sarcasm to illustrate my points. well i assumed that your thread was started as a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor about how people force a point-buy system to keep up a facade about balance, but that no matter what the intentions are two characters will never be perfectly balanced. i assumed (wrongly, as is apparent to me now) that the person i was responding to was taking your original post at face value. in hindsight that didn't make much sense (it's late).
Kouk 06-25-07, 06:26 AM	You misunderstand. I was RUNNING the game. I was DM. And it's not common sense for all the players to gang up on the gobbos one at a time. No, they set up a good battle line, and supported each other. But when creature low HP means hit = kill, and one person kills faster, he no longer is being attacked. He moves on to the next. Until there's no more left. Right, well I considered you were the DM, but I couldn't figure out your main point if that was the case. Are you genuinely trying to find a way other than rolling for combat?
Class_A_Infidel 06-25-07, 10:54 AM	Am I the only one whose hate of D02 know no limit here?
Leilond 06-25-07, 11:07 AM	Ok, I've seen a lot of players here insisting that everyone in the party be equal, and, in a recent campaign under point buy, I had two characters who were nearly identical. One had a battle axe, one had a long sword, and one had 2 more points of con, and 2 less points of dex. Those were the only differences in these fighter builds. Both were high strength fighter builds. Yet, the player with the long sword did over twice as much damage as the other player, killing his foes much faster and thus, subjecting himself to less damage over the first 3 sessions. Both players played equally well... But one player consistently rolled high, and another player consistently rolled low. I say that the d20 in this game made one character stronger than another, and there has to be a different method of figuring out whether someone hits or misses. I mean, after all, to balance characters, we've eliminated dice in favor of points, can't we do the same for combat and everything else? Randomness makes the game unbalanced and ruins it! It depends of personal preferences If I've got a 1st level fighter with these stats 18-18-18-16-16-14 And another fighter with 14-12-12-10-10-8 Every "combat encounter" that I can create will be too easy for the first or too difficult for the second. One of them will find it more enjoyable For this reason I prefer a bit of balance... that doesn't mean "here insisting that everyone in the party be equal" as you said Only that I need some balance, not too big differences The stats are the "numeric mechanical" part of the game and have to be balanced The rest is "role playing" and you don't need super stats or poor stats to role play good
OravennasBrother 06-25-07, 11:29 AM	Ok, I've seen a lot of players here insisting that everyone in the party be equal, I mean, after all, to balance characters, we've eliminated dice in favor of points, can't we do the same for combat and everything else? Randomness makes the game unbalanced and ruins it! I'll illustrate the flaw in this argument with TWO combats form the first campaign I played in 3.0 My character - a human fighter with 17 strength, 16 constitution and all attributes at least 13, was in a party where NO ONE had ability rolls to match mine. The first combat, against 6 goblins, saw my dice desert me. I lost initiative to everyone. A goblin critted me for 9 damage on the first round, then I missed with my first swing and before I could act again the other party members had killed the last goblin. SO my attributes seemed pretty useless. But in the next fight - a major battle against slavers - I stacked the odds in our favor. We attacked at night when the slavers were asleep (not wearing their Scale Armor) and my charging attack bonus against AC 10 was high enough that I hit every swing. And Cleaved into the next guy. Two of the other party members fell to negative HP, the cleric went to band aid mode to save them, and I just kept downing enemies left and right until the remainder fled. Yay for high attributes. As we progressed levels the advantage my attributes gave increased until by 5th level I was more powerful in combat than the rest of the party together, regularly dealing more damage than the others combined. As a DM I have seen plenty of players who are all "I Love rolling my character's attributes" until I insist on watching them make the rolls (and recording them so there is no "transcription error" inflation) and then they want new characters. With better Rolls. Too bad, try the Point Buy method instead.
