Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ultimateconjurer 06-24-07, 05:08 PM	I don't believe that SOME class features and SOME spell, feats and whatnot are as broken as people think. I think getting high scores through rolling can make a character's abilities broken. After all, just about everything is based off of those scores. The Melee focused character wouldn't be as accurate in melee if his Strength wasn't 17 at first level. The Spellcaster wouldn't have unbeatable spells if his Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma weren't 18 at first level as well. Perhaps I'm just being a Doofus DM but, would it be more balancing to just go with 25 point buy or Elite Array? I just don't know. I'm new to DMing and some advice would be nice...other than what's in the DMG.
Salla 06-24-07, 05:10 PM	Most of what you say is the main reason I exclusively use point buy for character generation.
ultimateconjurer 06-24-07, 05:15 PM	Nice to know someone agrees with me to a certain extent.
Salla 06-24-07, 05:21 PM	Nice to know someone agrees with me to a certain extent. As a side note, the 28 point buy is very close to the mathematical average you'd expect from 4d6-drop-low, so I usually go with that instead of a 25.
ultimateconjurer 06-24-07, 05:31 PM	When I use Point Buy I'll keep that in mind. I'm rather lazy though so I prefer to use Elite Array because it is faster.
GSonic7 06-24-07, 05:34 PM	I decided to use something a little less conventional for my current campaign. The last campaigns we did with now-player-DMs had huge power surges, so I wanted to make a transition from high power (when I joined the group, they were using 18, 16, 14, 14, 12, 10 to start). So, I used 4d6-drop 1, and then allowed a bit of moving around following the retraining rules in PHB2. That was pretty much to allow an 18 for everyone, and leaving the other stats at an appropriate level. For the next campaign, when it arrives, I think I am either going to 4d6-drop 1, and a very limited amount of moving around, or perhaps (even more unorthodox), 3d6, move around as much as you want. However, the latter favors the luck of the roll more, so I might set the minimum keeper higher than normal.
StevenO 06-24-07, 05:34 PM	Rolling for ability scores IS broken in that the player can have wildly different sets of scores to work with which leads to different power levels among the characters. A perfectly average set of rolls (say straight 12s) could enable a large number of fairly boring characters while a lucky roller can get scores that all exceed average. Some rolling method claim to remove those poor averages but they always do so by increasing the overall power. 4d6 reroll 1s may not seem much stronger than the standard 4d6 but it certainly is. Point Buy is the best way to ensure you get to DM the type of game desired. Casters probably should start with a 15 in their casting stat but all other classes can get by with only 14s which leaves them lots of points to spread around. As for PB25 or Elite Array I say use the PB which can build the elite array or if a player has trouble with it just hand them the array; this gives players a little more freedom and may encourage some more challenging class options.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 06-24-07, 05:36 PM	Definitely go with point buy. It's a lot more fair and fun for everyone.
Aminvelos 06-24-07, 06:40 PM	Rolling for ability scores is fine, it also depends on what type of campaign your running and with how many people. For instance if you don't have 4 players in your campaign then you should probably give the players an elite ray. Also, the game is based on dice, one failed save can get your character killed, a few better ability scores isn't going to make that much of a difference in the long run. Personally, I like 1d6 + 1d8 + 4, roll seven times and drop the lowest result. Of course this is assuming you have characters opposed to the idea of a point buy. Personally, I like risking bad stats in order to get strong ones, if I roll badly thats tuff luck. However, if the players don't mind then you should go point buy.
Ace_of_time 06-24-07, 08:12 PM	The main problem I have with points buy is that with rolling you have the chance of getting 18. But with point buy They basicly make player pay more for higher score which I think is wrong. I wouldn't mind it if you really got 15-32 point ( depending on low to high powered game) But after 14 they charge you double and triple points which I think is wrong. I use 3d6 for low level, floating reroll 4d6 for med, and 5d6 for high powered campaign. If you like points buy, depending on what [power level you want. You could roll like 3d6 and then add for a total and let the players build from there. Ex: average roll would be 63 points 3d6 roll every one starts at 0 on all scores and go point for point. Average would give you 10 on everything and 3points left. Med power would look like this 72 points with 12 on everything. high powered 90 with 15 on all scores.
Dnarris 06-24-07, 08:26 PM	Typically a point buy system is indeed the best way to allow stats. This way you already know what to expect as far as what the player is capable of getting stat wise. You won't have to deal with some who gets lucky and rolls 4 18's and two 16's for their stats or with someone who is constantly getting single digit stats. Plus with a point buy system you know a character with have to either play an average character or deal with some weakness somewhere. I usually allow my players a 32 point buy to allow them more leeway when it comes to their characters.
Ace_of_time 06-24-07, 08:41 PM	It still cheats the players out of points. To me.
Maekrix_Waere 06-24-07, 08:54 PM	As a DM, I would give players a choice. Let them roll 4d6 drop the lowest, use a __ Point-Buy, or choose from one of 3 templates I roll up. As a player, there would have to be a very good reason for me to agree to generate a character using a Point Buy... Me:4d6(Drop lowest, reroll all 1's)>4d6(Drop lowest)>Templates>Organic(Before choosing class)>Point-Buy>Organic(After choosing class) Note: I have only ever played with a Party of 3, and, as such, we tend to require higher stats than a party of 4 would probably require. However, it is my personal belief that, if a DM can no longer challenge their players due to the players' stats, he/she is not qualified to be a DM. The only exception I know of to that "rule" is Pun-Pun. However, if you allow your characters to make Pun-Pun, you deserve whatever chaos it causes. :P
Salla 06-24-07, 09:06 PM	As a player, there would have to be a very good reason for me to agree to generate a character using a Point Buy... Different strokes, as they say. I'll jump on a Point Buy before random generation any day of the week and twice on Saturday.
Maekrix_Waere 06-24-07, 09:16 PM	Different strokes, as they say. I'll jump on a Point Buy before random generation any day of the week and twice on Saturday. I prefer the chance of getting high stats to the consolation of not getting low stats. :P
Amastheyrys 06-24-07, 09:19 PM	28 Point buy allows for a more balanced party relative to the other members and to the challenges faced.
maharai23 06-24-07, 10:27 PM	28 Point buy allows for a more balanced party relative to the other members and to the challenges faced. Unless someone wants to play a monk... Or a paladin. There's a reason that point buy is an optional system presented in the DMG, rather than a standard system presented in the PHB.
Tytalus 06-24-07, 10:30 PM	I prefer PB as well, as it also provides more freedom to generate characters that correspond mechanically to a chosen concept. As a side note, the 28 point buy is very close to the mathematical average you'd expect from 4d6-drop-low, so I usually go with that instead of a 25. The average PB value of 4D6-drop-lowest is actually between 30 and 31 (the exact value depends on how you cost rolls of less than 8, which are not possible with PB).
Amastheyrys 06-24-07, 10:36 PM	There is an article in the Repository that shows that, assuming scores lowers than 8 have a negative point value equal to 8-x, with x being the score, then the closest value to 4d6 drop the lowest is 28.
Salla 06-24-07, 11:00 PM	I prefer the chance of getting high stats to the consolation of not getting low stats. :P I prefer the safe bet. :)
Maekrix_Waere 06-24-07, 11:22 PM	I prefer the safe bet. :) Well, my opinions are somewhat swayed by the fact that my average rolls, when converted into PB is about a 42. :D
Lina_Inverse 06-24-07, 11:30 PM	I think getting high scores through rolling can make a character's abilities broken. After all, just about everything is based off of those scores. The Melee focused character wouldn't be as accurate in melee if his Strength wasn't 17 at first level. The Spellcaster wouldn't have unbeatable spells if his Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma weren't 18 at first level as well. Perhaps I'm just being a Doofus DM but, would it be more balancing to just go with 25 point buy or Elite Array? I just don't know. I'm new to DMing and some advice would be nice...other than what's in the DMG. Onto said discussion. Point buy is a method for quickly creating npcs for the GM's use(elite array even more so) That was blown way out of proportion. It is in the DMG for a reason it should not be used for PCs. Furthermore point buy doesn't make balanced characters any better than rolling in fact less so. A wizard needs one stat, Int he can guarantee himself an 18 int in point buy, to get a benefit similar to an 18 int by comparison a fighter would need an 18 in strength, dexterity and constitution. Point buy heavily favors SAD builds even more so than the game already does, it is hardly balanced.
Optimized_Commoner 06-24-07, 11:34 PM	I don't believe that SOME class features and SOME spell, feats and whatnot are as broken as people think. You would be correct. A lot of the "Rule X is broken" reactions are extremist or exaggerated. Still they're worth looking at, since there's usually something to it. I think getting high scores through rolling can make a character's abilities broken. Again I would say you're right. Moreso at lower levels than at higher levels though. Perhaps I'm just being a Doofus DM I wouldn't say that, sounds like you're very much on the ball. but, would it be more balancing to just go with 25 point buy or Elite Array? Very much so, though 25 is in my experience a little too low, 28 or 30 is much smoother to work with. This is however a matter of personal taste. I'm new to DMing and some advice would be nice...other than what's in the DMG. That's (in theory) what these boards are for. Don't be ashamed to ask any questions you have.
WhiteRaven810 06-25-07, 12:10 AM	Broken is not the correct word to use. Unfair is. It's not "broken" that a 1st level Wizard can sink an eighteen in his Dexterity and Intelligence and Constitution at the first level, it's just "unfair", but only so if the party Barbarian's highest ability is a fifteen. I roll stats, but I'm beginning to wish I had used point-buy or the elite array.
Salla 06-25-07, 12:20 AM	Well, my opinions are somewhat swayed by the fact that my average rolls, when converted into PB is about a 42. :D I've never done an analysis, but I'm pretty sure my rolls are probably up there, too ... which is another reason for me to go with point buy. If I get a 42 and my hard-luck buddy gets a 22, I'm going to feel bad. I've been known to arbitrarily lower numbers when I do die-roll stats just because they were TOO high.
Maekrix_Waere 06-25-07, 01:10 AM	I've never done an analysis, but I'm pretty sure my rolls are probably up there, too ... which is another reason for me to go with point buy. If I get a 42 and my hard-luck buddy gets a 22, I'm going to feel bad. I've been known to arbitrarily lower numbers when I do die-roll stats just because they were TOO high. That's why I would give the choice between templates, rolling, and PB. If he knows he has poor luck when rolling, he can choose between PB and the templates.
Tytalus 06-25-07, 01:23 AM	There is an article in the Repository that shows that, assuming scores lowers than 8 have a negative point value equal to 8-x, with x being the score, then the closest value to 4d6 drop the lowest is 28. Not really. I assume you mean this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=625456&highlight=point+buy). The OP actually derives a PB value of 29.9341 (with re-roll, as those are part of the 4D6-drop-lowest rules). This is pretty close to what it should be (~30.46), but unfortunately, the OP neglected to include the code for his simulation, so it's impossible to see where discrepancies might be. The half point doesn't really matter, though, it's just important to note that 4D6-dl is considerably above 28 PB. Let me point out that some of the posts in that thread are full of improperly applied math (i.e., the PB equivalent of 4D6-dl can be derived by taking the average of a single 4D6-dl roll, determining the PB equivalent, and multiplying by 6. Another example is that the average 1st, 2nd, etc.-highest rolls can be used to determine PB equivalents).
Maekrix_Waere 06-25-07, 01:31 AM	Then you don't understand the rules. Regardless not the discussion at hand. No need for that. Onto said discussion. Point buy is a method for quickly creating npcs for the GM's use(elite array even more so) That was blown way out of proportion. It is in the DMG for a reason it should not be used for PCs. Characters____Chapter Six Contained within this chapter are a number of options for PCs and NPCs alike...(snip) Ability Scores In addition to the standard method for generating ability scores presented in the Player's Handbook (roll 4d6, discard the lowest die, and arrange as desired), here are eight options you might want to consider in your campaign. 1. Standard Point Buy (snip) 2. Nonstandard Point Buy (snip) 3. Elite Array (snip) Furthermore point buy doesn't make balanced characters any better than rolling in fact less so. A wizard needs one stat, Int he can guarantee himself an 18 int in point buy, to get a benefit similar to an 18 int by comparison a fighter would need an 18 in strength, dexterity and constitution. Point buy heavily favors SAD builds even more so than the game already does, it is hardly balanced. I completely agree.
navar100 06-25-07, 01:38 AM	No, it's not. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea that a 1st level character happens to have an 18. First level characters are permitted to be very good at what they do. It is a feature, not a bug, that most classes have some saving throws of poor scaling. Spellcasters will tend to target them. However, you aren't fighting a spellcaster by yourself; you are with a party. Your 1st level fighter just may fall asleep because you failed your Will save against 1st level evil wizard with an 18 intelligence casting Sleep. However, the party rogue just may flank him with the party cleric and sneak attack him to death. Maybe the party wizard needs to cast Ray of Frost just to get that lousy extra hit point of damage needed. Heck, your fighter could even make the save then go power attacking on the Harry Potter wannabe with a greatsword and your own 18 in ST. You might even win initiative and kill him before he even has a chance to cast his Sleep spell.
Ace_of_time 06-25-07, 01:38 AM	What get it for me is this. If you roll a 18 on rolls you take the 8 that is give in points buy off and that mean that 18 cost him/her 10 points to get but in points buy that same 18 will cost 16 points. That just doesn't seem fair. I'm not saying players should have 18s on all but a method that does cheat them would be nice. I would really like to see a whole new way of rolling a PC if they come out with 4.0 any time soon.
Leilond 06-25-07, 07:03 AM	Nothing "broken" in "rolling stats" There's only the possibility that a lucky player will have a character a lot more powerfull than an unlucky one. What get it for me is this. If you roll a 18 on rolls you take the 8 that is give in points buy off and that mean that 18 cost him/her 10 points to get but in points buy that same 18 will cost 16 points. That just doesn't seem fair. I'm not saying players should have 18s on all but a method that does cheat them would be nice. I would really like to see a whole new way of rolling a PC if they come out with 4.0 any time soon. You can play 32 or 36 point buy You can use a race with +2 to a score so you need only to pay for a 16 and obtain a 18 There's nothing that prevent the gain of a 18 with point buy. Simply use more point for "more powerfull character" or use 25 point if you don't want any 18 in your game That's the goal of point buy, you chose the amount of points and thus determine the power of the characters
runestar 06-25-07, 07:30 AM	I would be one of those unlucky fellows. I think I have amongst the worst luck possible when it comes to games of chance, such as rolling dice...:weep: I do not think there is anything wrong with the concept of rolling for stats. No one is born equal after all. Some might be super strong, smart, charismatic etc (as represented by good scores in virtually every stat), others might so be as gifted (represented by lower stats all around). But then, I don't think the player who got gimped stat-wise is going to be very happy or content when he sees his partner with 4 18s... Point buy is not flawless either, since it still screws around with MAD classes such as paladins. But I guess it best gives the illusion of fairness, since everyone gets the same amount of resources to play around with, but does not take into account that some classes might actually require more than others.:)
Leilond 06-25-07, 07:36 AM	You can still have fun witha 14-12-12-10-9-8 character if the DM do not create "hardly ability score based campaign". I always use point buy, but I played lot of "rolled character" in this last 20 years, and when I played "weak" character I still enjoyed the games, because it's a game of "role playing" and a "weak" character can give lot of good role playing moments.
LCD2YOU 06-25-07, 08:26 AM	Here's a few questions: During the game, do you have characters roll for saves? During the game, do you have characters roll to hit? During the game, do you have characters roll for skill checks when there is a chance to fail with consequences? If you answered yes to all of these, then why is PB superior to rolling for stats? If one is afraid that some players will roll better stats, what are you going to do to keep them from rolling good saves, to hit, skill cecks, etc?
runestar 06-25-07, 08:36 AM	If one is afraid that some players will roll better stats, what are you going to do to keep them from rolling good saves, to hit, skill cecks, etc? Nothing, because there is no guarantee that just because you lucked out by rolling uber stats means that your lucky streak will continue and extend into the game itself. You might roll good stats, then proceed to roll absolutely crap for your attack rolls, saves etc. But all else equal, superior stats should skew the game in the player's favour nonetheless.:) I am of course, assuming that die rolling is essentially random, and you have not developed some sort of special talent which enables you to basically roll any result you want, like those "God of Gamblers" shows...:P
Leilond 06-25-07, 08:46 AM	Here's a few questions: During the game, do you have characters roll for saves? During the game, do you have characters roll to hit? During the game, do you have characters roll for skill checks when there is a chance to fail with consequences? If you answered yes to all of these, then why is PB superior to rolling for stats? Nothing make PB superior to rolling. I simply prefer it If one is afraid that some players will roll better stats, what are you going to do to keep them from rolling good saves, to hit, skill cecks, etc? I'm not concearned on "too lucky character". I'm concearned on the balance between characters. I can easly manage 4 character with 20-20-18-16-16-14 stats. I will simply put harder encounters What is more difficult to manage is the presence in the same group of a 20-20-18-16-16-14 and a 14-12-12-10-9-8 The difference between this two character put me (as a DM) in a difficult situation, because every combat situation will be "too easy for the first" or "too heavy for the second", and one of them isn't going to have fun Surely, different DM won't feel this "difficulty" and for this reason I nevere said "pb is better", I simpy say "I prefer PB"
LCD2YOU 06-25-07, 09:12 AM	To be sure, I'm not attacking anyone here. All I'm trying to say is if one is going to try to "fix the characters" by using PB to keep all characters "in check" as far as rolls go, will it extend to the lucky people who seem to always roll well no matter what dice they're using? I prefer 4d6 drop the lowest. If one person rolls 18, 16, 15, 13, 13, 12 and the other rolls 14, 10, 10, 9, 9, 7 I'd have the 2nd person re-roll. As a DM if the player doesn't have a total stat bonus of +6 or higher, they get to re-roll the dice. That is not a hard and fast rule. If a player set out to roll up a Sorcerer and roll 16, 16, 12, 10, 8, 8, while that is only "+5 total", those scores in no way hamper the PC. They do not get a re-roll. Then again if a person wants to play a Rogue and their stats are 14, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12, that is so "slightly above average", I'd let them re-roll unless they wanted to play the character. This is where the DM steps in when the PCs are suspiciously "uber" or just so pathetic that the DM makes their call.
Leilond 06-25-07, 09:24 AM	To be sure, I'm not attacking anyone here. All I'm trying to say is if one is going to try to "fix the characters" by using PB to keep all characters "in check" as far as rolls go, will it extend to the lucky people who seem to always roll well no matter what dice they're using? I don't belive in "luck". I belive that SOMETIMES you can be lucky. But if you're lucky during the "rolling stats", that luck will influence all the campaign, forever I prefer 4d6 drop the lowest. If one person rolls 18, 16, 15, 13, 13, 12 and the other rolls 14, 10, 10, 9, 9, 7 I'd have the 2nd person re-roll. As a DM if the player doesn't have a total stat bonus of +6 or higher, they get to re-roll the dice. That is not a hard and fast rule. If a player set out to roll up a Sorcerer and roll 16, 16, 12, 10, 8, 8, while that is only "+5 total", those scores in no way hamper the PC. They do not get a re-roll. Then again if a person wants to play a Rogue and their stats are 14, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12, that is so "slightly above average", I'd let them re-roll unless they wanted to play the character. This is where the DM steps in when the PCs are suspiciously "uber" or just so pathetic that the DM makes their call. A matter of choices. You can still have a 18-18-16-16-16-14 cleric and a 14-14-12-12-10-10 fighter I don't like to have such a big difference from players, and I don't see the reason to roll at all Let me play the caracter I want to play. Don't let my next two year campaign be determined by some poor rolls No method is "better". Is a matter of preferences ;)
elondir 06-25-07, 09:36 AM	I'm running an 11th level no-holds-barred-except-pun-pun-and-warhulk campaign with a large party (7 going on possibly 11) and we rolled 4d6 drop low. One guy has a 61-point-buy valued score set, and to be honest I don't see much difference between him and a 30-point character. Basically the 61-point character survives Ray of Stupidity and wounding weapons a few rounds longer. To offset that, though, I guess I should mention they take on encounters four or five levels higher with ease. It doesn't bug me though, since I'm an evil DM with powergaming tendencies myself, and everyone seems to be having a lot of fun.
Phrennzy 06-25-07, 10:18 AM	Definitely go with point buy. It's a lot more fair and fun for everyone. It's like that saying about black guys, "Once you go black you don't go back". Same thing with point buy. LOL. I used point buy, and then I just refined it to everyone starting with 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8. Seems to work great for our group.
Leilond 06-25-07, 10:22 AM	LOL. I used point buy, and then I just refined it to everyone starting with 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8. Seems to work great for our group. Well... powerfull builds... but What if I want to play a balanced character with no dump stat? Why have I to use that damned "8" if I don't want too? Well, matter of preferences, but I won't really like that someone but me will chose my stat
OravennasBrother 06-25-07, 11:09 AM	I've met a lot of players who favor rolling attributes; right up to the point where they roll low attributes (meaning not as high as they want; I've had complaints about 13, 17, 14, 13, 12, 10 as a set of rolls). I prefer Point buy because the initial attributes influence everything that occurs later in a character''s career. A single save (except perhaps save or die) does not. The same for any other single roll. There is a marked difference between rolling to hit and rolling for initial strength.
Ack 06-25-07, 01:55 PM	I prefer point buy for stats. And the reason (as someone asked) that an 18 costs 16 points in point buy is simple: because to roll an 18 on 3d6 is a 1-in-216 chance. Very unlikely in any one set of stats. In other words, higher numbers are harder to reach due to probability.
DarthKharnus 06-25-07, 02:20 PM	I believe that the point buying system for ability scores would be a better course, then to rely upon dice rolling for abilities. One can control more wht they want for their character this way. thankyou, Darth Kharnus, Dark Lord of the Sith
Ash2Dust 06-25-07, 03:27 PM	I don't like rolling for my abilities. That said, my problem with it isn't balance, which seems to be the main argument I see thrown around on these boards. What I don't like is the idea that I get to decide everything about what my character will be except for this basic framework of what he can do. I want to actually make my own character, not have it dictated to me on any level with the exception of dm-disallowed races and classes. I'll leave the random aspect to conflict and task resolution.
RealSorceror 06-25-07, 03:50 PM	Why so much hate for high ability scores? I personally think point buy is the devil, but then I am a player first and a DM third. Our group uses 4d6, drop the lowest and reroll 1s and 2s. Yes, it produces powerful PCs, but this has never been a problem as the DM simply uses more powerful challenges and epic storylines. And in any event, point buy just encourages players to spend all their points on their caster stat or melee stat. You'll get "unbalanced" characters no matter what.
LCD2YOU 06-25-07, 03:56 PM	I don't belive in "luck". I belive that SOMETIMES you can be lucky. But if you're lucky during the "rolling stats", that luck will influence all the campaign, forever A matter of choices. You can still have a 18-18-16-16-16-14 cleric and a 14-14-12-12-10-10 fighterBut again that's where being a DM comes in. The player who rolled the fighter would get to re-roll. To make it better, they would be able to use the same dice the guy who rolled the uber did. That is always interesting.I don't like to have such a big difference from players, and I don't see the reason to roll at allI do.Let me play the caracter I want to play. Don't let my next two year campaign be determined by some poor rolls No method is "better". Is a matter of preferences ;)True.
Crash01234567890 06-25-07, 03:57 PM	No it's not broken, some people are just not too bright. Why should everyone in the group be equal? Is everyone in your roleplaying group equal? Most likely not. Balance you say? There are dozens of games out there that work fine with party members not being exact clones of each other. It's an RP game, there is more to it than just combat. Buffy the Vampire Slayer mixes a Slayer (uber combat monster for the ignorant folk out there) with a bunch of scoobies and does it fine. Then there is always Deadlands, in which magic folk are always stronger than normal people. Ya there are drawbacks in the form of you get really messed up if you botch your rolls, but on a power scale it doesn't even out. Yet the game is not only playable but one of the funnest out there. How is that possible if the characters arn't balanced you ask? Because it's a roleplaying game. It isn't WoW, things don't have to be perfectly in tune with each other. That takes half the fun out of the game. Then again a lot of people grip because, they don't get to make what they wanted. That happens just as often in point buy. Want to play a decent paladin, too bad it's PB. Want to play a good monk, too bad it's PB. Meanwhile as you're struggling along with your points spread so thing that the build just isn't fun, Jake the 18 int, 8 in all other scores wizard and Dave the barb with his 22 raging strength gut everything before you can even get a blow to land. PB has the exact same problems as rolling. And if you're griping because you don't get to fine tune exactly how your points lay in your character, did you get to do that yourself? Did you get to choose how strong you were going to be when you were born, or how graceful, intelligent, ect? No. Then why should it have to be so in the game? As a DM many worry about killing off "underpowered" heroes. Why? Heroes die (unless you're playing 7th Seas), especially supporting characters. If your players are mature enough to play the game, they are mature enough to have their characters die. This does two things. A.) Gives them a chance at a more powerful character to have a different kind of fun, and B.) Helps keep the game suspenseful and fun, as the heroes realize they can die and it isn't a perfect world. Now if you feel the absolute need to make sure your baby players don't get jipped out of a few points at character creation, I'd suggest setting up a PB or array as a backup they can take rather than discarding the roll all together. This gives rollers there fun while those with bad luck still have a chance to get a good character. Or, you can do the method one of my old DMs liked. Each player rolls one score, the DM rolls the rest up to six. The players can accept this one or veto it and roll a second set, if they do so they are stuck with the second set. Then they all use those stats. Gives more of a chance for paladins and moks to be decent heroes while allowing everything to be this so called "fair" people keep griping about.
nastynate 06-25-07, 04:14 PM	Why so much hate for high ability scores? I personally think point buy is the devil, but then I am a player first and a DM third. Our group uses 4d6, drop the lowest and reroll 1s and 2s. Yes, it produces powerful PCs, but this has never been a problem as the DM simply uses more powerful challenges and epic storylines. And in any event, point buy just encourages players to spend all their points on their caster stat or melee stat. You'll get "unbalanced" characters no matter what. I suppose that depends upon how you look at game balance. As a DM I can adjust encounters and threats to the power level of the party with little difficulty. When one character is much more (or much less) powerful than his adventuring companions it is extremely difficult to challenge the party effectively. Encounters that challenge a powerful character, are struggle for the median, and a death sentence to the weak link. Encounters that challenge the weak link are easy for the median and a walk in the park for the powerful member. Point buy helps to prevent (but certainly doesn't eliminate) power discrepancies among the player characters. It isn't a perfect method, but its far less luck dependent than die rolls. I prefer to use point buy and average hp for character generation purposes, and allow luck to factor in only during actual game play. I also try to help newer players build competent characters, so that the players with greater system mastery don't build drastically greater mechanical representations of their character concepts. Ultimately I just want relatively close balance among the PCs themselves, and I will adjust the encounters accordingly to suit the group as a whole (be they high or low powered). Die rolling is cool too, if you don't mind the random ability score differences inherent from one character sheet to the next. My experience (which may or may not be common at other tables) is that many DMs tend to give bonus points or rerolls to the characters that end up with the worst rolls until everyone is comparable to the best die roll-generated character. That frequently ends up resulting in PCs much more powerful than 32 point buy. In my buddy's campaign with random rolls everyone has an 18 and couple 17s, but not so in my so-called "high powered" 32 point buy campaign.
zelf_gale 06-25-07, 04:18 PM	I use Point Buy every time I DM... I don't have to watch players roll dice during character creation, players can create characters before a session, players complain less about other players' attributes, there is an direct incentive to not min/max attributes, players are not allowed to have mental stats below 6 normally which removes some justification for really bad role playing, players are not allowed to have physical stats below 6 normally which removes some cause of early PC death, characters are more balanced initially, and... its what Living Greyhawk uses.
RealSorceror 06-25-07, 04:23 PM	I suppose that depends upon how you look at game balance. As a DM I can adjust encounters and threats to the power level of the party with little difficulty. When one character is much more (or much less) powerful than his adventuring companions it is extremely difficult to challenge the party effectively. Encounters that challenge a powerful character, are struggle for the median, and a death sentence to the weak link. Encounters that challenge the weak link are easy for the median and a walk in the park for the powerful member. Point buy helps to prevent (but certainly doesn't eliminate) power discrepancies among the player characters. It isn't a perfect method, but its far less luck dependent than die rolls. Thats quite true, but point buy won't prevent powergaming, it will just stall it for a few levels (if that). A competent player with a need to optimize can and will outshine other players, even with some subpar scores. I prefer to use point buy and average hp for character generation purposes, and allow luck to factor in only during actual game play. I also try to help newer players build competent characters, so that the players with greater system mastery don't build drastically greater mechanical representations of their character concepts. Ultimately I just want relatively close balance among the PCs themselves, and I will adjust the encounters accordingly to suit the group as a whole (be they high or low powered). As any good DM should. :) Die rolling is cool too, if you don't mind the random ability score differences inherent from one character sheet to the next. My experience (which may or may not be common at other tables) is that many DMs tend to give bonus points or rerolls to the characters that end up with the worst rolls until everyone is comparable to highest die roll-generated character. That frequently ends up resulting in PCs much more powerful than 32 point buy. In my buddy's campaign with random rolls everyone has an 18 and couple 17s, but not so in my so-called "high powered" 32 point buy campaign. That occurs every now and agian in our group. The more I read on the net, the more I find that my playgroup is a bit different than other people's. Character creation for us is not an individual activity, but more of a group discussion. The DM and the players all generally have a very good idea of what everyone can do long before game starts. There aren't any surprises, except of course for creative role-playing and player spontinuity. But the number one thing I've noticed is that people will complain about someone else out-performing them. This just doesn't happen in our group. We don't gimp the powerhouse; we thank the gods that he is on our side.
Kimokeo 06-25-07, 04:39 PM	The moment someone defines ability scores = boring/not boring character needs to go back to playing video games and finding the cheat that gives all 18's or better. That's the problem. The assumption that there are characters not worth playing. That simply isn't true. A fighter with a 10 strength is still capable of becoming and being an incredible fighter. The Feats could make this fighter a real terror. DM's know this because we can make enemies with lousy stats and they can give the party a run for their money without realizing the enemy has such lousy stats. Boring? The players didn't ask to see the stats on my enemy's character sheet to find it interesting. They just knew the enemy was one nasty BBEG. Ability Scores broken? No, just the player's attitude.
nastynate 06-25-07, 04:41 PM	Thats quite true, but point buy won't prevent powergaming, it will just stall it for a few levels (if that). A competent player with a need to optimize can and will outshine other players, even with some subpar scores. I actually don't mind optimization at all. I'm fairly good at that aspect of the game myself, and optimized characters that stand a bit above the normal power curve allow to flex my own optimization muscle with optimized NPCs. I have fun doing that kind of thing. Obviously I draw the line at things that swing the game beyond any realistic control (like hulking hurlers, the wish and the word, the hive, and so forth). What I was referring to is mainly the randomly rolled superior (or inferior) character, which in my mind seems unfair. Your initial ability scores affect the game from levels 1-20 in some form or another, and assuming everyone is equally adept at optimization and character building the randomly generated ability score advantage (or disadvantage) gap never actually closes. Point buy helps with this specific aspect of the game. I do agree however, that any dedicated powergamer can indeed disrupt the balance of power, but it doesn't matter what kind of restrictions, limitations, or character generation system you place on the game at that point. If the powergamer's goal is to create power-level imbalances among the characters then they will, whether or not you roll ability scores, play "core only" games, or what-have-you. That's a player problem though, not a system problem, and point buy has no effect on that. But the number one thing I've noticed is that people will complain about someone else out-performing them. This just doesn't happen in our group. We don't gimp the powerhouse; we thank the gods that he is on our side. Sometimes that is case, but when the powerhouse happens to be superior in several aspects of the game, scouting, magic, combat, crafting, and so on (like some good druid builds are) it isn't as much fun for the other players. The fighter PC tends to get bummed out when all he can do is fight and the druid PC is much better in combat as well as outside of combat. All that leaves the fighter with is role-playing, and nothing is stopping the powerful PC from doing that either. (The classes above are just examples, I'm not trying to start a "druids are overpowered/fighters are underpowered" tangent.) That's why I DM, so I don't have to worry about stealing the spotlight.
OravennasBrother 06-25-07, 04:42 PM	I personally think point buy is the devil, but then I am a player first and a DM third. Our group uses 4d6, drop the lowest and reroll 1s and 2s. Yes, it produces powerful PCs, Exactly - you enjoy rolling ability scores as long as the ability scores are very high. Would you enjoy rolling as much if your character "randomly" received 10, 10, 11, 8, 12, 13 - pretty close to a minimum roll 4d6 drop lowest which is a "keeper" under the rules?
RealSorceror 06-25-07, 04:51 PM	Exactly - you enjoy rolling ability scores as long as the ability scores are very high. Would you enjoy rolling as much if your character "randomly" received 10, 10, 11, 8, 12, 13 - pretty close to a minimum roll 4d6 drop lowest which is a "keeper" under the rules? Only if I where playing for kicks, but otherwise hell no. Thing is, my DM would never make me play a serious character with scores so far below the other players, and would have me reroll. Would your DM force you to play with those scores?
Archangel62 06-25-07, 05:19 PM	My comment is that Point buy is good for starting players and contests where it is necessary to make sure that everyone is on roughly equal footing. However, I have an issue with the pb system because it breaks down further and further from core. PB still keeps druids near the top of the heap and knocks down classes that were average or weak even further than they were before.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 06-25-07, 05:21 PM	Only if I where playing for kicks, but otherwise hell no. Thing is, my DM would never make me play a serious character with scores so far below the other players, and would have me reroll. Would your DM force you to play with those scores? Well, why don't you just go with a ridiculous PB then? 60 or so ought to sate your lust for power.
aotrscommander 06-25-07, 05:56 PM	LOL. I used point buy, and then I just refined it to everyone starting with 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8. Seems to work great for our group. Funnily enough, that's the array (which I christened the Munchkin Array) I used for all the NPC in my latest campaign... We've always rolled in our group, pretty much; often it's a case of roll, pass the stats to the DM, who'll tell you to reroll some, all or none depending on what he feels is the approraite level and maybe swap a few points here and there. It got passably balanced that way (indeed as Rolemaster has no other option, it was more or less a nessecity to learn to judge by eye.) The last couple of times I ran a game I sked the players what they wanted to do (they didn't really care) so I've used a point-buy, just not the DMG one (since I fail to see why a linear scale needed a nonlinear cost). The stats started at 8 and the players got 24 points to add to that, point for point (which can come out at around the 18/16/14/12/10/8 aforementioned). I calculated the approximate spread in DMG PB once, but I forget what it was now.
BW0222 06-25-07, 06:12 PM	Folks, The PB issue is one of fairness. Yes, randomness is part of the game. However, generally, randomness in rolls during the campaign do not affect future rolls. During the 5 to 10 thousand rolls a player might make over the campaign, rolling badly one time does not ususually affect the next roll. If you miss one round, you may still hit the next time. However, ability scores are different. If you roll, you carry the results with you for the next year or two. It is kind of like flipping a coin at the beginning of the football game -- and shooting all players on the lossing side in the legs. It might be fair at the beginning of the game -- either team might win the toss -- but it isn't fair from then on. One team has an advantage over the other for the entire game. If some rolls a (13, 11, 9, 8, 7, and 6) and another a (17, 15, 15, 14, 12, and 10) the result of the rest of the campaign are pretty much known -- one player dominates while watching his friend struggle. Monsters able to challenge the second PC, slaughter the first. There is nothing wrong with luck altering the course of an encounter or even an adventure. It should have such a dramatic effect on the outcome of the entire campaign.
OravennasBrother 06-25-07, 06:21 PM	Only if I where playing for kicks, but otherwise hell no. Thing is, my DM would never make me play a serious character with scores so far below the other players, and would have me reroll. Would your DM force you to play with those scores? I'd jump at the chance to play with a restrictive DM -one who let the dice fall where they may. Unfortunately the only other DM in our group is horribly lenient. What I gather is "I want to roll for my attributes. As long as I roll high." There's a word to describe that style of play.
Salla 06-25-07, 06:30 PM	Here's a few questions: During the game, do you have characters roll for saves? During the game, do you have characters roll to hit? During the game, do you have characters roll for skill checks when there is a chance to fail with consequences? If you answered yes to all of these, then why is PB superior to rolling for stats? If one is afraid that some players will roll better stats, what are you going to do to keep them from rolling good saves, to hit, skill cecks, etc? Because if you flub a saving throw or to hit roll, its effects generally only last that fight, or that game session. You missed the goblin with your sword, you swing again next round. You fail your Reflex save, you take more damage ... then smack the heck out of the fireball happy warmage. If your HP or stats crap out, those linger with you for the character's entire life. BIG difference.
LCD2YOU 06-25-07, 06:34 PM	Folks, The PB issue is one of fairness. Yes, randomness is part of the game. However, generally, randomness in rolls during the campaign do not affect future rolls. During the 5 to 10 thousand rolls a player might make over the campaign, rolling badly one time does not ususually affect the next roll. If you miss one round, you may still hit the next time. However, ability scores are different. If you roll, you carry the results with you for the next year or two. It is kind of like flipping a coin at the beginning of the football game -- and shooting all players on the lossing side in the legs. It might be fair at the beginning of the game -- either team might win the toss -- but it isn't fair from then on. One team has an advantage over the other for the entire game. If some rolls a (13, 11, 9, 8, 7, and 6) and another a (17, 15, 15, 14, 12, and 10) the result of the rest of the campaign are pretty much known -- one player dominates while watching his friend struggle. Monsters able to challenge the second PC, slaughter the first.Just a question, where's the DM in all of this? Do you actually play with DMs who can't see the problem and have the other re-roll the dice?There is nothing wrong with luck altering the course of an encounter or even an adventure. It should have such a dramatic effect on the outcome of the entire campaign.Again, what I see when the problem of, "If one person rolls 18s and another 3s......", I just have to think and wonder, "Where's the DM?" Did the DM see the rolls? Is the player using their "special dice"? That is what the DM's job is. I agree that the person who rolled like crap is going to have a heck of a time when the other players rolled Avatars of Gods. What is also clear is that PB is not as "fair" as many make it out to be. It is known that SAD classes and the Druid still do great things. MAD classes like the Monk and Paladin are screwed. Cause yes, there are times when a character has such low stats that they aren't worth playing.
LCD2YOU 06-25-07, 06:36 PM	Because if you flub a saving throw or to hit roll, its effects generally only last that fight, or that game session. You missed the goblin with your sword, you swing again next round. You fail your Reflex save, you take more damage ... then smack the heck out of the fireball happy warmage. If your HP or stats crap out, those linger with you for the character's entire life. BIG difference.Which again is why the DM needs to actually make a judgement and allow low rollers to re-roll. Still, PB is not a fix. It has it's problems. It is in no way "balanced" as many here want to believe.
Salla 06-25-07, 07:20 PM	Which again is why the DM needs to actually make a judgement and allow low rollers to re-roll. Still, PB is not a fix. It has it's problems. It is in no way "balanced" as many here want to believe. So, the DM sits there and makes all the players re-roll until they have comparable sets of stats ... At which point, you might as well use point buy because that's what you're doing, just going at it really half-assed. :)
Phrennzy 06-25-07, 07:42 PM	Well... powerfull builds... but What if I want to play a balanced character with no dump stat? Why have I to use that damned "8" if I don't want too? Well, matter of preferences, but I won't really like that someone but me will chose my stat I guess I should have said that you can trade point for point, and choose what you want. I guess it's more like you get 78 points to spread among 6 stats.
Ace_of_time 06-25-07, 07:49 PM	Nothing "broken" in "rolling stats" There's only the possibility that a lucky player will have a character a lot more powerfull than an unlucky one. You can play 32 or 36 point buy You can use a race with +2 to a score so you need only to pay for a 16 and obtain a 18 There's nothing that prevent the gain of a 18 with point buy. Simply use more point for "more powerfull character" or use 25 point if you don't want any 18 in your game That's the goal of point buy, you chose the amount of points and thus determine the power of the characters I would like to see Points buy go to something like this. Drop the cost table and go to point for point. then add some randomness in to it by setting a min of 25 and max of 35 and let the players roll 1d10 + 24. For rolling I would like to see 4d6 reroll the lowest 1 rolled by DM. After he gets set of six scores the players would get to move six points around before setting to ability scores.
LCD2YOU 06-25-07, 09:05 PM	So, the DM sits there and makes all the players re-roll until they have comparable sets of stats ... At which point, you might as well use point buy because that's what you're doing, just going at it really half-assed. :)You can use PB. I will choose touse what I consider a better way to create characters. But no, there are limits. Let's say the group rolls 4d6, dropping lowest. Players 1, 2 and 3 roll something like 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10 or there abouts. Player 4 rolls 12, 12, 10, 10, 8, 8 and then they roll 13, 10, 10, 8, 8, 6. Instead of having them roll again, give them the average of the other players' rolls. Why is that half-assed? Sounds like a problem child DM who can't think of anything better who needs to use PB to solve a problem as they can't think of one. Oh yeah a :) is needed to make it look like I'm just joking.
Vaelan 06-25-07, 09:21 PM	Rolling isn't broken. It works, so long as your group isn't prone to tainting a group-based game with competitive instincts. Of course, if that is the case, you have bigger problems. Unfortunately, the Slippery Slope and other accompanying fallacies, especially that one that violates the CoC, have already begun. :bored:
Mock26 06-25-07, 09:28 PM	Rolling for ability scores IS broken in that the player can have wildly different sets of scores to work with which leads to different power levels among the characters. A perfectly average set of rolls (say straight 12s) could enable a large number of fairly boring characters while a lucky roller can get scores that all exceed average. It is only broken if you think that people cannot enjoy playing in a game where the characters can have wildly different sets of scores. And, there are a lot of people who are not only perfectly capable of playing with and enjoying a group of characters with wildly different sets of scores but who actually do play and enjoy such characters.
Salla 06-25-07, 10:02 PM	You can use PB. I will choose touse what I consider a better way to create characters. But no, there are limits. Let's say the group rolls 4d6, dropping lowest. Players 1, 2 and 3 roll something like 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10 or there abouts. Player 4 rolls 12, 12, 10, 10, 8, 8 and then they roll 13, 10, 10, 8, 8, 6. Instead of having them roll again, give them the average of the other players' rolls. Why is that half-assed? Sounds like a problem child DM who can't think of anything better who needs to use PB to solve a problem as they can't think of one. Oh yeah a :) is needed to make it look like I'm just joking. Again, if you're just going to say 'here are your stats', why not just use point buy? That's what you're doing, just without actually picking a number.
Optimized_Commoner 06-26-07, 12:54 AM	Sounds like a problem child DM who can't think of anything better who needs to use PB to solve a problem as they can't think of one. Yeah, who needs BAB... That's for problem children DMs who can't think of anything better when making attack rolls. And HP, what a waste of character sheet space. The DM can just fiat when your character dies, any DM who uses HP just can't think of any other solutions.
Candin 06-26-07, 01:15 AM	I'm a proponent of the point buy method, since rolling has the tendency to make one character more powerful than another by virtue that the person rolls better. My character is a good example. My DM didn't like the idea of 4d6 drop the lowest, so we did 3d6, but we rolled three columns of stats and chose. If we didn't like any of them, we could option to roll another, add one to each stat, and take it, but we had to take it no matter what. We also were allowed to reroll 8s or below. So I roll three lame columns and roll the fourth. My stats turn out to be 13 16 16 15 15 18 He also had a rule that anyone who rolls an 18 gets to add a d4 to it. I roll a d4 and come up with a 4. So my stats end up something like 14 17 17 16 14 23 I ended up intentionally lowering my strength, con, dex and wis because the druid complained I had a higher strength, the ranger complained I had a higher dex, and the tanks complained that I, being a sorcerer, was outpacing them on hit points. Granted the above method we used isn't the standard roll, but the principle is there. It's going to create a party discrepency where one or more characters will roll invariably high stats, while others will roll mediocore at best.
LCD2YOU 06-26-07, 02:38 AM	Yeah, who needs BAB... That's for problem children DMs who can't think of anything better when making attack rolls. And HP, what a waste of character sheet space. The DM can just fiat when your character dies, any DM who uses HP just can't think of any other solutions.Wow, that is out from left field. I guess when logical arguements fail, left field is where you go. Um, when did absurd get into this conversation? Basically it is this. There are a few on the Pro-PB side that say it is balanced. I say play the way you want but if you think PB promotes balance, can I get some of what you guys are smoking? I say rolling is more fun and I enjoy it more. If there's a player who can't roll their way out of a paper bag, help them out. That is what a good DM does, not someone who O_C is talking about.
LCD2YOU 06-26-07, 02:40 AM	Again, if you're just going to say 'here are your stats', why not just use point buy? That's what you're doing, just without actually picking a number.So picking a number from PB is ok but wen a person rolls like crap for several times giving them stats comparable to others in the game is not? Sounds like a double standard.
Drag0nUL 06-26-07, 03:47 AM	I for one prefer PB over rolling any day because it is more predictable. I'd much rather tailor my stats to the build I want to play than the other way around. I gave up rolling stats for serious campaigns (but I often roll for fun in one-shot or short term adventures) since my second or third campaign. Back then I really wanted to play a paladin/exorcist of the silver flame (Eberron campaign setting) but when I rolled my stats I got 17 13 12 11 11 9. Not very good for a paladin at all, so I ended up with a dwarf druid instead. Great and fun character but I never got to play what I wanted.
Meems 06-26-07, 03:59 AM	I don't think rolling is broken--it may be unfair on the other players if one player gets really high stats and the others don't, though. In my campaign, the players roll 4d6 to generate scores, but roll six sets of scores. This may sound crazy, but it gives everyone a fairly high chance of having at least one 17 or 18, and I can easily adjust the encounters I'm throwing at them to compensate.
Leilond 06-26-07, 04:49 AM	There's nothing "broken", it's a matter of preferences I don't like rolling, because of the possible TOO HIGH differences between characters, while with the point buy there can be differences, but they're more under control. There isn't a better or worse one. It depends on preferences
navar100 06-26-07, 04:59 AM	Given: 4 players rolling for ability scores. 4 players roll very well. Solution: Game on. 3 players roll very well. 1 player rolls significantly not as well. Solution: DM gets off high horse and allows that one player to reroll. 2 players roll very well. 2 players roll significantly not as well. Solution: DM gets off high horse and allows the 2 less fortunate players to reroll. 1 player rolls very well. 3 players roll significantly not as well. Solution A: Is "significantly not as well" still "good enough"? If yes, game on. 1st player don't be a jerk boasting of your better scores or else. If no, DM gets off his high horse and lets those players reroll. Solution B: Is "significantly not as well" still "good enough"? If yes, politely ask 1st player to shave off an ability score or two to be fair, as a courtesy. 1st player should oblige, as a courtesy, and can still keep an 18 with blessing, maybe allow the old 2E "two for one" trade offs to get an 18 if did not have one but rolled a good number of 16s for example. If 1st player does not, he needs to "be watched" then go to Solution A. If no, go directly to Solution A. 4 players roll significantly not as well. Solution: Is "significantly not as well" good enough? If yes, game on. If no, DM gets off his high horse and lets everyone reroll.
Roog 06-26-07, 06:19 AM	Solution: DM gets off high horse and allows that one player to reroll. Solution: DM gets off high horse and allows the 2 less fortunate players to reroll. If no, DM gets off his high horse and lets those players reroll. If no, DM gets off his high horse and lets everyone reroll. So, basically if I DM a game with stat rolling and we don't get a result thats pretty close to what we could get with point buy (ie the characters having pretty comparable stats), then I should "get off my high horse" and have people reroll/change stats until it is. I like point buy, I also like rolling stats and being forced to deal with what I get, but what is the point of rolling stats like this? #edit If the players are going to complain about rolling low, they should do it before they roll not after.
Steely_Dan 06-26-07, 07:55 AM	Here's a few questions: During the game, do you have characters roll for saves? During the game, do you have characters roll to hit? During the game, do you have characters roll for skill checks when there is a chance to fail with consequences? If you answered yes to all of these, then why is PB superior to rolling for stats? If one is afraid that some players will roll better stats, what are you going to do to keep them from rolling good saves, to hit, skill cecks, etc? Because you don't roll for ability scores "during the game". Because you roll attacks, saves and skill checks etc many, many times "during the game", where you only roll for your ability scores once in "character creation". PB is superior because it stops the poor chap who wants to play a monk rolling 14, 12, 12, 11, 11, 10 and the dude who wants to play a sorcerer rolling 18, 16, 16, 15, 12, 11…not cool. How can you compare the one time rolling for ability scores during "character creation" that will affect your character for his/her entire career with the potential thousands of rolls such as attacks and saves etc that will happen "during the game/campaign"?
Olskool 06-26-07, 07:58 AM	Point Buy is boring. Point Buy is like watching paint dry. Point buy is a field trip to the box factory. Point buy is like kissing your sister.