Ack 06-25-07, 01:40 PM	Several replies have occurred to me while reading this thread: 1) "You want diceless? Play Amber." :D Seriously, Amber is a fun game; all players keep their stats secret, so when two people are challenging each other (or PC vs monster or whatever) a note is passed to the GM whereby the highest number wins. However, there are a lot of incidental bonuses you could apply, subject to Will of the GM. 2) I use point-buy by preference; while I have managed to roll some seriously good stat groups over the last two decades (nearly) that I've been roleplaying, I have also learned that I can't depend on the dice to roll nice for me. So I'm happy taking stats that I can place where I want, and fiddle back and forth till I'm happy. As for rolls in-game, if one person is rolling well and another is rolling crap, that's why they call it 'the luck of the dice'. Really. I've seen people hurl dice across the room, out the window and at the cat. I have personally changed out dice several times a session when one or another refused to roll over 5. It doesn't matter. Dice have no memory. One session, I simply could not get a good roll, and my character got hammered (and he had the best BAB in the group). Next session, I did much better. It will all even out, trust me. Though mind you, I do get frustrated when I roll well to hit and then get a minimum damage result. That's why I put together my d20 Lethal set of house rules (see my sig). 3) Randomness is what makes the game fun. If you knew you were going to win every time, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
Jagyr Ebonwood 06-25-07, 01:47 PM	If you try to take the dice out of my D&D I will kick you in the shins.
Sigurd van Norhusen 06-25-07, 02:30 PM	For a honest answer, try reducing the randomness through using different dice, for example 3d8-3 That ranges from 0 to 21.
BW0222 06-25-07, 03:18 PM	maharai23, I mean, after all, to balance characters, we've eliminated dice in favor of points, can't we do the same for combat and everything else? Randomness makes the game unbalanced and ruins it! One character just happens to have rolled well in a combat. Why is that such an issue? Considering that your average PC makes about twenty rolls per combat, times sixteen combats per level, plus an equal number of non-combat rolls, you can expect a player to make between 5,000 and 10,000 rolls over a typical campaign, depending how far the make it. Over the course of the campaign one or two good runs will hardly matter. I've rolled well for some sessions and then couldn't hit for nearly an entire combat. Hopefully, we aren't all unlucky at the same time. The DM and monsters can be equally unlucky. Such luck rarely dwarves other factors, such as intelligent play, specializing, playing optimally/un-optimally, etc. Point buy and rolling for ability scores is a different issue. If you roll ability scores -- that luck stays around with you. A lucky player dominates the game over an unlucky player because they have inherant +3s to large numbers of rolls for the rest of the campaign. You can't look forward to things evening out next week or next month. With d20 rolls, if you miss this round, you get another chance next round. However, if you want to remove randomness from things, try a lawful template. It forces you to take a 10 on skill checks, attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. However, it isn't terribly exciting once you find out that you miss in the first round.
Holy_Beholder 06-25-07, 03:42 PM	Well I see one way to remove dice. You default to 10, and can choose to roll lower to get points. Every two points lowered by gets you 1 point to raise. This way, people wont just go Natural 1, Natural 1, Natural 1, Natural 1, Instant kill triple twenty variant. Also, when people can hit on a 8 or a 6, they will get points so they can whack harder monsters that need a 16 or 18. This would be encounter based, and could also potientially work for weapons(bypassing DR by deliberately failing repeatedly, getting a crit using the points for a d20, then spending your points on a really high damage attack) It would add another layer of strategy to the game, and could be played diceless. I wouldn't like it, but I cna see its use.
Optimized_Commoner 06-26-07, 12:45 AM	1) "You want diceless? Play Amber." :D I do play Amber DRPG, but if I wanted to play a game where you weren't the scions of Amber, and were instead a fighter, wizard, cleric and thief who meet in a bar and decide to kill monsters for their shiny shiny treasure, ADRPG may not be the best game for me. I know, on my car trips, I can plug a laptop into the lighter plug, and use the dice roller downloaded from Wizard's Tools link. That way, I could play D&D even cross country. At times we've improvised and used the 'rock/paper/scissors' mechanic from white wolf's LARP system but that only really models 33/66, 50/50 and 66/33 probabilities without getting incredibly complicated (whether you win on a draw or not). Oh and True20 has rules for 'take 1', 'take 5', 'take 10' and 'take 20' which can easily be adapted to D20.