Leilond 06-26-07, 08:14 AM	I would like to play a character with dexterity 16 and intelligence 16. What if I roll good stats but not the one I want? What if I roll 17-14-14-12-12-12. You won't allow me to reroll (it's good)... but it is not the character that I've in mind nor the character I want to play I like to give my players the character they want, and pretend they roleplay it I really cannot understand why a DM want to force me to play a character with stats that I don't like. It's my character, it's my fun. The stats of my character cannot change the fun of the DM, until those stats are a bit balanced, but they can change a lot the perception and the fun of mine. I prefer to sit at the table and chose together the stats, without any roll or any point buy. But rolling... no, I cannot force my player to play a character different from what they want
Steely_Dan 06-26-07, 08:18 AM	Point Buy is boring. Point Buy is like watching paint dry. Point buy is a field trip to the box factory. Point buy is like kissing your sister. Point buy is fun. Point buy is like watching interesting decisions. Point buy is like a field trip to sanity. Point buy is like kissing a fair and reasonable lover. …Though some people like kissing their sister…
JellyPooga 06-26-07, 08:53 AM	The problem I have with Point Buy is that it tends to crap on any character that's not a Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric or Druid. All four of those classes can get away with 18 in their primary stat and practically nothing in anything else (though Dex and Con are useful for Wizards and Sorcerers obviously). Just about every other class needs more than one high stat: Fighter: Str + Con Rogue: Dex + Int + Cha Bard: Dex + Cha Barbarian: Str + Dex + Con Ranger: Str + Dex Paladin: Str + Con + Wis + Cha Monk: Str + Dex + Wis + Cha Point Buy also makes Multiclassing a nightmare as well because it requires that even more stats are high (e.g. Fighter/Bard will need Str + Con + Dex + Cha, give or take, depending on style). Admittedly, random stats aren't much better, but if you do happen to roll high stats it gives you the option to play a more diverse character, whereas Point Buy forces you to be somewhat single-minded and follow a more narrow path (which is often the way to more powerful characters - e.g. Wizard is v. powerful, Cleric is v. powerful, Mystic Theurge is somewhat sub-par in comparison). So in answer to the thread title - No, rolling for ability scores is not broken, it just produces a different player/character dynamic (IMO).
Leilond 06-26-07, 09:00 AM	The problem I have with Point Buy is that it tends to crap on any character that's not a Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric or Druid. All four of those classes can get away with 18 in their primary stat and practically nothing in anything else (though Dex and Con are useful for Wizards and Sorcerers obviously). Just about every other class needs more than one high stat: Fighter: Str + Con Rogue: Dex + Int + Cha Bard: Dex + Cha Barbarian: Str + Dex + Con Ranger: Str + Dex Paladin: Str + Con + Wis + Cha Monk: Str + Dex + Wis + Cha Point Buy also makes Multiclassing a nightmare as well because it requires that even more stats are high (e.g. Fighter/Bard will need Str + Con + Dex + Cha, give or take, depending on style). Admittedly, random stats aren't much better, but if you do happen to roll high stats it gives you the option to play a more diverse character, whereas Point Buy forces you to be somewhat single-minded and follow a more narrow path (which is often the way to more powerful characters - e.g. Wizard is v. powerful, Cleric is v. powerful, Mystic Theurge is somewhat sub-par in comparison). So in answer to the thread title - No, rolling for ability scores is not broken, it just produces a different player/character dynamic (IMO). The character that make large use of more stats have that for a reason. BALANCE. If you let the paladin concentrate only strenght and constituion, you'll have a too powerfull character It's a nonsense. Simply give them more points, and you'll have more opportunities. All you can obtain with rolls, can be obtained with point buy It is a matter of preference, but in no way you can do something with rolling stats that you cannot obtain with point buy With 32 point buy you can easly create a perfectly playable and balanced paladin. Not effective in melee as a fighter, but it is supposed to be so, nor as effective in turning and curing like a cleric, but it is supposed to be so. With 32/36 point buy you'll have this paladin Str: 14 (16 with 36 point buy) Dex: 12 Con: 12 Wis: 16 Int: 10 Cha: 14 It will be perfectly nice and playable. It will be lesse melee effective than a fighter with the same point buy, but it is supposed to be so, because of the Paladin special powers that serve and power up the party If you want a more powerfull one, give more and more PB Nothing prevent you from doing that. Until you accept that 1) Fighters and barbarian have to be the best melee character 2) Bow ranger will be the best ranged attackers 3) Clerics designed to cure will be the best healers 4) Clerics designed to turn undead will be unbeatable in it 5) And so on
Steely_Dan 06-26-07, 09:19 AM	Bow ranger will be the best ranged attackers That would still be the fighter.
Dherki 06-26-07, 09:33 AM	The character that make large use of more stats have that for a reason. BALANCE. Ah, so thats why the most powerful classes are SAD...
Metafictional 06-26-07, 09:43 AM	My problems with rolling are as a DM. On a long enough timeline, the game's progression means that a high ability score only tends to generate a 10% better chance of success on a d20 roll. Really, having a Strength score 2-4 points higher than another melee character of the same level doesn't matter much at level 12. It's _nice_ but not as important, generally. By level 20, who cares, you can do all kinds of insane things to boost your character's effectiveness. The same goes for high off-scores. A Fighter with Wisdom 16 is more likely to make a Will save than his Wis 12 buddy, but the way his saves progress, the higher in level he gets, the less this matters vs. his opponent's Save DC's. So rolling is fine...but. At low levels, this creates a disparity. Character A's 18 Str seems a lot cooler than Character B's 15, he's doing a lot more right off the bat. Balancing encounters for this party will be hard for awhile, one guy is performing at near-peak efficacy, the other guy is closer to what the CR rating suggests. It _will_ improve, but again, it's a little harder to juggle as a DM, not to mention, having been in a game where I had a 14 Strength and someone else had a 19. And he was the Monk! Rolling does tend to make characters with MAD stronger. Give a Fighter all 18's. His attack is good, his saves are good, his AC and hit points are good, and he's got more skill points than he knows what to do with. He's not half bad at Intimidate either. Give a Bard all 18's. His attack is good, his saves are good, his AC and hit points are good, he has tons of skill points (but probably still not _quite_ enough), all his class abilities function at peak efficacy, he has lots of bonus spells, and his save DC's are great. And his skill checks are phenomenal. Seems that the Bard gets the better deal here, no? A Barbarian functions better with all 18's, IMO, than a Fighter. So in a rolled game, there's a little less certainty in your character or build. It hearkens back to the old days, where you go "Ok, if I roll bad, I'm a Fighter, but if I roll good, I'm a Ranger. Or even a Pally!". Some of us like that. Others don't, and prefer that there is never a disparity, from level one on. So rolling isn't bad, obviously, but it makes for wilder characters. It's more fun, but the DM has to do more work to keep his game balanced. Remember, die rolling tends to work because low levels are lethal. In the old days, a bad character would die quick, and be replaced. You'd have lots of chances to get good rolls before the party hits level 3 and get a nice character. And there's a lot of weird die-rolling techniques out there, to speed this process along. Point buy is designed for the long haul. You want to make sure characters have decided strengths, and know their weaknesses, right off the bat. With point buy, you are no better or worse off dying multiple times to reach higher levels. Point buy actually seems to encourage optimization. I say SEEMS, so no flaming, please. This can be both good and bad, I don't mind a guy going "I was thinking of going Bard/Barbarian, and trying for Dragon Disciple, then maybe Exotic Weapon Master, if the game allows it." I do mind someone talking about individual Feat selections all the way up to level 20. Honestly. Are you sure you'll make it that far? But I'm digressing, I find it easier to balance point buy games at low levels. At higher levels, I don't really care either way. I have noticed though, my players are more inclined to work together with point buy games. With die rolling, there was what I used to call the "playboy factor", where someone gets stellar stats, and tries to become some uber-lonewolf "I don't really need you guys/you're my supporting cast, and I'm the superstar, baby!" character. In other words, a glory-hogging jerk that we don't really miss that much when he dies. : ) But I'm not saying high stats detract from your ability to roleplay or be a viable party member. I'm just saying, I've noticed a trend in games I've played in. It's not a trend I like, so if point buy has a tendency to counter the trend, then it works for me. But as a player, I have to admit, I miss the days when I'd end up with a character with more "organic" stats, no real "dump" stat, and sometimes, a surprisingly high stat you wouldn't expect. Like my 17-Intelligence Paladin. Boy was he a blast to play.
Steely_Dan 06-26-07, 09:45 AM	Ah, so thats why the most powerful classes are SAD... ...Meaning full progression casters, right? Comparing any class that is a full progression caster/manifester with a class that is not a full progression caster/manifester is an exercise in futility. But this is a subject for another thread – the overpowered, antiquated, pseudo-Vancian, Gygaxian holdover that is the D&D magic/spell system.
Leilond 06-26-07, 09:59 AM	Ah, so thats why the most powerful classes are SAD... Never said that. Simply that you cannot have them with all 18s. A 36 point buy monk can be a lot of think, surely not a sad character
Steely_Dan 06-26-07, 10:04 AM	A 36 point buy monk can be a lot of think, surely not a sad character I'm not being funny, but do you know what SAD stands for?
Olskool 06-26-07, 10:13 AM	Point buy is like kissing a fair and reasonable lover. ...and these are the magical words that banish me from these boards forever. Curse you Steely Dan!!!
Steely_Dan 06-26-07, 10:23 AM	...and these are the magical words that banish me from these boards forever. Curse you Steely Dan!!! Don't run away from your feelings!
CaptainPicard 06-26-07, 10:32 AM	I understand that PB and rolling is a matter of preference and in the hands of a good DM both of them can be balanced, but what I don't get is what people are saying about MAD characters being gimped by PB. If anything, I implemented PB as a way to penalize players who tried to get something like 18, 18, 10, 10, 10, 10 under the old system (which you really don't want to know about) and help out the MAD characters. Now, we normally play with 36 PB or as high as 46 in some of the more epic games we run. Under 36 PB, I have a Monk/Swordsage, a character combination that requires str, dex, con, and wis, and with 36 PB I was able to get 14 str, 16 dex, 14 con, 12 int, 16 wis, and 12 cha. This is a far cry from a weak setup. With PB, you can buy 14s fairly cheaply and still afford a couple of 16s. With rolling, you have a much higher chance of gimping one of your class' important stats. Just my observation, anyway.
Phrennzy 06-26-07, 10:38 AM	I'm not being funny, but do you know what SAD stands for? I have no idea what SAD stands for in this instance.
Steely_Dan 06-26-07, 10:43 AM	I have no idea what SAD stands for in this instance. Single Ability Dependant (classes such as wizard/psion etc). MAD = Multiple Ability Dependant (classes such as monk/paladin etc).
BW0222 06-26-07, 10:53 AM	LCD2YOU Just a question, where's the DM in all of this? Do you actually play with DMs who can't see the problem and have the other re-roll the dice? In my case, it isn't a problem because my DMs are smart enough to just use the point buy. However, you look at (17, 15, 15, 14, 12, and 10) vs. (13, 11, 9, 8, 7, and 6) and see the obvious problem. Well how about (17, 15, 15, 14, 12, and 10) vs. (15, 12, 12, 12, 8, and 7). Still a problem? Ok how about (15, 14, 12, 12, 10, and 8)? First, exactly how close do the die rolls have to be for it to be fair? Are you considering the totals, or are you weighting higher scores because they are rarer to randomly roll. I know, maybe you could convert the die rolls their point buy numbers, total them, and allows rerolls until everyone is within a few points of each other? However, the fairness difference between even 28 and 32 are significant. Isn't it also unfair to allow a 4 point difference? How about a 2 point difference? Well, if the players see the numbers, it's still unfair. Second, how the heck is repeatedly rolling ever going to get you rolls that close to each other? Do you know how long it would take to get four folks within a few PB points of each other through random rolling? Days, weeks? Third, what if someone rolls insanely high? If four folks each rolling five times in an attempt to get within say 5 points of the highest, someone is randomy going to hit a 40+ PB equivalent. Even if everyone else eventually manages to roll that high? By itself it is worth a +1 or so LA to the characters considering that the CR/EL system is designed against a 25 or 28 point buy. Again, what I see when the problem of, "If one person rolls 18s and another 3s......", I just have to think and wonder, "Where's the DM?" And how is the DM supposed to enforce that the dice roll within some number of each other? If Joe gets a (12, 11, 10, 9, 8, and 7) and Bob gets a (15, 12, 12, 9, 8, and 8), we let Joe roll again. If Joe now gets a (16, 14, 13, 12, 12, and 10), we now let Bob rolls again since his stats are now too low. Bob then rolls a (18, 16, 16, 15, 12, and 11). We then let Joe roll again for the next two hours and he still can't get stats anywhere near Bob. But, assuming eventually everyone does. Well (18, 16, 16, 15, 12, and 11) is a 51-point buy. It is so far past what the CR system envisioned that it isn't funny. The DM then needs add two the EL of every combat, leading to lop-sided combats -- either for or against the party. Folks either complain that they calkwalk through goblins or that the DM is unfairly tossing ogres at them at first level. Ok, so the smart DM realised this and he tells Bob to reroll until he gets lower stats. Couldn't you just save hours and have everyone use a point buy? Isn't that the result that you are trying to get anyway -- everyone with similiar ranges of ability scores, which don't cause EL/CR issues?
Leilond 06-26-07, 11:04 AM	I have no idea what SAD stands for in this instance. Sorry, I always intende in the opposite way No matter. SAD doesn't exists for what I think. All you can obtain with rolling dice can be obtained with PB I think that a simple 28 point buy is enought to play very good SAD and MAD character, with no one less powerfull than the other If your players like powerfull characters, there is the 32 point buy, that really let you play EVERYTHING, with good result with little differences
Ack 06-26-07, 11:49 AM	Reading through this, I get the impression that the pro-rolling opinion seems to be that "Rolling is cool, because you can get really cool stats legally, and if you crap out, the GM is (more or less) obliged to even things up for you anyway!" ... or so it seems to me. So basically, the way to go is to try for good stats, because you've got a safety net if you fail. :rolleye2: News flash: the GM is under no obligation to 'save' your stats if you try for straight 18s and instead get straight 12s. In addition, any system that only 'works' part of the time, and needs GM intervention the rest of the time ... can't really be said to work, can it? Of course, if you roll low stats and are happy with them, good for you. I'll stick with point buy. At least I know that whatever I get, I'm good with.
Salla 06-26-07, 11:52 AM	So picking a number from PB is ok but wen a person rolls like crap for several times giving them stats comparable to others in the game is not? Sounds like a double standard. I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or not. If you're going to have people roll until they get comparable stats, or simply bump someone's stats up until they get comparable stats, why not just use point buy, which automatically grants comparable stats? Instead of saying 'Bob rolled well, Steve rolled badly, here, you guys average your stats', it makes more sense to me to say 'Here's 32 points', since that's basically what you're doing, just taking more time at it.
Salla 06-26-07, 12:00 PM	The problem I have with Point Buy is that it tends to crap on any character that's not a Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric or Druid. All four of those classes can get away with 18 in their primary stat and practically nothing in anything else (though Dex and Con are useful for Wizards and Sorcerers obviously). The druid I agree with, but that's because Wild Shape is f'ed up and I don't use it. :) With the Wiz and Sorc's d4 Hit Dice, I consider CON to be a requirement for them, and the Cleric also requires STR, CON, and CHA in that order because they're beatsticks, though this is offset slightly by their many combat buffs. Heck, they need STR just for their heavy armor proficiency.
OravennasBrother 06-26-07, 12:10 PM	Point Buy is boring. ... Point buy is like kissing your sister. Having never kissed a sister I'll defer to your expertise. I find overpowered characters boring. Ooh look my character with 18, 18, 16, 16, 14, 14 for base attributes destroyed another opponent appropriate for my CR without even trying. Yeah for high attributes. Big Yawn.
Salla 06-26-07, 12:21 PM	Having never kissed a sister I'll defer to your expertise. I find overpowered characters boring. Ooh look my character with 18, 18, 16, 16, 14, 14 for base attributes destroyed another opponent appropriate for my CR without even trying. Yeah for high attributes. Big Yawn. Exactly. I've noticed that, shall we say, stat inflation is growing prevalent around my area ... I was guilty of it in my last game (40 pt buy? what was I thinking?).
Einvaldurinn_mikli 06-26-07, 01:26 PM	(40 pt buy? what was I thinking?). Not at all apparently;) .
LCD2YOU 06-26-07, 01:28 PM	LCD2YOU In my case, it isn't a problem because my DMs are smart enough to just use the point buy.Huh? Only smart DMs use PB? Wow, what a great way to start a conversation. Hang it out your ear.However, you look at (17, 15, 15, 14, 12, and 10) vs. (13, 11, 9, 8, 7, and 6) and see the obvious problem. Well how about (17, 15, 15, 14, 12, and 10) vs. (15, 12, 12, 12, 8, and 7). Still a problem? Ok how about (15, 14, 12, 12, 10, and 8)? First, exactly how close do the die rolls have to be for it to be fair? Are you considering the totals, or are you weighting higher scores because they are rarer to randomly roll. I know, maybe you could convert the die rolls their point buy numbers, total them, and allows rerolls until everyone is within a few points of each other? However, the fairness difference between even 28 and 32 are significant. Isn't it also unfair to allow a 4 point difference? How about a 2 point difference? Well, if the players see the numbers, it's still unfair.As is PB though a few don't think so. Your point? Or do you just ramble on? My guess it is the latter.Second, how the heck is repeatedly rolling ever going to get you rolls that close to each other? Do you know how long it would take to get four folks within a few PB points of each other through random rolling? Days, weeks?I've never seen an issue after the second set of rolls. You?Third, what if someone rolls insanely high? If four folks each rolling five times in an attempt to get within say 5 points of the highest, someone is randomy going to hit a 40+ PB equivalent. Even if everyone else eventually manages to roll that high? By itself it is worth a +1 or so LA to the characters considering that the CR/EL system is designed against a 25 or 28 point buy.Then everybody gets to use their dice. Also, I've said no more than once. It is rare, but it has happened.And how is the DM supposed to enforce that the dice roll within some number of each other?Judgement. There are no hard and fast rules. Any good DMs can make them though and still have happy players.If Joe gets a (12, 11, 10, 9, 8, and 7) and Bob gets a (15, 12, 12, 9, 8, and 8), we let Joe roll again.Actually stop using your shoulders as seat cushions and read the reast of what I stated. To help you out here: If a character's stats don't come up to a bonus of +6 total, they can re-roll So in the case of Joe, total bonus = 1+0+0-1-1-2=-3 and Bob total would then be 2+1+1-1-1-1= 2, they may both re-roll.If Joe now gets a (16, 14, 13, 12, 12, and 10), we now let Bob rolls again since his stats are now too low.Actually they both were. Try reading everything what others say, not just what you want to read. It can really help you.Bob then rolls a (18, 16, 16, 15, 12, and 11). We then let Joe roll again for the next two hours and he still can't get stats anywhere near Bob. But, assuming eventually everyone does.Actually those look fine for both. Hey, I've had the "lowest point character" from rolls and played them. What's the issue besides you forcing one?Well (18, 16, 16, 15, 12, and 11) is a 51-point buy. It is so far past what the CR system envisioned that it isn't funny. The DM then needs add two the EL of every combat, leading to lop-sided combats -- either for or against the party. Folks either complain that they calkwalk through goblins or that the DM is unfairly tossing ogres at them at first level.Maybe a poor DM would. I don't have to do that. I give the players enough rope to hang themselves with and it is one thing I learned over time that uber point players hang themselves. Also, I don't consider that to be a 1st level character but a 3rd level character. His experience rewards are reduced. Oh yes, I let my players no about this before hand. See Good DMs do that. Not surprising you wouldn't know that.Ok, so the smart DM realised this and he tells Bob to reroll until he gets lower stats.Huh? Wow, tell me more about the games you've played in.Couldn't you just save hours and have everyone use a point buy? Isn't that the result that you are trying to get anyway -- everyone with similiar ranges of ability scores, which don't cause EL/CR issues?And have a collection of Druids and SAD Wizards who choose their stats? Oh yeah, that's fun to DM for.
JellyPooga 06-26-07, 01:28 PM	I think another problem I have with PB is simply that there is no random element to your character. When you roll a character, most of the time you will get a somewhat balanced set of stats (e.g. 16, 13, 13, 12, 10 , 8) which will suffice for most characters, but there's always the chance that you will get something extraordinary (e.g. 18, 16, 16, 14, 14, 14 or 18, 12, 10, 10, 8, 5). The point is that you just don't really know. A lot of the actual 'character' in my characters comes from this random chance - it's all well and good saying that I want a Rogue with a high Dex + [background], for which point buy will give me a nice balanced character, with that high Dex, determined by me. However, it is unlikely that I will gimp a stat significantly (what would be the point?) and it is unlikely that I will be able to give him more than one or two high stats. If I randomise his stats, I will more than likely have a high roll to put into Dex, which takes care of the crunch description, but alongside that I may roll other high stats and some extremely low ones, which may well expand the background I devised for him, something that may not happen if I construct his stat block precisely with PB. To clarify: With PB, my Rogue gets the following stats (for example) - Str:10, Dex:16, Con:12, Int:14, Wis:12, Cha:10 with a 28 Point Buy. This is fine. He is the typical Rogue-us Genericus, carefully constructed to be a 'team-player'. In fact, it's almost impossible for him to hold the "team" back in any way. Now I could make him so that he has an 8 in Str and 17 in Dex, but without being forced to do so, why would I bother? It only gives my character a disadvantage, which in turn makes it harder for the "team". If I roll my stats, on the other hand, and get (17, 14, 12, 12, 10, 8), there's nothing I can do about this and the 8 has to go somewhere, so I decide to put it in Str. The "team" can't blame me for it, because it was random. You could argue that the background of the character includes that he was weaker than average and that's how you wanted it to be from the outset, making PB better; after all, you can't choose to get a low score any more than you can choose to get a high one when rolling randomly. However, PB has no provision for lower than 8 scores...what if you wanted him to be weaker than that? Or less Intelligent? PB has a problem with it. With randomly generated stats, it is possible to roll several 'stat blocks' and choose the one best suited for your character. Admittedly this is abusable because you could argue that you wanted your character to have 18 in everything, but that's an obvious abuse...if you don't abuse it, it rarely breaks. On the flipside, with PB, you have to have an idea of what you want your characters stats to be and you have to sacrifice one stat to improve another. When you roll stats, you get a series of numbers that you can allocate and create background out of it. So my Rogue from the example above, lets say that I didn't really know whether he was going to be strong or not. With the rolled stats, I decide that I did't want anything else to be below 10, so Str is the one that gets the duff stat. From there, I write into his background that one of the factors that led him to his life of crime was the fact that he was always weaker than the other kids...something that I may not have even considered using PB because using PB I gave him a slightly lower Dex for a 10 in Str (not wanting the 'team' to lose out). Anyway, I'm starting to waffle now so I'll just shut up.
LCD2YOU 06-26-07, 01:32 PM	I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or not.Funny, I was thinking the same about you.If you're going to have people roll until they get comparable stats, or simply bump someone's stats up until they get comparable stats, why not just use point buy, which automatically grants comparable stats?Earth to Salla: Comparable =/= Equal I have let people do PB, 32 or 36 points. It's amazing how many of them are always Wizards or Sorcerers. That is what PB does, brings out the SAD classes everytime.Instead of saying 'Bob rolled well, Steve rolled badly, here, you guys average your stats', it makes more sense to me to say 'Here's 32 points', since that's basically what you're doing, just taking more time at it.And if they don't want to use PB? Am I supposed to make them?
OravennasBrother 06-26-07, 01:55 PM	If a character's stats don't come up to a bonus of +6 total, they can re-roll No wonder you find rolling so preferable. The MINIMUM point buy equivalent to net +6 would be 24 points. By the RAW the minimum listed for a re-roll (in the PHB) is a LOT lower than that (net +0 or less gets a re-roll) which would leave in a lot of what some posters seem to think are "impossibly low" attributes. I repeat, my experience has been that the pro-roll crowd loves it [rolling] until they get low rolls, then they want re-rolls. I don't let players re-roll failed saving throws either (except as allowed for in the rules with some of the ongoing Will save effects) or re-roll a missed attack in combat. Imagine that.
Ack 06-26-07, 01:55 PM	I think another problem I have with PB is simply that there is no random element to your character. When you roll a character, most of the time you will get a somewhat balanced set of stats (e.g. 16, 13, 13, 12, 10 , 8) which will suffice for most characters, but there's always the chance that you will get something extraordinary (e.g. 18, 16, 16, 14, 14, 14 or 18, 12, 10, 10, 8, 5). The point is that you just don't really know. A lot of the actual 'character' in my characters comes from this random chance - it's all well and good saying that I want a Rogue with a high Dex + [background], for which point buy will give me a nice balanced character, with that high Dex, determined by me. However, it is unlikely that I will gimp a stat significantly (what would be the point?) and it is unlikely that I will be able to give him more than one or two high stats. If I randomise his stats, I will more than likely have a high roll to put into Dex, which takes care of the crunch description, but alongside that I may roll other high stats and some extremely low ones, which may well expand the background I devised for him, something that may not happen if I construct his stat block precisely with PB. To clarify: With PB, my Rogue gets the following stats (for example) - Str:10, Dex:16, Con:12, Int:14, Wis:12, Cha:10 with a 28 Point Buy. This is fine. He is the typical Rogue-us Genericus, carefully constructed to be a 'team-player'. In fact, it's almost impossible for him to hold the "team" back in any way. Now I could make him so that he has an 8 in Str and 17 in Dex, but without being forced to do so, why would I bother? It only gives my character a disadvantage, which in turn makes it harder for the "team". If I roll my stats, on the other hand, and get (17, 14, 12, 12, 10, 8), there's nothing I can do about this and the 8 has to go somewhere, so I decide to put it in Str. The "team" can't blame me for it, because it was random. You could argue that the background of the character includes that he was weaker than average and that's how you wanted it to be from the outset, making PB better; after all, you can't choose to get a low score any more than you can choose to get a high one when rolling randomly. However, PB has no provision for lower than 8 scores...what if you wanted him to be weaker than that? Or less Intelligent? PB has a problem with it. With randomly generated stats, it is possible to roll several 'stat blocks' and choose the one best suited for your character. Admittedly this is abusable because you could argue that you wanted your character to have 18 in everything, but that's an obvious abuse...if you don't abuse it, it rarely breaks. On the flipside, with PB, you have to have an idea of what you want your characters stats to be and you have to sacrifice one stat to improve another. When you roll stats, you get a series of numbers that you can allocate and create background out of it. So my Rogue from the example above, lets say that I didn't really know whether he was going to be strong or not. With the rolled stats, I decide that I did't want anything else to be below 10, so Str is the one that gets the duff stat. From there, I write into his background that one of the factors that led him to his life of crime was the fact that he was always weaker than the other kids...something that I may not have even considered using PB because using PB I gave him a slightly lower Dex for a 10 in Str (not wanting the 'team' to lose out). Anyway, I'm starting to waffle now so I'll just shut up. Okay ... I'm just trying to work out how it comes about that 1) accidentally hampering the party by 'gimping' your Rogue on STR (which you could still do with PB, especially if you were playing a halfling) is better than: 2) deliberately not hampering the party by picking a stat build that makes for a worthwhile character. It all comes down to choice. I like to be able to choose. And I've rarely (if ever) picked the same stat build twice in a row. And hell yes, I have picked builds with stats of 8. However, they were my choice - I wasn't forced to do so. Which - in my opinion - makes point buy superior to rolling.
Ack 06-26-07, 01:59 PM	And if they don't want to use PB? Am I supposed to make them? Nope. The first time they roll straight 10's or 11's (which is the average for 3d6) or 12's and 13's (the average for 4d6 drop the lowest) and you make them keep those stats they'll be all up in arms. You don't make them keep those rolls? Bizarre. I never hear players with PB complaining about how another player got "lots better" stats with his PB... :D
Crash01234567890 06-26-07, 02:04 PM	Ok, PB, despite what many of you are saying, does favor the SAD classes. Why? If you roll and get a one good score and a few decent ones, chances are you'll play a SAD class. If you roll and get several good scores, there is a much better chance of the character being made a MAD class. Unless you're playing with a crappy DM that makes you choose class first. PB doesn't give that option. There isn't the chance you're going to get enough good stats to make a MAD class. You'll have to deal with mediocre at best MAD class or make a good character. Now you can say what you want as many times as you want, but that is what PB leads to, very basic characters. I have never seen a Paladin in Living Greyhawk, and the monks are vastly outnumbered by at least eight times each SAD class. Why? Because making them sucks in PB. Why is rolling better? Because it makes a character. So you rolled an eight and had to deal with it, sometimes people have flaws. So your buddy is superman and didn't roll a stat below 15. So be it. There are golden boys in every generation. The paper cut mold of PB doesn't make characters, it makes clones. Walk into a Living Greyhawk convention and look at the characters there. The fighters will be clones of each other, the clerics likewise. Not a bit of varience between them. Why? Because they had to min/max just to be decent characters. It isn't effecient to make the super intelligent fighter, so you never see one with a int over 13, it isn't effecient to make the charismatic barb so you'll never see one with a decent Cha. The only people that use it as an excuse to keep rolling until they're overpowered are the groups that really arn't mature enough to be considered Roleplaying. They might as well be playing chainmail. As for other groups not being able to deal with not having a so called "fair" footing, try playing a different RPG for once. A good one. When you come back to D&D it won't seem like a big deal. Ever. Because you'll realize it's an RPG not a wargame. It's about the story and the characters, not the numbers behind them. Edit: And have the supposedly "awful" character stats that are being thrown around as rolled characters arn't even allowed by standard rules. You get a reroll standard if your stats arn't positive or +0 at the least I do believe.
LCD2YOU 06-26-07, 02:05 PM	No wonder you find rolling so preferable. The MINIMUM point buy equivalent to net +6 would be 24 points. By the RAW the minimum listed for a re-roll (in the PHB) is a LOT lower than that (net +0 or less gets a re-roll) which would leave in a lot of what some posters seem to think are "impossibly low" attributes. I repeat, my experience has been that the pro-roll crowd loves it [rolling] until they get low rolls, then they want re-rolls. I don't let players re-roll failed saving throws either (except as allowed for in the rules with some of the ongoing Will save effects) or re-roll a missed attack in combat. Imagine that.Uh, if a +6 means they have at least a 24 point character, what's the issue? What I find so funny are the fanatical Pro-PB who think PB is fair. It is not.
LCD2YOU 06-26-07, 02:08 PM	Nope. The first time they roll straight 10's or 11's (which is the average for 3d6) or 12's and 13's (the average for 4d6 drop the lowest) and you make them keep those stats they'll be all up in arms. You don't make them keep those rolls? Bizarre. I never hear players with PB complaining about how another player got "lots better" stats with his PB... :DAgain, there's a lot more to it. Why are some of you being so obtuse? I have used PB. I get an army of Sorcerers, Wizards and Druids. I prefer, even as a player, to create something after I roll up a character and make a go of it with what I got. I've found the PB keeps people playing the same characters, over and over again.
wonlee76 06-26-07, 02:10 PM	Nah, rolling for ability scores isn't broken. Rolling for ability scores that results in a substantial difference in power between the players in your group is "potentially" broken or at the very least a headache for the DM to manage meaningful encounters. The few "methods" of dice rolling I saw that I liked proposed by other posters are essentially "random" point buy method. Everyone rolls dice for stats. If someone is substantially weaker than the rest of the group, bring his stats up to be on par with the high rollers (I think LCD2YOU and a few others had indicated this is akin to his favored method of stat creation). Thus, the end result is a relatively close to equal group with the added excitement of dice rolling. On the flip side, point buy just seems to be a quicker and more efficient way to create a PC in my opinion. Set up your point buy and your players can immediately begin PC creation without a DM having to overlook any dice rolls (unless the PCs are higher than level 1 in which case maybe the DM needs to witness HP rolls above level 1). Game day rolls around and poof, people are prepared to play from the get go. PC dies during campaign and chooses not to be raised/ressed, poof, blueprints have already been established to re-create a new PC.
Ack 06-26-07, 02:18 PM	Again, there's a lot more to it. Why are some of you being so obtuse? I have used PB. I get an army of Sorcerers, Wizards and Druids. I prefer, even as a player, to create something after I roll up a character and make a go of it with what I got. I've found the PB keeps people playing the same characters, over and over again. I use point buy exclusively, and I have never (not ever) played a sorcerer, wizard or druid. Seriously. And yes, I remember the days when we rolled 3d6 exactly 6 times and took what we got, in the order that we got it. And we thought that was just fine. So, your next point was...?
Ack 06-26-07, 02:19 PM	Uh, if a +6 means they have at least a 24 point character, what's the issue? What I find so funny are the fanatical Pro-PB who think PB is fair. It is not. In what way is it not fair?
Crash01234567890 06-26-07, 02:31 PM	As has been stated several times, it heavily favors SAD classes. Never gives a player a chance to play a MAD class that is on the same power level. People try to say that it's the balancing factor, but it isn't. It's the exact thing that pro PB people are griping about. Bob the Barb, need and 16 str and 14 con to be a good barb, with a 24 point buy he can get this and 10s in his other stats. Being a barb he really doesn't need int or cha. So he could leave them at 8 and have a 14 dex as well making him a fairly well rounded fighter. Meanwhile someone wanting to play a monk gets to do what? 14s in Dex, Wis, Con, and 10s in the rest. That character just can't compete on any level with Bob. It's just not feasible. Rolling is set up so that when a player gets good stats it opens up more options. Point buy is set up so that it closes off options unless set rediculously high. People gripe that sometimes they don't get to play what they want with rolling. Isn't sometimes not getting what you want better than never getting to play a decent character of the type you want to play?
Ack 06-26-07, 02:34 PM	As has been stated several times, it heavily favors SAD classes. Never gives a player a chance to play a MAD class that is on the same power level. People try to say that it's the balancing factor, but it isn't. It's the exact thing that pro PB people are griping about. Bob the Barb, need and 16 str and 14 con to be a good barb, with a 24 point buy he can get this and 10s in his other stats. Being a barb he really doesn't need int or cha. So he could leave them at 8 and have a 14 dex as well making him a fairly well rounded fighter. Meanwhile someone wanting to play a monk gets to do what? 14s in Dex, Wis, Con, and 10s in the rest. That character just can't compete on any level with Bob. It's just not feasible. Rolling is set up so that when a player gets good stats it opens up more options. Point buy is set up so that it closes off options unless set rediculously high. People gripe that sometimes they don't get to play what they want with rolling. Isn't sometimes not getting what you want better than never getting to play a decent character of the type you want to play? I've never had that problem. Really.
Crash01234567890 06-26-07, 03:13 PM	Then you're either playing a high point buy or have never had people play MAD characters. On basic point buy (Ibelieve that it's between 22 and 25 points) MAD characters are not viable at all. Thats all there is to it. Even the tougher point buy setup (28 which is what Living Greyhawk uses) leaves the MAD classes in the dust. The classes weren't set up to be crappy compared to SAD classes. They were set up to give those people that got good scores to have more options. If this doesn't seem right to you take a look back to the old D&D editions where classes had prerequisite scores and you'll see it. Thats where the roots of MAD classes come from. On a 25 points buy you can make a decent Fighter Druid Barb Ranger (ranged) Sorcerer Wizard Cleric Bards, Rogues, Paldins and Monks all get the nerf bat though. Why? Because you can either lower your abilities to the point of uselessness to try and support them all or you can give up some key features/advantages by not taking that score to a decent level. Ya, if you're playing a high powered point buy campaign everything's going to look feasible and you arn't going to want to roll because you have a guaranteed high powered character in the point buy. But with a normal point buy (25 points) and even the so called tough point buy (28) you'll often find yourself wishing to have rolled if you want to play a MAD class. Using 32 and 36 point builds to show that PB is the way to go does nothing but contradict the statement that Rollers just want to roll for legit high powered characters.
philipk 06-26-07, 03:14 PM	Again, there's a lot more to it. Why are some of you being so obtuse? I have used PB. I get an army of Sorcerers, Wizards and Druids. I prefer, even as a player, to create something after I roll up a character and make a go of it with what I got. I've found the PB keeps people playing the same characters, over and over again. Hmph. In my group we've had all sorts of MAD characters that were just as effective (at low levels, mind you. The casters are ALWAYS more powerful at high levels rolled or PB) as the SAD characters. And we use 25 point buy. I played a paladin with 25 PB and it was a lot of fun. I never felt restricted or gimped. And I pulled the sorcerer's limp body out of 3 seperate fights.
Crash01234567890 06-26-07, 03:31 PM	Then either the SAD characters don't know what they are doing/were doing when they made the characters, or their luck in game rolls is horrible. What did you have to throw away to be a Paladin with 25 point buy? You need Str, Con, Wis, and Cha for a good paladin. Otherwise you're giving up the things that make you different than a fighter. To get those four to 12 is 16 points in itself, and the other two stats to 10 is antoher 4. So you've got 5 points to put your key stats above 12. Now, you can say otherwise al you want, but this just doesn't compare to a Sorcerer that can leave his str at 8, get his con, wis and int up to ten (6 points) put his dex at 14 (12 points so far), put his primary ability at 16 (22 points) that leaves him three points to play around with and he's already optimized. He can put it in cha for a 17, 18 at level four, or up one of his other stats by a modifier. Or a Fighter/Barb who can leave his mental stats at 8, pump 18 points into his str for an 18, four into his con for a 12, and 2 into his dex for a 10. Powerwise they don't compare. You can claim all your campaign stories you want, and they may be true for the most part, but on the basic level of numbers PB screws over MAD characters.
Ack 06-26-07, 03:39 PM	Then you're either playing a high point buy or have never had people play MAD characters. 32 point buy actually. It's the agreed standard among the online group that I play with. On basic point buy (Ibelieve that it's between 22 and 25 points) MAD characters are not viable at all. Thats all there is to it. Even the tougher point buy setup (28 which is what Living Greyhawk uses) leaves the MAD classes in the dust. The classes weren't set up to be crappy compared to SAD classes. They were set up to give those people that got good scores to have more options. If this doesn't seem right to you take a look back to the old D&D editions where classes had prerequisite scores and you'll see it. Thats where the roots of MAD classes come from. On a 25 points buy you can make a decent Fighter Druid Barb Ranger (ranged) Sorcerer Wizard Cleric Bards, Rogues, Paldins and Monks all get the nerf bat though. Why? Because you can either lower your abilities to the point of uselessness to try and support them all or you can give up some key features/advantages by not taking that score to a decent level. Ya, if you're playing a high powered point buy campaign everything's going to look feasible and you arn't going to want to roll because you have a guaranteed high powered character in the point buy. But with a normal point buy (25 points) and even the so called tough point buy (28) you'll often find yourself wishing to have rolled if you want to play a MAD class. Using 32 and 36 point builds to show that PB is the way to go does nothing but contradict the statement that Rollers just want to roll for legit high powered characters. Actually, as far as it goes, I've been playing a dwarven Paragon/Ranger on a 30 point build with casters in the same game for some time and I've never felt underpowered. And actually, a 32 point buy is perfectly fair - since everyone gets 32 points. Note that 32 points can give you two stats of 18 and the rest at 8 ... or you could go with common sense and spread the points out a little more :D.
philipk 06-26-07, 03:48 PM	Then either the SAD characters don't know what they are doing/were doing when they made the characters, or their luck in game rolls is horrible. What did you have to throw away to be a Paladin with 25 point buy? You need Str, Con, Wis, and Cha for a good paladin. Otherwise you're giving up the things that make you different than a fighter. To get those four to 12 is 16 points in itself, and the other two stats to 10 is antoher 4. So you've got 5 points to put your key stats above 12. Now, you can say otherwise al you want, but this just doesn't compare to a Sorcerer that can leave his str at 8, get his con, wis and int up to ten (6 points) put his dex at 14 (12 points so far), put his primary ability at 16 (22 points) that leaves him three points to play around with and he's already optimized. He can put it in cha for a 17, 18 at level four, or up one of his other stats by a modifier. Or a Fighter/Barb who can leave his mental stats at 8, pump 18 points into his str for an 18, four into his con for a 12, and 2 into his dex for a 10. Powerwise they don't compare. You can claim all your campaign stories you want, and they may be true for the most part, but on the basic level of numbers PB screws over MAD characters. Str 16 Con 14 Dex 10 Int 8 Wis 10 Cha 13 With bumping the cha at 4th and grabed a wis boosting item around 4th level (Had to live without the sub-par paladin casting for 1 level :tears:). My skills were crap, but that's always true of the paladin, mostly because I didn't care. Paladin isn't THAT MAD unless you want your cake and eat it too. Wisdom isn't that neccesary until 4th level, and cha can be boosted somewhat cheeply. A str of 16 and a str of 18 is a difference of 1 on attack rolls, or 5%. Con was plenty with my LoH capability. Dex wasn't important as I grabbed the first fullplate I could and before that got hit a little more.
Crash01234567890 06-26-07, 03:49 PM	Then maybe you should have read the bit you quoted Ack. 32 point buy is a High Power point buy and by no means the standard point buy. As I said before I believe 25ish is standard point buy and 28 is conisdered a tough campaign point buy. That's would be like people claiming that rolling is better because you can use 4D6 rerolling 1,2, and 3s without dropping any dice. If you're going to tweak the system to the point of being at a high power level you can't use it as a standard basis on which to judge the two when the other system (4D6, drop lowest and only reroll if you dont' have a net positive ability mod is standard for rolling btw) is standard and not overpowered. But you seem absolutely bent on proving that PB is superior in every way to rolling so do this for me. Prove that it isn't flawed. Edit: Right because a paladin that can't cast any spells once he gets that level (unless you start sinking all you ability points from every 4 levels), is too dumb to understand the main concepts of his religion, and has minimal turning abilities is so effective compared to a fighter build at 25 points, much less a sorcerer or wizard build. Seriously prove that they are just as effective, build an optimized SAD character that the paladin is in the same league as. Make an optimized Wizard with a standard point buy (that would be 25 points, not the 32 that you use), then make a monk or paladin with the same 25 point buy that is just as effective.
philipk 06-26-07, 03:54 PM	Then maybe you should have read the bit you quoted Ack. 32 point buy is a High Power point buy and by no means the standard point buy. As I said before I believe 25ish is standard point buy and 28 is conisdered a tough campaign point buy. That's would be like people claiming that rolling is better because you can use 4D6 rerolling 1,2, and 3s without dropping any dice. If you're going to tweak the system to the point of being at a high power level you can't use it as a standard basis on which to judge the two when the other system (4D6, drop lowest and only reroll if you dont' have a net positive ability mod is standard for rolling btw) is standard and not overpowered. 4d6 drop lowest is ~31 point buy on average.
Ack 06-26-07, 03:55 PM	Then maybe you should have read the bit you quoted Ack. 32 point buy is a High Power point buy and by no means the standard point buy. As I said before I believe 25ish is standard point buy and 28 is conisdered a tough campaign point buy. That's would be like people claiming that rolling is better because you can use 4D6 rerolling 1,2, and 3s without dropping any dice. If you're going to tweak the system to the point of being at a high power level you can't use it as a standard basis on which to judge the two when the other system (4D6, drop lowest and only reroll if you dont' have a net positive ability mod is standard for rolling btw) is standard and not overpowered. But you seem absolutely bent on proving that PB is superior in every way to rolling so do this for me. Prove that it isn't flawed. Make an optimized Wizard with a standard point buy (that would be 25 points, not the 32 that you use), then make a monk or paladin with the same 25 point buy that is just as effective. No, I am insisting that I prefer it and I am giving the reasons why. Rolling is not broken; it just comes up with situations that need to be fixed occasionally. And any system that needs the GM to 'fix' inequities on a semi-regular basis isn't exactly optimum. Tell you what - I'll do the wizard/monk thing - right after you make two dozen consecutive stat rolls (6 rolls of 3d6 each time, no mods) over on Invisible Castle and use each and every set of 6 rolls to make an effective Wizard and/or Monk.
Crash01234567890 06-26-07, 04:05 PM	Yes, I hear all sorts of numbers thrown out for what it averages out to, ranging from 27 all the way up to 36, but it's random. Even 3D6 gives you the chance to make an effective MAD character than the standard PB of 25 points. Are SAD characters always going to have the upper hand? Of course, they only need one good roll, but PB never gives MAD players that chance to get multiple good rolls. It says I already rolled for you, and you suck. And no Ack, I won't. I have been referring to the standard rules the entire time. You have been arguing that PB is better, but you play with high powered PB rules which of course are going to be better than a gamble at power. You arn't willing to prove that standard point buy is fair, which just seals to me that it isn't that much more. Even it's supporters don't find it fair unless they're given many more points than standard.
Ack 06-26-07, 04:12 PM	Fine, two dozen stat sets at 4d6 drop the lowest. No? This proves my point that any rolling method can throw up (and what an apt term that is) a set of stats that's either dodgy on its own or in comparison with what everyone else has. Note also that if one person wants to play a SAD and rolls all high and another wants to play a MAD and rolls all low ... how is this, exactly, better? Oh, that's right, the GM will fix it. Unless he chooses not to. And then where are you? Oh yeah. Screwed. Any stat generation system that requires GM intervention for 'fairness' is less than optimal. That is my contention, and I'm standing by it.
Mock26 06-26-07, 04:31 PM	I personally don't think that either is broken, nor is one better than the other. But, I personally prefer the dice rolling method because so many of the major aspects of D&D are determined by a randomly generated number. If you think that the point buy is fairer, than why not have a massive pool of points to be used for all your combat rolls, and damage rolls, and skill checks? It is basically the same thing. You could choose to spend 20 points all the time early on but you would then run out of points for later encounters. Or, you could choose to have some average "rolls" with an occasionaly poor "roll" and an occasionaly critical hit "roll." So, when you get right down to it, you could use a point buy for every aspect of D&D that calls for rolling of the dice. Yet, we trust to luck to hit and deal some massive damage. Yes, you can improve the odds with all your bonuses and such, but at the end of the day, for the most part, it is the luck of the dice that determines whether or not you hit. I personally believe that it should be the luck of the dice that determines if your character's stats will be poor, average, or spectacular. But, that is just my opinion on the matter. However, I do tend to feel that there are a lot of people who favor the point buy system because they think that everybody in the group has to be of equal "power" (in regards to one's stats) in order for everyone to have fun. And, I think that that is a load of crap. If you are the type who gets jealous because Buffy the Barbarian has two 18's and you don't have a single 18, then maybe you should wait a few more years before you play D&D because you aren't mature enough. Now, this is NOT the same as not enjoying the game because Buffy the Barbarian is a Tank in a String Bikini and makes all the battles too easy and unbalances the group. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is Buffy that is unbalancing the group and not the Buffy's player. Please bear in mind that I am NOT accusing pro-point buyers of being immature, whining babies. But, I have run across people who have complained about dice rolling because someone else's character had better stats. They didn't complain about how that other character was played or how it personally affect their gaming experience. They were just jealous because someone had better stats than their character. Those types of people are immature, whining babies. To complain just about someone else's stats as being better than yours is simply childish. If it is a matter of those stats leading to a glory hogging character that ruins the game for everyone else, that is a different matter. But, as I said, that could be a case of the player ruining the game and not the character.
Crash01234567890 06-26-07, 04:40 PM	But it doesn't require GM intervention for fairness, everyone rolled the same number of dice, everyone has the same restriction on rerolls. Everything is fair in the same way that PB is. Everyone does the same thing. And as I've said before, the chance at being able to play a decent MAD character is better than never being able to. People claiming PB is fair have yet to prove why it's more fair. How is it unfair for people to have different stats when they all got the same method for making the character? It's not, everything is legit. The only problem here is those too immature to handle it, and those people shouldn't be playing. Ya, if your DM buckles under the mass of winers and lets them reroll even though they don't meet the restriction then there is a problem. It's not a problem of character generation though, it's a problem of maturity and runs much deeper than what we're discussing here. The claims that it is more fair for PB is just ludicrous, the characters effectiveness is going to depend on what he is in PB. You still wind up with a wide range of scores and the ones more dependent on multiple abilities will always be underpowered compared to the SAD classes. In rolling it varies who is less/most effective. That leads to more fairness as everyone has a shot at being effective/not effective and it leads to more variance and flat out character in the characters. You keep stating reasons but don't provide why they're true. Any stat generation system that requires GM intervention for 'fairness' is less than optimal. How does this apply to Rolling and not PB?
OravennasBrother 06-26-07, 05:07 PM	Ya, if your DM buckles under the mass of winers and lets them reroll even though they don't meet the restriction then there is a problem. Don't you realize that is EXACTLY the strategy for the "I Love Rolling" Players? Bad rolls = whine until you get to re-roll no re-rolls = "I quit that DM's game cause he's unfair." The claims that it is more fair for PB is just ludicrous, But at least the munchkins stay away from 25 PB games.