Vaelan 06-26-07, 02:34 AM	I dislike the degree of randomness in d20 systems. I wouldn't call it broken though. Now to address the real issue... You aren't the one making an argument that randomness should be reduced, so shut the :censored: up and stop trying to put words into the mouths of others. Instead, try to understand what they are actually saying. Not that I expect you to care, but failing to respond to this will land you on my Ignore List, right next to the person you lifted that sham of an argument from, maharai23. I'm not much of a fan of people who spout unadulterated idiocy nor am I a fan of people who simply parrot others. When you combine the two, I find myself repulsed enough to actually bother skipping all of your future posts, which is no mean feat.
AAB 06-26-07, 02:40 AM	I dislike the degree of randomness in d20 systems. I wouldn't call it broken though. Now to address the real issue... You aren't the one making an argument that randomness should be reduced, so shut the :censored: up and stop trying to put words into the mouths of others. Instead, try to understand what they are actually saying. Not that I expect you to care, but failing to respond to this will land you on my Ignore List, right next to the person you lifted that sham of an argument from, maharai23. I'm not much of a fan of people who spout unadulterated idiocy nor am I a fan of people who simply parrot others. When you combine the two, I find myself repulsed enough to actually bother skipping all of your future posts, which is no mean feat. who are you talking to?
maharai23 06-26-07, 07:27 AM	I dislike the degree of randomness in d20 systems. I wouldn't call it broken though. Now to address the real issue... You aren't the one making an argument that randomness should be reduced, so shut the :censored: up and stop trying to put words into the mouths of others. Instead, try to understand what they are actually saying. Not that I expect you to care, but failing to respond to this will land you on my Ignore List, right next to the person you lifted that sham of an argument from, maharai23. I'm not much of a fan of people who spout unadulterated idiocy nor am I a fan of people who simply parrot others. When you combine the two, I find myself repulsed enough to actually bother skipping all of your future posts, which is no mean feat. First off, I really don't care whether or not I wind up on anyone's ignore list. I have better things to do with my day than worry about your sensibilities. Why do I say this? Well, your tone is nothing short of threatening and challenging, and garners neither compassion for your cause, nor friends. Further, you're right. I'm not arguing that randomness should be reduced. Far from it. I LIKE randomness. I like unpredictability. If you'd read the posts after the first, where some of the members of this debate with a keener grasp of sarcasm grasped my individual point, it is actually to INCREASE randomness. Through carrying an arguement to its logical conclusion, I attempt to poke a little good-natured fun at people who support the removal of randomness as a way to balance a character. I attempted to do so in a somewhat non-direct and lighthearted manner, so that all involved could have a bit of a chuckle whilst debating their view. I understood the view of those people who support point-buy systems over roll systems, which was the elephant in the room in this debate. While I didn't mention it, a little reading between the lines may have shown that it was there, loud and clear. When one person thought the idea of a non-random system would be interesting, I posted a couple followup comments as suggestions to get him started, although I feel Optimized_Commoner is quite intelligent enough to handle that on his own. But I did have a desire to contribute to that idea in some way. Now, I've pretty calmly and rationally, IMO, defended my posts in here, even though, in a site dedicated to gaming and fun, few should have to. I've done this in the face of discourtesy, rudeness, and threatening postures. I now call on you, Vaelan, to practice what you preach, and either defend your inflammatory and insulting manner, or apologize for it. On a side note... In the future, might I recommend not trying to tell me what arguements I'm making? I believe I know what points I'm attempting to convey quite well. That is, unless you're trying to put words in my mouth? :rolleyes:
maharai23 06-26-07, 07:30 AM	who are you talking to? He addressed me by name, AAB. I've already fielded his concerns with my explanations and reasonings for his perceived slights.
Holy_Beholder 06-26-07, 10:16 AM	Why where you talking to him again, he can't see what you type. Also, this is why I keep who's on my ignore list(two people spent a short time there, but then I removed them) secret. That and I think there might be some CoC issue with it, its kind of fuzzy.
AAB 06-26-07, 10:37 AM	He addressed me by name, AAB. I've already fielded his concerns with my explanations and reasonings for his perceived slights. oh, i totally read his sentence wrong. it seemed to me that he was accusing someone else of stealing YOUR argument. i need to go to bed earlier....