Narfolin 06-26-07, 05:08 PM	25 point buy Wizard. Stat: # (cost) Str: 8 (0) Dex: 14 (6) Con: 14 (6) Wis: 9 (1) Int: 16 (10) Cha: 10 (2) Reasoning: The High Int, since the argument is towards SAD classes and their advantage in the PB system. Above average (10+) Dex for those Ray type spells. Above average (10+) Con for the concentration checks. Benefits: Extra spells, extra skills, higher save DCs on spells due to high Int. Drawbacks: Low Wisdom modifier. Subpar strength. 25 point buy Monk: Str: 11 (3) Dex: 14 (6) Con: 10 (2) Int: 10 (2) Wis: 16 (10) Cha: 10 (2) Reasoning: Dex and Wis are the primary stats for the monk. With these, at first level, his AC is 15. He has his 8 hit points. None of his saves suffer (partly a class feature, though, but also from not gimping a stat). Benefits: high enough Dex/Wis for AC. Drawbacks: No Attack Bonus from Str, but that can be offset by Weapon Finesse at third level. Commentary: The Monk suffers from trying to do too many things at once, but this certainly isn't "unplayable". Also, this is before considering what race to play. Same as the Wizard above. Fighter 25 point Str: 14 (6) Dex: 14 (6) Con: 14 (6) Int: 13 (5) Wis: 10 (2) Cha: 8 (0) Commentary: This fighter has the ability to qualify for the Combat Expertise line, the Power Attack line, and the Dodge line, Combat Reflexes is useful to him, etc. Hardly "unplayable". Bard 25 point Str: 10 (2) Dex: 14 (6) Con: 10 (2) Int: 14 (6) Wis: 9 (1) Cha: 15 (8) Commentary: Hardly an unplayable Bard. Paladin 25 point Someone else already did this one for me. Cleric 25 point Str: 12 (4) Dex: 11 (3) Con: 12 (4) Int: 10 (2) Wis: 14 (6) Cha: 14 (6) Commentary: A capable Cleric, though those who wish to focus more on Spellcasting might swap points to Wis, while those using a lot of Turning (Undead or via Divine MetaMagic feats) will want to swap more into Cha. Hardly an unplayable character. I'm seeing a pattern here, so I'll stop. All of these characters would fit right in with any of the others. Even Crash01234567890 example of a Wizard SAD'ing out had a top stat of 16 or 17. That's not a huge increase in power over any other 25 point buy-based character. Now, I can accept that some folks simply want to roll the dice. That's fine. But the DM should be choosing those rules. If the DM tells you you're under a point buy, what do all of you point-buy "haters" do? -Narfolin
Lord_of_Omnipotence 06-26-07, 05:15 PM	When I DM, I always play with 32 point buy and average hp per level (cuz it's just no cool when the fighter rolls 2s and 3s for his HP) I use a high point buy to help players play MAD classes. Average HP keeps everyone balanced.
philipk 06-26-07, 05:33 PM	Ran some numbers (which seem to come close to the numbers found in this (http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-100431.html) thread). PB Equivalents: 4d6, drop lowest (min modifier +1, at least one score > 13) Rolling 1000000 4d6 Drop Lowest Results: Low:15 High:79 Avg:31.827765 4d6, drop lowest, reroll ones (this one's common) Rolling 1000000 4d6 Drop Lowest Rerolling 1-1 Results: Low:15 High:90 Avg:37.858532 4d6, drop lowest, reroll 1-2 (this one's not so common) Rolling 1000000 4d6 Drop Lowest Rerolling 1-2 Results: Low:19 High:88 Avg:47.706126 then the method found in this thread, 4d6 drop lowest reroll if total mod < 6: Rolling 1000000 4d6 Drop Lowest (reroll if < +6) Results: Low:24 High:90 Avg:38.417923 Interesting results, no?
wonlee76 06-26-07, 05:46 PM	Ran some numbers (which seem to come close to the numbers found in this (http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-100431.html) thread). Presuming these are the calculations I've seen before, I believe what these 'averages" fail to take into account are re-rolls for those rolls that end up in the 15 PB area. Remove those rolls, the average creeps up a bit. Maybe I'm wrong but there is a rule allowing re-rolls for "unplayable" stats and its hard to properly quantify PB for rolled stats that are below 8.
Johnny_Angel 06-26-07, 06:08 PM	I've played both ways, and both games turned out fine for me. I do prefer rolling for stats though. Personally, I enjoy the excitement of not knowing what my stats are going to be. I've had fun with both types of characters: ones with plenty of 16, 17, and 18 rolls, and ones with plenty of 4, 5, and 6 rolls. The main advantage (in my experiences) of point buy is when you don't have much time to see your players or you're playing over some sort of long distance medium; you don't need to watch rolls and everyone can construct their character on their own.
LCD2YOU 06-26-07, 06:27 PM	(snip) Paladin 25 point Someone else already did this one for me. (snip)You mean this: Str 14 (6) Dex 10 (2) Con 12 (4) Int 8 (0) Wis 13 (5) Cha 14 (6) ? Great. The weakest link. Question: How does he survive without player metagaming? Face the facts. 8 Int is low and if it's about IQ 80 he beats Homer Simpson who is at IQ 75. Off course they have to be in tuned enough to figure things out that people will argue 60+ pages on over a 2 week time, but they got to be perfect. I call that metagaming but hey, that's ok if it's PB, right? Let's see here, Human, starting at first level: Skills, 8 whole points starting out! Knowledge Royalty, 1 Knowledge Religion, 2 Sense Motive, 2 Ride, 1 Diplomacy, 2 Feats: Dodge Weapon Focus, Long Sword HP 11 AC 16{17 vs one opponent} (touch=10), Chain Shirt, Large Shield Weapon Long Sword, TAB = +3, damage 1d8+2 From here, http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm we get this: 1st +1 +2 +0 +0 Aura of good, detect evil, smite evil 1/day This guy will not last more than 5 rounds with this 25 PB fighter. Str 16 (10) Dex 14 (6) Con 14 (6) Int 9 (1) Wis 10 (2) Cha 8 (0) Feats: Dodge Impr Init Weapon Focus, Long Sword AC 18 (19 vs 1 opponent) HP 12 Weapon Long Sword, TAB, +4, Damage 1d8+3 On average the Fighter will hit the Paladin 40% of the time doing 7.5 when he hit for an average 3 points/round. He'll have the initiative over the Paladin 75% of the time. The Paladin on the other hand will hit the Fighter just 25% of the time (35% just once per day if the fighter is evil) for 6.5 (7.5 once if the fighter is evil) for just over 1.6 (2.6) points/round. Now we know that 11/3 = 4, the Fighter will down the Paladin in 5 rounds. The Paladin will do, on average to an evil Fighter, 2.6 + 1.6 + 1.7 = 5.9 points before he falls. The Paladin will not get that last to hit as he'll be below 0 HP. The Fighter can face another Paladin, again usually having the first swing, and last 4 more rounds before dropping the other Paladin, just having enough for 1 more hit. A third Paladin can come up, get smacked for 25% of his total HP before dropping the evil Fighter. Sad fact is he can stand against 3 Paladins and take out 2 of them! Yes, I know that Paladins and Fighters are not the same. I know fighters are better at melee, but tell me, what does a Paladin have a 1st level that seperates them from a fighter? So how does a Paladin fair vs a 25 PB Rogue? 25 Point Rogue: Str 12 Dex 16 Con 11 Int 14 Wis 10 Cha 8 Feats: Weapon Focus, Rapier Improved Init HP 6 AC 15 He'll have initiative over the Paladin over 80% of the time and can sneak attack once before the Paladin is ready. So his first attack is TAB +5 and damage of 2d6. He'll hit and do an average 3.5 points on his first attack, if he has the drop on the Paladin not a bad guess, and TAB +1 and do 1d6 for an average of 25% to hit and 3.5 = .975 points round after. Of course the Paladin will take the Rogue out in 3 rounds, but not before the Rogue does 5.4 points to the Paladin. In other words the Rogue is as good against the Paladin as the Paladin is against the Fighter! Yeah, "front line" melee guy. I invite others to compare the 25 point Cleric vs the Paladin and then the average Orc against the Paladin and the Fighter. See how many Orcs the Fighter can take out and if the Paladin can manage just one. That is what I am talking about here. To get to use all the the great stuff the MAD characters have, they actually have to get there. The problem is it opens itself to metagaming - Homer and an 8 Int Paladin have about the same smarts - or DM pulling back so the guy can live.
Puggins 06-26-07, 06:31 PM	Ran some numbers (which seem to come close to the numbers found in this (http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-100431.html) thread). PB Equivalents: 4d6, drop lowest (min modifier +1, at least one score > 13) Avg:31.827765 There's one thing I'd like to point out- a 32 point-buy character will almost certainly be far, far better than a 4d6 roller using this method. the rolled character will have to contend with odd ability scores that he'll likely never increase and dump stats that are above the minimum he wants or needs. The Point-Buy guy tailors his abilities to his character. I'd give the PB system a three or four point advantage- ie, if you use the above method of generating stats, then a 28 PB might be roughly equivalent.
Narfolin 06-26-07, 07:59 PM	Snip... So, you've proven that a Fighter's better in a fight at first level than a paladin. Great! Also, I'd take issue with your skill selection. I'd suggest that the paladin take Ride and Handle animal at 4 ranks apiece, along with Mounted Combat and Ride By Attack. Of course, you'll likely back up your sub-optimal "make the point-buy paladin look bad" skill selection with something about roleplaying vs. rollplaying. But anyone can roleplay any ability set, regardless of how poor it is, even across the board 8s. We aren't having a discussion about roleplaying, though, but Mechanics, or at least that was the impression I was given throught the first 4 pages of the thread. With average money (from the PHB), the paladin's just shy of affording a light warhorse and the gear. (He can afford the horse, but nothing else.) Even a slightly higher roll would put him within range of having a Horse, some light armor, a weapon and the gear. Granted, I'd be sure to allow the same amount of starting money for the Fighter or Rogue, to be fair. So, a fitted out paladin, with Studded Leather, a Lance, a Light Warhorse and gear. Also, I had no intention of comparing any of the classes in a standup fight against one another. That's a ****-poor way of determining "balance" (such as it is), if for no other reason than the fact that the Fighter 1 you have statted out is a CR 1 threat, appropriate for a party of 4 first level characters. Not one lone paladin. Same with the Rogue 1. Neither is meant to face a single other character in single combat. Level 1 PC-class opponents are geared to face 4 level 1 characters. If you want to continue the fallacy of this argument, a Level 1 Sorcerer walks up, and casts Sleep on both the Paladin and the Fighter, who both have about a 50% chance of failing their save and taking the proverbial dirtnap in front of the Sorcerer. And he can do it again next round, assuming he lives so long, of course:). Or Color Spray you down. Or... Falacious argument. If you want, though, pull out a couple of CR1 encounters, and see how about the Fighter and Paladin do, with an assumed party of 4 (Pal/Ftr and 3 others), I'd be happy with that. Until then, your entire post was a waste of effort. -Narfolin
LCD2YOU 06-26-07, 08:20 PM	Narfolin: I choose the skills based on what I see from these boards. Namely that a Paladin have all these skill points and such in Sense Motive, Diplomacy and such. I've been chided before for "putting too much empahsis on combat". Seems that a Paladin must be able to do it all. Also, how does a first level Paladin buy all that stuff on 150GP when they're just starting out? I'm starting from the very beginning. Keep up if you can. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/horse.htm#horseLight 75GP (try to remember that non-Warhorses are even harder to control in battle if you can) Heck, I didn't even charge for saddle, shoeing, etc. Long Sword 15GP Chain shirt 100GP Large Shield 7GP Or does he go for Studded leather, 25GP? Wait, that's sub optimal again. Again I try to make it clear that this guy is starting out from ZERO and people still keep on giving them things they can earn IF they get that far. So I started not with a sub-optimal build but a build that takes into account that the Paladin's resources are limited. Are you able to follow along now?
maharai23 06-26-07, 08:34 PM	I would like to play a character with dexterity 16 and intelligence 16. What if I roll good stats but not the one I want? What if I roll 17-14-14-12-12-12. You won't allow me to reroll (it's good)... but it is not the character that I've in mind nor the character I want to play I like to give my players the character they want, and pretend they roleplay it I really cannot understand why a DM want to force me to play a character with stats that I don't like. It's my character, it's my fun. The stats of my character cannot change the fun of the DM, until those stats are a bit balanced, but they can change a lot the perception and the fun of mine. I prefer to sit at the table and chose together the stats, without any roll or any point buy. But rolling... no, I cannot force my player to play a character different from what they want Sing it with me... You can't always get, what you want You can't always get, what you want You can't always get, what you want But if you try sometimes, you might find You get what you need. Part of any game is playing the cards you're dealt. Do people complain in monopoly when they don't land on Reading Railroad, saying they should choose where their character stops? Do people complain in poker, saying they should choose what their hand is? No. They make what they can with what they got, and they figure how to make Oriental Avenue work for them. My advice is to do the same.
Mock26 06-26-07, 08:46 PM	I would like to play a character with dexterity 16 and intelligence 16. What if I roll good stats but not the one I want? What if I roll 17-14-14-12-12-12. You won't allow me to reroll (it's good)... but it is not the character that I've in mind nor the character I want to play I like to give my players the character they want, and pretend they roleplay it I really cannot understand why a DM want to force me to play a character with stats that I don't like. It's my character, it's my fun. The stats of my character cannot change the fun of the DM, until those stats are a bit balanced, but they can change a lot the perception and the fun of mine. I prefer to sit at the table and chose together the stats, without any roll or any point buy. But rolling... no, I cannot force my player to play a character different from what they want One could say, "I want to hit him with my sword. I don't want to miss. I really cannot understand why a DM want to force me to roll dice to hit him with my sword. It's my character, it's my fun."
Narfolin 06-26-07, 08:57 PM	Also, how does a first level Paladin buy all that stuff on 150GP when they're just starting out? I'm starting from the very beginning. Keep up if you can. I think I answered that. Narfolin Said: With average money (from the PHB), the paladin's just shy of affording a light warhorse and the gear. (He can afford the horse, but nothing else.) Even a slightly higher roll would put him within range of having a Horse, some light armor, a weapon and the gear. Granted, I'd be sure to allow the same amount of starting money for the Fighter or Rogue, to be fair. And yes, I figured I'd give him Studded Leather until he can afford more. And I figured I'd allow the fighter and rogue the same amount of money. A Paladin/Fighter starts out with 6d4x10 gp. That's 150 average, yes. Minimum of 60gp, maximum of 240gp. When I DM, I start my players out at max class funds, but YMMV, and I don't personally care if it does. LCD2YOU I choose the skills based on what I see from these boards. Namely that a Paladin have all these skill points and such in Sense Motive, Diplomacy and such. I've been chided before for "putting too much empahsis on combat". Seems that a Paladin must be able to do it all. At first level, I simply wouldn't put any points into sense motive, diplomacy "and such." I'd save that for later levels, and rely on my Cha/Wis bonus to see me through. That you've been chided before makes no difference to me. None. I'm simply telling you what I'd try to get for a competent paladin with the skills and stats given. That'd be 150 for the light warhorse (light horse is worse than not having a horse at all, IMO), 25g for the Studded Leather (He takes what he can afford), 7g for the large shield, 10g for the lance, 5g for the Light Mace, 30g riding saddle, 2g for Bit&Bridle, 1g for 20days of feed (not necessarily carrying it, but as a budgetary allowance). That'd be 230g. That leaves 10g for various adventuring gear, such as backpacks, bedrolls, and such. LCD2YOU Or does he go for Studded leather, 25GP? Wait, that's sub optimal again. It isn't suboptimal if that's all he can afford. Placing over half the Paladin's skills in non-combat, non-adventuring related skills is what I'd deem as "sub-optimal". Again, YMMV, and I don't really care if it does. Again I try to make it clear that this guy is starting out from ZERO and people still keep on giving them things they can earn IF they get that far. So I started not with a sub-optimal build but a build that takes into account that the Paladin's resources are limited. And, you switched resources. Of course his skill points are limited. So are the Fighter's. Of course his Stat points are limited. I never said they weren't. I simply showed several point-buy builds that didn't seem to be as affected by the SAD/MAD issues as you claimed they were. A Fighter that outperforms a Paladin in a one on one fight is what I'd expect. It's what he does. But the Fighter under the same 25 point-buy isn't so overpowering as you made him out to be. And he's not that much brighter than the Homeresque Paladin, btw. Are you able to follow along now? Ahh, the jackass line. I wondered how long that'd take. I've been able to follow along the whole time. You apparently weren't reading my posts at all. How about this? You like dice rolling for character creation? Great! Wonderful. I think that its "meh" at best, but everyone likes different things. I'm not trying to talk you into liking Point Buy. I don't care if you never do. Doesn't affect my life one iota. Dice rolling has the capability of having Mr. 18-16-16-14-10-10 sitting next to Mr. 14-12-10-8-6-6. It'll always have that capability, unless you monkey with it. I prefer to take away that "problem", as I see it, by using Point Buy when I DM. That's my choice, and the choice of my players when they agree to play. It works, just fine. You'll never convince me that it's unbalanced. Never. Stop trying. All I attempted to do was show that MAD characters "can" be made with even as low as 25 point buys. I feel I did that. The only example you picked wasn't even mine, and I still defended it. Because it's "playable". Just as playable as the figher with a 16 Str, or the Wizard with a 16 Int, or any of the others. They're "playable".
Roog 06-26-07, 09:04 PM	Sing it with me... You can't always get, what you want You can't always get, what you want You can't always get, what you want But if you try sometimes, you might find You get what you need. Part of any game is playing the cards you're dealt. Do people complain in monopoly when they don't land on Reading Railroad, saying they should choose where their character stops? Do people complain in poker, saying they should choose what their hand is? No. They make what they can with what they got, and they figure how to make Oriental Avenue work for them. My advice is to do the same. Yes, because people choosing their properties in Monopoly or their cards in Poker would break the game. Its not going to break the game if people use PB for their stats. Maybe we should apply that resoning more widly - to both the players and the GM. Roll for race, roll for class, roll for stats, roll for skills, roll for name, now do it for NPCs too. Because "You can't always get, what you want", unless apparently you are the DM. #edit I like rolling stats and point buy; I just can't stand that kind of reasoning.
Johnny_Angel 06-26-07, 09:24 PM	One thing I'd like to point out about the other thread which this one is linked to is that the thread claims the average of rolling is higher "after disregarding 'unplayable' characters." If that's the case, it's not an honest average. What the point-buy VS rolling debate comes down to is preference. Personally, I like rolling. I even like to roll random stats for monsters sometimes when I DM. What can I really say though? My alignment must be somewhere on the chaotic side. I don't reroll 1s or anything like what was suggested, and things work out fine. It works for my group. I even gave them a choice to try point-buy if they wanted, but they said they liked random stats better. They like it, and our games run fine Other groups like point-buy; it works for them. Use what works for you because that's what ultimately decides if something is broken in your game or not. The point-buy system definately does have merits; and it works very well in a lot of systems. In systems such as Living Greyhawk, games played with a group online, and things of that nature it beats the pants off of rolling due to the fact that the DM can't always be there to watch every roll. Also -sadly, this is an issue- you don't have to worry about cheating; however, if you're in a group in which cheating is a rampant problem, I still feel (I've said before in other threads) that those same players are still going to cheat during the game regardless of whether you use point-buy or random stats.
maharai23 06-26-07, 09:57 PM	Fine, two dozen stat sets at 4d6 drop the lowest. No? This proves my point that any rolling method can throw up (and what an apt term that is) a set of stats that's either dodgy on its own or in comparison with what everyone else has. Note also that if one person wants to play a SAD and rolls all high and another wants to play a MAD and rolls all low ... how is this, exactly, better? Oh, that's right, the GM will fix it. Unless he chooses not to. And then where are you? Oh yeah. Screwed. Any stat generation system that requires GM intervention for 'fairness' is less than optimal. That is my contention, and I'm standing by it. Any design system that puts 2 classes on an unfair balance is less than optimal. MAD characters are not as good as SAD characters in point buy, when designed equally well. Thus, your concept of "fairness" is an illusion. Life's not fair. Neither is D&D. Why? because point buy is not fair either. It's unfair to the player that wants to be a MAD class. Thus, either balance point buy, or concede that point buy, by your own contention, is less than optimal.
DarkRhystar 06-26-07, 10:25 PM	Any design system that puts 2 classes on an unfair balance is less than optimal. Perhaps it is the classes that one should be looking at. People toss around the terms "SAD" and "MAD" in defense or attack of certain systems, but those characteristics aren't a function of those systems. They're a function of the classes in question.
StevenO 06-26-07, 11:26 PM	It is only broken if you think that people cannot enjoy playing in a game where the characters can have wildly different sets of scores. And, there are a lot of people who are not only perfectly capable of playing with and enjoying a group of characters with wildly different sets of scores but who actually do play and enjoy such characters. Wildly different stats ARE broken mechanically even if the people playing those characters are having fun. Not that it ever happens but if a party had two fighters who rolled scores and one is equivalent to a PB 24 and the other is PB 42 there is going to be a big difference in their power levels even if both players are enjoying the game. Some/most of the agressive stat rolling method do break the game as intended. Many are focused on gaining the highest scores possible by claiming they are random but neglecting that these average much higher than even standard rollig. For everyone who likes rolling stats try the old 3d6 x 12 picking the best six; it can yield good character stats but you still aren't going to see many with all 14+ scores. Please don't claim that having sky high stats is fine because the DM can just adjust everything up to remain challenging. That is just breaking both sides of the system and makes things harder on everyone. Also remember that stats in 3ed aren't nearly as critial as they were in 2ed. Sure they may be more useful but now you start getting bonuses at 12 instead of needing 15+ like before.
Lord_of_Omnipotence 06-27-07, 01:02 AM	The thing that people always fail to bring up in these arguments are how rolling is better for MAD classes than PB is. Seriously people, point buy was created so higher stats cost more points than lower stats. It was made to help mitigate the problems that MAD classes have. Yes, MAD classes are worse off than SAD ones in point buy, but it's not like they're any better off when stats are rolled. The difference is that in point buy, all the players start off on equal ground. If they wish to, they can all create identical characters. Chance has nothing to do with it. When stats are rolled, players are more limited in options. Fate has placed them on an uneven playing field. And some people bring up how nobody complains about bad luck in monopoly. Sure, I don't care if i don't have that reading railroad for a one hour game, but when my highest stat is lower than another guy's dump stat in a yearlong campaign, it tends to irk me.
Ack 06-27-07, 01:07 AM	Any design system that puts 2 classes on an unfair balance is less than optimal. MAD characters are not as good as SAD characters in point buy, when designed equally well. Thus, your concept of "fairness" is an illusion. Life's not fair. Neither is D&D. Why? because point buy is not fair either. It's unfair to the player that wants to be a MAD class. Thus, either balance point buy, or concede that point buy, by your own contention, is less than optimal. By your reasoning, MAD classes will always fall short of SAD classes. Always. Probability makes it likely that, even with all the GM assistance in the world, a player trying for a MAD build will still end up with roughly the same stats as someone who's going for a SAD build. Who will be able to make better use of his stats. How about we do it this way? Instead of hacking on PB for the inequity between MAD and SAD, why don't we just implement a house rule that says that MAD classes can get a bonus to one of their 'required' stats, by virtue of being a 'disadvantaged' class? PB didn't cause the problem, WoTC did, by their design of the class. Bing bong, house rule implemented, problem fixed. Point buy now works perfectly. Oh wait, rolling still has problems. The same problems we've been pointing out all along.
Maekrix_Waere 06-27-07, 02:36 AM	Tell you what - I'll do the wizard/monk thing - right after you make two dozen consecutive stat rolls (6 rolls of 3d6 each time, no mods) over on Invisible Castle and use each and every set of 6 rolls to make an effective Wizard and/or Monk. You'll forgive me for using standard rolling procedure (4d6 drop lowest), instead of a slightly weaker variant. (Monk Att)[Wiz Att] The First Dozen: 11(Cha)[Cha],11(Int)[Str],16(Dex)[Int],16(Wis)[Dex],15(Str)[Wis],15(Con)[Con] Monk+Wiz 9[Cha],9[Wis],6[Str],13[Con],16[Int],14[Dex] Wiz 7[Str],9[Wis],12[Con],14[Dex],8[Cha],16[Int] Wiz 12(Con)[Dex],16(Wis)[Int],15(Dex)[Con],10(Cha)[Cha],11(Int)[Str],14(Str)[Wis] Monk+Wiz 16[Int],11[Wis],6[Cha],10[Str],14[Dex],13[Con] Wiz 13(Int)[Str],14(Str)[Con],15(Wis)[Int],15(Dex)[Dex],11(Cha)[Cha],14(Con)[Wis] Monk+Wiz 4(Cha)[Cha],14(Str)[Str],14(Con)[Con],14(Int)[Wis],16(Wis)[Int],14(Dex)[Dex] Monk+Wiz 14(Dex)[Dex],13(Str)(Str),12(Cha)[Cha],13(Int)[Wis],13(Con)[Con],15(Wis)[Int] Monk+Wiz 14(Con)[Con],17(Wis)[Int],8(Cha)[Cha],14(Str)[Wis],11(Int)[Str],16(Dex)[Dex] Monk+Wiz 7[Cha],14[Dex],12[Wis],15[Int],10[Str],13[Con] Wiz 16(Dex)[Dex],10(Cha)[Cha],15(Con)[Con],16(Wis)[Int],12(Str)[Wis],11(Int)[Str] Monk+Wiz 16(Dex)[Dex],14(Con)[Con],17(Wis)[Int],14(Str)[Wis],11(Int)[Str],8(Cha)[Cha] Monk+Wiz I shall begin the rolling+posting of the second dozen right now.
Maekrix_Waere 06-27-07, 02:59 AM	(Same Format) The Second Dozen: 15(Con)[Con],12(Int)[Wis],17(Wis)[Int],11(Cha)[Cha],13(Str)[Str],16(Dex)[Dex] Monk+Wiz 15[Dex],8[Cha],12[Con],17[Int],10[Wis],9[Str] Wiz 13(Con)[Con],15(Wis)[Int],14(Dex)[Dex],12(Int)[Str],11(Cha)[Cha],13(Str)[Wis] Monk+Wiz 9[Str],6[Cha],15[Dex],11[Wis],14[Con],17[Int] Wiz 14(Dex)[Dex],12(Int)[Str],16(Wis)[Int],13(Str)[Wis],11(Cha)[Cha],14(Con)[Con] Monk+Wiz 9[Cha],9[Str],11[Con],13[Dex],16[Int],9[Wis] Wiz 13[Con],10[Str],6[Cha],14[Dex],11[Wis],15[Int] Wiz 11[Con],10[Cha],15[Dex],11[Str],17[Int],10[Wis] Wiz 13[Con],15[Dex],7[Cha],7[Str],11[Wis],16[Int] Wiz 5[Cha],13[Dex],13[Con],12[Str],16[Int],12[Wis] Wiz 9[Str],8[Cha],11[Wis],11[Con],15[Dex],18[Int] Wiz 14[Dex],10[Wis],9[Str],12[Con],8[Cha],17[Int] Wiz Final Count-11 Monks, 24 Wizards
maharai23 06-27-07, 03:03 AM	Yes, because people choosing their properties in Monopoly or their cards in Poker would break the game. Its not going to break the game if people use PB for their stats. Maybe we should apply that resoning more widly - to both the players and the GM. Roll for race, roll for class, roll for stats, roll for skills, roll for name, now do it for NPCs too. Because "You can't always get, what you want", unless apparently you are the DM. #edit I like rolling stats and point buy; I just can't stand that kind of reasoning. My response was geared not for someone who wanted to roll his stats, or even buy them. It was for someone who wanted to flat out CHOOSE them. No rhyme, no reason, just arbitrarily pick. That had nothing to do with rolling or picking. I prefer to sit at the table and chose together the stats, without any roll or any point buy. Perhaps if you'd read the whole post, you would have seen it. Sometimes, you have to take what you're dealt. That said, people claiming that point buy is fair are full of rubbish. The classes are geared differently. The class that's on par at 28 points isn't on par with the class that requires 36. At least rolling gives everyone the same odds of being able to play any class. Point buy just means: Sorry monks, we don't like you... Go sit in the corner with the paladins. If you want to come to the big boy table, be ready to let everyone else do everything for you.
navar100 06-27-07, 03:21 AM	So, basically if I DM a game with stat rolling and we don't get a result thats pretty close to what we could get with point buy (ie the characters having pretty comparable stats), then I should "get off my high horse" and have people reroll/change stats until it is. I like point buy, I also like rolling stats and being forced to deal with what I get, but what is the point of rolling stats like this? #edit If the players are going to complain about rolling low, they should do it before they roll not after. It's more a facetious comment. It means a DM should recognize the discrepancy and fix it. The possibility of the discrepancy is a disadvanage of dice rolling but not so insurmountable as to be unfixable such that the game is doomed. Just reroll. Why should it hurt you a particular player character is not going to be stuck with 14, 12, 11, 9, 9, 8 when the worst anyone else rolled was 16, 16, 14, 14, 12, 11? Point buy does have the advantage that everyone starts equivalently. The problem is the tendancy is for everyone to start equivalently mediocre. DMs who would use 36 point buy, 38 point buy, 40+ point buy on a regular basis are usually the ones who could just as easily use dice roll without care and let a player reroll if he is significantly not as lucky as others. They don't care a particular 1st level character has an 18. However, DMs who use the low end point buys, the 25's, the 28's, the 32's, have a tendency to be bothered a 1st level character has an 18. If he uses 25, he doesn't want one. If he uses 32, he'll deal with it but the player has to pay a heavy price which will get exploited. If they must use dice roll for whatever reason, they won't allow a reroll no matter what. Some try to get away with old D&D 3d6 in order. I'm sure exceptions exist, but it is the pattern I see. Still, the main point is there is an easy solution to the problem of a player's bad luck arriving at a poorer array than others with dice rolling. Just let the reroll happen.
navar100 06-27-07, 03:22 AM	Because you don't roll for ability scores "during the game". Because you roll attacks, saves and skill checks etc many, many times "during the game", where you only roll for your ability scores once in "character creation". PB is superior because it stops the poor chap who wants to play a monk rolling 14, 12, 12, 11, 11, 10 and the dude who wants to play a sorcerer rolling 18, 16, 16, 15, 12, 11…not cool. How can you compare the one time rolling for ability scores during "character creation" that will affect your character for his/her entire career with the potential thousands of rolls such as attacks and saves etc that will happen "during the game/campaign"? Solution: Just let the monk player reroll. Why does his first roll have to be so sacred it can't be touched?
navar100 06-27-07, 03:26 AM	I would like to play a character with dexterity 16 and intelligence 16. What if I roll good stats but not the one I want? What if I roll 17-14-14-12-12-12. You won't allow me to reroll (it's good)... but it is not the character that I've in mind nor the character I want to play I like to give my players the character they want, and pretend they roleplay it I really cannot understand why a DM want to force me to play a character with stats that I don't like. It's my character, it's my fun. The stats of my character cannot change the fun of the DM, until those stats are a bit balanced, but they can change a lot the perception and the fun of mine. I prefer to sit at the table and chose together the stats, without any roll or any point buy. But rolling... no, I cannot force my player to play a character different from what they want A player and DM deciding together what ability scores to give a character is another way to determine ability scores. There's nothing wrong with that method if it works out for the game. If you use point buy and buy a 16 DX and IN, what are your other scores going to be like? Will you be happy with all 8's with maybe a 10 here or there? If you are, fine. Game on.
navar100 06-27-07, 03:31 AM	I understand that PB and rolling is a matter of preference and in the hands of a good DM both of them can be balanced, but what I don't get is what people are saying about MAD characters being gimped by PB. If anything, I implemented PB as a way to penalize players who tried to get something like 18, 18, 10, 10, 10, 10 under the old system (which you really don't want to know about) and help out the MAD characters. Now, we normally play with 36 PB or as high as 46 in some of the more epic games we run. Under 36 PB, I have a Monk/Swordsage, a character combination that requires str, dex, con, and wis, and with 36 PB I was able to get 14 str, 16 dex, 14 con, 12 int, 16 wis, and 12 cha. This is a far cry from a weak setup. With PB, you can buy 14s fairly cheaply and still afford a couple of 16s. With rolling, you have a much higher chance of gimping one of your class' important stats. Just my observation, anyway. Why do you feel the need to "punish" said players? Why do you feel they are such evil bastards who mock your DMinence and must be put in their place?
navar100 06-27-07, 03:41 AM	And how is the DM supposed to enforce that the dice roll within some number of each other? If Joe gets a (12, 11, 10, 9, 8, and 7) and Bob gets a (15, 12, 12, 9, 8, and 8), we let Joe roll again. If Joe now gets a (16, 14, 13, 12, 12, and 10), we now let Bob rolls again since his stats are now too low. There's your error. Bob does not get to roll again, presuming Bob and DM were happy with his roll in the first place. Dice rolling doesn't mean different players' characters have to be equal; equivalent enough is fine. Bob should have been happy with his roll for his chaarcter for the sake of his character. He should not have been happy because he had a better array than Joe, but now get upset because Joe rerolled and got a better array than him. If anything, maybe let Bob make that 15 a 16 and the 9 a 10 by DM fiat to "fine tune" it. Dice rolling doesn't necessarily mean you have to be married to the roll. Joe has no business to complain Bob got free adjustments because he got the reroll and got a much better array than he had before. Joe and Bob are not being treated equally, but they are being treated equivalently which is good enough for dice rolling.
navar100 06-27-07, 03:44 AM	I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or not. If you're going to have people roll until they get comparable stats, or simply bump someone's stats up until they get comparable stats, why not just use point buy, which automatically grants comparable stats? Instead of saying 'Bob rolled well, Steve rolled badly, here, you guys average your stats', it makes more sense to me to say 'Here's 32 points', since that's basically what you're doing, just taking more time at it. But then you must decide how many points are enough and not everyone agrees on what's enough.
navar100 06-27-07, 03:49 AM	No wonder you find rolling so preferable. The MINIMUM point buy equivalent to net +6 would be 24 points. By the RAW the minimum listed for a re-roll (in the PHB) is a LOT lower than that (net +0 or less gets a re-roll) which would leave in a lot of what some posters seem to think are "impossibly low" attributes. I repeat, my experience has been that the pro-roll crowd loves it [rolling] until they get low rolls, then they want re-rolls. I don't let players re-roll failed saving throws either (except as allowed for in the rules with some of the ongoing Will save effects) or re-roll a missed attack in combat. Imagine that. And my experience with DMs who want point buy is they can't stand a 1st level character having an 18. /end sarcasm
navar100 06-27-07, 03:54 AM	Nope. The first time they roll straight 10's or 11's (which is the average for 3d6) or 12's and 13's (the average for 4d6 drop the lowest) and you make them keep those stats they'll be all up in arms. You don't make them keep those rolls? Bizarre. I never hear players with PB complaining about how another player got "lots better" stats with his PB... :D Players shouldn't be complaining at all about other characters' stats. What's only important is being happy with their own stats. If they rolled 16, 16, 14, 13, 12, 12 and make a nice character they'll have fun to play, they shouldn't be bothered someone else got 18, 16, 15, 13, 13, 11. Their array was "good enough". Maybe the DM will be generous to make his 13 a 14 by fiat, maybe not, but he got a decent array.
navar100 06-27-07, 04:02 AM	Fine, two dozen stat sets at 4d6 drop the lowest. No? This proves my point that any rolling method can throw up (and what an apt term that is) a set of stats that's either dodgy on its own or in comparison with what everyone else has. Note also that if one person wants to play a SAD and rolls all high and another wants to play a MAD and rolls all low ... how is this, exactly, better? Oh, that's right, the GM will fix it. Unless he chooses not to. And then where are you? Oh yeah. Screwed. Any stat generation system that requires GM intervention for 'fairness' is less than optimal. That is my contention, and I'm standing by it. Oh the horrors the DM must do his job.
navar100 06-27-07, 04:15 AM	[QUOTE=Narfolin;12870070] How about this? You like dice rolling for character creation? Great! Wonderful. I think that its "meh" at best, but everyone likes different things. I'm not trying to talk you into liking Point Buy. I don't care if you never do. Doesn't affect my life one iota. Dice rolling has the capability of having Mr. 18-16-16-14-10-10 sitting next to Mr. 14-12-10-8-6-6. It'll always have that capability, unless you monkey with it. I prefer to take away that "problem", as I see it, by using Point Buy when I DM. That's my choice, and the choice of my players when they agree to play. It works, just fine. You'll never convince me that it's unbalanced. Never. Stop trying. QUOTE] This is what I mean about the DM getting off his high horse. The DM sees the discrepancy between the scores and just lets Mr. 14-12-10-8-6-6 reroll. No "player whining about a low roll" needed.
Leilond 06-27-07, 06:27 AM	I really cannot undersatand how can you say that a system is better than another. It is, and always will be, a matter of preferences - I don't like rolls, because it can bring me to play a character different from the player I want to play, so I never roll - I don't like rolls, because it can generate too big differents between players, and if one of the player rolled very too high stats I cannot adjust all the players rolls to fit the lucky one, because I don't like a party full of uber stats, nor I can say to the lucky guy that he has to reroll to fit the rest of the party, it's soo bad. This doesn't mean that rolling is bad. It's a matter of preferences My first preference is 28 point buy, 32 for hight power games I don't like rolls, and I would prefer to simply "plain choose the stats values" if point buy isn't possible for some reason This doesn't mean roll is bad, only a matter of preferences and game style
Roog 06-27-07, 06:48 AM	Perhaps if you'd read the whole post, you would have seen it. Sometimes, you have to take what you're dealt. I did read the entire thread before posting, he also said I always use point buy, but I played lot of "rolled character" in this last 20 years, and when I played "weak" character I still enjoyed the games, because it's a game of "role playing" and a "weak" character can give lot of good role playing moments. as well as what you quoted. I prefer to sit at the table and chose together the stats, without any roll or any point buy. But rolling... no, I cannot force my player to play a character different from what they want I missed the section of "without any roll or any point buy" and assumed that he meant that he descided the point but total with the group. @Leilond You are contradicting yourself - Please be clear and tell us what stat-gen system you use. @Maharai That said, people claiming that point buy is fair are full of rubbish. The classes are geared differently. The class that's on par at 28 points isn't on par with the class that requires 36. At least rolling gives everyone the same odds of being able to play any class. Point buy just means: Sorry monks, we don't like you... Go sit in the corner with the paladins. If you want to come to the big boy table, be ready to let everyone else do everything for you. I get your point there, I just assume (maybe wrongly) that the game is meant to be ballanced for some stat gen-system. The question is, if you have the example you gave with one class that needs PB-28 and one that needs PB-36, is there any PB value that would balance them, or will the min-28 class always be superior? If there is no PB value that would balance them, how can they be balanced with rolling? Ie, if you roll a PB-36 equivalent wouldn't that be better used with the min-28 class.
Leilond 06-27-07, 07:07 AM	@Leilond You are contradicting yourself - Please be clear and tell us what stat-gen system you use. 28 point buy But I don't like roll so much, that I will chose to simply "choose stats with the players" without rolling nor pb, simply discussing and chosing balanced numbers The fact that I can enjoy rolled character, doesn't mean that I like that system. I "can" enjoy, but I prefer to have the character I want instead of the character the dices decides for me This doesn't mean in anyway that PB is better than rolling, only that I really don't like rolling It's a matter of preferences And with 28 PB you can play a perfectly playable monk Or you use different rolling system depending on the class? Giving 4d6 drop lowest to wizard and 5d6 drop the two lowest to monks?
Ack 06-27-07, 07:11 AM	And my experience with DMs who want point buy is they can't stand a 1st level character having an 18. /end sarcasm I don't see that. I use point buy, and I get 18's if I want. What, no comment on the house rule I suggested?
Ack 06-27-07, 07:13 AM	You'll forgive me for using standard rolling procedure (4d6 drop lowest), instead of a slightly weaker variant. Actually, no. I was challenged on 25 point buy, so my challenge is on 3d6 unmodified. You know, where the average roll is 10.5 as opposed to 12.24.
Steely_Dan 06-27-07, 08:57 AM	It comes down to the fact that point buy starts off the characters on an equitable playing field, and rolling doesn't. That's pretty much it… Not that you can't have the greatest time/campaign with rolled characters, I did for many years, but those are the facts.
nastynate 06-27-07, 09:07 AM	It comes down to the fact that point buy starts off the characters on an equitable playing field, and rolling doesn't. That's pretty much it… Not that you can't have the greatest time/campaign with rolled characters, I did for many years, but those are the facts. Preach on brother.
OravennasBrother 06-27-07, 09:18 AM	And my experience with DMs who want point buy is they can't stand a 1st level character having an 18. /end sarcasm A DM who cannot tolerate 18's would have to avoid avoid PB - unless you go to the 15 PB level anyone who wants an 18 can have an 18. I once ran at the 32 PB which could give TWO starting 18's - before racial Modifiers. Yes the character suffers in their off attributes, but that is their choice. The Whole SAD/MAD stuff is silly, especially when talking about a melee between two first level characters and going "Well statistically this characters has x% chance of getting initiative and...." because at 1st level the random factors outweigh the statistics in any one encounter. The paladin might, for example, gain initiative on round one and get a critical hit which drops his opponent. Imagine that. Even sillier is the claim that a Fighter being able to OUTFIGHT a paladin makes the paladin weak. Fighters good in a fight, Whouda Thunk It? With a 25 PB a paladin can have 14 Charisma, 10 in all attributes and 9 more points to spread around. That's plenty. If he cannot fight as well as the Fighter with 16 Strength, 16 Constitution and 13 Dexterity, he can still do a lot outside a straight fight, and his out of combat abilities INCREASE dramatically as you move past first level. That fighter (at 11th level) is going to feel really weak when he has to make a fear saving throw against a DC 16 and repeatedly fails, while the Paladin smiles and keeps fighting. OF COURSE you can't have all UB3R attributes with a 25 Point buy. What you can have are playable attributes which still leave room for failure if your tactics slip. Loads more fun than winning because you stacked the deck at the beginning. The word for today is Challenge. Side note - IQ is NOT Int attibutex10. A character with Int 3 can speak/read&write normally, which is not possible for someone with a 30 IQ. SO when someone tells me "This guy has an 8 INT so I'll play him like a low grade moron" my responce is "Sure, at someone else's table. Good By."
Steely_Dan 06-27-07, 09:27 AM	Preach on brother. That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter (for now), but thanks for the support.
philipk 06-27-07, 09:44 AM	Presuming these are the calculations I've seen before, I believe what these 'averages" fail to take into account are re-rolls for those rolls that end up in the 15 PB area. Remove those rolls, the average creeps up a bit. Maybe I'm wrong but there is a rule allowing re-rolls for "unplayable" stats and its hard to properly quantify PB for rolled stats that are below 8. True, I just counted 8 and less as 0 points. And the rule in the DMG is if the modifiers are less than +1 when all added up, or there is not at least one ability > 13, reroll. Which should account for most of the really crappy sets. Though 14 6 10 10 10 10 is a valid set that doesn't get to reroll.
Crash01234567890 06-27-07, 10:10 AM	Doesn't +2 -2=0? So that would be less than a +1 right? Ack, standard PB is 25, standard rolling is 4D6 drop the lowest. That's it. Standard rolling is not 3D6, and the fact that you are insisting on using that in defense of PB "fairness" just increases the fact that it isn't. Yes, if you nerf one system the other will look more appeasing. I think the big thing people are failing to look at here is how you choose the class to play in each system. PB leads to deciding your class then picking your scores, Rolling tends to lead to the opposite. This is why it supports MAD classes better. You roll and if you have the stats for it you can play a decent MAD class. Otherwise you're going to have the same options as you would PB and make a decent SAD class. As for those that don't like not getting to play what they want, it's a simple matter of choosing what you want to play AFTER the rolling. Simple. I'm still failing to see how a fighter with 16, 12, 14, 10, 10, 9 and a monk with 11, 14, 14, 10, 14, 10 are any better suited tahn people that rolled the stats 16, 14, 12, 10, 10, 9 and 14, 14, 14, 11, 10, 10 People keep arguing that rolled stats arn't fair, but I ask again, if everyone uses the same method of rolling, how is it unfair? Now, bottom line is that rolling supports MAD classes better than PB, as a set of good rolls is more likely to be used. Meanwhile PB doesn't offer that chance for a high set. It offers a garanteed mediocre set, that I still don't believe comes close to being as effective in anything as the SAD classes in PB. As for people that gripe about being outclassed in a yearlong campaign, it shouldn't matter after the first few levels. Once you get into magic items and have half a dozen levels under your experience belt a +1 or +2 is hardly worth being bent out of shape about. The problem with rolling is not unfairness, it's immaturity as I've said before. Do you gripe about someone being able to run faster than you in track? Shoot better than you at the gun range? Out do you on an exam? Then why is this any different. Especially since it's team based. PB just makes the in it for yourself attitude higher in the group, rather than increasing the party's cohesion.
perdera 06-27-07, 11:19 AM	We had to introduce point-buy into our group because the disparity was just getting too large between some players. The problem is some players are fair and honest, while others manipulate the system. The manipulators roll stats for three-and-a-half hours until they find something they like. You know they sometimes bump a stat up one or two here or there. They roll until they get a 17 or 18 AND THEN start that set of six rolls, guaranteeing one very high stat. The honest guy rolls maybe four sets and moves on. The bottom line is with point-buy players can make characters on their own time without me worrying about what methods they decide to employ. I have no desire to monitor ability dice rolls and having to do that limits the flexibility a player has to just make characters for no reason because he thinks it's fun. I think one of my players has 12 backup characters for EtCR right now, that wouldn't have been as possible with (monitored) rolling. I think both methods are fine, but point-buy works better for my group. We've all been happier since we changed to it.
Ace_of_time 06-27-07, 11:30 AM	[QUOTE=Narfolin;12870070] How about this? You like dice rolling for character creation? Great! Wonderful. I think that its "meh" at best, but everyone likes different things. I'm not trying to talk you into liking Point Buy. I don't care if you never do. Doesn't affect my life one iota. Dice rolling has the capability of having Mr. 18-16-16-14-10-10 sitting next to Mr. 14-12-10-8-6-6. It'll always have that capability, unless you monkey with it. I prefer to take away that "problem", as I see it, by using Point Buy when I DM. That's my choice, and the choice of my players when they agree to play. It works, just fine. You'll never convince me that it's unbalanced. Never. Stop trying. QUOTE] This is what I mean about the DM getting off his high horse. The DM sees the discrepancy between the scores and just lets Mr. 14-12-10-8-6-6 reroll. No "player whining about a low roll" needed. That wouldn't happen in my games. I average modifiers. so your 2nd ex would get a reroll. ( even with the real way his -2 sum of mods would give a reroll) I add all mods up. 2+1+0+-1+-2+-2=-2 then divide that by 6 and that gives you -0.3333_. Then if they don't at least have a +1 average they get to reroll.
OravennasBrother 06-27-07, 01:14 PM	People keep arguing that rolled stats arn't fair, but I ask again, if everyone uses the same method of rolling, how is it unfair? Rolling attributes may be fair (in that narrow sense), but it causes PROBLEMS with group combat dynamics where the player forced to put a 10 or 11 in constitution (because he rolled 14, 11, 10, 10, 10, 8 and wants to put the 14 in dex or strength) is standing next to the Barbarian who has 18 constitution (because he rolled 18, 17, 16, 18, 17, 14 and decided to go for longer rage and big melee impact) Now, bottom line is that rolling supports MAD classes better than PB NO - the bottom line is that higher attributes are more powerful than lower attributes, and no SAD argument, no matter how MAD it gets, will change that. As for people that gripe about being outclassed in a yearlong campaign, it shouldn't matter after the first few levels. If it doesn't matter then why the need for higher attributes? Is it just Greed?
nastynate 06-27-07, 01:39 PM	Point buy works on two very simple premises. High stats are worth more than low stats (and cost accordingly more), and all players should have the same options when the game begins. That is fair, and there is nothing wrong with it. For those that think PB gimps MAD classes, I just don't buy that. An array of several medium stats costs less in PB than an array with a couple very high stats. Assuming the standard 25 point buy is used, you can have: A (sorcerer): Str 8, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 17 B (monk): Str 14, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 8, Wis 15, Cha 8 C (barbarian): Str 17, Dex 8, Con 16, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 8 Is the monk really less viable because of his stats in this scenario? His total modifiers are +5. The sorcerer has total modifiers of +3, and the barbarian has total modifiers of +3. I'm not seeing a great power level discrepancy here. If you think a monk needs four stats of 15 or higher to be viable, that isn't a problem with PB, that is a problem with the monk. Similarly, what's to stop the character with good stats from playing a wizard (a randomly chosen SAD class) with Str 8, Dex 16, Con 18, Int 18, Wis 15, Cha 12? Rolling high stats makes the character more powerful no matter what class the player chooses. That doesn't help weak classes measure up in any way. As far as rerolls are concerned, I just don't get it. If you are rolling for stats you are theoretically allowing the dice to fall where they may. If you are rerolling, you are simply acknowledging that the system failed, and good luck getting somebody to reroll their stats when they get above average results...I doubt too many people like the DM intervening to nerf their fantastic rolls. I use point buy because it works. I don't even have to be there when the players make their characters. I don't have to bump up people's bad rolls, nerf their good rolls, make people reroll, or worry about the temptation to cheat. I don't have to worry about power level discrepancies between characters or moderating the game out of game; the characters' stats are entirely up to the players, not DM fiat. Now back in the day (when I was a wee lad) we rolled our stats (3d6 in order and let the dice fall as they may), and we liked it. Sometimes the characters sucked, sometimes they were great, but eventually it became annoying. Living with bad die rolls for a single game session is unfortunate, but you can bump back next week and roll well. Poor die rolls during character generation forces someone to live with bad die rolls for the life of their character...not fun. Good die rolls during character generation bumps up the power level (for those that roll them) and forces everyone else (who didn't roll as well) to play second fiddle. Many will argue that stats aren't that important, and D&D is a role-playing game. Yes that's true, but die rolls (and modifiers) play a huge part in the resolution of game effects, up to an including role-play (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive, and so forth, and don't get me started on combat or spellcasting). If the die rolls and modifiers don't matter, play a 1st level commoner. You can still role-play a commoner all you want, perhaps better than anyone else you play with (despite their mechanically superior characters), but you will be next to useless as far as mechanical contributions are concerned and that is a huge part of D&D. When I discovered PB I immediately embraced it. It works just as well as rolling for stats, but with less work on my part as a DM, and with better results as far as fair play is concerned. I just don't see a negative to it, and I have yet to see an argument for die-rolling that makes any sense to me. if you roll stats just because you want the chance to be awesome it either has to come at the rest of the players' (or the DM's) expense (unless everyone else also luckily happens to roll awesome too); no thanks.
Chark the Shark 06-27-07, 01:49 PM	Most of what you say is the main reason I exclusively use point buy for character generation. I do not think stats matter so much. One can play a great character with all 12s if one is clever enough. Our DM allows "hero" stats because that is what we are in the game....right? 4d6, re-roll 1s and drop the lowest. Place wherever you want and you may hacknslash 2 from one or 1 from 2 and move wherever you desire. If your stats do not equal a minimum of 80 then you roll everything over again. We also get max hp per level for the 1st 5 levels. On the flip side - all monsters always have max HP. Great stats do not make up for awesome stupidity on the part of the player (I have been one myself).
Maekrix_Waere 06-27-07, 02:19 PM	Actually, no. I was challenged on 25 point buy, so my challenge is on 3d6 unmodified. You know, where the average roll is 10.5 as opposed to 12.24. Even though 25 PB gives you, if spread out, 12,12,12,13,12,12...which is (almost, there is a 0.44 points difference) exactly the same as the average rolling of 4d6 drop the lowest? Meanwhile, that 3d6 would come out to (on average) 10,11,10,11,10,11, which is the EXACT same as a 15 PB (Low-Powered Campaign), spread out as evenly as possible.
Crash01234567890 06-27-07, 02:31 PM	It has nothing to do with higher attributes, it has to do with how they relate to each other in effectiveness. People claim PB is fair because it puts everyone on equal footing and effectiveness, but that isn't the case as has been shown several times in this thread. The pro-PB builds have just furthered that as they show that the SAD classes are more effective than MAD classes in PB. Is this a problem with the classes? Absolutely, but the classes are a core part of the system (something I would love to see 4th edition chuck out) and any character generation method has to take them into account. It has nothing to do with greed or high stats. If you want to give every person in the party 15, 14, 14, 13, 8, 8, then so be it, listen to the SAD class players whine for once and the MAD class players be happy that they are just as useful as each other. Rolling eliminates the problem of this as it allows the player to feel as though it's on his own hands what he gets to play. If he rolls the same stats as above, then yes he could make a mediocre monk or barbarian and so on. If he gets a single good stat and some decent ones, then he can make a great spellcaster. He never has to sit and think, well I could play a Paladin, but then me and the monk will be in the corner useless while everyone else actually does everything for the first five levels. As I said before, if the players are so immature that they can't handle having different scores, then they need to be playingsomething else. If the DM can't handle different scores then he shouldn't be DMing. There are a plethora of things that can even out wildly varrying scores without resorting to rerolls and bumping, and they are all at the DM's disposal. What's that you say? Half elf fighter has a crappy con while the barb in the group is superman. Well that elven amulet of life will come in really handy for him won't it.
nastynate 06-27-07, 03:07 PM	It has nothing to do with higher attributes, it has to do with how they relate to each other in effectiveness. People claim PB is fair because it puts everyone on equal footing and effectiveness, but that isn't the case as has been shown several times in this thread. The pro-PB builds have just furthered that as they show that the SAD classes are more effective than MAD classes in PB. That's not what I've seen. I see people trying to compensate for crummy classes by giving them higher stats in a wider range of ability scores (via lucky rolling or DM intervention). As I said before, better stats make every class better, not just Rasputin (the MAD monk). Since presumably, your players pick their own classes, what's to stop somebody from playing a SAD wizard with really good stats? Nothing; the problem faced by monks isn't helped by lucky rolls at all. Is this a problem with the classes? Absolutely, but the classes are a core part of the system (something I would love to see 4th edition chuck out) and any character generation method has to take them into account. Rolling stats doesn't take them into account any more than PB does. The players choose their classes no matter what stats they roll or buy. Rolling stats high enough to make a good monk doesn't mean the player will choose to play a monk; wizards are still better, so a wizard with better stats = Yay! It has nothing to do with greed or high stats. If you want to give every person in the party 15, 14, 14, 13, 8, 8, then so be it, listen to the SAD class players whine for once and the MAD class players be happy that they are just as useful as each other. That's not too far from the elite array actually (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8), which is the presumed stat array against which NPCs and monsters are balanced. The elite array does not close the gap in power level between terrible MAD classes and good SAD classes. A monk still needs several stat boosting items, while a wizard really only needs one (or two if you count Amulets of Health too). Rolling eliminates the problem of this as it allows the player to feel as though it's on his own hands what he gets to play. If he rolls the same stats as above, then yes he could make a mediocre monk or barbarian and so on. If he gets a single good stat and some decent ones, then he can make a great spellcaster. He never has to sit and think, well I could play a Paladin, but then me and the monk will be in the corner useless while everyone else actually does everything for the first five levels. How is this any different than PB? In PB you need to weigh your options and assign points to the stats you prioritize to make a character of the class you choose. You do the same thing when rolling stats, whether you roll well or not. The only difference is that the stats you get might be significantly higher or lower than the guy sitting next to you at the game table. Whether you choose to play Rasputin or the SAD wizard is still up to the player, and you have the same chance at getting good or bad stats either way. As I said before, if the players are so immature that they can't handle having different scores, then they need to be playingsomething else. If the DM can't handle different scores then he shouldn't be DMing. There are a plethora of things that can even out wildly varrying scores without resorting to rerolls and bumping, and they are all at the DM's disposal. Thanks for the insults. That will convince me (or anyone else for that matter). What's that you say? Half elf fighter has a crappy con while the barb in the group is superman. Well that elven amulet of life will come in really handy for him won't it. Unless the party decides to give it to the barbarian instead. After all, as you say, stat disparity isn't a problem with a mature gaming group, so the party might as well maximize their strengths. The player of the half-elf fighter should be mature enough to handle it. I can't see how your individual points support one another, let alone themselves. Maybe I'm too immature to get it.
Crash01234567890 06-27-07, 04:26 PM	You're still failing to grasp the concept, rolling allows for good rolls which open up more options. That has been the basis that D&D has relied on for as long as I've been playing. Does no one here remember the old stat prerequisites in AD&D? If you didn't get the stats to be a class, you weren't that class. They did away with prerequisites in 3.0, but they didn't take away the fact that some classes need more good stats to be viable, and they failed to make those classes balanced without all those stats being good. The PB monk above that was posted had an AC of 14 and a +2 to hit. How is that going to be as effective as the fighter with a +3 to hit that can slap on a breastplate, a shield, and a longsword at level one for an 18 AC? It isn't, thats all there is to it. The character just cannot be as effective. Doesn't this in itself contradict the supposed "fairness" of PB? Yes is does. And of course a player can choose to put a set of good stats into a SAD class, but the good stats open up those choices. It's just like AD&D, good stats unlocked more prerequisites you met, but you could always just throw them into another fighter. You missed the point on the amulet. I meant elven as in elven blood required to use it. Hence why it would go to the half elf over the barb. It's showing that the DM should be able to handle different scored characters with ease. It shouldn't even be a challenge or second thought for them. You can take it as an insult all you want, but it's still the same, if you can't handle the fact someone else has better scores than your character, you really arn't mature enough to play. It's just like basketball or other games, if you're going to cry, whine, skulk, and complain every time you loose then you shouldn't be playing. The only difference here, is that if you actually are mature enough to play, you realize there are no loosers, it's about the story. Whether you're playing the support character with straight 10s and a 12, or the Half-Orc Adonis replica with straight 18s and 17s, if the story is fun, then it's a win.
wonlee76 06-27-07, 04:42 PM	As I said before, if the players are so immature that they can't handle having different scores, then they need to be playingsomething else. If the DM can't handle different scores then he shouldn't be DMing. There are a plethora of things that can even out wildly varrying scores without resorting to rerolls and bumping, and they are all at the DM's disposal. I'm just curious as to what a DM can do without allowing rerolls or increasing stats to deal with a group of players with disparate attributes. The last time I played a "roll your stats" game I ended up with the lowest set of scores in a group of 6 (15, 14, 12, 12, 9, 8). The fellow with the uber scores chose to play a Wizard. I chose to play a cleric. It was the least fun game I ever played in my life. My primary contribution in adventures was healing up the wounded during combat (using a wand of CLW out of combat to conserve spells), laying down a few buffs here and there during a fight (and subsequently making the PCs with uber stats even more impressive), playing flanking partner for the TWF rogue (my attacks didn't really do enough damage compared to the rest of the group even with buffs so I stopped memorizing Divine Power, Righteous Might, etc.). My PC was relegated to pure support role. Heal, Buff, Assist. Not enough skill points to take lead in any diplomatic/RP adventures that required no fighting. Enough AC to survive the vicious battles the DM set up since they were geared towards the more powerful PCs. Offensive spells not as effective due to the lower wisdom and the fact that the DM tailored battles with monsters intended for the "better" stats PCs (thus higher saves). Not being able to "shine" once in a while is frustrating and boring to be quite frank. Since that sad experience I've only played point buy out of preference. The advantage of point buy is the DM can choose a really high point buy if he wants to. DM likes PCs with high stats or MAD classes, point buy set at 38 for example. DM likes a tougher game and doesn't give a damn about MAD classes, 25 point buy. But everyone starts with the same advantage or handicap.
Mock26 06-27-07, 04:59 PM	Wildly different stats ARE broken mechanically even if the people playing those characters are having fun. Not that it ever happens but if a party had two fighters who rolled scores and one is equivalent to a PB 24 and the other is PB 42 there is going to be a big difference in their power levels even if both players are enjoying the game. That is not broken. Saying that rolling for stats is broken because someone can end up with the equivalent of a 24-point buy and someone else can end up with a 42-point buy set of stats is likely saying that the d20 is broken because someone in combat has great luck and rolls high all the time and someone else has poor luck and rolls low all the time. Some/most of the agressive stat rolling method do break the game as intended. Many are focused on gaining the highest scores possible by claiming they are random but neglecting that these average much higher than even standard rollig. For everyone who likes rolling stats try the old 3d6 x 12 picking the best six; it can yield good character stats but you still aren't going to see many with all 14+ scores. And an aggressive stat rolling method is NOT the standard dice rolling method that is encouraged by the D&D rules book. Please don't claim that having sky high stats is fine because the DM can just adjust everything up to remain challenging. That is just breaking both sides of the system and makes things harder on everyone. Also remember that stats in 3ed aren't nearly as critial as they were in 2ed. Sure they may be more useful but now you start getting bonuses at 12 instead of needing 15+ like before.Um, I never stated that, you did. Please don't put words in my mouth. All I said is that it is possible for people to successfully and happily play with wildly varied stats between characters. That's it. Just because you think it would make things harder for everyone (and by this statement I presume that it is harder for you) does not mean that it makes it harder for everyone.
OravennasBrother 06-27-07, 06:17 PM	You're still failing to grasp the concept, rolling allows for good rolls which open up more options.... They did away with prerequisites in 3.0, . Perhaps you fail to grasp the concept that ARTIFICIALLY limiting player choices based on random rolls for attributes is counter to the dtated design paradigm of 3.X (that paradigm is "Player Choice is Good") if you can't handle the fact someone else has better scores than your character, you really arn't mature enough to play. Disingenuous much?
Ack 06-27-07, 06:25 PM	Point buy works on two very simple premises. High stats are worth more than low stats (and cost accordingly more), and all players should have the same options when the game begins. That is fair, and there is nothing wrong with it. For those that think PB gimps MAD classes, I just don't buy that. An array of several medium stats costs less in PB than an array with a couple very high stats. Assuming the standard 25 point buy is used, you can have: A (sorcerer): Str 8, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 17 B (monk): Str 14, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 8, Wis 15, Cha 8 C (barbarian): Str 17, Dex 8, Con 16, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 8 Is the monk really less viable because of his stats in this scenario? His total modifiers are +5. The sorcerer has total modifiers of +3, and the barbarian has total modifiers of +3. I'm not seeing a great power level discrepancy here. If you think a monk needs four stats of 15 or higher to be viable, that isn't a problem with PB, that is a problem with the monk. Similarly, what's to stop the character with good stats from playing a wizard (a randomly chosen SAD class) with Str 8, Dex 16, Con 18, Int 18, Wis 15, Cha 12? Rolling high stats makes the character more powerful no matter what class the player chooses. That doesn't help weak classes measure up in any way. As far as rerolls are concerned, I just don't get it. If you are rolling for stats you are theoretically allowing the dice to fall where they may. If you are rerolling, you are simply acknowledging that the system failed, and good luck getting somebody to reroll their stats when they get above average results...I doubt too many people like the DM intervening to nerf their fantastic rolls. I use point buy because it works. I don't even have to be there when the players make their characters. I don't have to bump up people's bad rolls, nerf their good rolls, make people reroll, or worry about the temptation to cheat. I don't have to worry about power level discrepancies between characters or moderating the game out of game; the characters' stats are entirely up to the players, not DM fiat. Now back in the day (when I was a wee lad) we rolled our stats (3d6 in order and let the dice fall as they may), and we liked it. Sometimes the characters sucked, sometimes they were great, but eventually it became annoying. Living with bad die rolls for a single game session is unfortunate, but you can bump back next week and roll well. Poor die rolls during character generation forces someone to live with bad die rolls for the life of their character...not fun. Good die rolls during character generation bumps up the power level (for those that roll them) and forces everyone else (who didn't roll as well) to play second fiddle. Many will argue that stats aren't that important, and D&D is a role-playing game. Yes that's true, but die rolls (and modifiers) play a huge part in the resolution of game effects, up to an including role-play (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive, and so forth, and don't get me started on combat or spellcasting). If the die rolls and modifiers don't matter, play a 1st level commoner. You can still role-play a commoner all you want, perhaps better than anyone else you play with (despite their mechanically superior characters), but you will be next to useless as far as mechanical contributions are concerned and that is a huge part of D&D. When I discovered PB I immediately embraced it. It works just as well as rolling for stats, but with less work on my part as a DM, and with better results as far as fair play is concerned. I just don't see a negative to it, and I have yet to see an argument for die-rolling that makes any sense to me. if you roll stats just because you want the chance to be awesome it either has to come at the rest of the players' (or the DM's) expense (unless everyone else also luckily happens to roll awesome too); no thanks. Everything I have been trying to say.
Johnny_Angel 06-27-07, 06:27 PM	The thing that people always fail to bring up in these arguments are how rolling is better for MAD classes than PB is. Seriously people, point buy was created so higher stats cost more points than lower stats. It was made to help mitigate the problems that MAD classes have. Yes, MAD classes are worse off than SAD ones in point buy, but it's not like they're any better off when stats are rolled. The difference is that in point buy, all the players start off on equal ground. If they wish to, they can all create identical characters. Chance has nothing to do with it. When stats are rolled, players are more limited in options. Fate has placed them on an uneven playing field. And some people bring up how nobody complains about bad luck in monopoly. Sure, I don't care if i don't have that reading railroad for a one hour game, but when my highest stat is lower than another guy's dump stat in a yearlong campaign, it tends to irk me. lol, I'd hardly call monopoly an hour long game :D
Ack 06-27-07, 06:40 PM	I will try to put this point across one more time. If you roll low, any character concept you choose will be gimped. So you will take a SAD class and put your best stat into the right slot. If you roll high, you're still better off playing a SAD character and putting your best stat into the right slot. In fact, no matter how you gain your stats, you're still better off playing a SAD class. It's not the fault of point buy, no matter how loudly you yell and point at the straw man. Point buy simply removes the need for the GM to "adjust" any differences between stat totals (which is almost certain to cause bad feelings on one side of the fence). MAD is more stat-needy than SAD; it's as simple as that. This is independent of how you generate your stats. Oh, and by the way: you cannot simultaneously hold the views that "point buy nerfs the player" and that "32 point buy is overpowered". Pick a lane and stick to it.
Lord_of_Omnipotence 06-27-07, 06:41 PM	You're still failing to grasp the concept, rolling allows for good rolls which open up more options. That has been the basis that D&D has relied on for as long as I've been playing. Does no one here remember the old stat prerequisites in AD&D? If you didn't get the stats to be a class, you weren't that class. They did away with prerequisites in 3.0, but they didn't take away the fact that some classes need more good stats to be viable, and they failed to make those classes balanced without all those stats being good. The PB monk above that was posted had an AC of 14 and a +2 to hit. How is that going to be as effective as the fighter with a +3 to hit that can slap on a breastplate, a shield, and a longsword at level one for an 18 AC? It isn't, thats all there is to it. The character just cannot be as effective. Doesn't this in itself contradict the supposed "fairness" of PB? Yes is does. And of course a player can choose to put a set of good stats into a SAD class, but the good stats open up those choices. It's just like AD&D, good stats unlocked more prerequisites you met, but you could always just throw them into another fighter. You missed the point on the amulet. I meant elven as in elven blood required to use it. Hence why it would go to the half elf over the barb. It's showing that the DM should be able to handle different scored characters with ease. It shouldn't even be a challenge or second thought for them. You can take it as an insult all you want, but it's still the same, if you can't handle the fact someone else has better scores than your character, you really arn't mature enough to play. It's just like basketball or other games, if you're going to cry, whine, skulk, and complain every time you loose then you shouldn't be playing. The only difference here, is that if you actually are mature enough to play, you realize there are no loosers, it's about the story. Whether you're playing the support character with straight 10s and a 12, or the Half-Orc Adonis replica with straight 18s and 17s, if the story is fun, then it's a win. You're contradicting yourself right here. You claim that point buy in unbalanced because MAD classes get left behind, yet you say later that players should be mature enough to deal with the imbalance present in rolling. And how in the world does rolling allow for good rolls to open up options? You get rolls of 18, 18, 16, 14, 13, 12, and you're going to play a monk or paladin? Just put those stats into a solid cleric or druid and you'll do even better. I fail to see how this "good roll" opened up options. In fact, rolling detracts from options, given that you can get stat arrays like 18, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7, which practically force you to play a SAD character. Point buy gives you more options, and starts everyone on an equal playing field. That they aren't equal after they choose their classes is a nature of the DnD class system, but at least they had the opportunity to be equal in the first place.
nastynate 06-27-07, 06:59 PM	You're still failing to grasp the concept, rolling allows for good rolls which open up more options. That has been the basis that D&D has relied on for as long as I've been playing. Does no one here remember the old stat prerequisites in AD&D? If you didn't get the stats to be a class, you weren't that class. How do randomly determined stats have any effect at all on the power of a MAD class vs. that of a SAD class? Rolling good stats won't make a monk more viable any more than it makes a wizard more viable. Better stats are better for ALL classes, not just MAD classes. Game history and previous editions (especially defunct rules gone the way of the dodo) have no bearing upon the current edition of the game. I remember ability score prerequisites just fine thanks. I'm not yet getting senile in my old age. They did away with prerequisites in 3.0, but they didn't take away the fact that some classes need more good stats to be viable, and they failed to make those classes balanced without all those stats being good. The PB monk above that was posted had an AC of 14 and a +2 to hit. How is that going to be as effective as the fighter with a +3 to hit that can slap on a breastplate, a shield, and a longsword at level one for an 18 AC? It isn't, thats all there is to it. The character just cannot be as effective. Doesn't this in itself contradict the supposed "fairness" of PB? Yes is does. You are not actually addressing the right thing. You are operating under the false assumption that having good stats makes a monk better; it doesn't. Your issue is with bad classes, and not with PB. You missed the point on the amulet. I meant elven as in elven blood required to use it. Hence why it would go to the half elf over the barb. It's showing that the DM should be able to handle different scored characters with ease. It shouldn't even be a challenge or second thought for them. I didn't miss the point; I ignored it. I have to operate under the assumption that we are both playing the same game. Any homebrewed metagame constrained items that you create are not a balancing factor beyond your gaming table. An amulet of health exists in my game (and presumably everywhere else too), but your "only elves can wear this" item, is not actually applicable to anyone but you. That would seriously challenge the verisimilitude at may gaming table. I don't spoon feed the players; they craft, commission, or find items, and divvy them up as they see fit, not as I tell them to. You can take it as an insult all you want, but it's still the same, if you can't handle the fact someone else has better scores than your character, you really arn't mature enough to play. It's just like basketball or other games, if you're going to cry, whine, skulk, and complain every time you loose then you shouldn't be playing. The only difference here, is that if you actually are mature enough to play, you realize there are no loosers, it's about the story. Whether you're playing the support character with straight 10s and a 12, or the Half-Orc Adonis replica with straight 18s and 17s, if the story is fun, then it's a win. It's not about being unable to handle it. I did just fine from 1985 until 3E came out with the old rolling for stats system; PB is better, and that's why I switched to it. Assuming I'm unable to handle it, immature, or whining is rather presumptuous and rude. If that isn't an insult, how else should I perceive it? PB is more conducive to group play, which in turn is more fun. If you have fun rolling stats then it's a moot point (I had plenty of fun before PB, but I didn't have a better option yet either); ignorance is bliss. What I take issue with, is the fact that you are not accurate and that you have resorted to hurling insults to somehow convince me otherwise.
Ack 06-27-07, 07:20 PM	rolling allows for good rolls which open up more options They also allow for bad rolls. Until the GM allows you to re-roll them. So you're not 'really' rolling for your stats until you reach the rolls you 'want'. And yet you're still convinced your rolls are utterly random, and that this is actually a good thing. Weird (wrong on both counts, but weird all the same). SAD vs MAD is an artifact of the game system, not a problem with point buy. It's as simple as that.
Maekrix_Waere 06-27-07, 08:05 PM	They also allow for bad rolls. Until the GM allows you to re-roll them. So you're not 'really' rolling for your stats until you reach the rolls you 'want'. And yet you're still convinced your rolls are utterly random, and that this is actually a good thing. Weird (wrong on both counts, but weird all the same). SAD vs MAD is an artifact of the game system, not a problem with point buy. It's as simple as that. To my knowledge, only one person has suggested that DM's should let their players reroll if they get poor stats, so you should really stop using that as an arguement against all of us Pro-Rollers. I'll admit, I haven't slogged through every single post on this page, so maybe a few other have also chosen to support that idea, but I haven't seen them. I believe that if you're a DM for players that are so whiney and immature that they HAVE to have the best stats in the party, fine, make them use PB to cut out all the rolling and rerolling If you play with a group of adults, who don't care if their buddy has straight 18's and that they have a 12,14,14,16,12,10, so long as they find a niche, then I say break out the dice.
nastynate 06-27-07, 08:16 PM	I believe that if you're a DM for players that are so whiney and immature that they HAVE to have the best stats in the party, fine, make them use PB to cut out all the rolling and rerolling Are the belittling comments necessary?
Crash01234567890 06-27-07, 08:19 PM	The only rolls the DM is supposed to allow rerolls on are those that fall under the +1 modifier total or the highest score is a 13 or under. That is not rolling until you have what you want, that is rolling until you have survivable stats. SAD vs. MAD is a problem of the game system, but PB compounds that problem, it is evident and has been shown in this thread numerous times. All that the pro-side does is throw out numbers saying look, MAD characters can be made too, but every one of them is horrid compared to their SAD counterpart. Yes, better stats are better for all classes, but obviously rolling you have a chance to get more good stats, which is better for MAD classes. But it's better for SAD classes too, you say. Of course it is, but MAD classes make better use out of multiple good rolls. They have class abilities that go off of multiple abilities. A Wizard needs a high Int. High dex is nice for the AC, and extra HP are nice too, but everything else really isn't needed by him. A Monk needs a good wisdom and a decent dex since they can't wear armor. Now I know, you're saying wizards can't wear armor, but they get mage armor and shield to boost theirs. The monk needs a decent con as well since it's gonna be in melee and face some nasty brutes in it's line of duty. Meanwhile the Wizard hides in the back. You see, the wizards high con and such really doesn't play a high roll MOST of the time (since I'm sure a thousand stories will crop up trying to disprove that). Game editions do matter as they show where things and ideas come from. Just because something was chucked out (the prerequisites) doesn't mean it should be ignored when trying to make sense of things now. They decided player choice is good, some people want to play the crappy paladin or monk, so they chucked them out. But if you go back and look, it shows your along the lines of what a good version of the class should look like (although a few stats you can drop a couple points from the old standards since you get bonuses earlier now). I'm sorry about the amulet, apparently some DM's havn't grown to the point of realizing they can actually make magic items that arn't in the DMG, or put different quirks on them (oh my goodness, who'd think of such a thing). Does it specifically mention half-elfs having elven blood for the purposes using magic items? Yes. But it's so wrong to make magic items that are only usable by elven blooded folk? Please, if you're going to cry foul at least try to find one. And I have not hurled insults, if you have been insulted it's because you see a shred of truth. My entire poin has been that PB is not "fair" as you have put it. Why is it "fair"? Well the general consensus is that everyone starts out on even footing so it must be fair. However, the reasoning behind rolling being supposedly "unfair" is that people don't end up on the same footing after the rolls. Oh my Johnny rolled a 16, 16, 14, 13, 12 ,10 and Bob rolled a 14, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10. How is this any different than PB where a monk is going to have 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 11 and a wizard is going to have 16, 14, 12, 8, 11, 10? You start on equal footing either way, same points with PB and same die rolling with rolls, but you don't end up on equal footing either way. The only difference is that PB is unfair to the player, because it never allows a variation in what he can choose. He can either play a good character of certain classes, or a mediocre character of other classes. Rolling opens a chance at getting to play good characters of those other classes, therefore it's fair to everyone. I have no problem having lower stats than the next man, but saying that rolling is broken or unfair because it leaves gaps in between characters and that PB is fair because everyone starts out the same is a false claim. Both leave the same gaps, one just offers a chance at more.
Ack 06-27-07, 08:46 PM	To my knowledge, only one person has suggested that DM's should let their players reroll if they get poor stats, so you should really stop using that as an arguement against all of us Pro-Rollers. I'll admit, I haven't slogged through every single post on this page, so maybe a few other have also chosen to support that idea, but I haven't seen them.My experience (which may or may not be common at other tables) is that many DMs tend to give bonus points or rerolls to the characters that end up with the worst rolls until everyone is comparable to the best die roll-generated character. Thing is, my DM would never make me play a serious character with scores so far below the other players, and would have me reroll. We've always rolled in our group, pretty much; often it's a case of roll, pass the stats to the DM, who'll tell you to reroll some, all or none depending on what he feels is the approraite level and maybe swap a few points here and there. Let's say the group rolls 4d6, dropping lowest. Players 1, 2 and 3 roll something like 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10 or there abouts. Player 4 rolls 12, 12, 10, 10, 8, 8 and then they roll 13, 10, 10, 8, 8, 6. Instead of having them roll again, give them the average of the other players' rolls. My DM didn't like the idea of 4d6 drop the lowest, so we did 3d6, but we rolled three columns of stats and chose. If we didn't like any of them, we could option to roll another, add one to each stat, and take it, but we had to take it no matter what. We also were allowed to reroll 8s or below. Given: 4 players rolling for ability scores. 4 players roll very well. Solution: Game on. 3 players roll very well. 1 player rolls significantly not as well. Solution: DM gets off high horse and allows that one player to reroll. 2 players roll very well. 2 players roll significantly not as well. Solution: DM gets off high horse and allows the 2 less fortunate players to reroll. 1 player rolls very well. 3 players roll significantly not as well. Solution A: Is "significantly not as well" still "good enough"? If yes, game on. 1st player don't be a jerk boasting of your better scores or else. If no, DM gets off his high horse and lets those players reroll. Solution B: Is "significantly not as well" still "good enough"? If yes, politely ask 1st player to shave off an ability score or two to be fair, as a courtesy. 1st player should oblige, as a courtesy, and can still keep an 18 with blessing, maybe allow the old 2E "two for one" trade offs to get an 18 if did not have one but rolled a good number of 16s for example. If 1st player does not, he needs to "be watched" then go to Solution A. If no, go directly to Solution A. 4 players roll significantly not as well. Solution: Is "significantly not as well" good enough? If yes, game on. If no, DM gets off his high horse and lets everyone reroll. It means a DM should recognize the discrepancy and fix it. Solution: Just let the monk player reroll. Why does his first roll have to be so sacred it can't be touched? Oh the horrors the DM must do his job (note that this infers that it's the GM's job to 'fix' mismatching statblocks). Do you actually play with DMs who can't see the problem and have the other re-roll the dice? If a character's stats don't come up to a bonus of +6 total, they can re-roll Presuming these are the calculations I've seen before, I believe what these 'averages" fail to take into account are re-rolls for those rolls that end up in the 15 PB area. Remove those rolls, the average creeps up a bit. Maybe I'm wrong but there is a rule allowing re-rolls for "unplayable" stats and its hard to properly quantify PB for rolled stats that are below 8. That wouldn't happen in my games. I average modifiers. so your 2nd ex would get a reroll. I believe that if you're a DM for players that are so whiney and immature that they HAVE to have the best stats in the party, fine, make them use PB to cut out all the rolling and rerolling If you play with a group of adults, who don't care if their buddy has straight 18's and that they have a 12,14,14,16,12,10, so long as they find a niche, then I say break out the dice. If the players are fine with uneven stats, then one player can use PB for a SAD character and another can use the same PB for a MAD character. :D As a player and as a GM, I like a level playing field.
nastynate 06-27-07, 09:16 PM	The only rolls the DM is supposed to allow rerolls on are those that fall under the +1 modifier total or the highest score is a 13 or under. That is not rolling until you have what you want, that is rolling until you have survivable stats. Agreed. SAD vs. MAD is a problem of the game system, but PB compounds that problem, it is evident and has been shown in this thread numerous times. All that the pro-side does is throw out numbers saying look, MAD characters can be made too, but every one of them is horrid compared to their SAD counterpart. Yes, better stats are better for all classes, but obviously rolling you have a chance to get more good stats, which is better for MAD classes. But it's better for SAD classes too, you say. Of course it is, but MAD classes make better use out of multiple good rolls. They have class abilities that go off of multiple abilities. PB doesn't make MAD classes any worse than rolling stats does. All rolling stats does is open the gates for higher rolls, which only partially offset the disadvantages of MAD classes (they still are bad classes even with good stats). Good rolls do absolutely nothing to offset the imbalance if the SAD classes get good rolls too. A Wizard needs a high Int. High dex is nice for the AC, and extra HP are nice too, but everything else really isn't needed by him. A Monk needs a good wisdom and a decent dex since they can't wear armor. Now I know, you're saying wizards can't wear armor, but they get mage armor and shield to boost theirs. The monk needs a decent con as well since it's gonna be in melee and face some nasty brutes in it's line of duty. Meanwhile the Wizard hides in the back. You see, the wizards high con and such really doesn't play a high roll MOST of the time (since I'm sure a thousand stories will crop up trying to disprove that). Are you suggesting that wizards don't have to take damage often? They are the number one target with a giant bullseye on them saying, "Kill me, I'm the biggest offensive threat!" HP matter almost every single time you get into combat. Game editions do matter as they show where things and ideas come from. Just because something was chucked out (the prerequisites) doesn't mean it should be ignored when trying to make sense of things now. They decided player choice is good, some people want to play the crappy paladin or monk, so they chucked them out. But if you go back and look, it shows your along the lines of what a good version of the class should look like (although a few stats you can drop a couple points from the old standards since you get bonuses earlier now). What did paladins need a high charisma for in 1st or 2nd edition...flavor? Now it has real meaning as far as their class features are concerned, but that isn't a hold over from previous editions. The old monk prerequisites didn't effect their class features either, not one bit. Now they do. History is not a factor in the current discussion. I'm sorry about the amulet, apparently some DM's havn't grown to the point of realizing they can actually make magic items that arn't in the DMG, or put different quirks on them (oh my goodness, who'd think of such a thing). Does it specifically mention half-elfs having elven blood for the purposes using magic items? Yes. But it's so wrong to make magic items that are only usable by elven blooded folk? Please, if you're going to cry foul at least try to find one. I make plenty of custom items, prestige classes, feats, spells, and so forth. I have hundreds of them, but I don't cite sources for my arguments that you don't have access to. It isn't logical to cite homebrew material in discussions outside the realm of your homebrew. No need to be condescending either. What's with that? And I have not hurled insults, if you have been insulted it's because you see a shred of truth. Hmm...well then allow me to point you to your previous paragraph and quote you a few more of your previous posts. As I said before, if the players are so immature that they can't handle having different scores, then they need to be playingsomething else. If the DM can't handle different scores then he shouldn't be DMing. You can take it as an insult all you want, but it's still the same, if you can't handle the fact someone else has better scores than your character, you really arn't mature enough to play. It's just like basketball or other games, if you're going to cry, whine, skulk, and complain every time you loose then you shouldn't be playing. Should I dig back a few pages for more? I can. My entire poin has been that PB is not "fair" as you have put it. Why is it "fair"? It's fair (in the sense that it's more fair than rolling) because it sets the range of PC ability scores at a much smaller variance than that of rolling. Well the general consensus is that everyone starts out on even footing so it must be fair. You got it, and rolling for ability scores automatically sets PCs up on unequal footing (barring all but impossible odds). However, the reasoning behind rolling being supposedly "unfair" is that people don't end up on the same footing after the rolls. Oh my Johnny rolled a 16, 16, 14, 13, 12 ,10 and Bob rolled a 14, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10. How is this any different than PB where a monk is going to have 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 11 and a wizard is going to have 16, 14, 12, 8, 11, 10? It's different because rolling is beyond your control, while the class you play is not. If you think monks are terrible don't play one (problem solved). If you roll poorly tough luck; you're going to be terrible no matter the class you choose. If you roll well, you have the same choices in classes, but even with stats better than your fellows the monk isn't going to be very good. Personally, I see nothing wrong with any of the stat arrays you have presented, and I can make a wide range of classes from them, but that won't change the basic facts that MAD classes are not as good SAD classes. That is my whole point; you seem to think good stats will compensate for bad classes. Alternately, you can focus on two really important scores, and not worry about certain class features. A monk doesn't have to have a high strength score, but it helps. Focus instead on just Dexterity and Wisdom, you can get by with a 10 Strength and Constitution and be fully functional (as far as your class features are concerned). You'll still be a monk, and you'll still never quite measure up to a full BAB melee class, skill monkey, or spellcaster, but a monk with six ability scores of 16 doesn't really measure up for long either. You start on equal footing either way, same points with PB and same die rolling with rolls, but you don't end up on equal footing either way. MAD classes don't end up on equal footing with SAD classes whether you roll or whether you use PB, but SAD classes end up on equal footing with PB far more often then they do when rolling stats. The only difference is that PB is unfair to the player, because it never allows a variation in what he can choose. He can either play a good character of certain classes, or a mediocre character of other classes. This isn't a symptom of PB. This is a problem with the classes themselves. You are blaming the wrong mechanics. You have the same problem when you roll stats. Rolling opens a chance at getting to play good characters of those other classes, therefore it's fair to everyone. That is not true. Rolling well makes every class better, it does nothing to make MAD classes any better than they already are. No matter how the stats are determined, a SAD class is better. All rolling well does for you is give you a higher base power level to work from, but as soon as you begin to gain levels the MAD class falls behind again because they need to keep boosting many stats, while a SAD class only needs to boost one or two. MAD classes (particularly the monk) are extremely magical item dependent and SAD classes generally much less so. As I said before, good stats are not a patch for bad classes. I have no problem having lower stats than the next man, but saying that rolling is broken or unfair because it leaves gaps in between characters and that PB is fair because everyone starts out the same is a false claim. Both leave the same gaps, one just offers a chance at more. I didn't say rolling was broken, but I do think it can be unfair. The only gaps PB leaves are the gaps inherent to the classes themselves. Rolling for stats has this same gap PLUS the possibility of large variance between ability scores; it seems obvious which works better.
Roog 06-27-07, 09:58 PM	SAD vs. MAD is a problem of the game system, but PB compounds that problem, it is evident and has been shown in this thread numerous times. All that the pro-side does is throw out numbers saying look, MAD characters can be made too, but every one of them is horrid compared to their SAD counterpart. "PB compounds that problem", Shown? Claimed, definitly. Game editions do matter as they show where things and ideas come from. Just because something was chucked out (the prerequisites) doesn't mean it should be ignored when trying to make sense of things now. Yes it does, the fact that they were chucked out is one of the best resons to think it is no longer relevant. Unless you think they didn't have a good reason to chuck it. I'm sorry about the amulet, apparently some DM's havn't grown to the point of realizing they can actually make magic items that arn't in the DMG, or put different quirks on them (oh my goodness, who'd think of such a thing). Does it specifically mention half-elfs having elven blood for the purposes using magic items? Yes. But it's so wrong to make magic items that are only usable by elven blooded folk? Please, if you're going to cry foul at least try to find one. Why would you want to create specific itmes like this (unless you are also creating specific items for the barbarian). Your players are "mature", and are not worried by the barbarian having better stats. My entire poin has been that PB is not "fair" as you have put it. Why is it "fair"? Well if rolling is "fair" then point buy is "fair". If players who are "mature" can handle the stat discrepancies with rolled stats, then they can handle any discrepancies in point buy (if they choose to play a class which may be disadvantaged). Rolling can work fine as a stat gen method, but in no way is its advantage fairness.
Ack 06-27-07, 10:07 PM	Point buy is fair because everyone gets an equal shot, independent of dice-rolling quirks. SAD vs MAD is not fair because SAD is not as stat-dependent as MAD. This is entirely independent of your stat generation method. Perhaps if we repeat this point often enough, it might sink in. It's true. You know it is. No matter how you obfuscate, it's the truth. So, once again, I propose a house rule for the I-wanna-play-MAD-with-good-stats group: MAD classes get a one-time bonus to one of their required stats. Simple as that. Problem solved? Yes/no?
Ace_of_time 06-27-07, 10:10 PM	I used 15 points buy on my online challenge and it was hard and sometimes nerve racking but after 3rd level we had fun. I find the lower your stats are the easier for a wizard or cleric class and less for a fighter. Most of the time we play tank/ blast wizard long range with combust for back up.
Ack 06-27-07, 10:13 PM	15 point buy? Yeesh.
Lord_of_Omnipotence 06-27-07, 10:21 PM	To my knowledge, only one person has suggested that DM's should let their players reroll if they get poor stats, so you should really stop using that as an arguement against all of us Pro-Rollers. I'll admit, I haven't slogged through every single post on this page, so maybe a few other have also chosen to support that idea, but I haven't seen them. I believe that if you're a DM for players that are so whiney and immature that they HAVE to have the best stats in the party, fine, make them use PB to cut out all the rolling and rerolling If you play with a group of adults, who don't care if their buddy has straight 18's and that they have a 12,14,14,16,12,10, so long as they find a niche, then I say break out the dice. This justifies nothing. Even if your players are mature enough to deal with stat imbalances, nothing in your post gives any reason why rolling is superior to point buy. Even if your players are mature enough to deal with a problem in the system, there's no reason not to switch to a system that eliminates that problem.
Ace_of_time 06-27-07, 10:36 PM	It was a challenge for the DM. Not the players. The DM could only use CR 1 and keep the CR when in 2 of the PC levels. The challenge was What DM could have the least amount of Character deaths after 30 days in game. My wife hates points buy in general though but she was still sad to see her player go and looks forward to playing it in the future. I change the way we roll each challenge. This time we used floating reroll. That 4d6 in order then switch any two and you can reroll once during this the roll. We are doing dragons classes this time. With two type reg dragons called Royal dragons and Rogue dragons which have lost all there magical abilities even breath weapon but can combine class level with HD to determine Age cat. This time the DM has to find other ways to give Gold out limited to no treasure monster or reg monster but no treasure from combat. Winner will be the one closest to wealth by level table. I have been looking for a good way to roll my third challenge. Which will be for the DM to keep the player interested in the setting with out railroading. The players get to pick one class and everybody starts as that to see how different the player will end up. And to make it interesting for the DM they start on a farm. My players hate points buy and would rather roll low and keep those scores than to use points buy.
navar100 06-27-07, 11:30 PM	It comes down to the fact that point buy starts off the characters on an equitable playing field, and rolling doesn't. That's pretty much it… Not that you can't have the greatest time/campaign with rolled characters, I did for many years, but those are the facts. Incorrect. With dice rolling, every one has an equal chance of "rolling well" because all use the same method. Dice rolling just doesn't guarantee an equal outcome. For some people equal outcome isn't necessary, just equivalent outcome which may or may not necessitate a reroll provided the DM doesn't have a conniption fit over it compensated by the player not having a conniption fit because another player has a "better" array. Point Buy only allows of equal outcome the higher the value you give it because MAD characters have a difficult time of it the lower the value you give it.
Maekrix_Waere 06-27-07, 11:45 PM	(Insert quotes here) I see one person who mentions them, 4 people who have experiences with them, 4 who suggest them as a possible fix, and only one who continually supports them. If the players are fine with uneven stats, then one player can use PB for a SAD character and another can use the same PB for a MAD character. :D As a player and as a GM, I like a level playing field. PB does not give a level playing field. Rolling does not give a level playing field. No stat generation system that I have so far ever been shown has come close to leveling the playing field between SAD and MAD classes when it comes to stats. The only thing point buy can level-out is the strength of stats as aquired, not the strength of stats as required.
navar100 06-27-07, 11:47 PM	A DM who cannot tolerate 18's would have to avoid avoid PB - unless you go to the 15 PB level anyone who wants an 18 can have an 18. I once ran at the 32 PB which could give TWO starting 18's - before racial Modifiers. Yes the character suffers in their off attributes, but that is their choice. Ah, but in point buy, that 18 which is purchased is "punished" because the player has guaranteed 8's in at least two other scores. There's nothing inherently wrong with negative modifiers, but there's also nothing inherently wrong with not having negative modifiers. In any case, the character is forced to suffer a penalty which the DM will exploit because the DM has to deal with the 18. That's what I mean when I say a DM cannot tolerate an 18 for a 1st level character. I have read of cases where a DM said he outright bans 18s. Others give a flat array, even better than the "elite", yet not have an 18. If an array does give an 18, guaranteed there are two 8's in it. The Whole SAD/MAD stuff is silly, especially when talking about a melee between two first level characters and going "Well statistically this characters has x% chance of getting initiative and...." because at 1st level the random factors outweigh the statistics in any one encounter. The paladin might, for example, gain initiative on round one and get a critical hit which drops his opponent. Imagine that. Even sillier is the claim that a Fighter being able to OUTFIGHT a paladin makes the paladin weak. Fighters good in a fight, Whouda Thunk It? With a 25 PB a paladin can have 14 Charisma, 10 in all attributes and 9 more points to spread around. That's plenty. If he cannot fight as well as the Fighter with 16 Strength, 16 Constitution and 13 Dexterity, he can still do a lot outside a straight fight, and his out of combat abilities INCREASE dramatically as you move past first level. That fighter (at 11th level) is going to feel really weak when he has to make a fear saving throw against a DC 16 and repeatedly fails, while the Paladin smiles and keeps fighting. And what of his wisdom to cast spells? He has no significant wisdom to speak of. He can't cast spells. He loses a class ability. A wisdom enhancing magic item? It's not definite going to be available. It's campaign dependent whether one can just buy it. If in a treasure hoard, the druid and cleric also want it. Besides, a character should not have to have one specific magic item to function. I find it aesthetically displeasing. (A divine focus I categorize as a different thing. Besides which, not all divine spells require a divine focus.) OF COURSE you can't have all UB3R attributes with a 25 Point buy. What you can have are playable attributes which still leave room for failure if your tactics slip. Loads more fun than winning because you stacked the deck at the beginning. The word for today is Challenge. I can have all the 18s in the world and still fail because I rolled low on a d20. Having an 18 does not guarantee success just as having an 8 does not guarantee failure. Also, a character doesn't have to have a negative modifier to have a weakness to overcome. A player's choices always have consequences, for good or for bad. The play of the game will provide the obstacles to overcome.
Maekrix_Waere 06-27-07, 11:48 PM	Are the belittling comments necessary? You'll excuse me, those were not meant to be "belittling comments." They were meant to be a situation. The only situation I can see in which a PB becomes neccessary and/or preferential.
Ace_of_time 06-27-07, 11:50 PM	I know someone has posted this and I just missed this. What is the big problem with rerolling stats?
navar100 06-27-07, 11:51 PM	We had to introduce point-buy into our group because the disparity was just getting too large between some players. The problem is some players are fair and honest, while others manipulate the system. The manipulators roll stats for three-and-a-half hours until they find something they like. You know they sometimes bump a stat up one or two here or there. They roll until they get a 17 or 18 AND THEN start that set of six rolls, guaranteeing one very high stat. The honest guy rolls maybe four sets and moves on. The bottom line is with point-buy players can make characters on their own time without me worrying about what methods they decide to employ. I have no desire to monitor ability dice rolls and having to do that limits the flexibility a player has to just make characters for no reason because he thinks it's fun. I think one of my players has 12 backup characters for EtCR right now, that wouldn't have been as possible with (monitored) rolling. I think both methods are fine, but point-buy works better for my group. We've all been happier since we changed to it. Players cheating do not invalidate the method.
Maekrix_Waere 06-27-07, 11:53 PM	This justifies nothing. Even if your players are mature enough to deal with stat imbalances, nothing in your post gives any reason why rolling is superior to point buy. Even if your players are mature enough to deal with a problem in the system, there's no reason not to switch to a system that eliminates that problem. But it doesn't eliminate the "problem," if there ever was one to begin with. Any "problems" that rolling has are equaled or exceeded by "problems" that PB has.
navar100 06-27-07, 11:56 PM	Rolling attributes may be fair (in that narrow sense), but it causes PROBLEMS with group combat dynamics where the player forced to put a 10 or 11 in constitution (because he rolled 14, 11, 10, 10, 10, 8 and wants to put the 14 in dex or strength) is standing next to the Barbarian who has 18 constitution (because he rolled 18, 17, 16, 18, 17, 14 and decided to go for longer rage and big melee impact) NO - the bottom line is that higher attributes are more powerful than lower attributes, and no SAD argument, no matter how MAD it gets, will change that. If it doesn't matter then why the need for higher attributes? Is it just Greed? Did you miss the part where you just let the 14, 11, 10, 10, 10, 8 guy reroll so he doesn't have to play with 18, 17, 16, 18, 17, 14 guy? Granted the latter is way up there and chances are even with the reroll the first guy won't equal it, but he can get something a lot better than he had and be happy with it. Maybe the first guy might even be courteous and lower some scores. Why the need for lower attributes? Is it just Jealousy?
Xavon 06-27-07, 11:59 PM	I have been looking for a good way to roll my third challenge. Which will be for the DM to keep the player interested in the setting with out railroading. The players get to pick one class and everybody starts as that to see how different the player will end up. And to make it interesting for the DM they start on a farm. I offer up my current preferred system (both for Ace, and as my two cents in general): Each player rolls 6d6. No drops or rerolls. Each player then receives a grid of 14, 14, 10, 10, 6, 6. They apply one of their d6 to each grid stat, and then arrange to taste. This gives everyone two great scores (15-20), two good scores (11-16), and two weak scores (7-12). But then, I also remove almost racial stat mods... If you are afraid of 20s, drop the grid to 12, 12, 8, 8, 4, 4. If you want less variation, switch from 6d6 to 6d4 (this also drops the max to 18). If you want lower stats, do both. Of course, this is a step down from my last campaign...