Ack 06-26-07, 11:32 AM	Oh, and to address the original question: Randomness is not broken. A 'broken' mechanic would permit one player with a specific character designed to take advantage of that mechanic to gain a consistent advantage over a character not designed so. If you can show, with specific examples, that this can be done (note: 'consistent'), then randomness is broken. If you can't, then it's not.
AAB 06-26-07, 01:39 PM	Oh, and to address the original question: Randomness is not broken. A 'broken' mechanic would permit one player with a specific character designed to take advantage of that mechanic to gain a consistent advantage over a character not designed so. If you can show, with specific examples, that this can be done (note: 'consistent'), then randomness is broken. If you can't, then it's not. i'm tempted to say the luck mechanics from complete scoundrel. but you said "consistent" and ruined my fun.
Wiseblood 06-26-07, 02:12 PM	But here's the simple reason why the two things are not the same. You only have to ask yourself the following questions: How many times do you typically roll stats in a campaign? How many times do you typically roll an attack roll or a skill check or a saving throw? The answer to the first question is probably once, or maybe twice. The answer to the second is "lots", and more importantly, after any given session, you expect to roll more attacks, saving throws, and skill checks in the next session. Sure you one player has had better luck so far in the game, but who knows what will happen next game? Perhaps the other player will get a lucky streak. You make enough rolls such that it more or less evens out in the long run. With rolling stats, you get one chance. If you get bad luck and a bad roll, then you're stuck with subpar stats for a long time. Lets take your example again, but this time, one player is doing much more damage because he's got +4 to strength and he's staying out of trouble because his other stats are all several points higher too. In this case, then what does the unlucky player have to look forward to? Essentially, he can look forward to plenty more sessions where the first player steals the show because he has better stats in practically every way. The point is, for rolling a character, one set of rolls influences what's to come for a long, long time, but for rolling in combat, it usually only affects what happens just then and there. And the second reason is that at least if you roll badly in combat one day, you can say to yourself, "well let's see what happens next adventure", but with rolling your stats, you can only say, "well, my character sucks and he'll probably die, so let's see what happens with my next character". There's simply no comparison between the two situations. To this I say. You can not fail at ability scores. If you get crappy ones you Can have a crappy character. If you randomly determine who lives and who dies, even if you stack the deck so to speak, you are not safe from luck. You can fail at every other thing and failed saving throws end characters. Good ones and Bad ones. Randomness is in no way broken. In fact it's the great equalizer.
maharai23 06-26-07, 06:45 PM	Why where you talking to him again, he can't see what you type. Also, this is why I keep who's on my ignore list(two people spent a short time there, but then I removed them) secret. That and I think there might be some CoC issue with it, its kind of fuzzy. Because his statement was that I respond or he ignores me. Thus, my my reasoning, he hasn't done it yet.
maharai23 06-26-07, 06:57 PM	Point is, whether you roll or point buy, at the start of a campaign, you have the same odds as everyone else. If your stats aren't great (but not bad enough to be worthy of a reroll), then play the character. It's not like you can never play another character again in this campaign. If this guy dies, don't resurrect him. As a player, you are free to rule that he wouldn't want to return. Then, look, you get the chance to roll again. While your initial stats are more important, the whole game is based on randomness. Thus, not all classes are equal, given equal points. If you roll well, try a MAD class. If not, shoot to be good at a SAD character. I always have a few concepts for each floating around in my head. That's the way it is. A DM isn't cutting his players off at the knees when he tells them to roll stats. It's more like rather than give you $30, he gives you $30 and puts you in a casino. Sometimes, the odds are better than others (3D6, 4D6 drop low, 4D6 drop low, reroll 1's, 2D6+6, then +5, +4, etc.) but it's not a disservice. If you prefer point buy, great. Don't assume it's for everyone, though. I personally go back and forth, depending on the campaign. Some campaigns are at a higher power level, some at a lower, and when I choose Point buy, it's usually because nobody expressed interest in being a monk or a pally.