Mock26 06-28-07, 12:02 AM	At the end of the day (or rather, at the beginning of the campaign) it all boils down to what the DM wants. If he wants to go with dice rolling, then all the players need to buff up their lucky 6-siders. If the DM opts for point buy, then get out your pencil and paper and start adding up numbers. That's all there really is to it. In some areas of D&D players, for the most part, are obligated to follow the desires of the DM. Yes, I understand that players have the right to play the character that they want, but the DM also has the right to decide how stats are generated. Yes, a good DM will listen to the desires of the players and take them into consideration, but that is no guarantee that he will do what the players want. So long as the DM listens to the players and takes all the facts into consideration in an impartial way, then the players have to abide by the decision of the DM. That meanst that if the DM chooses one system that someone dislikes, that player has two options, to suck it up and deal with it or go find someone else to play with.
maharai23 06-28-07, 12:05 AM	In order for something to be broken, it must be able to consistently be exploited for an advantage. Rolling, being a random method, therefore, cannot be, as it cannot be consistent. Point buy, on the other hand, always favors the player of the SAD class. Thus, it could be argued that PB is broken. That said... Let's look at stat dependency for a moment, shall we? Fighter: Str - Primary. This directly affects the character's combat effectiveness, influencing accuracy and damage. Dex - Secondary. This can improve the class, adding AC, extra attacks of opportunity, reflex save, and ranged accuracy, but most of this can be gotten in other ways (armor, brutal throw, lightning reflexes, and the like). Not essential for a good fighter, but it can help some builds. Con - Secondary. Again, this can improve the class, with boosted HP and Fort saves, but generally is not critical to have really high. Int - Tertiary - Often a dump stat, Skills are not a very critical part of the fighter. Wis - Tertiary - Will save is really the only thing this improves. If that extra +2 is needed, take Iron Will. Cha - Tertiary - Used by almost no class skills, and having no direct effect on fighter effectiveness, this is usually a dump stat. Monk Str - Secondary. This can affect a monk's damage and accuracy, but in prioritizing, this needs to take a back seat to other stats. Dex - Primary. One of the only ways for a Monk to have AC. Weapon Finesse will allow for it to apply to accuracy, and it helps with ranged attacks, and possibly Attacks of Opportunity. Con - Secondary. The lower hit die makes it more important than for fighters, especially with commonly a low AC, but again, priority must go to other stats. This is usually 3rd on my list for monks. Int - Secondary. Monks have a lot of good skills, and it's great to have them, but this needs to be after the physical abilities. Wis - Primary. Saves and AC. Wisdom is what can put a Monk's AC into the ballpark of the fighter. This is critical for a monk. Cha - Tertiary. Again, nice to have, but one of the last priorities for the typical monk. The fighter has 1 attribute that directly affects his class abilities, 2 attributes that can be beneficial, and 3 attributes that are largely unimportant to the class. The monk has 2 attributes that directly affect his class abilities, 3 attributes that can be beneficial, and 1 that's largely unimportant to the class. This shows that the monk is more dependent on a variety of stats than the fighter. It's not just "better stats make any character better". Putting one 18 into a fighter's strength is the equivalent, power wise, of putting 2 18's into a monk's dex and wis. The it's not the number... It's what it means to the character.
Ace_of_time 06-28-07, 12:08 AM	I offer up my current preferred system (both for Ace, and as my two cents in general): Each player rolls 6d6. No drops or rerolls. Each player then receives a grid of 14, 14, 10, 10, 6, 6. They apply one of their d6 to each grid stat, and then arrange to taste. This gives everyone two great scores (15-20), two good scores (11-16), and two weak scores (7-12). But then, I also remove almost racial stat mods... If you are afraid of 20s, drop the grid to 12, 12, 8, 8, 4, 4. If you want less variation, switch from 6d6 to 6d4 (this also drops the max to 18). If you want lower stats, do both. Of course, this is a step down from my last campaign... I like the idea but would keep the max 18 rule just because racial bonus could put that 20 to 22. I like high powered games and my player face at least + 2 CRs for there levels so high scores are a must have. I like to keep at atmost 20 at 1st level. Thanks for the suggestion.
navar100 06-28-07, 12:11 AM	Point buy works on two very simple premises. High stats are worth more than low stats (and cost accordingly more), and all players should have the same options when the game begins. That is fair, and there is nothing wrong with it. For those that think PB gimps MAD classes, I just don't buy that. An array of several medium stats costs less in PB than an array with a couple very high stats. Assuming the standard 25 point buy is used, you can have: A (sorcerer): Str 8, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 17 B (monk): Str 14, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 8, Wis 15, Cha 8 C (barbarian): Str 17, Dex 8, Con 16, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 8 Is the monk really less viable because of his stats in this scenario? His total modifiers are +5. The sorcerer has total modifiers of +3, and the barbarian has total modifiers of +3. I'm not seeing a great power level discrepancy here. If you think a monk needs four stats of 15 or higher to be viable, that isn't a problem with PB, that is a problem with the monk. Similarly, what's to stop the character with good stats from playing a wizard (a randomly chosen SAD class) with Str 8, Dex 16, Con 18, Int 18, Wis 15, Cha 12? Rolling high stats makes the character more powerful no matter what class the player chooses. That doesn't help weak classes measure up in any way. As far as rerolls are concerned, I just don't get it. If you are rolling for stats you are theoretically allowing the dice to fall where they may. If you are rerolling, you are simply acknowledging that the system failed, and good luck getting somebody to reroll their stats when they get above average results...I doubt too many people like the DM intervening to nerf their fantastic rolls. I use point buy because it works. I don't even have to be there when the players make their characters. I don't have to bump up people's bad rolls, nerf their good rolls, make people reroll, or worry about the temptation to cheat. I don't have to worry about power level discrepancies between characters or moderating the game out of game; the characters' stats are entirely up to the players, not DM fiat. Now back in the day (when I was a wee lad) we rolled our stats (3d6 in order and let the dice fall as they may), and we liked it. Sometimes the characters sucked, sometimes they were great, but eventually it became annoying. Living with bad die rolls for a single game session is unfortunate, but you can bump back next week and roll well. Poor die rolls during character generation forces someone to live with bad die rolls for the life of their character...not fun. Good die rolls during character generation bumps up the power level (for those that roll them) and forces everyone else (who didn't roll as well) to play second fiddle. Many will argue that stats aren't that important, and D&D is a role-playing game. Yes that's true, but die rolls (and modifiers) play a huge part in the resolution of game effects, up to an including role-play (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive, and so forth, and don't get me started on combat or spellcasting). If the die rolls and modifiers don't matter, play a 1st level commoner. You can still role-play a commoner all you want, perhaps better than anyone else you play with (despite their mechanically superior characters), but you will be next to useless as far as mechanical contributions are concerned and that is a huge part of D&D. When I discovered PB I immediately embraced it. It works just as well as rolling for stats, but with less work on my part as a DM, and with better results as far as fair play is concerned. I just don't see a negative to it, and I have yet to see an argument for die-rolling that makes any sense to me. if you roll stats just because you want the chance to be awesome it either has to come at the rest of the players' (or the DM's) expense (unless everyone else also luckily happens to roll awesome too); no thanks. The fun of dice rolling is seeing what you get and working with it. The "need" to reroll is not a failure; it's a feature to ensure characters are equivalent.
maharai23 06-28-07, 12:22 AM	It's fair (in the sense that it's more fair than rolling) because it sets the range of PC ability scores at a much smaller variance than that of rolling. Buzz! Wrong answer, thanks for playing. If someone steals your car, and another takes paperclips from the office at work, you can't say the second one isn't a thief because he's "less stealing". Either something IS fair. Or it's not. You've admitted PB is not. No matter what else is said about any other method, PB is still not fair, by your own admission. You got it, and rolling for ability scores automatically sets PCs up on unequal footing (barring all but impossible odds). Really? Depends on how determined your PC's are, or if they can have fun playing different things. If the guy that rolled roughly equal to a 25 PB is comfy with Wizard, then he's A-ok, right alongside the one that got a 36 pb equivalent who's ok with being a monk. Flexible players and the right choice of classes will balance the game more than rolling ever will, and keep in mind one other thing... The system will only ever do so much. At the end of the day, it is the job of the DM to balance the game. If you're not up to that challenge, you should hand the DM screen to someone who is.
StevenO 06-28-07, 12:27 AM	I know someone has posted this and I just missed this. What is the big problem with rerolling stats? Rerolling stats when using the standard method (4d6 drop one) but not meeting certain requirements is acceptable. The problem with rerolling stats is when it is done because "my scores aren't as good as his!" This eliminates the low end of randomness as you are basing scores on "who got lucky". You may have rolled but the result isn't balanced as you have higher standards to meet.
Maekrix_Waere 06-28-07, 12:46 AM	SAD vs MAD is not fair because SAD is not as stat-dependent as MAD. This is entirely independent of your stat generation method. It is also independent of this arguement. An arguement which, if I may say, is completely useless. At the end of the day, no matter what you, or I, or any of the other random idiots on the internet say to each other, we're all going to log off, lay down in bed and think to ourselves, "You know what, they're all totally wrong. How can they possibly believe that? I'm completely right." In the end, all we're doing is making ourselves feel good by saying to the other side, "All your method of generating character stats are belong to us." (Note:If anyone doesn't get that last referance, please don't comment on it.) We've already answered the question asked by the OP, either with a, "No," or a, "No*," so why does this thread even exist on the front page anymore? I propose we all just leave and let it die, since there is only about a (5.24123x10^-23)% chance that anyone who reads this is going to change their mind about their stat generation system. So, once again, I propose a house rule for the I-wanna-play-MAD-with-good-stats group: MAD classes get a one-time bonus to one of their required stats. Simple as that. Problem solved? Yes/no? Depends. How much is the bonus?
Maekrix_Waere 06-28-07, 12:51 AM	I offer up my current preferred system (both for Ace, and as my two cents in general): Each player rolls 6d6. No drops or rerolls. Each player then receives a grid of 14, 14, 10, 10, 6, 6. They apply one of their d6 to each grid stat, and then arrange to taste. This gives everyone two great scores (15-20), two good scores (11-16), and two weak scores (7-12). But then, I also remove almost racial stat mods... If you are afraid of 20s, drop the grid to 12, 12, 8, 8, 4, 4. If you want less variation, switch from 6d6 to 6d4 (this also drops the max to 18). If you want lower stats, do both. Of course, this is a step down from my last campaign... :eek: Wow, I actually really like that. :D You may now put this on the top of my list.
Ace_of_time 06-28-07, 01:01 AM	Rerolling stats when using the standard method (4d6 drop one) but not meeting certain requirements is acceptable. The problem with rerolling stats is when it is done because "my scores aren't as good as his!" This eliminates the low end of randomness as you are basing scores on "who got lucky". You may have rolled but the result isn't balanced as you have higher standards to meet. I am glad I have none of those players. I'd just have to tell them tough ____ (crap). A good player can take any roll and make a good PC out of it. If your player rolls 13, 10, 11, 10, 10,11, He could go wizard or fighter. With low scores I most of the time go with more feats. ( human) If I go wizard than I put 10 Str, 11 Dex, 11con, 13int, 10 wis, 10cha. I go up till I get to where I don't get spells any more ( 6th with a 13) My one point goes to dex 8th level point to con. then 12th level point to int then I'll switch back to wizard from fighter 8th through 11th level use Bonus feats for fighter feat that help wizard stuff weapon focus, specialize, quick draw, maybe even spring attack, and range feats like precise shot and the like. I specialize in Evoker for extra spell slot per level. Spells really don't care what score you have just your caster level and I don't use save spells that much so DC doesn't bother me. OR I go fighter just because I hate bar, but go half orc. 15 str, 11 dex, 11con, 8 int, 10 wis, 8 cha. I pick up spring attack first. then quick draw, imp init, weapon focus, specialize and work on whirl wind attack. All points go for con and str and one for dex. Go straight fighter.
Roog 06-28-07, 01:21 AM	A good player can take any roll and make a good PC out of it. If your player rolls 13, 10, 11, 10, 10,11, He could go wizard or fighter. With low scores I most of the time go with more feats. ( human) When my group used to use rolled stats the tendancy was: If stats are low, then play an over-the-top self-destructive character, and have fun doing the things you would not normally try for a few weeks until you die (maybe due to heroic sacrifice, maybe due to just taking too many risks). If stats are better, then play more causiously and set the character up for the long haul. Now that we use PB, players still create those short-term self-destructive characters, but only when they feel like it (eg as a break from more seroius characters).
Ace_of_time 06-28-07, 01:32 AM	When my group used to use rolled stats the tendancy was: If stats are low, then play an over-the-top self-destructive character, and have fun doing the things you would not normally try for a few weeks until you die (maybe due to heroic sacrifice, maybe due to just taking too many risks). If stats are better, then play more causiously and set the character up for the long haul. Now that we use PB, players still create those short-term self-destructive characters, but only when they feel like it (eg as a break from more seroius characters). That would be there mistake in my game. I have more DMPC deaths then PC deaths and like keeping it that way. Now before anyone jumps me bad things happen but most of the time I try to keep my players alive. Aside from leaping off the the next cliff head first I match CR's to Rolls. And also roll with the curves when they try this. My players know that what ever they roll they are in it for atleast 7 to 10 levels. It is still a Challenge and we all have fun. I even help them make a PC they like even with low scores.
navar100 06-28-07, 02:33 AM	Rerolling stats when using the standard method (4d6 drop one) but not meeting certain requirements is acceptable. The problem with rerolling stats is when it is done because "my scores aren't as good as his!" This eliminates the low end of randomness as you are basing scores on "who got lucky". You may have rolled but the result isn't balanced as you have higher standards to meet. "My scores aren't as good as his!" needs to be narrowly defined. If John rolls 16, 16, 14, 14, 13, 12 while Bob rolls 18, 17, 14, 13, 13, 12, John should not be rerolling. They are equivalent enough, and John has a decent array. If John asks for a reroll, then yes, he's "whining". Suck it up, John. Meanwhile, Fred rolls 15, 12, 12, 11, 9, 9. Fred shouldn't even have to ask. The DM sees the discrepancy and has Fred reroll. Instead of rerolling he might even say "Fred, take 6 points and distribute one for one, max 18 of course." Looking over at what John got, he might add "It's ok to give yourself an 18 or 17 but keep at least one 9 if you do. John has no such score like you'll have, but he'll have no penalty.
Lord_of_Omnipotence 06-28-07, 02:43 AM	But it doesn't eliminate the "problem," if there ever was one to begin with. Any "problems" that rolling has are equaled or exceeded by "problems" that PB has. The "problem" is that rolling creates inherent unbalances between players. A player who rolls low will have less options IE be on an uneven playing field with a player who rolls high. Point buy presents all players with the same options. Thus it levels the playing field between players.
Tytalus 06-28-07, 02:54 AM	Buzz! Wrong answer, thanks for playing. Please keep derogatory crap like this out of the discussion. A simple "I disagree" would not only suffice, but be much more polite. Either something IS fair. Or it's not. Semantics, if that. Where does it say that fairness doesn't have degrees? Nobody asserted that PB or rolling is entirely fair. Still, many people here feel that PB is fairer than rolling. If you don't like it, it can be formulated differently: the fairness problems associated with PB are less severe. Really? Depends on how determined your PC's are, or if they can have fun playing different things. Whether or not a player can enjoy a character with poorly rolled statistics has nothing to do with the inherent unfairness.
Maekrix_Waere 06-28-07, 03:02 AM	Point buy presents all players with the same options. Thus it levels the playing field between players. Unless the players pick different classes, of course.
Mock26 06-28-07, 03:32 AM	Point buy works on two very simple premises. High stats are worth more than low stats (and cost accordingly more), and all players should have the same options when the game begins. That is fair, and there is nothing wrong with it. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with rolling for stats and winding up with some wildly varying stats between characters. That is also fair, and there is nothing wrong with it. Just remember that what is or is not fair is a matter of opinion.
Radiant117 06-28-07, 04:52 AM	And there is absolutely nothing wrong with rolling for stats and winding up with some wildly varying stats between characters. Yes there is. When the fighter has nore INT that the wizard... and more WIS than the cleric... and more DEX than the rogue not to mention STR and CON, which are supposed to be the highest in the array, things are ought to be broken. How about the array 18, 18, 18, 18, 17, 16? Is it the same as 17, 15, 14, 13, 10, 9? And maharai23, considering that the fighter is the most underpowered class in the game, it's only fortunate that MAD offsets this, however slightly. Some folks resolved the issue the following way: Everyone rolls stats. Then the DM sees who was the luckiest and awards bonuses to the rest, as he sees fit. It's like rolling stats 4 to 6 times and picking the best set. Last time when I started a new campaign, my players tried to make me allow the above trick. So I said, "Ok, do whatever you will, but then consider that I have, like, a million of NPCs, and those with high stats will naturally be the leaders, therefore with a million arrays to choose from every evil guy will have all 18s. (I have the statistics terribly wrong there, but you get the point.) Now you're still going to roll or maybe settle for high-powered PB?" I'm currently playing in a campaign with the aforementioned roll + DM fiat method of stat generation. While our success in dealing with high-level spellcasters is uncertain at best, we routinely beat opposed "balanced parties" of the same level and can defeat a squad of 10-12 npcs if none of us makes a grave tactical mistake (we have a rule against discussing actions in combat, and yes, cleric, I'm looking at you, another badly-timed Invisibility Purge and consider yourself *shaven*). Is it fun? Hell yeah. But it's definitely not "generic D&D as per the DMG".
Ack 06-28-07, 07:13 AM	Unless the players pick different classes, of course. That is a class thing, not a stat generation thing. If Player A and Player B rolled exactly the same set of stats (rolled, mind you) and Player A decided to play a fighter and Player B decided to play a monk, and thus found himself disadvantaged ... ... how would you fix that? You wouldn't? Funny, when it happens in point buy, you seem to think that it's a flaw in the PB system. Classes are unequal. Deal with it. Don't blame point buy.
Ack 06-28-07, 07:15 AM	Players cheating do not invalidate the method. Lot harder to cheat with point buy.
Ack 06-28-07, 07:17 AM	The fun of dice rolling is seeing what you get and working with it. The "need" to reroll is not a failure; it's a feature to ensure characters are equivalent. Point buy ensures that stats are generated that are not only equivalent, but equal. Without needing the 'feature' of rerolling. Fancy that.
Ack 06-28-07, 07:19 AM	So, once again, I propose a house rule for the I-wanna-play-MAD-with-good-stats group: MAD classes get a one-time bonus to one of their required stats. Simple as that. Problem solved? Yes/no? Depends. How much is the bonus? How much do you think will solve the SAD/MAD imbalance, given stats that are equal to start with?
nastynate 06-28-07, 09:07 AM	The fun of dice rolling is seeing what you get and working with it. The "need" to reroll is not a failure; it's a feature to ensure characters are equivalent. I completely understand. As I said before, I rolled my stats just like everyone else did up until 3E was published and a found the PB method. I had a great time finding an perfect fit (sometimes a not-so-perfect fit) for a particular class with the randomly rolled array. It was fun, and I enjoyed it. Now I use PB, because I would rather have fun "in game" than gambling on my stats. Grossly advantageous or disadvantageous stat arrays from PC to PC are not all that great for the health of the game; it has nothing to do with whining immature players (that only compounds the effects). I've seen plenty of poorly balanced PCs over the years; more than enough to realize that these rolls effect the entire campaign, whether good or bad. The "need" to reroll is a failure; it means that the random results were not acceptable. PB is specifically designed to ensure equality as far as ability scores are concerned without rerolls. It is more streamlined and takes the gambling out of the character generation equation. If you are routinely rerolling stats, you might as well use PB (it'll save you time and effort); of course if you are not rerolling and living by the fate of the ability score die rolls, than rock on! I had plenty of fun doing that for years. I won't contend Roll vs. Buy on a matter of preference (if you just like it, then have fun with it). I only contend issues related to balance (or imbalance) between these two ability score generation methods. Buzz! Wrong answer, thanks for playing. If someone steals your car, and another takes paperclips from the office at work, you can't say the second one isn't a thief because he's "less stealing". Either something IS fair. Or it's not. You've admitted PB is not. No matter what else is said about any other method, PB is still not fair, by your own admission. Actually fairness is not black and white. PB is fair as far as the relative balance between PCs where ability scores are concerned, but it does nothing to offset other imbalanced aspects of D&D such as the superiority of SAD classes over MAD classes. That makes it "more fair" than rolling for ability scores, but it isn't a fix for every other factor in the game that isn't. IF PB could solve all the world's problems that would be quite feat. You could be the best paid janitor on the face of the planet, but you won't make more money than Bill Gates; you might work harder than Bill Gates, and you are not paid fairly when compared to him, but you are still paid better than anyone else in your field. Rerolling stats when using the standard method (4d6 drop one) but not meeting certain requirements is acceptable. The problem with rerolling stats is when it is done because "my scores aren't as good as his!" This eliminates the low end of randomness as you are basing scores on "who got lucky". You may have rolled but the result isn't balanced as you have higher standards to meet. I agree. If you're rolling for stats, you should live with the consequences inherent to gambling...sometimes you don't make out better than if you use the sure thing (PB). As soon as you start messing with the die rolls, you immediately slant the results, and I seriously doubt people are rerolling good rolls; most likely, people are eliminating the low end rolls, which will cause a creep in PC power. To paraphrase another poster (some pages back), if you have to reroll stats until the PCs are close to equal, you might as well use PB which does that from the get go. But it doesn't eliminate the "problem," if there ever was one to begin with. Any "problems" that rolling has are equaled or exceeded by "problems" that PB has. The "problem" is that rolling creates inherent unbalances between players. A player who rolls low will have less options IE be on an uneven playing field with a player who rolls high. Point buy presents all players with the same options. Thus it levels the playing field between players. ...and the examples being given as problems with PB are actually problems inherent to the classes, which are independent of the PB system. The only problem I can actually see with PB is that it eliminates gambling from character generation (which people quite clearly enjoy); for me that isn't a problem, it's a bonus. Unless the players pick different classes, of course. That is a class thing, not a stat generation thing. If Player A and Player B rolled exactly the same set of stats (rolled, mind you) and Player A decided to play a fighter and Player B decided to play a monk, and thus found himself disadvantaged ... ... how would you fix that? You wouldn't? Funny, when it happens in point buy, you seem to think that it's a flaw in the PB system. Classes are unequal. Deal with it. Don't blame point buy. I wouldn't be so inclined to say "just deal with it," but I do agree with you in principle (if not tone). Problems inherent to class imbalance are not corrected by rolling stats or by PB for that matter; I'm shocked people even believe this.
OravennasBrother 06-28-07, 09:11 AM	And I have not hurled insults, if you have been insulted it's because you see a shred of truth. MY personal experience, backed by the posts (in this thread) claiming: "We roll 4d6 re-roll one's cause we're supposed to be heroes" "The DM should just let the guy with 14, 11, 10, 10 ,10 ,8 re-roll" is that the bigest proponents of rolling are whiny little babies who cry if they don't have some of the best attributes at the table. I can avoid that weepy nonsense by instituting PB. Now, if you have been insulted it's because you see a shred of truth.
nastynate 06-28-07, 09:24 AM	MY personal experience, backed by the posts (in this thread) claiming: "We roll 4d6 re-roll one's cause we're supposed to be heroes" "The DM should just let the guy with 14, 11, 10, 10 ,10 ,8 re-roll" is that the bigest proponents of rolling are whiny little babies who cry if they don't have some of the best attributes at the table. I can avoid that weepy nonsense by instituting PB. Now, if you have been insulted it's because you see a shred of truth. C'mon man. I've been trying to keep things civil. I addressed this (since it was an attack made against me) without stooping to the same level. I don't need this kind of "support," to make a case for PB. Thank you for jumping to my defense, but I'll be just fine.
StevenO 06-28-07, 10:32 AM	"My scores aren't as good as his!" needs to be narrowly defined. If John rolls 16, 16, 14, 14, 13, 12 while Bob rolls 18, 17, 14, 13, 13, 12, John should not be rerolling. They are equivalent enough, and John has a decent array. If John asks for a reroll, then yes, he's "whining". Suck it up, John. Meanwhile, Fred rolls 15, 12, 12, 11, 9, 9. Fred shouldn't even have to ask. The DM sees the discrepancy and has Fred reroll. Instead of rerolling he might even say "Fred, take 6 points and distribute one for one, max 18 of course." Looking over at what John got, he might add "It's ok to give yourself an 18 or 17 but keep at least one 9 if you do. John has no such score like you'll have, but he'll have no penalty. If you decide as a group/DM to roll for stats then Fred should still be out of luck inspite of having Stats well below Bob and John. Allowing players to roll for stats and then basing what stats actually get played off of the highest roll moves the average higher. I'm sure there are players who would take the first legal set of standard rolled stats and always play it. Unfortunately I imagine that more people either roll several sets and then play the best one or use other methods so that they NEVER end up playing a below average character unless desired.
nastynate 06-28-07, 10:50 AM	If you decide as a group/DM to roll for stats then Fred should still be out of luck inspite of having Stats well below Bob and John. Allowing players to roll for stats and then basing what stats actually get played off of the highest roll moves the average higher. I'm sure there are players who would take the first legal set of standard rolled stats and always play it. Unfortunately I imagine that more people either roll several sets and then play the best one or use other methods so that they NEVER end up playing a below average character unless desired. Bingo. I'm all for the play what you roll method, but as soon as you start adjusting stats and rerolling you might as well use the PB system to attain the results you are looking for without all the extra work. Simply set the number to match the power level you actually want for your campaign, and the players assign their points accordingly to build the characters they want. 15 PB = low powered 22 PB = challenging 25 PB = standard 28 PB = tough 32 PB = high powered If you have to go higher (and after seeing some of the expectations and rolling systems used to determine ability scores I suspect many people will) you can. Just keep in mind that D&D is not designed to handle stats of a higher caliber than 32 PB, so you will likely have to seriously modify the enemy CRs (and experience awards) accordingly to handle more powerful characters. Even with 25 PB my players tend to make characters that easily contend with enemies of appropriate CR, so I usually calculate experience and plan encounters as though the party ECL were 1-3 levels higher than it actually is.
LCD2YOU 06-28-07, 10:58 AM	There is rolling well and rolling till you get what you want. A person who rolls six 14s (36 PB) in my world will not get another roll. A person who rolls three 18s and three 3s (48 PB) will however. The problem with PB is that the characters are tailor made. They are perfect, with what one has to work with, for what one wants to build. Personally, I prefer my character to be not so perfect.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 06-28-07, 12:06 PM	The problem with PB is that the characters are tailor made. They are perfect, with what one has to work with, for what one wants to build. Personally, I prefer my character to be not so perfect. Then spread your points that way. How hard is that?
Erato 06-28-07, 12:31 PM	I've already made my comment in another thread, so I'll just post it here: 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 belive 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:
Einvaldurinn_mikli 06-28-07, 12:43 PM	I found the Holy Grail of Roleplaying! And you can't have it.
Ack 06-28-07, 01:12 PM	Interestingly enough, PB has its own aspects you need to keep track of. For instance, stat bonuses arrive at even-number stats, so players will tend to take even-number stats across the board. However, if a desired feat has a prerequisite stat of 13 or 15 (just for instance) then we may have to bump the stat. In addition, if the game is starting at a point where stat increases are either incorporated into the character or just about to happen next level, we might decide to leave a stat in an odd-number bracket anyway. It's not just "Oh cool, I have my perfect stat array, roll on the game." There's work involved. And let me point out one last thing. Even 32 point buy doesn't get you 'perfect' stats. Good stats, yes. But all stats can be improved. Trust me on this. :D Just a little example: my character Arak Stronginthearm. He's a dwarf, of a fighter-type persuasion. He started at 2nd level, and is now 8th level and looking hungrily at 9th. His original stat array (32 point buy) was 18-12-14-10-10-10. Applying this to the dwarven racial mods gave me 18-12-16-10-10-8. Over the course of the game, I have run him through all three levels of Dwarven Paragon, and bumped his stats twice. His STR got the stat bumps, and Dwarven Paragon 3 provides a +2 to CON. So now his stat array reads 20-12-18-10-10-8. And you know something? I'm more satisfied with that than if I'd managed to roll those stats from the beginning. He's earned those levels of STR and CON. When he hits level 12, I think I'll bump his CHA - time to put those ranks in Intimidate to work... :D Or maybe I'll just work on proving that Stronginthearm isn't just a name :P
Mock26 06-28-07, 01:16 PM	Yes there is. When the fighter has nore INT that the wizard... and more WIS than the cleric... and more DEX than the rogue not to mention STR and CON, which are supposed to be the highest in the array, things are ought to be broken. How about the array 18, 18, 18, 18, 17, 16? Is it the same as 17, 15, 14, 13, 10, 9? It's fair because everyone is rolling the dice to determine their stats. It's not that fault of the system (ie rolling for stats) because some players are too immature to accept what the dice have determined.
Ack 06-28-07, 01:24 PM	It's fair because everyone is rolling the dice to determine their stats. It's not that fault of the system (ie rolling for stats) because some players are too immature to accept what the dice have determined. Fair or not, the guy with straight 18s is going to do a lot better in the game than the other guy. In fact, without GM intervention or the player himself deliberately taking action to nerf his own awesomeness, he will rapidly dominate the game - or his fellow PCs will die as they try to survive threats that he breezes through. Note that I said "without GM intervention or the player himself deliberately taking action". Someone has to deliberately decide, either at stat generation, or all the way through the game, to fiddle things so that the less gifted players can have fun - hell, so that they can survive - if one player rolls far better than another. Fair? Depends on your definition. Equitable? Not a chance. Fun? Only for the guy with straight 18s.
wonlee76 06-28-07, 01:48 PM	It's fair because everyone is rolling the dice to determine their stats. It's not that fault of the system (ie rolling for stats) because some players are too immature to accept what the dice have determined. I hate it when its implied that a person who rolls low is immature because they got unlucky. That could be an issue but its not the only issue. Its immature for a player to complain that another player's rolls ended up with a net modifier of +2 higher than his rolls. Its not necessarily immature that same player complains about another player's rols that ends ups with a net modifier of +10 higher than his rolls. When you got everyone rolling for stats, there is going to be 1 or 2 players who are the "lowest" of the bunch. Who likes playing the sidekick that has zero or minimal opportunities to be the "hero" or "useful" to the group just because the luck gods decided to screw you over since "birth". The focus almost always veers towards the players who were lucky enough to roll really good stats. What's more fun to play? A PC that rolled 18, 17, 16, 15, 12, 10 (Net modifier of +13) or the PC that rolled 15, 14, 13, 11, 10, 8 (Net modifier of +4) in a group where the average Net modifier for stats is +8 in a group of 4 players? Sure, I can engineer a PC that could use a stat array of 15, 14, 13, 11, 10, 8 in a reasonable fashion (Maybe a SAD caster like Druid, cleric or wizard) that could try to keep pace with the players with better "genes" than me. But I'm starting at a handicap that requires the investment of feats, magical items, etc. to "catch up" to the rest of the group (who will also have magical items, feats, etc. to continue staying ahead of me). I am not against dice rolling for stats in general. I'm against the potential resulting disparity that may arise from rolling for stats. If a group rolls stats resulting only in a minor disparity between each other, great result and game on. If a group rols stats resulting in a huge disparity, someone's fun is going to be compromised. Either the low roller is going to be doing everything in his power to avoid dying or the high roller is going to be bored with "easy" encounters because the DM doesn't want to alienate the little guy. PB fixes the issue of disparity but others pointed out different flaws associated with PB (cookie cutter stats, not favorable to MAD PCs, etc.). My preference is I rather deal with the flaws of PB than the potential flaws of dice rolling. I've seen a handful of dice rolling for stats methods that I like but those methods usually have some way of "equalizing" the group so that there is no huge disparity between them. But once you start "fixing" the flaws of dice rolling for stats, may as well just set up a point buy based off of what the high rollers' stats are.
Ack 06-28-07, 02:09 PM	PB fixes the issue of disparity but others pointed out different flaws associated with PB (cookie cutter stats, not favorable to MAD PCs, etc.). Can we get this straight? Please? NO stat generation system is favourable to MAD PCs. None. All stat generation systems incline toward a mean, whether it be the average roll for the dice, or the point-buy number. This means that SAD builds will always be favoured by the dice; if you get an array that makes for a good MAD build, it will make a better SAD build. By definition. What part of that is hard to understand? The other aspect mentioned, cookie cutter stats, is harder to answer, because it's vague (and may have a foundation in reality). Do I build characters with cookie-cutter stats? No, but I've seen it done. (And just as a point of note, it's perfectly possible to port a set of stats from one character to another with the same PB number - you don't have to try to roll the same stats over again). I have seen someone on the online boards use the same set of stats for three different character concepts on three different games. However. There is no 'ideal' set of 32-point-buy stats. It all depends on what class you want to play, your personal preferences for that class (does a fighter get bulked on STR for damage or CON for HP? Or do you bulk both and nerf yourself elsewhere? Do you push your DEX for ranged and AC, or are you just gonna pile on the armour and use the points elsewhere?). Using point buy, you can draw stats down to 8 (6, for races with penalties) and push them up to 18 or even 20. You have a wide range - but you always have to remember that those points are coming off something else. I will personally adjust stats three or four times (or even more) even after the concept is pretty well set in stone, just to make sure I've got what I want. If 'ideal' cookie-cutter stats were so easy or common, then I would just have a single stat-block that I'd apply to every character. And you know - I don't.
nastynate 06-28-07, 02:13 PM	Wonlee76, Excellent post. :clap: I agree with you an all counts except this one (and it's minor, but it is a point I've been trying to drive home throughout this whole thread). PB fixes the issue of disparity but others pointed out different flaws associated with PB (cookie cutter stats, not favorable to MAD PCs, etc.). PB can result in cookie cutter stats, but only if the players find certain ability score arrays that they like, and don't deviate from them. In such a case, it isn't really a flaw since the players willingly chose these arrays; they wanted them. The one flaw I can see in regard to PB in this aspect is that barring racial modifiers it isn't possible to have stats lower than 8, which can at times be quite fun. As far as PB not being favorable to MAD classes, I have already explained that multiple mid level stats cost much less in PB than a single high stat. PB actually does take MAD classes into account. Unfortunately since MAD classes are flat out inferior to SAD classes, there isn't much any ability score generation method can do fix the problem. When your muffler needs replacing, changing your windshield wiper blades doesn't help much either. ;) -Peace-
Man in the Funny Hat 06-28-07, 02:44 PM	Neither rolling for ability scores nor using something like point-buy is inherently better. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. Neither is superior, neither is inherently inferior. They are, however, notably DIFFERENT in how and why they are used. Even playing fields and all that is admirable to a degree, but it is far from the be-all/end-all of gaming. Take two ABSOLUTELY identical characters at the start of the game and they will immediately and rapidly become VERY different due to how they are played, what equipment they have, and so forth. Though you might not think it, getting EXACTLY what you want isn't always terribly conducive to creativity. I assert that you are MORE likely to get creative characters and gameplay if everything is NOT equal. That said, when using RANDOM methods for ability generation you must accept that there WILL be variances, and that sometimes those variances might be extreme. Sometimes they will be extreme enough that you need to limit them or alter them after the fact. They are, after all, RANDOM. Why do you think we have the concept of a "dump stat"? It demonstrates that there is a natural, understandable tendency to sacrifice creativity for statistical superiority. Random generation (and in particular, partially random placement) fights that tendency. It's not wrong to want great stats, even better stats than anyone else - but it ISN'T true that if anyone DOES have better stats than you that YOUR fun is inherently diminished as a result. No matter what method you use to create your characters, your character and your enjoyment of that character is what YOU make of it.
Maekrix_Waere 06-28-07, 03:01 PM	That is a class thing, not a stat generation thing. If Player A and Player B rolled exactly the same set of stats (rolled, mind you) and Player A decided to play a fighter and Player B decided to play a monk, and thus found himself disadvantaged ... ... how would you fix that? You wouldn't? Funny, when it happens in point buy, you seem to think that it's a flaw in the PB system. Classes are unequal. Deal with it. Don't blame point buy. Well, duh. Everyone knows classes are unequal. I don't blame PB for that. I blame PB for: A-Ensuring that MAD classes will be less effective...in at least some aspects. Unless, of course, we use your idea to give them a bonus to one their necessary attributes. (I vote +6 bonus, BTW) But then, of course, we are deviating from actual PB. Or we could give some crazy PB amount...like 70...but thats just way to high. B-If you asked 5 different people to use a 32 PB to make melee Fighters, I would be willing to wager that they would look almost EXACTLY the same stat-wise, (Before racial bonuses/penalties) with maybe a 6 point differance...tops. The only exception I can think of are Weapon Finesse Fighters, which are not nearly as effective (nor as often played) as Two-Handed Strength Fighters...unless they PrC out. Also, about the two players rolling the same set of stats...The answer to that really depends on what they rolled. If they rolled 18,17,10,10,9,6, then, yeah, the Monk is getting the shorter end of the stick. If they rolled 18,18,16,14,12,10, then they rolled pretty much equal. The fighter can put good stats into all of his Neccessary Attributes, and the Monk can put good stats into all of his Neccessary Attributes.
Myers 06-28-07, 03:10 PM	At this point I think anything I'm adding has probably already been beaten to death, I have to agree that both systems are flawed. Personally I think someone needs to calculate out unique point buy numbers for each class. Not positive what of each but each way it's flawed. Statements I keep hearing people say and I hate each time I hear. Without rolling there is no randomness in the character, some people should be a bit stronger then others. Same person: Well the DM should pick low rollers and have them reroll until they are comparable to the high rollers. I say if your going to roll and consider it random, then you have to accept the randomness, if you have them reroll then your completely defeating the purpose. On that note, I give my players a choice, I tell them they can do point buy, or they can roll 4d6 drop the lowest, reroll 1s, but only one 1 can be rerolled per set. option 2, 32 point buyout. I make it very clear that if they chose to roll, the second the first dice hits the table, point buy is not an option, if you want to gamble you have to accept the risks, so far I haven't had a single player chose to roll
OravennasBrother 06-28-07, 03:16 PM	The problem with PB is that the characters are tailor made. This relates directly to the facetious claim that rolling attributes is more "realistic." Rolling attributes would only be realistic if you rolled 3d6 in order and had NO re-rolls and when the character died you were banned from the campaign. Anybody who tries the "Realism Card" when I DM will get just that option. My experience has involved three types of players 1) The players who prefer Point Buy, but will play in a campaign where rolling is used. 2) The players who prefer Rolling but will play in a campaign where Point Buy is used. Those players generally admit they prefer Rolling because the DM's who have players roll are generally generous enough to GUARANTEE they get better attributes than 32 PB. 3) The players who refuse to use Point Buy. EVERY one of them that I have met have superior attributes on ALL their characters that I( have ever seen. I even had one crybaby walk off because I refused (having agreed to Rolling) to allow him to re-roll when his rolls equaled a 26 PB. The may be a 4th type of player - those who will only play Point Buy, but I have not met them.
Ack 06-28-07, 03:34 PM	Oh, and on a sort of tangent (but still germane to the topic): What's with the ongoing attitude that "only the best is good enough"? "My character has to have an 18+ in his primary stat/s or he's NOT GOOD ENOUGH!" WTF? I have happily played characters with NO 18s ... a 16 or even a 14 in a primary stat slot works just fine thanks. When it comes down to 1 or 2 points difference from the "optimum" 18 stat with +4 bonus ... in the long run, it isn't going to matter. Really. Two points does not make or break a character. Sure, I like to have the high numbers. Who doesn't? But it's not a matter of life and death. Oh, and here's my idea for an alternate rolling method that should put paid to rerolls once and for all. 2d6+6. Minimum 8, maximum 18, average 13. Random, yet satisfying (to paraphrase Pumbaa). (But I'll still stick with point buy thanks. IMO, the benefits vastly outweigh any potential flaws. If they are flaws. Though I will roll if the GM needs me to. Funny though - all the GMs I know prefer point buy.)
philipk 06-28-07, 03:44 PM	Doesn't +2 -2=0? So that would be less than a +1 right? lol, that's why I have the compy do the calculating for me :eek: of course, 14 8 10 10 10 10 isn't much better.
Crash01234567890 06-28-07, 04:08 PM	I still don't understand where the point buy arguement comes through as "fair" at all. Point buy's point is to put everyone equal at the beginning and fails to do this due to the classes. Now, yes this is a problem with the classes, but a character generation system has to take problems with the system into account. Seeing as how the character is the main part of the system. Now, yes higher stats always make for better SAD classes than they would for a MAD class, but players don't always want to powergame to the nth degree, some of them actually prefer to make characters and roleplay. A person that rolls a high set while everyone else rolls decent sets could always make the super powerful SAD character, and that would be fine. If he's being a jerk about it, then he's just as immature as those who whine about his stats being better (both of which would be a ticket out of my games, I dealt with that enough in high school when I only had handful of people to game with), or he could always opt for a MAD class which, with his higher set, will most likely be around the same effectiveness. Point Buy doesn't allow for this chance. Now, yes both systems arn't kind to MAD classes, but Rolling does allow for a MAD class to be played on equal footing with a SAD class. Now I still stand by my point that point buy is not fair to a player. It narrows the classes that can effectively be played right off the bat. Yes, Rolling has a chance of narrowing those classes for any given player, but it doesn't right off the bat. It lets fate choose their character rather than a set of pregenerated numbers. But I still ask why is point buy fairer? Gets rid of varied abilities. Do the classes have huge gaps statwise and power wise? Yes. Does rolling have vaired abilities? Yes Do the classes have huge gaps statwise and power wise? Yes. End result is the same either way. Rolling just allows for more options. Those of you who do not wish to be convinced have already made up your minds to be so and I'm not going to waste anymore time on this, but all this is the truth. Rolling allows for more than PB. Yes it allows for sidekick powered characters as well as higher powered characters, and those open more options to the player ability and class wise. I fail to see how this is bad. Do other games have this? Yes. As I've said before many other games actually have it as a design feature (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Deadlands, Variants of 7th Sea (R&K style)). So why is it so bad? If the person cannot have fun because his character is not as powerful as another, then it is not the game or systems fault, it's his own. If a professional card player were whining on TV about being beaten in a game of Texas Holdem would he appear immature? If two gambling buddies went to Tunica and spent a weekend on the slots and one complained that he didn't win as much as his buddy would it be immature? Then how is complaining about having lower stats not immature?
OravennasBrother 06-28-07, 04:13 PM	lol, that's why I have the compy do the calculating for me :eek: of course, 14 8 10 10 10 10 isn't much better. That however IS the point of rolling. You (generic) might get minimally acceptable scores and HAVE TO KEEP THEM. Otherwise one is NOT in favor of rolling, one is in favor of having high attributes. Now don't get me wrong I would enjoy being able to wave a magic wand IRL and be a couple inches taller or a few years younger or win the lottery and have a multi-million dollar prize in the bank. But the POINT of rolling is players have to KEEP what they roll. If you want a bit more control over the character direction, then use Point Buy. As either Player OR DM; if the DM wants the players to roll he has to accept the chance that the player who wants a monk might get 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 and the player who wants the Druid might get 18, 16, 16, 14, 14, 14. And if the DM uses the RULES put forth in the game, then the rolls STAND. If the DM would prefer to avoid that particular possibility, then he should go with PB.
Mock26 06-28-07, 04:27 PM	I hate it when its implied that a person who rolls low is immature because they got unlucky. I am not implying that at all. Please go back through and read some of my other posts. I have said a couple of times that it is immature to cry "unfair" because someone has better stats. I have also said that it is a completely different story to cry "unfair" because those stats seriously unbalance the game. The method of rolling is not unfair, though it may turn up what might turn into an unbalanced situation within the party. And, what is balanced and unbalanced is all a matter of personal opinion and/or adaptability. I'm not saying if someone with all 18's gaming alongside someone with all 12's is unbalanced. I wouldn't presume to pass such a judgement unless I was in that game, either as a DM, another player, or one of the two in question. And, even if I witnesses it as being unfair one time I wouldn't pass judgement a second time unless I was once more witness to the game. So, whether or not it is unfair is a matter of opinion, but if it is it means that the result (wildly different stats) is unfair, not the method (rolling the dice). When you got everyone rolling for stats, there is going to be 1 or 2 players who are the "lowest" of the bunch. Who likes playing the sidekick that has zero or minimal opportunities to be the "hero" or "useful" to the group just because the luck gods decided to screw you over since "birth". The focus almost always veers towards the players who were lucky enough to roll really good stats. You don't need incredible stats to be a hero or useful. Yes, great stats make it easier, but poor stats do not prevent you from becoming the hero or from being useful. Yes, poor stats may make it harder, but it doesn't make it impossible.
Ack 06-28-07, 04:57 PM	I still don't understand where the point buy arguement comes through as "fair" at all. Point buy's point is to put everyone equal at the beginning and fails to do this due to the classes. And rolling doesn't even do the former, and certainly fails due to the latter. Now, yes this is a problem with the classes, but a character generation system has to take problems with the system into account. Seeing as how the character is the main part of the system. Yes - both rolling and point buy face this problem. Now, yes higher stats always make for better SAD classes than they would for a MAD class, but players don't always want to powergame to the nth degree, some of them actually prefer to make characters and roleplay. I am still failing to see how this is negatively impacted by point buy... A person that rolls a high set while everyone else rolls decent sets could always make the super powerful SAD character, and that would be fine. If he's being a jerk about it, then he's just as immature as those who whine about his stats being better (both of which would be a ticket out of my games, I dealt with that enough in high school when I only had handful of people to game with), or he could always opt for a MAD class which, with his higher set, will most likely be around the same effectiveness. Or they could use point buy, and one person could play a MAD class and another could play a SAD class and they really would not be too far apart. And their stats would be equivalent, by definition. That aside, I fail to see a 'problem' with point buy yet. Point Buy doesn't allow for this chance. Now, yes both systems arn't kind to MAD classes, but Rolling does allow for a MAD class to be played on equal footing with a SAD class. Only if the person who wants to play a MAD character just happens to roll better stats than the person who wants to play the SAD character. In other words, you're saying that an inequality with the stat generation is what will equalise the characters. Two wrongs making a right, in other words. So what happens if they have equal rolls (which is what would happen with point buy) or the MAD player rolls worse than the SAD player? All told, this has a 2/3 chance of happening, the other 1/3 being the one you are inferring as what 'will' happen. Now I still stand by my point that point buy is not fair to a player. Despite being disproven on every point, repeatedly, by several different posters. It narrows the classes that can effectively be played right off the bat. :rofl: Oh man, I don't believe you just said that. You may believe that the 'narrow' range of numbers available from point buy limit your choices of class - but some of us don't need 18s in every primary stat, and 16s in all the secondaries. Any class can be played effectively from point buy. I'm sure there are many people who are willing to prove that - especially over on the CO boards. Next assertion? Yes, Rolling has a chance of narrowing those classes for any given player, but it doesn't right off the bat. It lets fate choose their character rather than a set of pregenerated numbers. :confused: You've lost me. Is 'fate' when the GM allows you to re-roll? But I still ask why is point buy fairer? Gets rid of varied abilities. Do the classes have huge gaps statwise and power wise? Yes. Does rolling have vaired abilities? Yes Do the classes have huge gaps statwise and power wise? Yes. End result is the same either way. Rolling just allows for more options. Yes, and roughly half of them (the ones where the numbers end up below average) are 'unplayable'. Options which are automatically rejected by the person doing the rolling aren't options. Those of you who do not wish to be convinced have already made up your minds to be so and I'm not going to waste anymore time on this, but all this is the truth. Rolling allows for more than PB. Yes it allows for sidekick powered characters as well as higher powered characters, and those open more options to the player ability and class wise. I fail to see how this is bad. Do other games have this? Yes. As I've said before many other games actually have it as a design feature (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Deadlands, Variants of 7th Sea (R&K style)). So why is it so bad? If the person cannot have fun because his character is not as powerful as another, then it is not the game or systems fault, it's his own. If a professional card player were whining on TV about being beaten in a game of Texas Holdem would he appear immature? If two gambling buddies went to Tunica and spent a weekend on the slots and one complained that he didn't win as much as his buddy would it be immature? Then how is complaining about having lower stats not immature? There's lower stats and then there's ... Look, I've been through this before. Let's posit two characters. Joe Bloggs has managed to roll straight 18s across the board. He is so damn good, they've named a city after him. Bill Blank, on the other hand, has five 10s and a 12. That's within the RAW as acceptable as a stat array. In what way, with the best will in the world, could Bill fulfil a meaningful place in the same team as Joe? Joe has so many skill points, he could do anything Bill can do, even considering cross-class skills. His stat bonuses are so good, he can literally out-Bill in anything Bill wants to do. And what if Bill really wants to be a hero? So he faces up to the challenges alongside his good friend and ally, Joe Bloggs. So what happens? Situation A: the GM, seeing how powerful Joe is, puts a foe up that can challenge him. It casually side-swipes Bill and reduces him to a greasy smear before Joe manages to beat it in melee combat. Bill is not having fun. Situation B: the GM, mindful of Bill's fragility next to Joe, puts forth a foe that he can face. Joe casually leans in and obliterates it and then goes back to cooking dinner. Bill is not having fun. Situation C: Joe, realising he is overshadowing Bill, resolves to only enter combat with one arm tied behind his back, wearing an eyepatch, and with one foot in a bucket. Bill, realising that he is being catered to, ceases to have fun in the game. I will reiterate something I posted earlier. Fair or not, the guy with straight 18s is going to do a lot better in the game than the other guy. In fact, without GM intervention or the player himself deliberately taking action to nerf his own awesomeness, he will rapidly dominate the game - or his fellow PCs will die as they try to survive threats that he breezes through. Note that I said "without GM intervention or the player himself deliberately taking action". Someone has to deliberately decide, either at stat generation, or all the way through the game, to fiddle things so that the less gifted players can have fun - hell, so that they can survive - if one player rolls far better than another. Even if Bill is the most mature person in the world, and never ever complains, it won't take a genius to realise that he isn't having fun. Really. And 'not having fun' is always a good reason to examine your reasons for playing in any particular game. Stat imbalances are not the fault of point buy. It minimises them. Rolling exacerbates them. And yes, stat imbalances are a major cause of player unhappiness.