aotrscommander 06-28-07, 07:46 AM	To address the origional question, I postulate that too much randomness is indeed broken. I speak from experience for my wargames. There have been occasions where the game has really been ruined by the inability of one or more players to roll well made worse by the other side rolling exceptionally. I have been is situations where I did everything tactically right and still lost (and by 'lost' I mean 'annhiliated'.) A friend of mine runs a Star Trek wargame. His games are generally very enjoyable, but occasionally, his penchant for rolling randomly to see what happens can damage the game. He has a yes/no/maybe dice, a D6 with two sides with the results; while in general it is very good at fairly adjudicating situations e.g. "are my Klingons mad enough to stay behind the crippled ship and fight to the death?"1 But sometimes it can get in the way of the game. Particularly, rolling to see when are where a player comes on the table can pretty much make the game very one-sided. In roleplaying too, I've seen occasions where the entire group (and we're very good at it actually) display collective dice incompentance. Fortunately these have never resulted in a TPK - but mainly because of the DM not being as tactically optimal as he might have been. The trouble is, the same set of chances that let us as players pull off the impossible can equally often turn things into a disaster. TPKs are not fun for anyone (not even the DM usually, as it entails more work on his part). But, using the dice, you can't have one without the other. On the other hand, without a random factor, things become too preditable. What is the solution then? What is really needed is a skewed system that allows a certain degree of randomness, but one that prevents potentially game-breaking probabilities from occuring. (Or, for a stat-rolling system, one that allows the potential (whatever that may be) for high rolls without generating unplayable characters) A random system that at times skews the randomness. Of course, this is in practise impossible. In wargames, basically you're screwed, since you can't get round it. However, the net investment lost with a bad game is pretty small (i.e. the game itself), so it just becomes and unfortunate fact of life. In an RPG, however, the DM can do is take what randomness he has in the dice and adjust events such as to curb the worst excesses of purely random results. This appleis at all levels, not just combat (random encounters, random chances of this event or that event happening and so forth). You want a certain level of randomness; but allow too much leeway to the uncaring or often malicious laws of probability and it will eventually kill a game. 1Yes, actually, they were...
OravennasBrother 06-28-07, 09:33 AM	To address the origional question, I postulate that too much randomness is indeed broken. Not to break it harshly, but the OP was just being sarcastic in an attempt to support his views about rolling for attributes. Sure my experience has been that those who insist on rolling are whiny munchkins who insist on re-rolls until their idea of "survivable" (or "heroic") is met, but I've never met the OP so I cannot be 100% certain that such is the case with him. He/She (how can you tell for sure over the internet?) could be a perfectly reasonable person who happens to believe in rolling fair dice. It just can't be proven over the internet and thus my experience will remain consistent (that those who insist on rolling are whiny munchkins who insist on re-rolls until their idea of "survivable"/"heroic" is met)>
aotrscommander 06-28-07, 09:46 AM	Not to break it harshly, but the OP was just being sarcastic in an attempt to support his views about rolling for attributes. I'm aware of that. I just thought that my point was merited mentioning in and of itself.
nastynate 06-28-07, 10:27 AM	Oh, and to address the original question: Randomness is not broken. A 'broken' mechanic would permit one player with a specific character designed to take advantage of that mechanic to gain a consistent advantage over a character not designed so. If you can show, with specific examples, that this can be done (note: 'consistent'), then randomness is broken. If you can't, then it's not. My definition of broken is any mechanic that. A. Is so poorly phrased that it's true function or purpose is difficult to determine an open to varied interpretations. Ex. Iron Heart Surge from ToB (what does this actually do?) B. Is so powerful that it consistently slants scenarios in game play. Ex. Divine Spell Power from CD (bumping your CL to ridiculous heights is waaaay to good) C. Is so underpowered that it isn't worth the paper it was printed on, or is completely trumped by a similar mechanic. Ex. Toughness Feat from the PH (hmm...3 bonus hp, or +1 bonus hp every level with Improved Toughness; not a tough choice) D. Is so obviously good, that it trumps all other possible options. Ex. Spontaneous Divination alternate class feature for wizards from CC (trade a feat for the ability to spontaneously cast any divination spells of equal or lower level...not any dination spell you know, or any divination spell on the wiz/sor spell list...any divination spell)