Mock26 06-28-07, 05:23 PM	Stat imbalances are not the fault of point buy. It minimises them. Rolling exacerbates them. And yes, stat imbalances are a major cause of player unhappiness. I would change that to read: Stat imbalances are not the fault of point buy. It can minimise them. Rolling can exacerbate them. And yes, stat imbalances can be a major cause of player unhappiness.
Lord_of_Omnipotence 06-28-07, 05:27 PM	I still don't understand where the point buy arguement comes through as "fair" at all. Point buy's point is to put everyone equal at the beginning and fails to do this due to the classes. Now, yes this is a problem with the classes, but a character generation system has to take problems with the system into account. Seeing as how the character is the main part of the system. Now, yes higher stats always make for better SAD classes than they would for a MAD class, but players don't always want to powergame to the nth degree, some of them actually prefer to make characters and roleplay. A person that rolls a high set while everyone else rolls decent sets could always make the super powerful SAD character, and that would be fine. If he's being a jerk about it, then he's just as immature as those who whine about his stats being better (both of which would be a ticket out of my games, I dealt with that enough in high school when I only had handful of people to game with), or he could always opt for a MAD class which, with his higher set, will most likely be around the same effectiveness. Point Buy doesn't allow for this chance. Now, yes both systems arn't kind to MAD classes, but Rolling does allow for a MAD class to be played on equal footing with a SAD class. Now I still stand by my point that point buy is not fair to a player. It narrows the classes that can effectively be played right off the bat. Yes, Rolling has a chance of narrowing those classes for any given player, but it doesn't right off the bat. It lets fate choose their character rather than a set of pregenerated numbers. But I still ask why is point buy fairer? Gets rid of varied abilities. Do the classes have huge gaps statwise and power wise? Yes. Does rolling have vaired abilities? Yes Do the classes have huge gaps statwise and power wise? Yes. End result is the same either way. Rolling just allows for more options. Okay, yes, if someone gets insanely lucky and gets 18 18 17 16 15 14, they can play a MAD class just fine. If someone gets 14, 12, 10, 10, 8, 6 and they play, say, a druid, then yes, the MAD class might be on equal footing with them. So yes, rolling does allow the possibility for the MAD class to be equal to the SAD class. Now then, imagine the reverse. The Druid gets the insane stat array, while the monk gets the low one. In this case, rolling has compounded the problem. The MAD class will lag even further behind the SAD one.
Erato 06-28-07, 06:06 PM	I still don't understand where the point buy arguement comes through as "fair" at all. Point buy's point is to put everyone equal at the beginning and fails to do this due to the classes. And that still gives everybody and equal choice as to whether or not they can make a powerfull character. They can all choose to arrange their stats in an optimized fashion, or they can choose not to, because it fits the role better. They can all choose to play powerful class, or they can choose not to, since, believe it or not, some people don't play only to be powerful. But it gives everybody the same choice, which is the definition of fairness Now, yes this is a problem with the classes, but a character generation system has to take problems with the system into account. Seeing as how the character is the main part of the system. Unlike rolling pb at least attempts to equal it out, by making 8, 18 cost more than 14, 14. Now, yes higher stats always make for better SAD classes than they would for a MAD class, but players don't always want to powergame to the nth degree, some of them actually prefer to make characters and roleplay. And this got to do with pb how :confused: If you like to roleplay, you shouldn't have anything against playing a MAD class with pb, anymore than you should against playing a character with crappy stats. And rolling doesn't make this any better. It basically says: "SAD classes are better than MAD classes with the same stats, but if the player with the powerful stats choose to play a MAD character, they can be made artifically semi-equal, but only if the players choose. And if the players choose something else, the difference in power between MAD and SAD will be even greater". In pb, players can also choose to avoid optimizing their SAD classes, and optimize their MAD classes. A person that rolls a high set while everyone else rolls decent sets could always make the super powerful SAD character, and that would be fine. If he's being a jerk about it, then he's just as immature as those who whine about his stats being better (both of which would be a ticket out of my games, I dealt with that enough in high school when I only had handful of people to game with), or he could always opt for a MAD class which, with his higher set, will most likely be around the same effectiveness. So this gives one player a chance to totally dominate the game mechanically, but if he chooses to, he can avoid it, and both are fine :confused: Point Buy doesn't allow for this chance. Now, yes both systems arn't kind to MAD classes, but Rolling does allow for a MAD class to be played on equal footing with a SAD class. It also runs the risk of making the differences even higher, because now we can have a powerfull class with high ability scores, and a weak one with crappy ones. Now I still stand by my point that point buy is not fair to a player. It narrows the classes that can effectively be played right off the bat. Yes, Rolling has a chance of narrowing those classes for any given player, but it doesn't right off the bat. It lets fate choose their character rather than a set of pregenerated numbers. So it has the chance of giving people more options, but most likely it will end up giving them fewer options? That's not more options, that's more randomness. Once the dice are rolled, players can no longer decide whether or not they want to play an overall competent character, whith few or no weaknesses, or if they want to play a character with some glaring weaknesses, but an almost savant-like talent for other things. But I still ask why is point buy fairer? Gets rid of varied abilities. Do the classes have huge gaps statwise and power wise? Yes. Does rolling have vaired abilities? Yes Do the classes have huge gaps statwise and power wise? Yes. End result is the same either way. Rolling just allows for more options. But players can choose to avoid those gaps by playing the more balanced classes, or optimize more when they play the weaker classes than when they play trong classes, if they want more fairness (which many people do), but they can't choose to avoid the power-gabs of rolling. And how does rolling to see which choice you get, give you more options? Those of you who do not wish to be convinced have already made up your minds to be so and I'm not going to waste anymore time on this, but all this is the truth. And you do not want to be convinced either ;) But unlike most people in this thread, who have managed to act civil, you appear to have resorted to: "I don't want to discuss more, so I'll post more arguments, and then leave before people can answer, because my way is the TRUTH :pbbbtt: " But don't worry, most people here know what it's like to be 15, so they wont be offended :) Rolling allows for more than PB. Yes it allows for sidekick powered characters as well as higher powered characters, and those open more options to the player ability and class wise. I fail to see how this is bad. What do you mean by 'allows'? Does it mean 'gives players the chance' or 'gives players the option'? Because having a fixed set of stats that you can't change, doesn't give you more options, no matter how they're decided. Do other games have this? Yes. As I've said before many other games actually have it as a design feature (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Deadlands, Variants of 7th Sea (R&K style)). So why is it so bad? If the person cannot have fun because his character is not as powerful as another, then it is not the game or systems fault, it's his own. And many other games don't have this. And if it doesn't matter to you how powerful your character is, then why are you complaining that MAD classes are underpowered? It shouldn't deduct from your fun, right? If a professional card player were whining on TV about being beaten in a game of Texas Holdem would he appear immature? If two gambling buddies went to Tunica and spent a weekend on the slots and one complained that he didn't win as much as his buddy would it be immature? Then how is complaining about having lower stats not immature? First of all, if they rolled a dice in the begining, to see who got the most/best cards, most of the players would be whinning, or more likely not show up. Most people will only accept a certain amount of blind luck in a game (unless they're gamblers who're in it for the thrill), which is why some people prefer chess to poker. And second: This is not a competition, it is a group-game! If you're comparing getting worse stats than your buddy to 'losing', you obviously don't play the same game as most of us. There's nothing wrong with playing either weak or strong character (whether this is because of class, stats, race, degree of optimization). But some of us like to do it because it makes the game more fun not because some dice decided it for us. You think letting the dice decide that part of your character for you is fun, and there's nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong with claiming that people who have other notions are immature and don't understand the truth. It marks you as petty and mean, and whenever someone from this thread (even people who agrees with you) reads your posts in the future, they will take them less seriously and think of you as: "That whiny guy who resorts to name-calling when he's opposed"
archerpwr 06-28-07, 06:23 PM	Wow. This is a really long thread. I'd like to jump in at this point and suggest that people agree to disagree as 9 pages is usually enough to convince someone of something. My .02
nastynate 06-28-07, 06:33 PM	Okay, yes, if someone gets insanely lucky and gets 18 18 17 16 15 14, they can play a MAD class just fine. If someone gets 14, 12, 10, 10, 8, 6 and they play, say, a druid, then yes, the MAD class might be on equal footing with them. So yes, rolling does allow the possibility for the MAD class to be equal to the SAD class. Now then, imagine the reverse. The Druid gets the insane stat array, while the monk gets the low one. In this case, rolling has compounded the problem. The MAD class will lag even further behind the SAD one. I'm glad some people (like yourself) understand basic probability. The part of your post that I put in bold text is key. That is precisely why rolling offers no advantage over PB for MAD classes; they have an equal chance of getting screwed by rolls as they have to be blessed with good luck; PB simply takes the middle ground without either extreme (terrible rolls or fantastic ones). I like playing wizards, Johnny likes playing monks...what happens when I roll better stats than Johnny? The odds of this are just as likely as the odds that Johnny will roll better stats than me. Where's the mythical advantage for Johnny? Even if Johnny rolls better than I do, in time I will catch up and surpass him in power anyway, since I need fewer magical items (no amulet of mighty fists, multiple stat boosters, monk's belt, ranged weapons, and so forth), and I can concentrate all my level-derived ability score bonuses in Intelligence, while Johnny has to apply his to many (or allow others to lag behind). Maybe if Johnny rolls no stat lower than 16, and I roll 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 he might be able to keep pace until I have third level spells...who am I kidding? Sleep, color spray, power word pain, and numerous other 1st level spells all trump anything he can contribute to the success of the party at 1st level. Better stats won't compensate for the monk class's weaknesses. End of story. Wow. This is a really long thread. I'd like to jump in at this point and suggest that people agree to disagree as 9 pages is usually enough to convince someone of something. My .02 I know you're right, but I'm pretty stubborn sometimes
Erato 06-28-07, 06:53 PM	I know you're right, but I'm pretty stubborn sometimes Aren't we all :D ?
J_Vhad 06-28-07, 08:14 PM	Whoa...that's a lot of posts to wade through. There are some issues here which are being ignored though. The rollers do have some points. 1.) A chance is better than no chance for equality, at least that is how most players will see it. The chance at the person getting high stats and wanting to play a MAD class arn't 100%, and depending on the group possibly not even 10%, but even a 1% chance is better than a 0% chance. If you look at the posts and read them, the general consensus seems to be that PB is unfair to the player, not the character. Meaning yes all characters are supposedly equal, but the players arn't. The people that like playing SAD classes continually get the upper hand. Always. Playing with a high point buy helps alleviate this to a degree but it's still there unless the PB is at a rediculous level. 2.) Rollers tend to decide classes after the rolls. The way all the PBers are making it sound is the guy decides to make a Monk or Druid and then rolls. While this happens occasionally, in my experience usually it's the other way around, and usually the group gets together before making a character. Seeing as how its a team based game they tend to look at each others stats and make characters based on who can do what the best with their rolls. While point buy puts everyone on an even basis which some might say helps this, it does tend to make everyone out for their own hide, which is bad for a team game. Now the point buyers have one point I've been able to sift out 1.) Everyone starts on equal footing so it must be fair. My take on it is as follows. Even several of the point buy supporters have agreed that point buy leaves a few classes high and dry. They claim this is because of the system and not the generation. (A). I agree with Crash's point that a good generation system must take the game system into account. (B). That said, some classes do suck and arn't going to be useful after a few levels, but should they at least be equal for a few levels? I believe so. A monk should be able to game and be effective in a campaign running from 1-5 no problem. He can't do this with PB, but he might be able to with rolling. Now, the rollers have suggested that whining about low stats is immature, and a party should be able to handle having different stats. (A). I agree with this to a degree. If you're playing a character that has stats so low he doesn't qualify for any feats then it isn't immature. However, if your DM is forcing you to play that character (that means you have no 13s) then either he's playing a very low powered game or being very immature/power hungry himself. The STANDARD rules allow a reroll in those cases and it should be allowed. That's not being given slack from the DM as many try to claim, nor is it rolling until you get 18s in your primary/s. It is rolling until you get a playable set of stats by the PHB standard. If, however, the character is completely playable, then it's highly immature. It's like one person on the basketball team complaining because the coach let another person play longer. As far as I can tell, this was not an insult hurled at anyone, merely a fact stated. Now, Crash went about the wrong way and used a you once, but if YOU don't whind then YOU weren't being referred to obviously. And if YOU were then grow up or go play WOW. (B.) This is my problem so far. The arguement I've seen is Rolling is unfair because players should start out on equal footing, they shouldn't have to be mature enough to handle it. PB puts everyone on equal footing starting out and they should be mature enough to handle the differences if they play a MAD class that sucks by PBs standards. How is that not contradicting? As a side note, I would like to add that the last few posts were quite possibly the most enlightening in this whole thread. Accusing someone of acting like a fifteen year old for admitting that he can't convince those unwilling to be convinced, then admitting you were too stubborn to do the same is hardly something that makes a person look reasonable or mature. Those are my .02 with nine pages of interest, do with them what you want.
Lord_of_Omnipotence 06-28-07, 08:42 PM	Whoa...that's a lot of posts to wade through. There are some issues here which are being ignored though. The rollers do have some points. 1.) A chance is better than no chance for equality, at least that is how most players will see it. The chance at the person getting high stats and wanting to play a MAD class arn't 100%, and depending on the group possibly not even 10%, but even a 1% chance is better than a 0% chance. If you look at the posts and read them, the general consensus seems to be that PB is unfair to the player, not the character. Meaning yes all characters are supposedly equal, but the players arn't. The people that like playing SAD classes continually get the upper hand. Always. Playing with a high point buy helps alleviate this to a degree but it's still there unless the PB is at a rediculous level. The problem with this argument is that getting high stats doesn't solve the problem at all, as a druid with high stats will wipe the floor with, say, a paladin with high stats. Again, the MAD character will be less viable than the SAD character after stats are rolled. Rolling in no way makes MAD classes more viable, they have an equal chance of being crippled. 2.) Rollers tend to decide classes after the rolls. The way all the PBers are making it sound is the guy decides to make a Monk or Druid and then rolls. While this happens occasionally, in my experience usually it's the other way around, and usually the group gets together before making a character. Seeing as how its a team based game they tend to look at each others stats and make characters based on who can do what the best with their rolls. While point buy puts everyone on an even basis which some might say helps this, it does tend to make everyone out for their own hide, which is bad for a team game. Umm.....how in the world does point buy make players "out for their own hide"????? Being equal with someone else makes me more selfish???? Also, while it's true that players choose classes after rolls, this fact basically restricts the classes they can play if they roll low. In this sense, rolling actually limits a player's choices and ability to customize. Now the point buyers have one point I've been able to sift out 1.) Everyone starts on equal footing so it must be fair. My take on it is as follows. Even several of the point buy supporters have agreed that point buy leaves a few classes high and dry. They claim this is because of the system and not the generation. (A). I agree with Crash's point that a good generation system must take the game system into account. (B). That said, some classes do suck and arn't going to be useful after a few levels, but should they at least be equal for a few levels? I believe so. A monk should be able to game and be effective in a campaign running from 1-5 no problem. He can't do this with PB, but he might be able to with rolling. He can do this with PB, it's been pointed out many times that 25 PB can make a playable monk. Sure, he won't be the star of the show, but neither will a wizard with low rolls during the first five levels. Rolling increases the chances of a player rolling low and thusly not being able to play a monk or paladin. You keep arguing that rolling opens options, when in fact it leaves you at the mercy of the dice as far as options go. And the generation system does take the game system into account, that's why higher ability scores cost more points. Now, the rollers have suggested that whining about low stats is immature, and a party should be able to handle having different stats. (A). I agree with this to a degree. If you're playing a character that has stats so low he doesn't qualify for any feats then it isn't immature. However, if your DM is forcing you to play that character (that means you have no 13s) then either he's playing a very low powered game or being very immature/power hungry himself. The STANDARD rules allow a reroll in those cases and it should be allowed. That's not being given slack from the DM as many try to claim, nor is it rolling until you get 18s in your primary/s. It is rolling until you get a playable set of stats by the PHB standard. If, however, the character is completely playable, then it's highly immature. It's like one person on the basketball team complaining because the coach let another person play longer. As far as I can tell, this was not an insult hurled at anyone, merely a fact stated. Now, Crash went about the wrong way and used a you once, but if YOU don't whind then YOU weren't being referred to obviously. And if YOU were then grow up or go play WOW. It's about giving all players equal opportunity. Just because players can tolerate a ridiculous and inane system doesn't mean the system shouldn't be replaced by a more streamline one. What if all player's whose names began with the letter J received a +3 bonus to a stat of their choice? Player's might not complain, but why on earth would you allow this rule to exist? (B.) This is my problem so far. The arguement I've seen is Rolling is unfair because players should start out on equal footing, they shouldn't have to be mature enough to handle it. PB puts everyone on equal footing starting out and they should be mature enough to handle the differences if they play a MAD class that sucks by PBs standards. How is that not contradicting? See, the thing you're missing is Point Buy gives people an equal opportunity to choose what they want to play. If a player is subpar, it's their fault for creating an unoptimized build. If a player does well, it's due to the fact that they chose to do it. They are given free will, and this is why PB is fair. Everyone has an equal opportunity. If they want to be a subpar MAD class, they can choose to be one. If they want to be a Druid and destroy everything in sight, they can choose to be one. But it was their choice, not the choice of the dice. All players are given equal opportunity, that is the spirit of point buy. It doesn't make everyone equal by any means, but it gives them equal opportunity, equal choice, equal potential.
Mock26 06-28-07, 09:12 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.
Vaelan 06-28-07, 09:12 PM	It's not that fault of the system (ie rolling for stats) because some players are too immature to accept what the dice have determined. I understand this argument, but I disagree. If player immaturity is a reasonable expectation, then it is perfectly rational to fault a system for failing to address it or making it worse
Mock26 06-28-07, 09:14 PM	I understand this argument, but I disagree. If player immaturity is a reasonable expectation, then it is perfectly rational to fault a system for failing to address it or making it worse I know I am deluding myself in a huge way, but I choose to NOT accept that player immaturity is a reasonable expectation.
Arminel 06-28-07, 09:35 PM	I've read over several of the posts, though I frankly don't know much about the game, I'll just add this. My best friend has now played in three campaigns. He starts running a campaign starting at level 1. He says he's going to have us roll 4d6 and drop the lowest. I tell him that it won't turn out well, because for games that I've played, it never does. Somebody generally feels left out because they got the low rolls. I literally talked to him for 10 minutes why I believed this. He has us roll 4d6 drop lowest. Other friend gets 17, 17, 15, 13, and the others 10 or better. Girlfriend gets 17, 17, 15, 12, 12, 11. Another friend gets 18, 15, 14, 12, 11, 10. I get 15, 15, 14, 13, 12, 9. Now here's the thing. Every campaign he has played in, we've always done point buy. Mr. 17-17-15 is playing a Cleric (Str, Wis, Con as primaries). My girlfriend is playing a Druid (17 Str, 17 Wis, 15 Con). My other friend is playing is playing a Wizard (18 Int, 15 Con, 14 Dex, add Grey Elf). I've been told that our group needs a warrior or rogue-type. I simply went Human Fighter using a Spiked Chain since I hadn't done it. Despite building it correctly (in my opinion), the Druid and Cleric did more damage and took less damage, and that's before spells. Since our starting gold was 2000, the Wizard had enough spells and partial-charged wands to be very effective. I quit the game. I was not contributing to the group instead or outside of combat. My Charisma was tanked so I could try and do combat. I have no complex skills. No spells. My friend (the Cleric) talked to me and started patronizing me about my "bad attitude" and that I should have more fun. In the last campaign he played, he had a supped up Monk-Samurai custom class that competed with the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid at level 13. Am I bitter? Yes. Do I realize that I'm being a bit stupid about it? Yes. But when you look at the fact that I'm going to fall more and more behind as we progress throughout the game, it starts to become clear that while I could've gotten 6 18s as easily as the next guy, I didn't. Life isn't fair, but point buy (in my opinion) at least evens the playing field and takes luck out of the equation for making a character.
Erato 06-28-07, 10:34 PM	1.) A chance is better than no chance for equality, at least that is how most players will see it. The chance at the person getting high stats and wanting to play a MAD class arn't 100%, and depending on the group possibly not even 10%, but even a 1% chance is better than a 0% chance. If you look at the posts and read them, the general consensus seems to be that PB is unfair to the player, not the character. Meaning yes all characters are supposedly equal, but the players arn't. The people that like playing SAD classes continually get the upper hand. Always. Playing with a high point buy helps alleviate this to a degree but it's still there unless the PB is at a rediculous level. As said before, it increases the chance on MAD characters not sucking as hard about as much as it indreases the chance of them sucking harder. 2.) Rollers tend to decide classes after the rolls. The way all the PBers are making it sound is the guy decides to make a Monk or Druid and then rolls. While this happens occasionally, in my experience usually it's the other way around, and usually the group gets together before making a character. Seeing as how its a team based game they tend to look at each others stats and make characters based on who can do what the best with their rolls. While point buy puts everyone on an even basis which some might say helps this, it does tend to make everyone out for their own hide, which is bad for a team game. I would like an explanation about that too. I've seen players go: "YAY! :w00t: I got god-like stats, now I don't need the others, I can dominate the game, and surpass everyone else". And I've seen players who thought of nothing more than to improve their own power, because their lousy rolls made them unable to contribute to the party. (B). That said, some classes do suck and arn't going to be useful after a few levels, but should they at least be equal for a few levels? I believe so. A monk should be able to game and be effective in a campaign running from 1-5 no problem. He can't do this with PB, but he might be able to with rolling. As already said, many people think that a monk can be playable with pb. And since many rollers tend to use 4d6 re-roll 1s, or 5d6 ditch the 2 lowest, or 4d6 roll a large amount of stats and pick the best, or roll until you get decent and balanced scores, or some other alternative system anyway, there's no reason why you couldn't use a higher pb, which would benefit MAD classes a lot. Now, the rollers have suggested that whining about low stats is immature, and a party should be able to handle having different stats. No, many of them have directly, or indirectly accused point buyers of being immature, because they think it's less fun to play in a campaign were the lucky people get to be much more powerful than the others. The fact that many rollers admitted to using re-rolls to let players get high stats, seemed to go unnoticed by other rollers (one of them even rejected that any roller should ever have said it, even if there were proof of the opposite), who were too busy insinuating that point buyers 'couldn't handle' anyone being more powerful than themselves. If, however, the character is completely playable, then it's highly immature. It's like one person on the basketball team complaining because the coach let another person play longer. As far as I can tell, this was not an insult hurled at anyone, merely a fact stated. Now, Crash went about the wrong way and used a you once, but if YOU don't whind then YOU weren't being referred to obviously. And if YOU were then grow up or go play WOW. But why state that 'fact' so many times, when it's got nothing to do with the argument? The people making the biggest deal out of this were actually rollers. The point buyers mostly talked about game balance and fitting your stats to your concept instead of the other way around. And yet all the post about immaturity were directed at point buyers. Besides, what exactly is immature?: The guy who insists on rolling... until he rolls badly? (Many rollers have actually have admitted that they like rolling because it gives higher stats, especially because many DMs allow re-rolls). The guy who says right from the start that he enjoys playing competent adventurers, and wouldn't like to gamble that chance away? (Or is there something wrong with liking a particular kind of role?) The guy who says that he don't think it's either fair or fun to have dices determine his power-level (be it high or low), so he prefers point buy? My point is, that prefering a particular style of play is not immature as long as you don't need to screw anyone over in order to have fun. There are immature people in both camps, and yet, if you were to find all the posts were point buyers accused people of being immature, and I would do the same for rollers, I think I would win... And that's despite the facts that many point buyers can tell stories of rollers that only wanted to roll to get high stats, and would whine if they didn't. Issues of other people's maturity, or other general attacks, don't belong in a civilized debate. They don't contribute with anything, and serve only to alianate the other side - which certaintly doesn't encourage any civility. On that note, your point about people taking offense being immature themselves, doesn't contribute either. Apart from being unconstructive, the immaturity issue that Crash insisted on bringing up so many times, is actually more of an issue between the rollers themselves (to allow re-rolls or not), so bringing it up in debate between rolling and pb, is actually even less contructive than normal. (B.) This is my problem so far. The arguement I've seen is Rolling is unfair because players should start out on equal footing, they shouldn't have to be mature enough to handle it. PB puts everyone on equal footing starting out and they should be mature enough to handle the differences if they play a MAD class that sucks by PBs standards. How is that not contradicting? And how did you fail to notice that it was a counter-argument? Crash complained that pb made some characters (MAD) weaker than others, and then he stated that you shouldn't complain about characters being weak. But since there are so many posts to read, it is understandable that you didn't read mine as thoroughly as it should be read, which is cool by me :cool: As a side note, I would like to add that the last few posts were quite possibly the most enlightening in this whole thread. Accusing someone of acting like a fifteen year old for admitting that he can't convince those unwilling to be convinced, then admitting you were too stubborn to do the same is hardly something that makes a person look reasonable or mature. Again, i must ask you to read my my post, and see what I really complained about. If his intention was to drop out in a mature fashion, he could have just made a post going: "I don't think any of us will ever convince the others, so I'm dropping out now :) " He didn't do that. Instead, he chose to make a looong post (which isn't bad in itself :) ), including a section on how his opinion was the truth, and then admitting, near the end, that he had no intention of actually answering anything people might have to say about his arguments. :mad: And that left me stunned to the core :eek: It is one of the most rude, mean, childish, petty, and uncontructive kinds of behavior I've seen since pre-school. But I'm willing to abstain from commenting on people's age, if you're willing to abstain from bringing up irrelevant and nasty accusations about people's maturity. Deal? ;)
Erato 06-28-07, 10:40 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. That is why you should read the part where I said that the only exeptions to this were ability scores and hp ;)
Erato 06-28-07, 10:45 PM	To elaborate on something: The difference between pb and rolling (as I see it) is not that it makes characters equal, but that it makes players equal. With equal opportunity to choose weak or strong characters (and some actually choose the latter). Classes and races will never be equal, but as long as you're not forced to play any of them, it usually isn't a disaster (barring Pun Pun :P ). Some people like to make the dice decide for them, and that's fine by me. As long as they don't accuse me of anything, and we can all talk about it in a civil way, the method you use is irrelevant :)
Ace_of_time 06-28-07, 11:13 PM	I hate it when its implied that a person who rolls low is immature because they got unlucky. That could be an issue but its not the only issue. Its immature for a player to complain that another player's rolls ended up with a net modifier of +2 higher than his rolls. Its not necessarily immature that same player complains about another player's rols that ends ups with a net modifier of +10 higher than his rolls. When you got everyone rolling for stats, there is going to be 1 or 2 players who are the "lowest" of the bunch. Who likes playing the sidekick that has zero or minimal opportunities to be the "hero" or "useful" to the group just because the luck gods decided to screw you over since "birth". The focus almost always veers towards the players who were lucky enough to roll really good stats. What's more fun to play? A PC that rolled 18, 17, 16, 15, 12, 10 (Net modifier of +13) or the PC that rolled 15, 14, 13, 11, 10, 8 (Net modifier of +4) in a group where the average Net modifier for stats is +8 in a group of 4 players? Sure, I can engineer a PC that could use a stat array of 15, 14, 13, 11, 10, 8 in a reasonable fashion (Maybe a SAD caster like Druid, cleric or wizard) that could try to keep pace with the players with better "genes" than me. But I'm starting at a handicap that requires the investment of feats, magical items, etc. to "catch up" to the rest of the group (who will also have magical items, feats, etc. to continue staying ahead of me). I am not against dice rolling for stats in general. I'm against the potential resulting disparity that may arise from rolling for stats. If a group rolls stats resulting only in a minor disparity between each other, great result and game on. If a group rols stats resulting in a huge disparity, someone's fun is going to be compromised. Either the low roller is going to be doing everything in his power to avoid dying or the high roller is going to be bored with "easy" encounters because the DM doesn't want to alienate the little guy. PB fixes the issue of disparity but others pointed out different flaws associated with PB (cookie cutter stats, not favorable to MAD PCs, etc.). My preference is I rather deal with the flaws of PB than the potential flaws of dice rolling. I've seen a handful of dice rolling for stats methods that I like but those methods usually have some way of "equalizing" the group so that there is no huge disparity between them. But once you start "fixing" the flaws of dice rolling for stats, may as well just set up a point buy based off of what the high rollers' stats are.Using sums of the rolls can be deceiving. With my method of rerolls the first player would have a +2 average modifier but the 2nd roll would only have +0 average modifier and would get a reroll. If you are worried about the rolls being to high then just put a max of +18 sum or + 3 average modifier. As to points buy, To me it's the same thing as railroading. Your forcing your players to use crappy stats just to be fair to everyone. When the really it is easier for the DM to use points buy and that is why they force their players to use it. With rolling the DM has to sit there and watch everyone roll. Then decide rerolls then listen to the whiners. With points buy you just give the players their points and check the results after, Very simple. All I have to say is it is your job as DM. Quit taking the easy way out. 15 PB = low powered 3d6 22 PB = challenging 4d6 drop low 25 PB = standard 4d6 floating reroll 28 PB = tough 5d6 drop lowest 2 32 PB = high powered 5d6 reroll lowest 2 Give the choice which would you choose?
J_Vhad 06-29-07, 12:00 AM	And how did you fail to notice that it was a counter-argument? Crash complained that pb made some characters (MAD) weaker than others, and then he stated that you shouldn't complain about characters being weak. But since there are so many posts to read, it is understandable that you didn't read mine as thoroughly as it should be read, which is cool by me I read you posts just a thoroughly as they should be, now please explain to me how there isn't a contradiction there? It doens't work as a counter arguement. A is fairer than B because A doesn't do C but ends up at D B does C and ends up at D The ending point is the same place. Wildly varied stats and power levels. PB does it and rolling does it. The entire point that the rolling posts have made so far that I've seen is that you can't use the arguement that people have different stats with rolling to prove PB is fair, when people get different stats effectivewise just as often in PB. Crash stated that whining about characters being weak is immature, which is true. If you are supposed to be playing a game and keep skulking about Bob being better than you it is. I have not seen this once directed at point buyers. It was directed at the comment that PB kept people from whining about being jipped. It was a counter arguement. How did you miss it? I guess you didn't read thoroughly enough, maybe you should wade through all 10 pages again. (Ya I can be condescending too. I wasn't trying to make this a flame, I was pointing out that your arguements and counters contradicted themselves) Rolling puts everyone on equal footing and randomly determines who has what stats. This sets the pace for what they can effectively play. PB puts everyone on equal footing then makes them determine what to play, giving them fewer options on what to effectively play yet supposedly is fairer. The point you've made is that point buy is "fair" to players because they choose they're effectiveness. The point that the rollers have made is that rolling is "fair" because it has a possibility of opening up all the options to a player as effective choices while PB doesn't. He didn't do that. Instead, he chose to make a looong post (which isn't bad in itself ), including a section on how his opinion was the truth, and then admitting, near the end, that he had no intetntion of actually answering anything people might have to say about his arguments. Are classes equal in point buy after points are put in? No, MAD classes still suck. This has been admitted repeatedly by both sides. I still don't understand where the point buy arguement comes through as "fair" at all. Point buy's point is to put everyone equal at the beginning and fails to do this due to the classes. Looks true so far to me. Now, yes this is a problem with the classes, but a character generation system has to take problems with the system into account. Seeing as how the character is the main part of the system. Should a character generation system not take into account the problems and features of the system? My thoughts fall on yes it certainly should, but I'd like to hear your reasoning if you feel otherwise. A person that rolls a high set while everyone else rolls decent sets could always make the super powerful SAD character, and that would be fine. Is this not possible? Do you truly find it impossible for a person to play a higher statted character and the table not mind? For it not to have a dissastrous effect? I've done it numerous times so I know this is possible as should everyone. If he's being a jerk about it, then he's just as immature as those who whine about his stats being better (both of which would be a ticket out of my games, I dealt with that enough in high school when I only had handful of people to game with), And you feel this isn't true as well? Being a jerk is almost always a sign of immaturity. Even if one isdoing it to an immature person, they've still let themselves be goaded into it. Maybe you have a problem with the bit about the whiners being immature? I'd like to hear your reasoning on how that is false as well. If the stats are playable then there shouldn't be any whining. Or maybe it's a disbelieve that he kicks people that act immaturely? I'm sure you could always ask him yourself, they have PMs on here, but I don't see why a person couldn't take his word for that. I go to college with Crash, I know he kicks people for both those things, just like he kicks people that try to PK "Because they're bored". They are all immature things focused just on the person in question rather than the group having fun. or he could always opt for a MAD class which, with his higher set, will most likely be around the same effectiveness. Is this false? Depending on how much higher it could be eventually, but starting out the reasoning seems to hold. Point Buy doesn't allow for this chance. Now, yes both systems arn't kind to MAD classes, but Rolling does allow for a MAD class to be played on equal footing with a SAD class. Does point buy allow for that chance he was referring too? Are both systems unkind to MAD classes? Does rolling allow for MAD class to be on equal footing as a SAD class? (He has stated numerous times it's only a chance) Now I still stand by my point that point buy is not fair to a player. It narrows the classes that can effectively be played right off the bat. I could understand a problem with this if he hadn't used that word effectively there. But is it not true with it? Can a PB monk be as effective as a PB SAD class at the same PB value? Several PBers have admitted that it can't be. They've said it can be close, but no cigar (that's my paraphrasing of course). Yes, Rolling has a chance of narrowing those classes for any given player, but it doesn't right off the bat. It lets fate choose their character rather than a set of pregenerated numbers. Right there he admitted that rolling can narrow the classes reasonably effective even further than PB. Does it do it right of the bat? Does fate (the dice rolls) choose their character (what it can effectively be since thats what his entire post has referred to) rather than pregenerated numbers? But I still ask why is point buy fairer? Gets rid of varied abilities. Do the classes have huge gaps statwise and power wise? Yes. Does rolling have vaired abilities? Yes Do the classes have huge gaps statwise and power wise? Yes. Where is this false at? End result is the same either way. Rolling just allows for more options. Does it not allow for more options? PB does't allow you to go below a 6 (with standard races) Rolling allows for 3s. Right there is more options available through the rolls. So where is this false at? I believe that i was quite right, Rolling does allow more options, some are worse, some are better, but there are definately more. Those of you who do not wish to be convinced have already made up your minds to be so and I'm not going to waste anymore time on this, but all this is the truth. And it hasn't been so far? Rolling allows for more than PB. Yes it allows for sidekick powered characters as well as higher powered characters, and those open more options to the player ability and class wise. I fail to see how this is bad. False? It obviously allows for more than PB. Does it allow for heroes at the sidekick power levels? Yes. Do those open more options to the player in abilities and classes? Yes. The player can, and usually will, realize that he isn't a "hero" as the rest are. This means he can be a one trick pony and not worry about hindering the group, they all know he's a sidekick. Now you can disagree if you want, but I'd like some reasoning as to why. Or do you simply say it's false because there is no way a player would play a sidekick style character? Do other games have this? Yes. As I've said before many other games actually have it as a design feature (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Deadlands, Variants of 7th Sea (R&K style)). So why is it so bad? If the person cannot have fun because his character is not as powerful as another, then it is not the game or systems fault, it's his own. False? I know a couple of the games he mentioned do it far more than D&D can through the rolling system even as wildly as stats can differ. So that part isn't false. If a person can't have fun because he isn't as powerful as another, who's fault is it? It's not the games, the game keeps on running and other people can enjoy it fine in the same circumstance. Is it the DM's? No. Now the DM might be doing other things that make the game not very fun, but then the reasoning for not having fun would be different. So if that isn't the problem, what is? If a professional card player were whining on TV about being beaten in a game of Texas Holdem would he appear immature? If two gambling buddies went to Tunica and spent a weekend on the slots and one complained that he didn't win as much as his buddy would it be immature? Then how is complaining about having lower stats not immature? Because questions can obviously be wrong (well there is always jepordy but I don't believe that has been thrown into this thread yet(my bets on page 15)). Did the first two not strike you as immature? It never had to do with loosing, it had to do with complaining about a game of chance, which rolling dice is. Crying over a lost gamble is immature, you should be willing to loose what you're gambling. If you're arn't willing to play a weaker character than other players, then don't play in the campaign that rolls and never play a MAD class ever. Now I'm failing to see where he acted like a 15 year old. He said a bunch of things that seemed pretty straightforward and blatant and said he was going. He put out his viewpoint, it was countered with a contradicting arguement repeatedly and he conceded that no one was going to put forth anything new. Now, afterward it was admitted that a few other people were too stubborn to do this, but he was the one that acted like a 15 year old? That right there killed your credibility right there and the condeceding attitude has not helped at all. You can't disprove a theory that is trying to disprove your own theory with a theory that contradicts you original theory without tossing away your original theory. So no, a counter that contradicts your theory did not work, he did not act like a 15 year old, and this post is largely inane as no one is going to read it as a attempt to change they're mind. People will scan it looking for ways they can flame away and or attempt to win the internet war. Is PB fair? No Is rolling fair? No Which gives more options? What is the point of 3.0/3.5 over older editions? Options. If you have questions feel free to PM me or directly ask me on here, but I like Crash have absolutely no desire to continue a butting of heads along the lines of "yes it is" and "no it isn't" as this thread has dissolved into.
Johnny_Angel 06-29-07, 12:12 AM	Point-Buy vs Rolling....the real reason behind the conflict between law and chaos Rerolling isn't as rampant as most people seem to suggest. There are plenty of groups who roll stats, and their game moves along just fine. Cheating? If someone is really that much of a cheater, what stops them from cheating with PB? They could still fudge stats and then claim to have "just made a math mistake" if anyone notices; they could also still cheat will playing the game. DM: Make your save Cheating Player rolls a 1 and then "accidentally" knocks his dice onto the floor before anyone sees; rerolls, and then makes the save. If cheating is that serious of a problem in the group you play with, I don't think point-buy is going to stop the problem. Cheating is a problem with the player; not a problem with the dice. Both methods have their merits and their faults. Personally, I like rolling for stats. Regardless of whether I get 4 or I get an 18, I have fun with it. Whatever works for your game and group is what you should use. Some players like the random nature of rolling for stats; that works for them; so, they use it. Other players like point buy. I honestly don't see one camp of belief ever actually converting the other camp of belief in this issue.
AaronDireBear 06-29-07, 12:32 AM	Elite array is crap and so is a 25 point buy. It forces adventurers to be no better than Joe Bob the farmer. They either have to have one stat at 18 and everything else at 8, or be "well rounded" (RPG slang for dead, oneshotted by a dragon and unable to cast 9th level spells) and have all stats at 12. I prefer to let them roll for it or give them 18 17 16 15 13 13, which allows them to be the best of the best in one stat, and at least above average in their worst area. Some times they get better when they roll (citing statistics has killed more wizards than Jack Vance) and some times they get worse. Also you want your players to have higher stats if youre throwing dmeons, dragons and mosnters with class levels at them. The "25 point buy is just fine" arguement only applies if you're fighting goblins and kobolds with no class levels.
navar100 06-29-07, 01:28 AM	Lot harder to cheat with point buy. If your players a cheating, you have bigger problems than what character creation method you're using.
navar100 06-29-07, 01:31 AM	Point buy ensures that stats are generated that are not only equivalent, but equal. Without needing the 'feature' of rerolling. Fancy that. It's just a different way of doing things, no more, no less. Dice rolling doesn't assume characters need to be equal, just equivalent enough as well as good enough to function.
navar100 06-29-07, 01:43 AM	I completely understand. As I said before, I rolled my stats just like everyone else did up until 3E was published and a found the PB method. I had a great time finding an perfect fit (sometimes a not-so-perfect fit) for a particular class with the randomly rolled array. It was fun, and I enjoyed it. Now I use PB, because I would rather have fun "in game" than gambling on my stats. Grossly advantageous or disadvantageous stat arrays from PC to PC are not all that great for the health of the game; it has nothing to do with whining immature players (that only compounds the effects). I've seen plenty of poorly balanced PCs over the years; more than enough to realize that these rolls effect the entire campaign, whether good or bad. The "need" to reroll is a failure; it means that the random results were not acceptable. PB is specifically designed to ensure equality as far as ability scores are concerned without rerolls. It is more streamlined and takes the gambling out of the character generation equation. If you are routinely rerolling stats, you might as well use PB (it'll save you time and effort); of course if you are not rerolling and living by the fate of the ability score die rolls, than rock on! I had plenty of fun doing that for years. I won't contend Roll vs. Buy on a matter of preference (if you just like it, then have fun with it). I only contend issues related to balance (or imbalance) between these two ability score generation methods. Varying mileage. MAD classes are hurt by point buy the lower you go. All classes do fine with high PB totals. The problem is those who do use PB tend not to use those high PB totals. If such a person were to use a high PB, they'd just as easily use dice roll. (I said this already. :thinks: ) Dice rolling allows for characters that are not possible in the usual manner point buy is used. If the standard Point Buy method was based on, say, 36 points, there'd be no problem. If costs were such that paying for as close to 18 as possible was not damning expensive, there'd be no problem. Neither is the case. 25-28 is the usual rate with 32 for the lucky few and one 18 is punished with a string of 8's. Question: But what if I rolled 18, 16, 13, 10, 8, 8? I deal with the 8's, game on. I don't mind happening to roll an 8 because I could have rolled otherwise and still be lucky to roll that 18. I do mind being forced to have it just because I purchased an 18.
navar100 06-29-07, 01:45 AM	MY personal experience, backed by the posts (in this thread) claiming: "We roll 4d6 re-roll one's cause we're supposed to be heroes" "The DM should just let the guy with 14, 11, 10, 10 ,10 ,8 re-roll" is that the bigest proponents of rolling are whiny little babies who cry if they don't have some of the best attributes at the table. I can avoid that weepy nonsense by instituting PB. Now, if you have been insulted it's because you see a shred of truth. Ad hominem.
navar100 06-29-07, 01:53 AM	If you decide as a group/DM to roll for stats then Fred should still be out of luck inspite of having Stats well below Bob and John. Allowing players to roll for stats and then basing what stats actually get played off of the highest roll moves the average higher. I'm sure there are players who would take the first legal set of standard rolled stats and always play it. Unfortunately I imagine that more people either roll several sets and then play the best one or use other methods so that they NEVER end up playing a below average character unless desired. When the DM gives a fighter a +1 sword, it is cruel to take it away next adventure. If a player rolls well, it is cruel to take it away. However, if all players had rolled "as poorly" as Fred, no rerolls are needed. If Fred really was happy with his roll despite having a poor array compared to the others and wants to keep it, hooray for him. In any case, if said players never play "below average" characters, what's it to you? If the "average" skews higher, so what? Are they any less worthy?
navar100 06-29-07, 01:58 AM	Bingo. I'm all for the play what you roll method, but as soon as you start adjusting stats and rerolling you might as well use the PB system to attain the results you are looking for without all the extra work. Simply set the number to match the power level you actually want for your campaign, and the players assign their points accordingly to build the characters they want. 15 PB = low powered 22 PB = challenging 25 PB = standard 28 PB = tough 32 PB = high powered If you have to go higher (and after seeing some of the expectations and rolling systems used to determine ability scores I suspect many people will) you can. Just keep in mind that D&D is not designed to handle stats of a higher caliber than 32 PB, so you will likely have to seriously modify the enemy CRs (and experience awards) accordingly to handle more powerful characters. Even with 25 PB my players tend to make characters that easily contend with enemies of appropriate CR, so I usually calculate experience and plan encounters as though the party ECL were 1-3 levels higher than it actually is. D&D was designed with the player characters rolling 4d6 drop lowest as mentioned in the PHB. Point buy is just an optional method as mentioned in the DMG. The "elite array" is only the standard for the NPCs, most of whom will be bad guys who won't live more than one encounter. BBEGs will be the exception and will have a better array. The elite array is also used as standard for examples in the splat books as a demonstration of what a particular build using a class/prestige class/monster would look like, but they are still considered NPCs.
navar100 06-29-07, 02:09 AM	Neither rolling for ability scores nor using something like point-buy is inherently better. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. Neither is superior, neither is inherently inferior. They are, however, notably DIFFERENT in how and why they are used. Even playing fields and all that is admirable to a degree, but it is far from the be-all/end-all of gaming. Take two ABSOLUTELY identical characters at the start of the game and they will immediately and rapidly become VERY different due to how they are played, what equipment they have, and so forth. Though you might not think it, getting EXACTLY what you want isn't always terribly conducive to creativity. I assert that you are MORE likely to get creative characters and gameplay if everything is NOT equal. That said, when using RANDOM methods for ability generation you must accept that there WILL be variances, and that sometimes those variances might be extreme. Sometimes they will be extreme enough that you need to limit them or alter them after the fact. They are, after all, RANDOM. Why do you think we have the concept of a "dump stat"? It demonstrates that there is a natural, understandable tendency to sacrifice creativity for statistical superiority. Random generation (and in particular, partially random placement) fights that tendency. It's not wrong to want great stats, even better stats than anyone else - but it ISN'T true that if anyone DOES have better stats than you that YOUR fun is inherently diminished as a result. No matter what method you use to create your characters, your character and your enjoyment of that character is what YOU make of it. I agree. I prefer dice rolling. I don't like the tendancy for PB is 25 points. I do like the concept of PB of everyone being equal. What I don't like is being accused of being "whiny" because I prefer dice rolling or be told I might as well use PB because I'm willing to allow the player who wasn't so lucky reroll. Rerolling may be a bug for PB, but it's a feature of dice rolling. It's how the system functions. Don't use dice rolling. I don't care. Just don't imply I'm doing something wrong because I use dice rolling. No "whiny" business. No "greed".