Erato 06-28-07, 10:45 AM	Oh no, not this again! :gah: You don't roll for class in D&D You don't roll for race in D&D You don't roll for feats in D&D You don't roll for skills ranks in D&D You don't roll for class features in D&D You don't roll for name in D&D You don't roll for patron deity in D&D You have the opportunity to roll for height, weight, and age in D&D, but you're not required to. The general rule is this :teach: : If it's something that define your character and his/her abilities, you get to decide it yourself, within the limit of starting level and what material the DM allows. If it's something that decides how forunate the outcome of a single action is for you, it's a combination of your modifiers and your roll. The only exceptions are hp and ability scores. And many people don't like these execptions, and feel that the system should be consistent: either you decide your whole character, within the limits of what the DM gives you to work with, or you decide only the things people usually decide for themselves. After all, people don't get to choose whether or not they were born with an instinctive talent for magic, so there's no logical reason why the player should be allowed to choose the Sorcerer class :rolleyes: And people don't get to choose whether or not they are more strong than intelligent, so why should they even be allowed to place their stats? The core of it all, is that some people (like the OP) belives that the current level of randomness is exactly the right amount, and that rolling for abilities and hp and nothing else, is the only true way to create a character. Some people, as mentioned before, like the system to be consistent and prefer less randomness at character creation (not nesessarily anywhere else). And some people actually like to decide, together with the DM, which characters should have which abilities, as fits the story, without worrying about points or dices ;) As long as the DM and players are happy, there's nothing inherently wrong with either system, even if PB is often easier for the DM to manage. And hearing why people prefer this and that way can be both interesting and educational... Provided some idiot doesn't come of as having found the Holy Grail of roleplaying :banghead:
LCD2YOU 06-28-07, 10:52 AM	Randomness is not broken. It is a good thing to have in a game. To remove all randomness would be to remove all doubt about the outcome. People would know or not know. There'd be no uncertainty. No randomness would extend into al parts of the game, not just melee and such. Personally, I really can't see how this would be a good thing.
Hugin 06-28-07, 11:04 AM	Is randomness broken? Let's see if I can't definitively answer this question. The answer is no. Why? Because I said so, and to remove all randomness. :D I'm just kidding. Here, we'll flip a coin for it - heads = not broken, tails = broken. *coin toss* Heads! :w00t:
Mock26 06-28-07, 08:33 PM	Oh no, not this again! :gah: You don't roll for class in D&D You don't roll for race in D&D You don't roll for feats in D&D You don't roll for skills ranks in D&D You don't roll for class features in D&D You don't roll for name in D&D You don't roll for patron deity in D&D You have the opportunity to roll for height, weight, and age in D&D, but you're not required to. The general rule is this :teach: : If it's something that define your character and his/her abilities, you get to decide it yourself, within the limit of starting level and what material the DM allows. If it's something that decides how forunate the outcome of a single action is for you, it's a combination of your modifiers and your roll. Bolded text in the above quote bolded by me. I am loathe to use this word, but in this case you are Wrong! In regards to stats you get do decide it yourself only if the DM approves of the point buy system. If, however, the DM decides to go with rolling the dice then you DO NOT get to decide it yourself.
Mock26 06-28-07, 09:07 PM	Nevermind.
maharai23 06-28-07, 09:12 PM	Randomness is not broken. It is a good thing to have in a game. To remove all randomness would be to remove all doubt about the outcome. People would know or not know. There'd be no uncertainty. No randomness would extend into al parts of the game, not just melee and such. Personally, I really can't see how this would be a good thing. Chess has no randomness. Among two relatively skilled players, the outcome is not certain. Thus, in games without randomness, strategy determines the outcome.
Hugin 06-28-07, 09:59 PM	Chess has no randomness. Among two relatively skilled players, the outcome is not certain. Thus, in games without randomness, strategy determines the outcome. Do you want to be the player of the PC named 'pawn'? Perhaps what the OPer desires is a card game? No dice - just playing your hand well.
Erato 06-28-07, 10:54 PM	I am loathe to use this word, but in this case you are Wrong! In regards to stats you get do decide it yourself only if the DM approves of the point buy system. If, however, the DM decides to go with rolling the dice then you DO NOT get to decide it yourself. And that is why you should read the rest of the post, were I say that only exeptions to this general rule, are ability scores and hp ;)