nastynate 06-29-07, 02:16 AM	4d6 drop the lowest (standard roll) and 25 point buy (standard PB) have the same median value. The only difference between them is that rolling allows for greater variance (namely multiple low ability scores or multiple high ability scores), while the afore mentioned ability score extremes are impossible with PB (since higher ability scores cost more, and no score starts lower then 8). What results does this have? 1. PB creates a smaller number of ability score options, but those options are in the players’ hands to choose, while rolling allows for a wider range of ability score options completely beyond the control of the player. Rolling is gambling and PB is investing (to make a simple analogy). 2. In either case the median average is virtually the same, meaning that neither method has a greater statistical advantage over the other. 3. When rolling for stats, you have an equal chance of getting poor stats (with a total modifier of +1, since you reroll anything lower than that) as you do of getting phenomenal stats with a much higher than average total modifier. Despite the larger variance, the median remains the same (meaning that rolling stats provides no statistical advantage over PB). 4. PB narrows the gaps, making it all but impossible for any one PC to have ability scores greater than those of his/her fellow PCs (see point 5 for the exception). The variance is less, but the median remains the same (meaning that PB provides no statistical advantage over rolling). PB does eliminate both the extreme high end and the extreme low end (which are both otherwise possible if you roll ability scores). 5. In PB high stats are weighted, so any character with a high score has substantially fewer points to spend on their other scores. For example a wizard with Str 8, Dex 12, Con 12, Int 18, Wis 9, Cha 8 is equal in terms of points spent to a monk with Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha 8, despite the fact that the wizard has a total modifier of +3 and the monk has a total modifier of +5. MAD classes actually have an advantage in PB, and unlike many SAD classes a score of 16-18 is not nearly as necessary; a MAD paladin doesn’t ever need a Wisdom higher than 14 to cast all his spells, but a SAD cleric needs a 19 Wisdom to cast all of his. 6. When rolling stats, each PC is almost guaranteed to have very different scores. Someone will have the best scores and another person will have the worst scores. It is also possible that all PCs will roll ability scores near the median result, but this is far more likely with PB, which is actually designed to keep them in that range. This isn’t actually a problem with the rolling system (in some players’ eyes), but if you don't like the potential for such drastic discrepancies in PC stats, you should consider PB as the alternative. What does that mean? When rolling stats you have an equal chance to get great stats or terrible stats. If you equally enjoy playing with weaker than average ability scores or over the top ability scores, this method is for you; such extremes are not possible under the equivalent PB. If you enjoy letting fate determine your stats, and subsequently choosing the class that fits within the hand that lady luck has dealt, rolling is for you; PB is more conducive to choosing your class first, and then assigning points to the ability scores that you think work well for your chosen class. What doesn’t that mean? Ability score generation functions independently from matters of optimization. No matter how you attain your ability scores, or how high or low they happen to be, a character can be optimized, which is a matter of choosing one mechanic (be it a class, feat, spell, maneuver, or combination thereof) for its superiority (either mechanically or thematically) over others. If you agree that MAD monks are suboptimal (which has not yet been contested on this thread...surprisingly), it doesn’t matter how you generate your ability scores, they will remain suboptimal. Rolling ability scores doesn't give you a greater number of options when it comes to optimization; all it gives you is a wider range of ability scores (both good and bad). You can play any class or any race (whether optimal or suboptimal) no matter how you determine your ability scores. Since your chances of rolling low are equal to your chances of rolling high, you are actually better off using PB if you want to play a MAD class, since PB weights the ability scores in your favor (see point 5 above). PB still won't make a suboptimal class better, but it will give you an edge as far as your ability scores are concerned. How much that sleight edge is actually worth is debatable. He didn't do that. Instead, he chose to make a looong post (which isn't bad in itself ), including a section on how his opinion was the truth, and then admitting, near the end, that he had no intetntion of actually answering anything people might have to say about his arguments. Are classes equal in point buy after points are put in? No, MAD classes still suck. This has been admitted repeatedly by both sides. No matter how you determine ability scores, suboptimal classes remain suboptimal. Now, yes this is a problem with the classes, but a character generation system has to take problems with the system into account. Seeing as how the character is the main part of the system. Should a character generation system not take into account the problems and features of the system? My thoughts fall on yes it certainly should, but I'd like to hear your reasoning if you feel otherwise. Well it would be great if ability score generation could patch all the holes and flaws in D&D but it doesn't and it can't. Point Buy doesn't allow for this chance. Now, yes both systems arn't kind to MAD classes, but Rolling does allow for a MAD class to be played on equal footing with a SAD class. Does point buy allow for that chance he was referring too? PB does slant ability scores in favor of the MAD classes; rolling ability scores does not. Are both systems unkind to MAD classes? Actually the problem is the class, not the ability score generation method. However, if you are asking which method favors MAD classes more...it's PB and not rolling. Does rolling allow for MAD class to be on equal footing as a SAD class? (He has stated numerous times it's only a chance) But he's wrong. I already posted several examples, math, and explanations, but they went over his head. 1. PB slants ability scores in the favor of MAD classes. Rolling does not. 2. Monks with good stats still don't contribute more to the success of the party than a druid and his animal companion, a cleric and his healing, a wizard/sorcerer and his spells, or rogue/bard/ranger and his skills. Even at 1st level. 3. Rolling can just as easily gimp the monk's ability scores as it can boost them. 50/50 chance is not advantageous. Now I still stand by my point that point buy is not fair to a player. It narrows the classes that can effectively be played right off the bat. I could understand a problem with this if he hadn't used that word effectively there. But is it not true with it? Can a PB monk be as effective as a PB SAD class at the same PB value? Several PBers have admitted that it can't be. They've said it can be close, but no cigar (that's my paraphrasing of course). No a monk is not as effective as a SAD class whether using PB or rolling. The monk is suboptimal. End result is the same either way. Rolling just allows for more options. Does it not allow for more options? PB does't allow you to go below a 6 (with standard races) Rolling allows for 3s. Right there is more options available through the rolls. So where is this false at? I believe that i was quite right, Rolling does allow more options, some are worse, some are better, but there are definately more. There are more options as far as your ability scores are concerned, but not as far as optimization is concerned. Is PB fair? No Yes it is. (but it won't make bad classes magically transform into good classes) Is rolling fair? No Yes it is (but it allows for a larger range of ability scores which might force a PC to play a bit part in some mechanical situations, or allow another to dominate in some mechanical situations based solely on their stats; if that is unfair in your eyes, then I guess rolling ability scores is too.) Which gives more options? Neither gives you more options. All other character choices are made independently of the ability score generation process.
navar100 06-29-07, 02:18 AM	At this point I think anything I'm adding has probably already been beaten to death, I have to agree that both systems are flawed. Personally I think someone needs to calculate out unique point buy numbers for each class. Not positive what of each but each way it's flawed. Statements I keep hearing people say and I hate each time I hear. Without rolling there is no randomness in the character, some people should be a bit stronger then others. Same person: Well the DM should pick low rollers and have them reroll until they are comparable to the high rollers. I say if your going to roll and consider it random, then you have to accept the randomness, if you have them reroll then your completely defeating the purpose. On that note, I give my players a choice, I tell them they can do point buy, or they can roll 4d6 drop the lowest, reroll 1s, but only one 1 can be rerolled per set. option 2, 32 point buyout. I make it very clear that if they chose to roll, the second the first dice hits the table, point buy is not an option, if you want to gamble you have to accept the risks, so far I haven't had a single player chose to roll Where we disagree. I don't advocate a reroll just because a player rolled poorly. I only advocate if one player was really unlucky compared to others he should get a reroll because I do acknowledge a big discrepancy will mean something. That is an advantage for point buy. It has been awhile, but I have been in campaigns were players roll two or three array sets and pick the one they want. A particular player can still be lucky and have that "awesome array", but chances are likely each player will have a set they'll enjoy for their character. The array is good enough for the individual player's character. He should not be complaining about the guy who got that "awesome array".
navar100 06-29-07, 02:25 AM	You may believe that the 'narrow' range of numbers available from point buy limit your choices of class - but some of us don't need 18s in every primary stat, and 16s in all the secondaries. This is what I'm talking about. Just because someone prefers dice rolling does not mean we want only to have all 18's and 16's. This is what irks me.
navar100 06-29-07, 02:52 AM	I've read over several of the posts, though I frankly don't know much about the game, I'll just add this. My best friend has now played in three campaigns. He starts running a campaign starting at level 1. He says he's going to have us roll 4d6 and drop the lowest. I tell him that it won't turn out well, because for games that I've played, it never does. Somebody generally feels left out because they got the low rolls. I literally talked to him for 10 minutes why I believed this. He has us roll 4d6 drop lowest. Other friend gets 17, 17, 15, 13, and the others 10 or better. Girlfriend gets 17, 17, 15, 12, 12, 11. Another friend gets 18, 15, 14, 12, 11, 10. I get 15, 15, 14, 13, 12, 9. Now here's the thing. Every campaign he has played in, we've always done point buy. Mr. 17-17-15 is playing a Cleric (Str, Wis, Con as primaries). My girlfriend is playing a Druid (17 Str, 17 Wis, 15 Con). My other friend is playing is playing a Wizard (18 Int, 15 Con, 14 Dex, add Grey Elf). I've been told that our group needs a warrior or rogue-type. I simply went Human Fighter using a Spiked Chain since I hadn't done it. Despite building it correctly (in my opinion), the Druid and Cleric did more damage and took less damage, and that's before spells. Since our starting gold was 2000, the Wizard had enough spells and partial-charged wands to be very effective. I quit the game. . Since everyone else had better and equivalent scores, the DM should have "fine tuned" your scores. He should have by fiat made one of your 15's an 18 and then you would be on equivalent footing. For a dedicated warrior (non-paladin), I'd put the 18 in ST and 15 in CON. I'm happy with +2 hit points/level, and I only have to wait until level 4 to bump it to 16 for more hit points. 14 goes to WIS to bump Will. 13 to DX since I plant to wear full plate anyway, but I can still qualify for some feats if I want, and it screams for a bump at 8th level. INT gets the 12 for the skill point. CH becomes the stereotypical dump stat for the 9. I doubt I'll ever raise it. I know I'm not the face for the party. If I'd play a paladin, that 9 will be tough because I want Charisma. If I'm assured I get to use my Mount significantly enough (ask DM), I gun for Spirited Charge and go 18 ST, DX 9, CO 14, IN 12, WI 13, CH 15. Level 4 bumps the DX just to get that annoying -1 out of there. 8th level bumps CH to boost my saves. 12th level bumps WI for eventual 4th level spells meanwhile helping my Will. Theoretically, if I'm in a quirky mood I'll put the 18 in Charisma and the 15 in ST. 4th level could bump ST instead of DX, but I have to wait to see how I'm fairing to make that determination. If I won't get to use my Mount in combat significantly enough (ask DM) request suitable substitute since he's gimping a class ability meanwhile DX gets the 12 and IN gets the 9. I'm playing a human so I deal with 2 skill points per level and play the "dumb jock" who means well - Diplomacy becomes my main skill. 4th level bumps INT again to get rid of the annoying -1 and I'm starving for skill points. 8th still bumps CH. 12th still bumps WI. Since no Mount combat, 18 definitely goes into ST. No switch with Charisma. All because the DM "got off his high horse", I'm on par with everyone else and have a decent character to play. The DM should not be a slave to the dice roll either. Work with it.
nastynate 06-29-07, 02:57 AM	This is what I'm talking about. Just because someone prefers dice rolling does not mean we want only to have all 18's and 16's. This is what irks me. That irks me too. I'm getting sick and tired of digging through the insults (on both sides) to find actual relevant and debatable points. Maybe everyone should take some time to do some yoga, grab a bag of chips, or just chill before they post. Bingo. I'm all for the play what you roll method, but as soon as you start adjusting stats and rerolling you might as well use the PB system to attain the results you are looking for without all the extra work. Simply set the number to match the power level you actually want for your campaign, and the players assign their points accordingly to build the characters they want. 15 PB = low powered 22 PB = challenging 25 PB = standard 28 PB = tough 32 PB = high powered If you have to go higher (and after seeing some of the expectations and rolling systems used to determine ability scores I suspect many people will) you can. Just keep in mind that D&D is not designed to handle stats of a higher caliber than 32 PB, so you will likely have to seriously modify the enemy CRs (and experience awards) accordingly to handle more powerful characters. Even with 25 PB my players tend to make characters that easily contend with enemies of appropriate CR, so I usually calculate experience and plan encounters as though the party ECL were 1-3 levels higher than it actually is. D&D was designed with the player characters rolling 4d6 drop lowest as mentioned in the PHB. Point buy is just an optional method as mentioned in the DMG. The "elite array" is only the standard for the NPCs, most of whom will be bad guys who won't live more than one encounter. BBEGs will be the exception and will have a better array. The elite array is also used as standard for examples in the splat books as a demonstration of what a particular build using a class/prestige class/monster would look like, but they are still considered NPCs. 4d6 drop the lowest, 25 PB, and the elite array all have the same median results. Typically the standard array or the elite array is used in playtesting because its quicker and easier than rolling up stats (or using PB) for every single creature, NPC, and character. It is also important to note that most NPCs use the standard array, which is notably weaker (11,10,11,10,11,10). The BBEGs, high CR monsters, and playtest PCs usually use the elite array. Higher stats are used when playtesting reveals that the normal arrays are insufficient for the CR (such as some of the NPCs in adventures; with new monsters they just increase or decrease the racial modifiers instead of messing around with the array). In any case, PB amounts greater than 32 points seriously tamper with the expected power level of the PCs (in relation to ECL and CR), and I don't think you are actually trying to refute that. Are you trying to say that PB shouldn't be used? Or are you saying that in playtesting the designers already accounted for DM fiat with 4d6 drop the lowest? (Because that is not the case.)
navar100 06-29-07, 03:19 AM	4d6 drop the lowest, 25 PB, and the elite array all have the same median results. Typically the standard array or the elite array is used in playtesting because its quicker and easier than rolling up stats (or using PB) for every single creature, NPC, and character. It is also important to note that most NPCs use the standard array, which is notably weaker (11,10,11,10,11,10). The BBEGs, high CR monsters, and playtest PCs usually use the elite array. Higher stats are used when playtesting reveals that the normal arrays are insufficient for the CR (such as some of the NPCs in adventures; with new monsters they just increase or decrease the racial modifiers instead of messing around with the array). In any case, PB amounts greater than 32 points seriously tamper with the expected power level of the PCs (in relation to ECL and CR), and I don't think you are actually trying to refute that. Are you trying to say that PB shouldn't be used? Or are you saying that in playtesting the designers already accounted for DM fiat with 4d6 drop the lowest (because that is not the case)? For sake of argument, since I haven't bothered to calculate myself, I'll take as given 4d6 drop lowest = 25 point buy. You mentioned that dice rolling allows for a greater variance of scores while point buy stays within the median. That's part of why I like dice rolling, for the chance to get those higher than median scores. The lower than median scores are to be rerolled by RAW (Someone did post one array that technially wouldn't) but should also be allowed to be rerolled by the DM because player characters are allowed to be durable. Where as one player is significantly unlucky compared to others, fairness should grant him the reroll or DM fiat "fine tunement", a relative of 'fudging". Where as one player is significantly luckier compared to others, first see how the others are. If they are "good enough" (varying mileage), then maybe the lucky player can voluntarily tone it down or maybe just play on the others will be all right. If the others aren't "good enough" (varying mileage) they just reroll as before. Having multiple sets of rolls tends to not require futher rerolling. Two or three sets should be fine. Anything more, and I'm more apt to believe the DM is planning a killer campaign for which I have other issues beyond the topic.
nastynate 06-29-07, 04:24 AM	For sake of argument, since I haven't bothered to calculate myself, I'll take as given 4d6 drop lowest = 25 point buy. You mentioned that dice rolling allows for a greater variance of scores while point buy stays within the median. That's part of why I like dice rolling, for the chance to get those higher than median scores. The lower than median scores are to be rerolled by RAW (Someone did post one array that technially wouldn't) but should also be allowed to be rerolled by the DM because player characters are allowed to be durable. Many things can be lower than the median and still not allow for a reroll. Anything with a total bonus of +1 is not a reroll (by the RAW). The median for both 4d6 drop the lowest and 25 PB is the elite array 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 (total modifier +5), or if you want the actual average (rounded to the nearest number) 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 (total modifier +6). Obviously you can change that rule, but in doing so you are actually increasing the median and so you should be comparing your modified rolling method to a higher PB. Where as one player is significantly unlucky compared to others, fairness should grant him the reroll or DM fiat "fine tunement", a relative of 'fudging". Where as one player is significantly luckier compared to others, first see how the others are. If they are "good enough" (varying mileage), then maybe the lucky player can voluntarily tone it down or maybe just play on the others will be all right. If the others aren't "good enough" (varying mileage) they just reroll as before. Sure whatever works for you. Sounds like a bunch of work though. Having multiple sets of rolls tends to not require futher rerolling. Two or three sets should be fine. Anything more, and I'm more apt to believe the DM is planning a killer campaign for which I have other issues beyond the topic. Having multiple sets of rolls (likely choosing the best of the bunch?), rerolling weaker characters outside of the RAW +1 modifier (or lower) paradigm, or any other methods used to increase the likelihood of higher stats is slanting the results to something well above the standard rolling method. Try comparing your method to 32 PB instead. Much of the work you are doing to "fine tune" the results of rolling can be accomplished simply by using a higher PB method. Sample 32 PB arrays A. 18, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8 (+7 total modifier) B. 16, 16, 14, 14, 8, 8 (+8 total modifier) C. 15, 14, 14, 14, 14, 8 (+9 total modifier) [good for a monk] D. 17, 17, 10, 10, 10, 8 (+5 total modifier) [built w/ 4th and 8th level stat bumps in mind] Keep in mind with racial adjustments 8 can go as low as 6 (so you can still play a character with a self-imposed weakness if that is your cup of tea). Similarly 18 can go as high as 20 with modifiers (so you can have uber stats too). With PB that is choice, not a result of the die rolls. I'd recommend using racial modifiers to your advantage. Bumping a 14 (which only costs 6 points) to a 16 (which normally costs 10 points is great). You can also bump a 16 to an 18 (which normally costs a whopping 16 points). Try to place your penalties on scores that you either plan to use for dump stats (6 strength for a sorcerer...oh well) or on scores no higher than 14 (I like using 12 so I end up with no penalty at a score of 10) since you don't want to pay the higher PB price just to lose that good score. This is what I mean when I say that rerolling, tweaking, DM fiat, and multiple sets of rolls is virtually the same thing as using a higher PB. It just takes more work to get the same results. Why roll at all at that point, when you have a simpler and more effective option to attain the same desired result? Some people just like rolling, and that's perfectly acceptable, but it's not really advantageous to do so in the manner you are describing. Fun can trump logic though, so I'll mind my own beeswax if it's an issue of personal preference. I'm just trying to show you that there is an alternative that cuts all that extra effort out. Math is more more fun for me than gambling or pre-game arbitration, so it should be obvious what method I enjoy more.
EvilIdiot 06-29-07, 06:53 AM	Ok, I can't recall all the arguments here, that's a long&interesting discussion. First, let me say I'm pro-PB, but I partially agree with Erato: everyone in his game does as he want, and he's free to do so, however there are some ideas which are mathematically false. Before boring you with my post, let me say what are the premises of creating a pc: you can write the bg ,and a coherent build, for your character either before or after generating scores. PB is ,for sure, better in former scenario: rolling can't assure you to come out with the proper character, it is a stochastic phenomenon...pb can assure you. Maturity, here and in general, doesn't have to do anything: D&D is a game about playing characters, having a good bg gimped by a bad rolling is bad, and always possible. Now, about rerolling: {sum of modifiers}<6 is not enough to assure balance between characters, since variance between stats should be considered as well. Having 6 12s gives you a weak character, pretty useless, but this is the end of the spectrum, you could have a slightly higher sum, say 7, but this wouldn't make your character better, just a 14 with lots of twelves, while it is known that characters tend to have some higher stats, some middle stats and some mediocre stats, since it's what classes are meant for. Finally it gives you an inferior limit to your character's power, so you could have your fellows having a more useful array, making the group unbalanced. This happens because rolling has no intelligence within it about mad classes: someone here has repeated this to death, mad classes are harder to play, from a mechanical point of view, 'cos, guess what, they depend on multiple scores. Rolling gives you the opportunity to get very high scores ,helpful for your mad characters,but, statistically speaking, the opportunity to get very low/mediocre scores is higher, see D&D Statistics (http://sullivan.pgh.pa.us/~ksulliva/ralph/dnd-stats.html), you will find that P(score>=12)<P(score<12). PB can gimp MAD characters, provided that a low point base is chosen,but,you know, you can dispose of different bases. Choosing the base let the DM decide the level of power of his game, and he choose between different bases; please note: choose, while rolling you don't have choices, you have randomness. Once the DM has made the first choice he can change to a higher base, let's say 25 instead of 22 ,32 instead of 28. the difference?not that big deal, the difference between scores' costs in pb ensure you to stay in a predefined range of power, i.e. Pb is self-balancing. For mad characters, as someone proposed, you should give them some bonus to their stats, because they're MA dependent, with any generating system, and even here PB wins: adding 2 pts to a character means adding 2 points to his base: in terms of PB this doesn't affect sad characters much, since they would not need them by definition, and, even if they would benefit from those, they could change a 14 to a 15 at most, again self-balance. Do the same thing with rolling, how that bonus will affect character's power?Randomly, whoa! About fairness: it can be either negative , you have the same chances of having bad results, or positive, you have the same chances of having good results. Randomness is negative because while it's true you have the same opportunity to get the same scores as your fellow, you don't have the certainty of that. Considering numbers,the chance of having 2 player with good rolls and 2 with mediocre ones is (proportional to) p^2q^2 where p=P(score<=13) and q=1-p and, since p>50%, it is > than vice versa, so you have more chances at being weak than balanced, compared to your fellows. PB is neutrally fair, because it doesn't give you a higher chance of getting good results than the contrary, you decide. About realism: PHB says our chars are heroes, so having good stats is the norm, you MUST consider that d&d is made of mechanic/power/optimization and role-playing, this means that the more your role-playing/background fits into your build, and vice-versa, the better your character his. Having low scores doesn't help you at this. Heroes will hardly have 6 as an ability score, considering that commoners have 10-8, in fact pb helps you , giving a predefined range; rolling does not, something to take in account. Is it more realistic role-playing a character generated randomly? How?Why? About variety PB does limit variety between characters though, but, if you don't want a straight( built without inherent flaws) character ,for “realism” and/or roleplaying, you can always take an 8 somewhere and/or use a low base ,again pb allows you to choose. Variety is not inherently realistic if PHB says our characters are heroes whose abilities are above normal, and how many “varying”-chars would you like to play? Even with rolling you need something to balance the system, ie rerolling, since that kind of random-related variety has its own problems, and you can't find a quick way to keep variety inside a reasonable range,you can set just an inferior and inaccurate limit. About maturity: please define maturity and the way it is related to rolling;the fact that mature people should be able to overcome challenges even when they're unlucky doesn't imply they must always accept bad luck ,that bad luck is “rightful” and that it doesn't create problems at all, a guy before said his bad luck with dice rolling put him in a bad situation where he couldn't do anything useful, maybe because the so-called maturity is pretty useless against actual facts? The main drawback of PB are bases: 25,22 are not such good bases, I mean you usually need something more to customize your character, even if it is just for a characterizing feat and not for uber-power, but that's a false dilemma. Take a spreadsheet, write PB's costs table, build your char according to different bases, then show it to your DM: you can print your character with your build, letting your DM guess that, after all, 28 and 32 pts are reasonable bases, especially considering the chars his players are going to use. PB is clear, as a friendly* contract between DM and players, rolling is ,with all the respect for dice-fans,a bunch of cubes rolling on a table . *level of friendliness is up to DM and players naturally.
Ack 06-29-07, 06:55 AM	Wow, a few damn good posts there. I've never gone into the math of it, but nastynate has shown up that MAD classes are favoured by point buy. Fancy that :D As for my own contributions: 1) A rolling formula that should get good numbers: 2d6+6. 2) A "MAD adjustment" stat boost for those classes which suffer from lack of multiple high stats (though apparently they don't): +4 levels of stat increase. Only applied to those stats identified as "primary" stats for that class. Cannot be applied to the highest primary stat. Can raise no other primary stat above the highest primary stat. If any points are left over, they are lost. Comments?
Ack 06-29-07, 07:21 AM	@EvilIdiot : Fantastic post! @navar100 : It's a lot harder to cheat on your stats with point buy because the GM can tell whether you've exceeded your point quota at a glance. When stats were rolled (and especially when the character is being transcribed to a new sheet) then who's to say you didn't roll a 16 instead of a 15? I've seen that happen so many times (some players were 'transcribing' their sheets two or three times a month) while we were rolling stats. When we switched to point buy, it cut off dead. When the points don't add up to what they should, then you got some 'splainin' to do. Note that I am not accusing those who prefer rolling of wanting to cheat. I'm just saying that it's almost impossible to cheat on stats with point buy.
EvilIdiot 06-29-07, 07:27 AM	Another advantage of PB is that you can build a perfectly LA+1 character by subtracting 3 points to the base DM decided, a rather difficult task with rolling
Ack 06-29-07, 07:44 AM	Or, in other words, that's impossible to tell whether someone cheated with dices , while that's easy with PB Exactly.
Steely_Dan 06-29-07, 09:03 AM	Elite array is crap and so is a 25 point buy. It forces adventurers to be no better than Joe Bob the farmer. Joe Bob the farmer uses a 15-point buy. Unlike previous editions of the game you no longer need a 16+ to get a benefit from an ability score. A 17 Str only gave you +1 to hit and damage, what a 12 Str now gives you. So a 14 rocks the free world.
Vaelan 06-29-07, 09:32 AM	I know I am deluding myself in a huge way, but I choose to NOT accept that player immaturity is a reasonable expectation. If it makes you feel any better, I meant that more on a group-by-group basis than a universal basis. I'm not saying that rolling is unwise because D&D players are immature, I am saying that if I think that my players are immature, I am perfectly justified in holding that against anything that would draw out those immature impulses, such as rolling. About maturity: please define maturity and the way it is related to rolling Rolling can create resentment when one or more players are not mature enough to handle the fact that another player's character has better ability scores.
Tytalus 06-29-07, 09:44 AM	4d6 drop the lowest (standard roll) and 25 point buy (standard PB) have the same median value. No, they are not similar. And median value doesn't even make sense as a measurement to compare stat generation methods. 4D6-DL (as described in the PHB) results in stats with an average PB value of 30-31 (depending on how you cost rolled values lower than 8, as those don't exist in standard PB rules).
OravennasBrother 06-29-07, 09:59 AM	Elite array is crap and so is a 25 point buy. It forces adventurers to be no better than Joe Bob the farmer. Yet another fine and convincing (do I really NEED a sarcasm smiley here?) argument in favor of Rolling. Well at least it is as good as any of the others I've seen posted. Of particular note - Elite array is, for lack of a better word "ELITE" - you know Napoleon's Old Guard, Camelot's Knight's of the Round Table, Achilles' Myrmidons, the Spartans at Thermopylae. The really tough big guys who can shove aside lesser forces. Joe Bob average farmer should have 10's in his attributes. Now a claim has been made that MAD classes make PB useless and that the PB crowd has accepted this. WRONG. I, for one, don't believe that PB makes MAD classes useless. I ran a campaign a few years back (the last one where I allowed players to roll attributes) and by odd fortune the best player got the weakest attributes (equal to a 25 PB, when 5 other players got better than a 40 PB) - she played a ranger, showed for every adventure and managed, despite being a MAD class (and a 3.0 ranger at that), to be a dominant portion of the game. The player who whined had rolls equal to a 48 PB (IIRC - still have the ranger on file but crybaby tore up their sheet when they quit in a pout) and complained because there was only a SINGLE 18 and (flavor reasons) I had disallowed sorcerers - whiner's favorite class. That 48 PB barbarian was useless IN A FIGHT because the player was SO inept. Win for the 25 PB MAD ranger. The rollers would have us believe that Rolling somehow gives more "options" and this is CERTAINLY FALSE. Once you roll the ONLY option is which roll goes where. If you roll 14, 10, 10 , 10, 10, 10 - a perfectly legal ROLL, and hence one which should RAW be kept - then the only OPTION is where to put the 14. Everything else is a 10. But if you have a 25 PB, you choose exactly how to spread all those points. It is ABSOLUTELY FALSE to claim that rolling gives the OPTION of high rolls. It does NOT. It gives the illusory CHANCE of high rolls. Once you roll, all options disappear EXCEPT where you put the rolls. Rolling DOES NOT allow you to play more classes. A player with a 15 PB who OPTS to put his numbers as 13, 12, 10, 10, 10 , 10 still is ALLOWED by the RAW to play any Core base-class/race combination. A 25 PB builds perfectly acceptable characters of all classes - if a some whiny little brat comes to my table to tell me otherwise, I'll show them the door. Because those brats, if forced to make fair rolls, won't want to play any "underpowered" "normal" characters who don't qualify for the big yellow S on their chest.
EvilIdiot 06-29-07, 10:16 AM	Rolling can create resentment when one or more players are not mature enough to handle the fact that another player's character has better ability scores. True, but this doesn't support rolling against PB, which ,instead, solve it, even if incidentally, doit? 4D6-DL (as described in the PHB) results in stats with an average PB value of 30-31 (depending on how you cost rolled values lower than 8, as those don't exist in standard PB rules). Hmm...ok we've got different numbers but means and medians are not enough, what about variance? Rolling has got a wider range, then its density must be distributed within pdf's tails, meaning that mean estimation looses its sense. PB does not depend on means, 'cos you can choose how to put your scores, means are necessary especially when you have aleatory phenomenons, PB is quite deterministic Finally don't forget that having 6 13 is a 30pt PB and an allowed roll Elite array is crap and so is a 25 point buy. It forces adventurers to be no better than Joe Bob the farmer. but you can easily try and choose higher bases without worrying about game/group balance.
philipk 06-29-07, 11:11 AM	That irks me too. I'm getting sick and tired of digging through the insults (on both sides) to find actual relevant and debatable points. Maybe everyone should take some time to do some yoga, grab a bag of chips, or just chill before they post. 4d6 drop the lowest, 25 PB, and the elite array all have the same median results. Typically the standard array or the elite array is used in playtesting because its quicker and easier than rolling up stats (or using PB) for every single creature, NPC, and character. It is also important to note that most NPCs use the standard array, which is notably weaker (11,10,11,10,11,10). The BBEGs, high CR monsters, and playtest PCs usually use the elite array. Higher stats are used when playtesting reveals that the normal arrays are insufficient for the CR (such as some of the NPCs in adventures; with new monsters they just increase or decrease the racial modifiers instead of messing around with the array). In any case, PB amounts greater than 32 points seriously tamper with the expected power level of the PCs (in relation to ECL and CR), and I don't think you are actually trying to refute that. Are you trying to say that PB shouldn't be used? Or are you saying that in playtesting the designers already accounted for DM fiat with 4d6 drop the lowest? (Because that is not the case.) 4d6 drop lowest IS NOT the same median result as 25 PB. It's the same median result as 31 PB. Moving on...
Erato 06-29-07, 11:27 AM	I read you posts just a thoroughly as they should be, now please explain to me how there isn't a contradiction there? It doens't work as a counter arguement. A is fairer than B because A doesn't do C but ends up at D B does C and ends up at D The ending point is the same place. Wildly varied stats and power levels. PB does it and rolling does it. The entire point that the rolling posts have made so far that I've seen is that you can't use the arguement that people have different stats with rolling to prove PB is fair, when people get different stats effectivewise just as often in PB. Yes, it is a contradiction, because what Crash said was a contradiction. I merely showed that the fact that he had a problem with inequality due to classes, but not inequality due to ability scores, was a matter of personal taste - not the fairness of the systems. If he didn't mind inqeuality, he shouldn't have complained about MAD, and he minded inequality, he should be able to see the potential problems with rolling. I just think the difference is that rollers talk about equal chances (to suck and not to suck), when discussing fairness, and point-buyers talk about equal options (to suck or not to suck). To quote myself: The difference between pb and rolling (as I see it) is not that it makes characters equal, but that it makes players equal. With equal opportunity to choose weak or strong characters (and some actually choose the latter). Classes and races will never be equal, but as long as you're not forced to play any of them, it usually isn't a disaster (barring Pun Pun :P ). Some people like to make the dice decide for them, and that's fine by me. As long as they don't accuse me of anything, and we can all talk about it in a civil way, the method you use is irrelevant :) Rolling puts everyone on equal footing and randomly determines who has what stats. This sets the pace for what they can effectively play. PB puts everyone on equal footing then makes them determine what to play, giving them fewer options on what to effectively play yet supposedly is fairer. You're absolutely right. As long as you don't take into account that once the dice has rolled, rollers are no longer on equal footing and point buyers are. Point buyers will always have more options (they can place their stats in more combinations), rollers will have more chances. It all depends on what you like :) The point you've made is that point buy is "fair" to players because they choose they're effectiveness. The point that the rollers have made is that rolling is "fair" because it has a possibility of opening up all the options to a player as effective choices while PB doesn't. Again, it depends on the definition of fair. Many rollers are saying: "Life is not fair, so why should D&D be?", so they obviously don't agree. Are classes equal in point buy after points are put in? No, MAD classes still suck. This has been admitted repeatedly by both sides. Looks true so far to me. As I've said before, and nastynate has elaborated so well, the average MAD character with pb will suck less than the average MAD character with rolling. But MAD classes still suck. Should a character generation system not take into account the problems and features of the system? My thoughts fall on yes it certainly should, but I'd like to hear your reasoning if you feel otherwise. Point buy is an optional rule, and yet it actually addresses the problems with MAD characters, even if it can't even the field totally (do you know any system that can?). Rolling doesn't take anything into account - which is fine if you like randomness. Is this not possible? Do you truly find it impossible for a person to play a higher statted character and the table not mind? For it not to have a dissastrous effect? I've done it numerous times so I know this is possible as should everyone. It's not about possibility. Everything is possible. But sometimes it's not practical. If the DM starts the campaign with "you're professional adventures", it can be problematic if one character suck, because it's not realistic that s/he would continue as an adventurer. Many soldiers don't want people with them to war who can be a liability in the field, no matter how they personally feel about him/her. Why should adventures be different? There's also the scenario (a very fun one IMO) where the characters have to cooperate despite their differences, because they need eachother. If one character don't need the other, the scenario falls apart. Stuff I'm not going to comment on the rest, because all you did was quoting Crash and saying: "Is he not right?" This has nothing to do with being right. I accept that you and Crash believe that you are 100% correct in everything you say. But you have to understand that everybody else feel the exact same way. The 'mature' (I hate that word :ahem: ) thing to do, is to suck it up. To accept that everyone is equal (even if you're the one who's right ;) ), that fun is subjective, and refrain from making accusations about 'whinners', who 'can't handle' stuff, and 'aren't capable' of having fun the 'right' way :rolleyes: . To say: "Since I wont convince anyone, there's no reason to waste their time with pointless arguments", is admirable :clap: . To say: "Since I'm right, I need to tell people that one last time, without listening to counter arguments", is not :bored: . If you begin using terms like 'whinners' or 'can't handle it' you open a nasty, and possibly offensive can of worms, as well as opening yourself to the very same acusations. Saying that players should be able to have fun in your system, and it's their fault if they don't, is not much better. Fun is subjective, and saying that a system only works because some people aren't capable of having fun in a better system, is meaningless. I think you would both find that people would be a lot nicer to you, if you actually treated them in kind.
Caelic 06-29-07, 11:30 AM	What I was referring to is mainly the randomly rolled superior (or inferior) character, which in my mind seems unfair. Your initial ability scores affect the game from levels 1-20 in some form or another, and assuming everyone is equally adept at optimization and character building the randomly generated ability score advantage (or disadvantage) gap never actually closes. Point buy helps with this specific aspect of the game. ...and there you bring up an interesting point, Nate. It's been my experience that the people who like point buy the most and are the loudest advocates for it are the prime optimizers--the ones who know the system inside and out and can squeeze every last drop of efficiency out of a concept. Why? Because they know point buy favors them. If nobody has higher stats, then the question of character power comes down entirely to knowing where to most efficiently assign those points, which abilities and classes to take. I don't personally see point buy as any more "balanced" or "fair" than rolling dice; it just favors different people. 1. Die rolling favors the lucky; nobody's lucky all the time, so the power advantage won't stay with one player forever. 2. Point buy favors those who know how to work the system. That's much more consistent; once someone knows how to do that, they know how forever, so the advantage stays with them. 3. Point buy strongly favors SAD characters, who already tend to be the more powerful classes. A Druid or a Wizard or a Cleric really only needs two good stats: their spellcasting stat and Constitution. A fighter, on the other hand, really should have a good Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, needs a decent Intelligence if he doesn't want to be cut off from a lot of the fighter bonus feats, and probably doesn't want to totally cripple his Wisdom. A Paladin or Monk is even more MAD. Point buy provides yet more incentive to play a straight spellcaster, and frankly, the game doesn't need more incentive to play a character like that; there's plenty already.
EvilIdiot 06-29-07, 12:15 PM	...and there you bring up an interesting point, Nate. It's been my experience that the people who like point buy the most and are the loudest advocates for it are the prime optimizers--the ones who know the system inside and out and can squeeze every last drop of efficiency out of a concept. Someone here said PB is suboptimal , it doesn't fit for MAD chars, that's a bit contradictory. Why? Because they know point buy favors them. If nobody has higher stats, then the question of character power comes down entirely to knowing where to most efficiently assign those points, which abilities and classes to take. PB favours also pre-written backgrounds, what prevents a roller to do the same thing anyway? I don't personally see point buy as any more "balanced" or "fair" than rolling dice; it just favors different people. 1. Die rolling favors the lucky; nobody's lucky all the time, so the power advantage won't stay with one player forever. Luck may exist, but lucky people do not, as you said, so rolling favours no one, more precisely it can gimp anyone, since you have the same chances of having bad(in general)-statted characters. 2. Point buy favors those who know how to work the system. That's much more consistent; once someone knows how to do that, they know how forever, so the advantage stays with them. Uber-Optimizers need:lots of manuals, items,boosted abilities,ecc... they must use pb only because they can define a level of power, but this thing is useful for other issues like preparing a campaign, defining party's level of power, letting people playing the character they wrote on their bg, and not the one dices chose 3. Point buy strongly favors SAD characters, ... True, the point is that any generating system favours SAD ones, 'cos for them having a few decent abilities is more likely/easy than having a lot ones; mathematically speaking rolling favours SAD more than PB does, and without any possible control on it
Caelic 06-29-07, 12:46 PM	Someone here said PB is suboptimal , it doesn't fit for MAD chars, that's a bit contradictory. It doesn't, but MAD characters tend to be suboptimal anyway. That's one of the central ironies of the core game; the characters who require the most high stats are the least powerful despite that. PB favours also pre-written backgrounds, what prevents a roller to do the same thing anyway? Nothing; rolling just means that the person who hasn't dedicated years of their life to memorizing the books might actually get to play the powerful character once in a while...or one of the powerful characters, anyway...instead of the sword-caddy. Personally, I'm not entirely sure why some people are so absolutely sold on pre-written backgrounds and "Playing The Character I Want To Play." To me, that seems pretty narrow-minded--"I must play Character X, and anything that might possibly get in the way is bad." Point buy certainly facilitates this. You can easily wind up with a party in which all the fighters have a Charisma of 8; all the wizards have a Strength of 8; all of the platemail wearers have a Dex of 12. Now, me, I see nothing wrong with stepping out of the box once in a while and playing something a little different. Dice rolls require you to be a bit creative in your concept, and possibly do things a little differently in order to accomodate a stat that isn't precisely optimal. Then again, I'm old-school in that regard. I grew up playing 3d6 down the board, play them as they lay. Oddly enough, we had fun playing that way for years. So did tens of thousands of other people. Luck may exist, but lucky people do not, as you said, so rolling favours no one, more precisely it can gimp anyone, since you have the same chances of having bad(in general)-statted characters. Given that the system in the PHB declares any character that's not statistically above average to be "stillborn," it seems to me that it's extremely hard to get a genuinely bad-statted character. Uber-Optimizers need:lots of manuals, items,boosted abilities,ecc... Not really. It's been said over and over: you need nothing more than Druid 20 to be optimized. they must use pb only because they can define a level of power, but this thing is useful for other issues like preparing a campaign, ...nothing stopping a DM from using point buy, even if the characters roll... defining party's level of power, Not remotely. Give me a point-buy total and a list of books, and I'll show you two characters, one of which is an order of magnitude more powerful than the other. letting people playing the character they wrote on their bg, and not the one dices chose *Shrug* As I said, I like a little adventure, and I'm confident in my ability to turn any set of stats into a compelling and fun-to-play background. I don't need the system to bend itself to my preconceived background. True, the point is that any generating system favours SAD ones, 'cos for them having a few decent abilities is more likely/easy than having a lot ones; mathematically speaking rolling favours SAD more than PB does, and without any possible control on it People keep tossing around the term "mathematically speaking" without offering any support for it. Rolling makes MAD characters more viable, and thus does not favor SAD more than point-buy. Rolling may occasionally produce a very formidable SAD character, but it also provides more opportunities and incentive to play a non-SAD character.
Pyro_Azer 06-29-07, 12:49 PM	Personally i favor rolling because i think it leads to better RPing. Why? Because if you take two competent players and give them the same class their point buy abilities willl be EXTREMELY similar.
archerpwr 06-29-07, 01:07 PM	Wow. Up to 11 pages. This is a pretty entrenched debate. I think I'll toss in my opinion. I favor point buy for the following reason: You cannot get gimped by bad rolls. I can't help it; I'm a pessimist. I like being able to hit that 13 for dodge. A bad set of rolls could ruin my experience, by making me feel like my character can't do anything. I like my failure to be because I fail to optimize properly rather than a couple of d6s not rolling how I want them to. I hate one randomness to determine something that will influence every other roll for the rest of the game My take. Also, I'm pretty sure no one is going to change their minds at this point.
EvilIdiot 06-29-07, 01:27 PM	Nothing; rolling just means that the person who hasn't dedicated years of their life to memorizing the books might actually get to play the powerful character once in a while...or one of the powerful characters, anyway...instead of the sword-caddy. You don't need to be an optimizer to enjoy PB, an optimizer need decent stats, whether they come from PB or rolling is a different issue. PB and rolling produce stats, the way you use them is up to you, thus rolling has the same problem(unless you're saying optimizers can't use rolling 'cos the chances of having decent stats is by far lower than with PB), because ,in fact, it doesn't depend on the way you generate the scores. Personally, I'm not entirely sure why some people are so absolutely sold on pre-written backgrounds and "Playing The Character I Want To Play." To me, that seems pretty narrow-minded--"I must play Character X, and anything that might possibly get in the way is bad." I'm not saying p-w-bg are necessary/better, I completely agree with you:the thrill of inventing a char after generating her scores is just good but, on the other hand, if you like a character concept, 'cos you imagined a possible story, saw a prc which inspired you....etc....PB is for you. Point buy certainly facilitates this. You can easily wind up with a party in which all the fighters have a Charisma of 8; all the wizards have a Strength of 8; all of the platemail wearers have a Dex of 12. With rolling that fighter may have 6 as dump score because, poor use of scores(not points nor dices) is an issue any system has, because it depends on the player. I once played a druid, I gave him 8 in carisma, you know why? 'cos it fit the bg. Anyway, rolling distribution is concentrated on mid-low scores, so variety is a problem there too, in short lots of people end with weak-ling characters who hardly fit an adventuring party( especially the one they're playing with) and an adventurer's bg, both pre written and post written Now, me, I see nothing wrong with stepping out of the box once in a while and playing something a little different. Dice rolls require you to be a bit creative in your concept, and possibly do things a little differently in order to accomodate a stat that isn't precisely optimal. true, but the claims of many people here were that PB was too much restrictive, gimping mad characters, so rolling seems to both open more options (strong characters which won't fit a straight PB) and challenges(weak characters which may not fit the adventure)but you can't choose, with PB you can choose: you can play the flawed character,see the druid of above, and the flawless one. Oddly enough, we had fun playing that way for years. So did tens of thousands of other people. Sure, my posting here doesn't try to ban dice rolling,it supports PB, only that. Given that the system in the PHB declares any character that's not statistically above average to be "stillborn," it seems to me that it's extremely hard to get a genuinely bad-statted character. poor wording of mine, my bad. I was saying PB is more even since rolling statistically tends to generate few strong characters and lots of mediocre (compared to the strong ones) ones. That's not a natural law, only the explanation of why some people find PB more reassuring. Not really. It's been said over and over: you need nothing more than Druid 20 to be optimized. That druid can work with both PB and rolling then. ...nothing stopping a DM from using point buy, even if the characters roll... Uh, no I meant that people in CharOp use PB to define their level of power, it is harder to say:"look at my build!It works if you roll these..." than:"use a PB like this", just a matter of simplicity. Not remotely. Give me a point-buy total and a list of books, and I'll show you two characters, one of which is an order of magnitude more powerful than the other. good stats+lots of books may imply uberpowering ,agree, good stats alone can't. People keep tossing around the term "mathematically speaking" without offering any support for it. Rolling makes MAD characters more viable, and thus does not favor SAD more than point-buy. Rolling may occasionally produce a very formidable SAD character, but it also provides more opportunities and incentive to play a non-SAD character. I offered you support:there's a link to a simulation of 4d6-DL,you can use that to carry out some probabilistic calculus, which I already wrote in previous posts. cheers :tiphat:
wonlee76 06-29-07, 02:13 PM	People keep tossing around the term "mathematically speaking" without offering any support for it. Rolling makes MAD characters more viable, and thus does not favor SAD more than point-buy. Rolling may occasionally produce a very formidable SAD character, but it also provides more opportunities and incentive to play a non-SAD character. Here's some simple math if you use dice rolling: 1/4 of the time you will roll well above average (the average would be determined to what method of rolling you choose). 1/2 of the time you will roll close to the average give or take. 1/4 of the time you will roll well below the average but by the rules are required to keep those stats. If you roll better than the SAD PC and you choose to play a MAD PC, then yes, the MAD PC could narrow the gap between itself and a SAD PC. But you're presuming the person rolling higher than usual will play a MAD PC. If that player chooses to play a SAD PC, then the gap between SAD and MAD PC is just further enhanced. In other words, dice rolling for stats could result in a competitive viable MAD PC or a very competent SAD PC. Dice rolling also has an equal chance to preventing you from playing a competitive viable MAD PC. The only way MAD PCs are definitely more viable in a dice rolling creation method is if you put a houserule down that says "If you roll well above average (however this term is defined) then you can only choose to be [list of MAD classes]."
philipk 06-29-07, 02:23 PM	Personally i favor rolling because i think it leads to better RPing. Why? Because if you take two competent players and give them the same class their point buy abilities willl be EXTREMELY similar. stats =/= roleplay
AaronDireBear 06-29-07, 03:12 PM	Yet another fine and convincing (do I really NEED a sarcasm smiley here?) argument in favor of Rolling. Well at least it is as good as any of the others I've seen posted. Of particular note - Elite array is, for lack of a better word "ELITE" - you know Napoleon's Old Guard, Camelot's Knight's of the Round Table, Achilles' Myrmidons, the Spartans at Thermopylae. The really tough big guys who can shove aside lesser forces. Joe Bob average farmer should have 10's in his attributes. . The elite array is anything but elite. Its too damn low.
Ack 06-29-07, 03:12 PM	Personally i favor rolling because i think it leads to better RPing. Why? Because if you take two competent players and give them the same class their point buy abilities willl be EXTREMELY similar. Within a certain degree, I would agree with you - but the same goes for rolling. Suppose you have a SAD class - PB or rolling, the high number will go to the primary attribute, and the others spread where the player thinks will work the best, right? However, even with two competent players using PB, there is likely to be some variance if they are working on different focus points for their character. Just for instance: Player A and Player B both take "Fighter" as a class. Player A decides to go "full plate plus greataxe" whereas Player B decides to go "breastplate plus spiked chain with TWF". Zing - two different sets of stats.
nastynate 06-29-07, 04:00 PM	4D6-DL (as described in the PHB) results in stats with an average PB value of 30-31 (depending on how you cost rolled values lower than 8, as those don't exist in standard PB rules). 3d6 = 10.5 average (11,11,11,10,10,10 = 15 PB) 4d6 drop the lowest = 12 average (12,12,12,12,12,12 = 24 PB) The median result of 3d6 & 15 PB = 10.5 The median result of 4d6 drop the lowest and 25 PB = 12 (yes I know 25 PB actually gives you a median of 12.0833333...but rounding off seems fairly reasonable) Care to explain where you got 30-31 PB?
User5127 06-29-07, 04:14 PM	Not sure if it has been mentioned (doubt it), I read a few pages so far. ANYWAYS, When I DM I combine both the roll and Pont Buy into one smooth system. I allow each player to roll 4d6 and drop. then as dm I roll 4d6 and drop twice. this gives me 6 scores. I work out the points needed for such a score and assign it to all players involved (takes about 2 minutes total) This way my players feel that they have had some chance on high rolls and balances the high rollers with the low rollers. So if every one rolls good then the whole party can have a lot of points, and if they roll bad they have few points. This system has worked pretty securely for me. currently my players have 37 points kicking around. They are pleased with it, and no one is complaining about some one else having better stats or that they rolled poorly.
OravennasBrother 06-29-07, 04:15 PM	...and there you bring up an interesting point, Nate. It's been my experience that the people who like point buy the most and are the loudest advocates for it are the prime optimizers--the ones who know the system inside and out and can squeeze every last drop of efficiency out of a concept. WOW, I Never suspected that the Power Gamers were going for the Elite Array and 25 PB. Imagine my surprise. I mean given the choice between the "Elite" array (15,14,13,12,10, 8) and what I'll call a "Power" array (18,18,17,16,16,16) I would expect a power gamer to choose the Power Array. Can you show the math where the Elite Array is better than the Power array in a mechanical sense, because I'm just not seeing it. I Distinctly recall several pro-rolling posters declaiming how they would NOT want to play some "weak Joe Average Farmer" elite array or 25 PB. I suppose that, to give credit where it is due, attempting to misdirect an entire debate away from the real point is a VERY clever ruse for someone with the weak side of a position statement. But really, unless you can actually show how a powergamer would jump on the Elite array given the choice of the Power array, then the Jig is up. Of course if it is just "Personal Experience" then MY personal experience is that the worst power gamers are ALWAYS in favor of rolling, and cry like a 3 year old whose candy was taken when they are not allowed to re-roll "low" attribute arrays (even when the arrays are over a 25 PB equivalent) PB is fair. No MADdeningly SAD excuse for an argument will change that PB is fair. PB is ALSO balanced WRT the CR system and from harsh experience I can tell you that adding one or two to the party "level" (because of the overly high attributes from rolling which would, in a race equal +1 or 2 ECL) to determine effective CR's does not work well. You get encounters which are still too easy OR you get TPK. All the arguments in favor of Rolling semm to come down to "I want higher attributes than PB allows, so give." Sorry, my name is not Monty Haul.
philipk 06-29-07, 04:20 PM	3d6 = 10.5 average (11,11,11,10,10,10 = 15 PB) 4d6 drop the lowest = 12 average (12,12,12,12,12,12 = 24 PB) The median result of 3d6 & 15 PB = 10.5 The median result of 4d6 drop the lowest and 25 PB = 12 (yes I know 25 PB actually gives you a median of 12.0833333...but rounding off seems fairly reasonable) Care to explain where you got 30-31 PB? all 12s is not a valid set. The rule is: 1. Reroll if total ability mod is < +1 2. Reroll if there isn't at least one score above 13. I got 31 PB by simulating 1 million characters rolled with those stats. approxiately 3-5% were 31 PB equivalents. The sweet spot covered about 28PB to 34 PB.
archerpwr 06-29-07, 04:30 PM	WOW, I Never suspected that the Power Gamers were going for the Elite Array and 25 PB. Imagine my surprise. I mean given the choice between the "Elite" array (15,14,13,12,10, 8) and what I'll call a "Power" array (18,18,17,16,16,16) I would expect a power gamer to choose the Power Array. Can you show the math where the Elite Array is better than the Power array in a mechanical sense, because I'm just not seeing it. I Distinctly recall several pro-rolling posters declaiming how they would NOT want to play some "weak Joe Average Farmer" elite array or 25 PB. I suppose that, to give credit where it is due, attempting to misdirect an entire debate away from the real point is a VERY clever ruse for someone with the weak side of a position statement. But really, unless you can actually show how a powergamer would jump on the Elite array given the choice of the Power array, then the Jig is up. Of course if it is just "Personal Experience" then MY personal experience is that the worst power gamers are ALWAYS in favor of rolling, and cry like a 3 year old whose candy was taken when they are not allowed to re-roll "low" attribute arrays (even when the arrays are over a 25 PB equivalent) PB is fair. No MADdeningly SAD excuse for an argument will change that PB is fair. PB is ALSO balanced WRT the CR system and from harsh experience I can tell you that adding one or two to the party "level" (because of the overly high attributes from rolling which would, in a race equal +1 or 2 ECL) to determine effective CR's does not work well. You get encounters which are still too easy OR you get TPK. All the arguments in favor of Rolling semm to come down to "I want higher attributes than PB allows, so give." Sorry, my name is not Monty Haul. I think the point Caelic is coming from is that you only have a chance to do better by rolling. With PB you can squeeze every bit of efficiency, but you roll bad and you get screwed. Optimizers like to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses. Not leaving things to chance is an aspect of minimizing weaknesses.
OravennasBrother 06-29-07, 04:36 PM	The elite array is anything but elite. Its too damn low. This is what I mean by not understanding how you can call someone who wants a 25 PB a powergamer. If Elite array is "too damn low" then anything you might get from 25 PB would be the same. Hence at least some (many) or the rollers want FAR more than is possible with PB. AND they would discard anything so LOW as the be commensurate with (or heaven forfend below) 25 PB.
archerpwr 06-29-07, 04:39 PM	This is what I mean by not understanding how you can call someone who wants a 25 PB a powergamer. If Elite array is "too damn low" then anything you might get from 25 PB would be the same. Hence at least some (many) or the rollers want FAR more than is possible with PB. AND they would discard anything so LOW as the be commensurate with (or heaven forfend below) 25 PB. I'd have trouble with 25 PB on a class with any amount of MAD, but my builds work to decrease MAD, so 25 is plenty most of the time. I do like having one 18 though.
nastynate 06-29-07, 06:25 PM	I think the point Caelic is coming from is that you only have a chance to do better by rolling. With PB you can squeeze every bit of efficiency, but you roll bad and you get screwed. Optimizers like to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses. Not leaving things to chance is an aspect of minimizing weaknesses. I think that is what Caelic means as well.
Maekrix_Waere 06-29-07, 07:00 PM	This is what I mean by not understanding how you can call someone who wants a 25 PB a powergamer. If Elite array is "too damn low" then anything you might get from 25 PB would be the same. Hence at least some (many) or the rollers want FAR more than is possible with PB. AND they would discard anything so LOW as the be commensurate with (or heaven forfend below) 25 PB. One person is arguing that PB favors optimisation. A completely different person is arguing that Elite Array and 25 PB is "too damn low." Don't lump all of us into one group. There have been plenty of people who have been Pro-Rolling whose posts I desperately wish did not exist. Mr. "Too damn low" is one of them, as I have yet to see him actually provide any proof for his opinion(s).
Caelic 06-29-07, 07:15 PM	Uh, no I meant that people in CharOp use PB to define their level of power, it is harder to say:"look at my build!It works if you roll these..." than:"use a PB like this", just a matter of simplicity. Well, yes. Then again, in CharOp, we also talk about "strict RAW"--which simply doesn't work in real play. We make builds that are fun to read, but not meant for real play. CharOp is, in large part, about theory, not practice; what we do there should hardly be taken as a good guideline for what should be done at the table. I offered you support:there's a link to a simulation of 4d6-DL,you can use that to carry out some probabilistic calculus, which I already wrote in previous posts. I know the typical stat distribution for 4d6-DL. I also know that the probability of getting a character with, say, straight 14's is infinitely higher than it is if you use a 32-point buy. Which brings us back to the central issue I have with point buy: unless it's a very generous point buy, it makes certain classes all but unplayable...and they're the classes that aren't all that powerful to begin with. There must either be some awfully unlucky players (and intractable DMs) at other tables, or my definition of a "worthless" character must be drastically different, because I have very seldom ever encountered a set of dice rolls I couldn't use to produce a powerful character.
Caelic 06-29-07, 07:29 PM	WOW, I Never suspected that the Power Gamers were going for the Elite Array and 25 PB. Imagine my surprise. I mean given the choice between the "Elite" array (15,14,13,12,10, 8) and what I'll call a "Power" array (18,18,17,16,16,16) I would expect a power gamer to choose the Power Array. Can you show the math where the Elite Array is better than the Power array in a mechanical sense, because I'm just not seeing it. ...I suppose that, to give credit where it is due, attempting to misdirect an entire debate away from the real point is a VERY clever ruse for someone with the weak side of a position statement. Well, yes. Therefore, I'm a bit surprised that you're so blatantly using a strawman argument here. First off, I never mentioned powergamers; I mentioned optimizers. These are two entirely different things. A given person may be an optimizer, a powergamer, both, or neither. An optimizer can, indeed, produce an effective and enjoyable character with a 25 PB. A powergamer might or might not be able to, depending on whether he's an optimizer, but probably won't enjoy the process either way. Second, I never mentioned any given arrays, and I certainly never made the ridiculous claims you're attempting to put in my mouth. I thought my point was fairly obvious; others have discerned it correctly. Perhaps I was mistaken, so I'll restate it in plain terms: Point buy favors optimizers, because it removes random chance. When random chance is removed, skill is all that remains. Minimize luck, and you always favor skill. That's why anyone can win a single hand of poker, but a professional player will always come out on top in the long run over a novice; over the long run, luck equals out, and skill becomes the deciding factor. It's why you don't see first-time chess players beating grandmasters, but a first-time Monopoly player can beat a veteran. But really, unless you can actually show how a powergamer would jump on the Elite array given the choice of the Power array, then the Jig is up. I find it downright amusing that you presume to take me to task for "misdirecting the debate," and then attempt to claim that unless I can show a proof that has nothing at all to do with what I said, my observations are invalid. Of course if it is just "Personal Experience" then MY personal experience is that the worst power gamers are ALWAYS in favor of rolling, and cry like a 3 year old whose candy was taken when they are not allowed to re-roll "low" attribute arrays (even when the arrays are over a 25 PB equivalent) ...and mine is that those who can't differentiate between optimization and powergaming tend to fling ad hominem and derogatory comments towards anyone they suspect of either. PB is fair. No MADdeningly SAD excuse for an argument will change that PB is fair. If I want fair, I'll play Go. Maybe chess, but there's the inherent unfairness of first move there. PB is ALSO balanced WRT the CR system and from harsh experience I can tell you that adding one or two to the party "level" (because of the overly high attributes from rolling which would, in a race equal +1 or 2 ECL) to determine effective CR's does not work well. You get encounters which are still too easy OR you get TPK. ...which is why I don't attempt to design encounters based on CR. I design them based on a knowledge of my players, their characters, and their capabilities. It works surprisingly well. All the arguments in favor of Rolling semm to come down to "I want higher attributes than PB allows, so give." Hmm. I'd suggest reading more carefully then. You don't seem unintelligent; I can't imagine that your reading comprehension is so poor that you've seriously misunderstood the arguments being advanced that badly.. Sorry, my name is not Monty Haul. So you consider using the default character generation system from the PHB to be "Monty Haul?" Man, and I thought I was a control freak when it came to DMing.
Ace_of_time 06-29-07, 08:07 PM	15 PB = low powered 3d6 22 PB = challenging 4d6 drop low 25 PB = standard 4d6 floating reroll 28 PB = tough 5d6 drop lowest 2 32 PB = high powered 5d6 reroll lowest 2 Points buy, ( with cost table)/ Roll go by average rolls 15= 10,11,10,11,10,11 / 3d6= 10,11,10,11,10,11 22= 12,11,12,11,12,12 / 4d6= 12,11,12,11,12,11 25= 12,12,12,12,12,13 / 4d6 Floating=12,11,12,11,12,12 28=12,12,13,13,13,13 / 5d6 drop 2 lowest=12,13,12,13,12,13 32= 13,13,13,13,14,14 / 5d6 reroll lowest 2=13,14,13,14,13,14 Now with 3d6 rerolls are -3 sum or lower or no score 12 or higher. 5d6 rerolls are +2 sum or no score 15 or higher. Now clearly what power level you play at is a big thing when talking about rolls or PB. So please post what power level you play at to lessen the confusion. Thanks. Now using points buy, no matter what anyone says on here is railroading your players and is there for broken.
Erato 06-29-07, 08:28 PM	First off, I never mentioned powergamers; I mentioned optimizers. These are two entirely different things. A given person may be an optimizer, a powergamer, both, or neither. An optimizer can, indeed, produce an effective and enjoyable character with a 25 PB. A powergamer might or might not be able to, depending on whether he's an optimizer, but probably won't enjoy the process either way. :clap: It's good to see people reconizing this, and anwering so politely even when others are mad at them. I generally think that rollers tend to be more elitist, talking more about how they're better roleplayers, playing the game 'as it's supposed to be played', and stuff like that. But you have moved my view of rollers in a much more positive direction. Thank you for that :) Point buy favors optimizers, because it removes random chance. When random chance is removed, skill is all that remains. Minimize luck, and you always favor skill. I have to respectfully disagree. That would be true if there was only two options: Winning or losing, or in this case: Having a strong character or having a weak one. But if players A's character is stronger than player B's, it's not simply 'stronger'. It can be a lot stronger, insanely strong, a little stronger, somewhat stronger, not significantly stronger, and everything in between. And depending on your game, some of those might be a problem, and others not. There is a gab between good optimizers and bad optimizers (let's leave out powergamers and people who think gimping their character is the only good way to roleplay ;) ). There is also a gab between powerful classes, and weak classes. Rolling can increase or descrease that gab, but the overall gab is the same. You can say it allows bad optimizers the chance to shine. That is true. It also offers them the risk to suck even more. Their overall suckitude is the same, it's just unevenly divided between their characters. I personally think the solution is to help eachother making characters, so everybody has a place in the group. And for me, that gets easier with PB. But I can see the lure of letting the dice decide ;)
nastynate 06-29-07, 08:53 PM	15 PB = low powered 3d6 22 PB = challenging 4d6 drop low 25 PB = standard 4d6 floating reroll 28 PB = tough 5d6 drop lowest 2 32 PB = high powered 5d6 reroll lowest 2 Points buy, ( with cost table)/ Roll go by average rolls 15= 10,11,10,11,10,11 / 3d6= 10,11,10,11,10,11 22= 12,11,12,11,12,12 / 4d6 drop lowest= 12,11,12,11,12,11 25= 12,12,12,12,12,13 / 4d6 Floating=12,11,12,11,12,12 28=12,12,13,13,13,13 / 5d6 drop 2 lowest=12,13,12,13,12,13 32= 13,13,13,13,14,14 / 5d6 reroll lowest 2=13,14,13,14,13,14 Now with 3d6 rerolls are -3 sum or lower or no score 12 or higher. 5d6 rerolls are +2 sum or no score 15 or higher. Now clearly what power level you play at is a big thing when talking about rolls or PB. So please post what power level you play at to lessen the confusion. Thanks. Now using points buy, no matter what anyone says on here is railroading your players and is there for broken. Your figures are very close to ones I got during my comparison of rolling vs. PB. That's pretty much how I see things too. Could you please elaborate on the last statement though (bold for convenience). Railroading is taking the decision-making process out of the players' hands; doesn't PB do the exact opposite? Point buy favors optimizers, because it removes random chance. When random chance is removed, skill is all that remains. Minimize luck, and you always favor skill. I have to respectfully disagree. That would be true if there was only two options: Winning or losing, or in this case: Having a strong character or having a weak one. No, Caelic is right. Skill is what is most important when optimizing, and anything that reduces random factors, favors those with greater skill. Essentially rolling stats has a an equal chance of favoring or hampering the skilled optimizer, but PB always favors the skilled optimizer (because an even playing field is already in the their favor). But if players A's character is stronger than player B's, it's not simply 'stronger'. It can be a lot stronger, insanely strong, a little stronger, somewhat stronger, not significantly stronger, and everything in between. And depending on your game, some of those might be a problem, and others not. When two players begin the game with the same resources, the player who knows best how to exploit those resources to their advantage is always favored. The degree to which they are favored may vary, but that isn't relevant; they are still favored. There is gap between good optimizers and bad optimizers (let's leave out powergamers and people who think gimping their character is the only good way to roleplay ). There is also a gap between powerful classes, and weak classes. Agreed, but that isn't actually relevant to your point. Rolling can increase or descrease that gap, but the overall gap is the same. You can say it allows bad optimizers the chance to shine. That is true. It also offers them the risk to suck even more. Their overall suckitude is the same, it's just unevenly divided between their characters. You understand the process just fine, but you fail to recognize the actual results. An even playing field (such as the one provided by PB) favors the player with greater optimization skill. Since rolling stats has a random element, it might not favor the optimizer, but PB (which removes luck from the equation) will favor them every single time. See what I mean? I do agree that no matter the ability score generation method used, that a skilled optimizer will make better use of the stats he gets (whether better or worse than his/her fellow players) than a player with less optimization skill. The point is that PB, by its very nature provides an equal starting point, and without dumb luck to slant the results for or against him, the skilled optimizer comes out on top. Luckily D&D isn't a competitive game, so most good optimizers share their knowledge with their fellow players, and help close any power gaps they might otherwise create during character generation (with the notable exception of jerks I wouldn't play with any way).
User5127 06-29-07, 09:41 PM	Could you please elaborate on the last statement though (bold for convenience). Railroading is taking the decision-making process out of the players' hands; doesn't PB do the exact opposite? Yes and no, depends on how you want to argue it. one could say for example: Point Buy takes the decision-making process away from the players in that they never had a choice to roll some dice to get their scores. The Points are assigned by the DM and the players rarely have a choice in that decision making process (especially if the DM has plans for the campaign to play a certain way, IE: if the DM intends for the campaign to be low-powered and assigns a few points to the players). The players character concepts would depend on how many points they get from the DM. This even applies when there are a lot of points to go around. For example: The player wants to play a very intelligent and wise wizard who has poor social skills and is generally sickly and weak. This implies 3 very low stats (lower than average at least) And the way the points work out the mage may have just average social skills instead of being socially inept. another: Dice Rolling takes all the choice away from the players since they HAVE to keep what the dice give them, where as point buy they can arrange the scores as they see fit. The benefit they would see in this situation is that now they can easily flesh out that character concept instead of letting fate decide what kind of character they will be. IE: if they wanted to play a fighter with massive strength (17 or 18) Point Buy can almost guarantee this (for a small hit to other scores), Where as with dice rolling they may not ever roll that 17 or 18 and therefore have to re-work their character concept. Thus taking A lot of choice away from the player. I fall into the camp of the later argument and say that point buy is much better than rolling. Though since I use a combined Roll-PB system I have the best of both worlds. :D
Ace_of_time 06-29-07, 09:47 PM	Well railroad takes options away from the players to make them do what the DM wants them to do. ( so it is easy for him, most of the time.) Now PB looks like it doesn't do this but looks can be deceiving. You are in-fact telling the player they can't have all high scores. In rolling at least they can if very lucky get all 18s on scores just like they could get all 3s if very unlucky. In points buy this is not an option and limits the players to what scores they want the players to have. Be it 10 and 11 with 15 PB or 13 and 14 and the points cost table farther keeps them from wanting to increase above 14. When the DM decides which PB to use he is in-fact deciding for the players how high most scores will be. When rolling leaves this up to the players how well they roll. In my game I use rolling and let my players roll on the table and then roll online with wizard dice roller tool and let them decide which to use. This also gets ride of whining about unlucky dice. Now it's ok to decide a power level for you world but taking away high score to make it easier on the DM is railroading. I just added 4 and 5 in to the lower score for the higher powers.
Erato 06-29-07, 10:08 PM	No, Caelic is right. Skill is what is most important when optimizing, and anything that reduces random factors, favors those with greater skill. Essentially rolling stats has a an equal chance of favoring or hampering the skilled optimizer, but PB always favors the skilled optimizer (because an even playing field is already in the their favor). I blieve you were the one who said that PB favors MAD characters, because they will be better on average with PB than with rolling, even if rolling is the only way to give people with MAD classes a chance to surpass SAD classes. It's the same principle. The difference in beteeen optimized characters and non-optimized characters will be the same on average, even if rolling is the only way to give the non-optimized character a chance to surpass the optimized one. If the average is the same, you can't really say it favors anyone. In fact, since a good optimizer might be able to make a decent character no matter what, the bad optimizers are the only ones who really have something to fear from rolling (provided they're aware that they're bad optimizers ;) ). When two players begin the game with the same resources, the player who knows best how to exploit those resources to their advantage is always favored. The degree to which they are favored may vary, but that isn't relevant; they are still favored. I would say the degree is relevant, since most people don't have a problem with characters slightly stronger than their own, but many people have a problem with characters who're so superior that they get dominate the whole game. I know it was one of my rolls (a really high one) that finnally convinced my former group to use PB. They were simply too afraid of what I would be able to do with those stats (they didn't have to be, since I would have tried to balance myself after the group, but they were really competitive and paranoid, which was why I left - but that's not really the point :) ). Luckily D&D isn't a competitive game, so most good optimizers share their knowledge with their fellow players, and help close any power gaps they might otherwise create during character generation (with the notable exception of jerks I wouldn't play with any way). This we agree on :D
navar100 06-29-07, 10:37 PM	Anyway, in the classes forum I'm participating in the gauntlet that resulted from defending the Fighter against baseless accusations of suckitude. :P They're using 25 point buy. I'm using a cleric and a crusader. I'm curious as to how it'll turn out. I already don't like I had to sacrifice strength for my cleric. I need the wisdom, naturally, and I must have that 14 CO regardless of class. (I'll play without it if I must for whatever reason, but I try very, very hard to avoid not playing with at least a 14 CO.) I decided to put CH at 14 because I want to make use out of Divine Metamagic Quicken Spell. I have the luxury of being able to go nova on spells, so I figured that will be my main focus. At higher levels I should be alright, but those low levels are going to hurt with only a 10 strength. My crusader I'm rather ok with. It sucks my wisdom is only an 8 for a low will, by my 14 charisma will soon make up for it. Besides, will won't matter at low levels for the gauntlet. Constitution got the 16 because the Crusader is all about the hit points. Strength got 14 for some to hit and damage with furious counterstrike providing another +1/+1. At later levels, maneuvers will provide extra damage such that a high strength isn't as important. With Steely Resolve, Stone Power feat, Martial Spirit stance, and Crusader's Strike maneuver, my strategy is to out survive the opponent at the low levels. At 1st level I have 13 hit points, but I virtually have more. Therefore, while I'm testing the classes for the sake of the classes for the purpose of the gauntlet, I'll also be testing for myself how I can handle starting at 1st level with 25 point buy.
StevenO 06-29-07, 11:16 PM	... As to points buy, To me it's the same thing as railroading. Your forcing your players to use crappy stats just to be fair to everyone. When the really it is easier for the DM to use points buy and that is why they force their players to use it. With rolling the DM has to sit there and watch everyone roll. Then decide rerolls then listen to the whiners. With points buy you just give the players their points and check the results after, Very simple. All I have to say is it is your job as DM. Quit taking the easy way out. 15 PB = low powered 3d6 22 PB = challenging 4d6 drop low 25 PB = standard 4d6 floating reroll 28 PB = tough 5d6 drop lowest 2 32 PB = high powered 5d6 reroll lowest 2 Give the choice which would you choose? First off the players should work to make things easy on the DM. If point buy give your DM more time for adventure related work that should be a good thing. Depending on the PB it even makes life easier as given CRs/ELs actually have meaning. As for that selection or PB vs roll the roll will almost always come out ahead of the PB. I'd accept the standard 4d6 drop low is around PB 29 so 28 works due to customization but here selecting PB is definitely a penalty. The statistical analysis I've seen says that 5d6 rerolling the lowest is going to be MUCH higher than PB 32. ... Unlike previous editions of the game you no longer need a 16+ to get a benefit from an ability score. A 17 Str only gave you +1 to hit and damage, what a 12 Str now gives you. So a 14 rocks the free world. That is a great arguement if anyone would actually pay attention to it. A Paladin with Cha 14 gains the same abilities they would have in 2ed when it required a 17. Looking at 2ed, Dex is the only stat where 2e18 AC= 3e18 AC but even a 3e12>2e15. I think is is a little funny how people argue SAD classes benefit more from PB than MAD classes. If we consider spellcasters as the worst case that 18 is not worth the investment over a 16; for those six points you can typically increase each save modifing stat to cover the +1 DC that the higher stat gave you. Sure an Int 18 and Wis 18 have other minor advantages over 16s in those stats but do they out weigh potential improvement in three other stats? As for spellcasters "needing" an 18 casting stat or be horribly nerfed that is incorrect; unless you multiclass into casting types using multiple primary attributes starting with a 15 and then putting you level based increases into it will ensure you never miss a spell level naturally due to low stats. As for multiclass spellcasters with multiple spell stats the level of BP used determines just how "broken" they can get; it is VERY difficult to naturally cast 9th level spells of different types which is why these builds can be allowed by RAW in the first place.
Caelic 06-29-07, 11:31 PM	I think is is a little funny how people argue SAD classes benefit more from PB than MAD classes. If we consider spellcasters as the worst case that 18 is not worth the investment over a 16; for those six points you can typically increase each save modifing stat to cover the +1 DC that the higher stat gave you. Sure an Int 18 and Wis 18 have other minor advantages over 16s in those stats but do they out weigh potential improvement in three other stats? The critical difference here is that, with most forms of PB, the spellcaster has the option of an 18 in his sole critical stat. Realistically, the fighter-type classes do not, because: A. They require more fairly high stats to do their job well. B. They lack the spellcaster's options for circumventing otherwise-low ability scores. The spellcaster may decide that that 18 is not worth the benefit of 6 points spent elsewhere, or he may not. Unless the point buy is very high, an 18 Strength means that the fighter's going to be dangerously low in another stat he needs...and he's the mild example. For a Paladin, the situation is exacerbated.
Ace_of_time 06-29-07, 11:44 PM	Most Gaming groups starting new game have a creation day first and get into meeting each other. Most Advan will not happen till game 2 or 3. Now Will say you are right that players should try and help the DM and make it easy on him, But that still means they would have to be given the choice of which way to roll. and as you said given the choice most would chose roll. CR are a great side note but most good DM's don't make encounter off of CR's alone. And it also doesn't really save time just keeps people from whining. I have seen the same person take 2 minutes to roll stats on one PC and then 1hour using PB on the next. On average rolls not counting luck or what ever you call it. they do match up. I have posted this if you want to look.
Ash2Dust 06-30-07, 12:30 AM	The critical difference here is that, with most forms of PB, the spellcaster has the option of an 18 in his sole critical stat. Realistically, the fighter-type classes do not, because: A. They require more fairly high stats to do their job well. B. They lack the spellcaster's options for circumventing otherwise-low ability scores. The spellcaster may decide that that 18 is not worth the benefit of 6 points spent elsewhere, or he may not. Unless the point buy is very high, an 18 Strength means that the fighter's going to be dangerously low in another stat he needs...and he's the mild example. For a Paladin, the situation is exacerbated. I think something that gets forgotten here is that the spellcaster practically needs that 18 to be properly effective in its higher levels, whereas the fighter can do its job fairly well with nothing higher than a 14 at creation.
Ack 06-30-07, 01:20 AM	I think something that gets forgotten here is that the spellcaster practically needs that 18 to be properly effective in its higher levels, whereas the fighter can do its job fairly well with nothing higher than a 14 at creation. Practically needs, huh? So a spellcaster is basically useless unless he has an 18 in his primary stat? So, again, tell me: when did "the best possible stat" become "the only worthwhile stat"? Now using points buy, no matter what anyone says on here is railroading your players and is there for broken. That is flat-out incorrect (oh, and it's 'therefore', not 'there for'). Let's break this down. "Railroading" would be the GM assigning stats to the players directly. "Railroading" would be the GM telling each player what class he would be playing. "Railroading" would NOT be the GM allowing the players to pick exactly what stats they want from the point buy total! As nastynate (I think) said earlier: Rolling gives you the chance of high stats, point buy gives you the option of high stats. You may not (and that 'may not' is pretty damn strong) get good stats via rolling. You are guaranteed to have exactly the same option of high stats as all the other players with point buy. And yes, the GM is permitted to define how stats will be generated. It's not railroading. A GM who says "We will use 32 point buy" is guaranteeing each and every one of his players a set of good stats. Not straight 18's, sure. But definitely good enough to build a worthwhile character on. Now, that sort of 'railroading' I can live with :D Point buy is not railroading. Now: "Broken". If a mechanism is broken, it means that those who make characters designed to take advantage of it will consistently gain an advantage over those who don't. If everyone in a game uses point buy to make their characters, then no-one has the advantage. Everyone, by definition, gets to take advantage of the mechanism. If one person uses point buy and another rolls the dice and gets low stats, then the point buy person has the advantage, true. However, if the person who rolled got high stats, then he would have the advantage. Therefore, even in this unusual circumstance, point buy would not consistently grant an advantage to its user. Point buy is not broken. Guys. Please. That one was disproven three pages ago. Something new, okay?
Caelic 06-30-07, 01:30 AM	I think something that gets forgotten here is that the spellcaster practically needs that 18 to be properly effective in its higher levels, whereas the fighter can do its job fairly well with nothing higher than a 14 at creation. Really? I would suggest that a fighter with a 14 Strength is going to feel the loss of those two points of attack bonus quite significantly in the early game. A fighter with a 14 Con is going to fall down roughly 20% faster than the one with the 18 Con. That's significant. You might argue that he can rectify those shortcomings later, when he can acquire items and level boosts to increase those stats. Of course, that's also the point of the game where the spellcaster can (in essence) redefine his stats. The fighter raises his Strength from 14 to 16; the Druid raises his Wisdom from 18 to 20...and then Wildshapes into something with a 25 Strength.
EvilIdiot 06-30-07, 07:02 AM	@caelic: about charOp: I don't care, my point was they use PB only because it measures and defines the level of power of their character, I know CharOp is not practice, I even support the idea that clerics are not broken, while druids are(May God Forgive Me), following this simple idea we both have. So the argument "charop-->pb-->naa" has no meaning. about statistic:your comparison is partial; we already have stated that rolling gives you the chances of a wider range of abilities, both lower and higher,increasing the variance, but that's not the point. When you use PB you know you're not going to get higher results, while rolling gives you more chances, hower ,when rolling, you know you have more chances of getting more bad rolls than good ones; you're saying that playing lotto gives you the chance of getting more money than working, true, but you don't stop working for this, just because the chances of winning are not that high. Againg, I've explained why some people feel PB more reassuring, simply because there's more chance of getting bad/unbalancing rolls. In my first post I said that ,while rolling is a good method, since I never said it should be banned, it has not as much advantages/balance and goodies as PB, rather there are lots of false myths around it; the only advantage I can see it's the thrill and the opportunity to work out of the box, as you said, but that doesn't mean PB generates the same characters all the time, it simply depends on the player, who will be hardly surprised of the results himself has generated tough. about railroading: DM can make players use a low base as a high one, as I said before it is a contract between them, whose friendliness depends on DM; when DM chooses to use 3d6 instead of 4d6 and makes rerollig using a wrong estimator of balance (sum of modifiers), he's as bad as when he force his players use a low base, or even worse, since it's hard to demonstrate his wrongness with rerolling. Anyway PB is made so that you can use higher bases without worring that much about powerfulness:the main problem is that standard bases seem to low but, again, you can choose and see the results, you can guess that 28 is not that taboo, and even 32 Finally, about stats: I don't know whether people here know about the backpacking problem, anyway it simply means that making equivalences between rolling and pb by calculating the equivalent base of rolling distribution is WRONG. PB is an intelligent-driven method, rolling a stochastic one, saying that mean=12 implies pb=30 pts is wrong 'cos having 6 twelves is inefficient, sucks and you can have a more powerful character with less points (say 25) by arranging scores differently, this means as well that you have chances of getting 30 points, but the strength of PB is the chance of manage them. having two 18 and 4 8 is 32, but that's a hardly playable char. And what about variance?when you take in account means, you must consider variance as well: mean=x and var.=y implies a really probable range of |x-score|<y,ecc...
Ongorth 06-30-07, 09:28 AM	I think something that gets forgotten here is that the spellcaster practically needs that 18 to be properly effective in its higher levels, whereas the fighter can do its job fairly well with nothing higher than a 14 at creation. A cleric needs an 18 in wisdom to beat things up with a stick better then a fighter and heal the party? A wizard needs an 18 in intellegence to lay down the smack with his amazing crowd controls and ranged touch spell? Its the same difference. Fighters have to hit vs. AC. Casters have DC vs. save. One less +1 amounts to a 1 in 20 lower chance of being effective in either case. The main difference is casters have many extremely good options that don't require a save. They can go after touch AC or drop an area of effect (that probably doesn't even have SR). The fighter can, umm, try to demoralize or grapple? Maybe?
Caelic 06-30-07, 11:28 AM	@caelic: about statistic:your comparison is partial; we already have stated that rolling gives you the chances of a wider range of abilities, both lower and higher,increasing the variance, but that's not the point. When you use PB you know you're not going to get higher results, while rolling gives you more chances, hower ,when rolling, you know you have more chances of getting more bad rolls than good ones; you're saying that playing lotto gives you the chance of getting more money than working, true, but you don't stop working for this, just because the chances of winning are not that high. Bad analogy, for several reasons: 1. Rolling stats or buying them is something that occurs once in a character's career; that can hardly be compared to holding down a steady job. 2. The connotations there are definitely biased; the analogy portrays PB as a steady job (something serious, responsible people do) and dice rolling as playing the lotto (something that tends to be portrayed as irresponsible and throwing your money away.) I don't think those connotations are justified. 3. Your chances of generating a strong character with random rolls is actually quite good. Unlike lotto, the odds are heavily stacked in your favor. Your odds of rolling a 3 are 1 in 1,296...considerably lower than .1%...whereas your odds of rolling an 18 are (forgive me if I'm off, it's been a while since I tried to run permutations in my head) roughly 10% with each roll. Moreover, if your character is NOT statistically above average, you get to discard him and start over. Againg, I've explained why some people feel PB more reassuring, simply because there's more chance of getting bad/unbalancing rolls. Unbalancing, yes. Bad? It's very difficult to get a genuinely bad character with the book method, for all of the horror stories and hyperbole. It might be possible to get a character who doesn't have his stats laid out precisely as the player wanted, but that's not the same thing. In my first post I said that ,while rolling is a good method, since I never said it should be banned, it has not as much advantages/balance and goodies as PB, I maintain that this is entirely subjective and that rolling has as many points to recommend it...not the least of which is that it's the default method, and therefore almost certainly the method being used at a vast majority of tables. the only advantage I can see it's the thrill and the opportunity to work out of the box, as you said, but that doesn't mean PB generates the same characters all the time, it simply depends on the player, who will be hardly surprised of the results himself has generated tough. As has been observed, though...as you yourself acknowledge indirectly later in your post...certain point configurations are just better than others. If the players know what they're doing, those configurations will pop up over and over again, because it simply makes no sense not to do so if you have control over your stats. Thus, variety is decreased, and the odds of an unusual stat adding flavor to the character go down. Anyway PB is made so that you can use higher bases without worring that much about powerfulness:the main problem is that standard bases seem to low but, again, you can choose and see the results, you can guess that 28 is not that taboo, and even 32 Well, that's gratifying; it means that somewhere, sometime, a player might consider playing a paladin, because he'd actually have enough points to squeak out a competent one. PB is an intelligent-driven method, rolling a stochastic one, saying that mean=12 implies pb=30 pts is wrong 'cos having 6 twelves is inefficient, sucks and you can have a more powerful character with less points (say 25) by arranging scores differently, this means as well that you have chances of getting 30 points, but the strength of PB is the chance of manage them. ...and there we have it; you agree with me that PB tends to lead to "efficient" configurations of stats. There just aren't that many of those for any given build. If I'm playing a heavy-armor fighter who uses Expertise, and another player of similar skill is playing a heavy-armor fighter who uses Expertise, dollars to donuts the stats are going to be extremely similar, if not identical.
Ack 06-30-07, 12:05 PM	Bad analogy, for several reasons: 1. Rolling stats or buying them is something that occurs once in a character's career; that can hardly be compared to holding down a steady job. However, a player will make hundreds, if not thousands, of characters in his career. Or are you still playing the first character you ever made up, and no other? 2. The connotations there are definitely biased; the analogy portrays PB as a steady job (something serious, responsible people do) and dice rolling as playing the lotto (something that tends to be portrayed as irresponsible and throwing your money away.) I don't think those connotations are justified. It's a comparison. If you roll and attempt to 'randomly' get better scores, you are quite literally gambling to get those scores. If you take a point buy total and assign scores, then you're basically 'investing' what you have. 3. Your chances of generating a strong character with random rolls is actually quite good. Unlike lotto, the odds are heavily stacked in your favor. Your odds of rolling a 3 are 1 in 1,296...considerably lower than .1%...whereas your odds of rolling an 18 are (forgive me if I'm off, it's been a while since I tried to run permutations in my head) roughly 10% with each roll. Moreover, if your character is NOT statistically above average, you get to discard him and start over. Randomly, huh? The chance of getting an 18 on 3d6, straight roll, is 1 in 216. And now, with all these 'ifs' and 'buts' and 'maybes' and "yeah, you can drop that one because it doesn't have serious pwnage" you've managed to increase the likelihood of an 18 by a factor of TWENTY? And you wonder why PB advocates don't take claims of "It's all random" seriously. Unbalancing, yes. Bad? It's very difficult to get a genuinely bad character with the book method, for all of the horror stories and hyperbole. It might be possible to get a character who doesn't have his stats laid out precisely as the player wanted, but that's not the same thing. It's very difficult - because you're taking 95% of the supposed 'randomness' that's supposed to be the crux of the rolling system and denying it the chance to even see the light of day. I maintain that this is entirely subjective and that rolling has as many points to recommend it...not the least of which is that it's the default method, and therefore almost certainly the method being used at a vast majority of tables. Not since point buy came out. As has been observed, though...as you yourself acknowledge indirectly later in your post...certain point configurations are just better than others. If the players know what they're doing, those configurations will pop up over and over again, because it simply makes no sense not to do so if you have control over your stats. Thus, variety is decreased, and the odds of an unusual stat adding flavor to the character go down. Unless the player himself chooses to have that unusual stat. Note that a player who chooses to take on an unusual stat is much happier in the long run than a player who didn't want it but had to take it anyway. Well, that's gratifying; it means that somewhere, sometime, a player might consider playing a paladin, because he'd actually have enough points to squeak out a competent one. If ever I had the inclination to play a paladin, I'd use point buy. Why? Because I know I'll get the stats I need to play it. :D ...and there we have it; you agree with me that PB tends to lead to "efficient" configurations of stats. There just aren't that many of those for any given build. If I'm playing a heavy-armor fighter who uses Expertise, and another player of similar skill is playing a heavy-armor fighter who uses Expertise, dollars to donuts the stats are going to be extremely similar, if not identical. And if the two players rolled their stats and one got much better stats than the other, then the one heavy-armour fighter with Expertise is going to consistently show up the other one. No matter how much skill he shows in the game. And is that fair? Let me make a point regarding the 'randomness' of some of the favoured stat generation dice roll systems I've seen mentioned here. Basically, I'll be talking about the 4d6 drop-the-lowest and permutations thereof, though what I say can be applied to most of the others as well. 4d6 DTL is far less random than it seems. Why do I say that? Because what you're doing is: 1) Randomly rolling 4d6, and then 2) NON-randomly picking the highest three out of those. Now let's look at 4d6 DTL re-roll 1s (and sometimes 2s as well). This is even less random. First, we roll the 4d6, to get a good spread. Then we skim off the highest numbers. If any of these have the audacity to be 1 (or sometimes 2) then THEY get re-rolled as well. In short, even before you look at the stat array as a whole, you are curtailing the randomness of the entire process severely. And then what? You get 3 3's for your roll. You end up with three like that, and three 13's on the upside of the average curve. And then you go, "Nuh uh! Its stat bonus adds up to zero! NOT GOOD ENOUGH!" and you re-roll the whole thing again. Thus rejecting even that barely-random series of rolls. Honestly; if you still consider the 'randomness' of the dice rolling system to be its paramount virtue, I'd re-examine it. Closely. Because the randomness you get is barely more than the choice-making that goes on inside the head of a PB user when deciding whether to give his fighter more CON or STR. Really.
Maekrix_Waere 06-30-07, 12:06 PM	3. Your chances of generating a strong character with random rolls is actually quite good. Unlike lotto, the odds are heavily stacked in your favor. Your odds of rolling a 3 are 1 in 1,296...considerably lower than .1% 0.0771%, to be precise, so ~25% off the original estimate. ...whereas your odds of rolling an 18 are (forgive me if I'm off, it's been a while since I tried to run permutations in my head) roughly 10% with each roll. Moreover, if your character is NOT statistically above average, you get to discard him and start over. I believe the actual odds of rolling an 18 are, using the standard rolling method, 0.462%/roll. ([{1/6}/6]/6)
Caelic 06-30-07, 12:33 PM	I believe the actual odds of rolling an 18 are, using the standard rolling method, 0.462%/roll. ([{1/6}/6]/6) Keep in mind that we're not dealing with three dice, but four; any three sixes on those four dice will give us an 18. As I said, my math may be off, but I believe the odds in that situation jump from 1/216 to 21/216. EDIT: My math is off. Friends don't let friends drink and derive. Anyone got the actual calculations?
EvilIdiot 06-30-07, 12:48 PM	2. The connotations there are definitely biased; the analogy portrays PB as a steady job (something serious, responsible people do) and dice rolling as playing the lotto (something that tends to be portrayed as irresponsible and throwing your money away.) I don't think those connotations are justified. Good cathc, but that is one possible meaning, Ack explained mine perfectly. 1. Rolling stats or buying them is something that occurs once in a character's career; that can hardly be compared to holding down a steady job. Great Numbers' law requires great amount of trials: they are either from the same player, make statistic from 1 repeated sample, or from all the players, taking the entire population, so I'm considering PBvsRolling globally, which is, by inference's property, reflected onto any sample, playing groups,in different ways This simply means it's easy to find people who got unbalancing characters due to their unluck. 3. Your chances of generating a strong character with random rolls is actually quite good.... Simulation I linked shows you having scores under 13 is much more probable than the opposite. I maintain that this is entirely subjective and that rolling has as many points to recommend it...not the least of which is that it's the default method, and therefore almost certainly the method being used at a vast majority of tables. Mathematically PB has more advantages than rolling, practically they're not so important/effective, because of the approximation made by inference*, it's a matter of speculation. *as I can't be sure of having 4 heads by flipping a coin 8 times. As has been observed, though...as you yourself acknowledge indirectly later in your post...certain point configurations are just better than others. ...Thus, variety is decreased, and the odds of an unusual stat adding flavor to the character go down. partially true; even with rolling ,you have some control on your rolls, i.e. there is some amount of variety who isn't enjoyed by players and dms. PB is easier to control, in fact, so it would be better if randomness was restricted to a shorter range, as Ack himself proposed. Well, that's gratifying; it means that somewhere, sometime, a player might consider playing a paladin, because he'd actually have enough points to squeak out a competent one. High bases are easy to use as low ones, and PB is still a contract; a competent paladin could require a good contract between players and DM, or some luck with dices, as any other MAD class. ...and there we have it; you agree with me that PB tends to lead to "efficient" configurations of stats... I wasn't referring to one of your previous posts, I said that an array of twelves is inefficient, a statement true independently from the system it was generated by; that kind of array is hard to achieve with both methods. The main point was the wrongness of some estimations.
Caelic 06-30-07, 12:57 PM	Randomly, huh? The chance of getting an 18 on 3d6, straight roll, is 1 in 216. And now, with all these 'ifs' and 'buts' and 'maybes' and "yeah, you can drop that one because it doesn't have serious pwnage" you've managed to increase the likelihood of an 18 by a factor of TWENTY? That might matter if we were discussing "straight roll 3d6." We're not. We're discussing the default manner of generating characters in 3.5, which is and has always been "4d6 drop the low roll." That said, my math is significantly off; I forgot to factor in the fourth die in one step of my calculations. As I said, it's been a long time since I ran permutations. Anyone out there want to quickly run the actual probability of at least three sixes on four dice? And you wonder why PB advocates don't take claims of "It's all random" seriously. Well, no. First, I don't wonder that; second, I do wonder who has been making claims of "It's all random." It's very difficult - because you're taking 95% of the supposed 'randomness' that's supposed to be the crux of the rolling system and denying it the chance to even see the light of day. No; the default system is eliminating a large aspect of the randomness of dice rolling...and, not coincidentally, eliminating one of the major complaints of PB advocates; the vastly-overstated chance of getting a horrible character. This, I've noticed, is problematic, because it leaves them solely with the less-attractive argument: Not "I don't want other players to have characters that are too weak," but "I don't want other players to have characters that are too strong." Not since point buy came out. Aah. And you can make that statement because you have access to WotC's market research? You have embarked on a comprehensive survey of campaigns nationwide? I make my statement with at least some basis in fact--the general tendency in any game is to use the default rules rather than variants. On what basis do you make your claim that "since point buy came out" rolling dice for stats is not the norm? And if the two players rolled their stats and one got much better stats than the other, then the one heavy-armour fighter with Expertise is going to consistently show up the other one. No matter how much skill he shows in the game. And is that fair? Ah. So we're back to the less-attractive argument: "His character is stronger than mine, and therefore, I'm not having fun." I would suggest that a player who can't deal with the idea that another character may outshine his mechanically is going to have problems in D&D regardless of the method of stat generation. That extra +2 to hit and damage isn't going to seem like such a big deal when the wizard is casually wiping out armies. In response to your question, though: no, it's not fair. D&D is inherently an unfair game. Assume for a moment that the two characters have equal stats. Inequities will still abound. The player who, over the course of the character's career, rolls higher d20 rolls to hit will outshine the other player; is that fair? The player who happens to be the beneficiary of good rolls for hit points will outshine the other; is that fair? The character who falls victim to a natural 20 at first level and dies will be vastly surpassed by the character who does not and goes on to 20th level; is that fair? None of this is "fair," and all of it is "fair." Randomness ensures that some individuals will receive better outcomes than others. This will always seem unfair to the person receiving the lesser outcome. If the individuals had the same chance to receive the same outcomes, though, then it can be said to be "fair." As I said before: if you want "fair," meaning no chance of getting screwed by random outcomes, play Chess or Go; D&D just plain isn't designed to handle that well. If you want a good, solid point-buy system, try the Hero System. Attempting to graft limited point-buy onto the D&D system and say that it makes it "fair" is a little like grafting a greenhouse onto a strip mine and calling it "ecologically sound." Let me make a point regarding the 'randomness' of some of the favoured stat generation dice roll systems I've seen mentioned here. Basically, I'll be talking about the 4d6 drop-the-lowest and permutations thereof, though what I say can be applied to most of the others as well. 4d6 DTL is far less random than it seems.... You keep making much of how the default method is "less random" than it seems. I can't help but wonder why, given that it's advocates of point buy who consistently bring up the "randomness" of rolling as their main objection to that system. Very, very few advocates of rolling say "I like it 'cuz it's random." They may like it because it leads to more varied scores; they may like it because it makes multiple high scores at least possible, whereas they're impossible with point buy, but I don't recall ever seeing someone say "I want a totally random system of determining stats, and that's why I like dice rolling!" Of course the default rules aren't particularly random. They were intentionally designed not to be random, specifically to address the issue of "characters who suck." Really, I'm not sure where you're going with this; you've just very skillfully helped disprove one of the major objections to rolling dice.
Ack 06-30-07, 01:05 PM	So if randomness (and the attendant chance of having high rolls, or even the 'unusual stat' as mentioned earlier) isn't the attraction of rolling ... what is?
Caelic 06-30-07, 01:23 PM	Well, as I said, there are a number of reasons why a given person might favor dice rolling. Some are worthy; others are not. 1. Luck. Objectively, there may be no such thing as luck, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of gamers who consider themselves "lucky" or "unlucky." Those who believe themselves lucky will likely favor rolling; those who believe themselves unlucky will likely favor point buy. 2. Possibilities. Just because dice-rolling isn't totally random doesn't mean that it doesn't make more different results possible. A by-the-book PB campaign will never result in, say, the Paladin with almost all 16s-18s...except his Dexterity, which is 3. (Actual character from way back when, albeit rolled using one of the highly-player-favorable methods in the original Unearthed Arcana.) Some people will see the absence of such characters as a good thing; they will favor point buy. Others will see the impossibility of such a character as a bad thing; they will favor dice rolling. 3. Tradition. There are players out there who have been gaming for decades, and a lot of us are set in our ways. I know groups that still use 3d6-play-as-they-lay because it's the way they've always done things. Likewise, the fact that it is the default method listed in the PHB is going to hold weight with a lot of groups; many will do it that way simply because they're leery of variant rules. 4. Cheating. Let's be totally honest and up-front here. Some players cheat, and that needs to be acknowledged in such a discussion. The fact that point buy makes it impossible to cheat on stats is a point in its favor. Of course, that only cures a symptom, not the disease; a player who will cheat on stats will cheat in other ways, too.
EvilIdiot 06-30-07, 01:32 PM	The point Ack was trying to put is that "true randomness" ="true fairness" is false also because even rolling is partially controlled. 1. Luck. Objectively, there may be no such thing as luck, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of gamers who consider themselves "lucky" or "unlucky." so, put in another way, thrilling, right. 2. Possibilities. Just because dice-rolling isn't totally random doesn't mean that it doesn't make more different results possible... ok, the opportunity to work out of the box, which is out of control though. 3. Tradition. Ok, but that's not an inherent feature of rolling, it's an historical issue due to previous choice 4. Cheating. Let's be totally honest and up-front here. Some players cheat, and that needs to be acknowledged in such a discussion. The fact that point buy makes it impossible to cheat on stats is a point in its favor. Of course, that only cures a symptom, not the disease; a player who will cheat on stats will cheat in other ways, too. True, but real-life morality is beyond books,manuals and math of course.
Caelic 06-30-07, 01:36 PM	so, put in another way, thrilling, right. Well, yes. Isn't that a big part of what the game's about? ok, the opportunity to work out of the box, which is out of control though. The system is inherently out of control due to the potential for unforeseen interactions between disparate rules elements. If you want a game where character construction is totally under the control of the player and DM, and still allows for almost infinite variety, as I said, there are vastly superior systems to D&D. Ok, but that's not an inherent feature of rolling, it's an historical issue due to previous choice ...as are many, many aspects of D&D. Precedent is an inalienable part of the game.
Johnny_Angel 06-30-07, 05:37 PM	For the record, one of the things I like about dice rolling is the fact that it is random.
Werral 06-30-07, 06:10 PM	My favorite years ago was an AD&D gnome illusionist/thief rolled with a loaded die: Str: 16 Dex 18 Con: 16 Int: 18 Wis: 15 Chr: 16 Broken as hell but the DM did throw Red Dragons and Pit Fiends at us at 1st level so all we could really do is run along the rail-roads...
StevenO 06-30-07, 08:16 PM	I think something that gets forgotten here is that the spellcaster practically needs that 18 to be properly effective in its higher levels, whereas the fighter can do its job fairly well with nothing higher than a 14 at creation. Yes, primary spellcaster NEED an 18 (and even 19) at higher levels so they can continue to cast what should be their highest level spells. They DO NOT need to start with an 18 however; starting with only a 15 and putting all the level based stat increases into it will ensure you have a high enough stat to cast your spells when the time comes barring multiple casting types. Other character types can easily work going off of 14s although what to advance becomes a question. If all character are made using the same PB it is possible some will have higher "primary" stats but for that they are normally weaker in another area which could then be exploited.
Ace_of_time 06-30-07, 09:29 PM	Yes, primary spellcaster NEED an 18 (and even 19) at higher levels so they can continue to cast what should be their highest level spells. They DO NOT need to start with an 18 however; starting with only a 15 and putting all the level based stat increases into it will ensure you have a high enough stat to cast your spells when the time comes barring multiple casting types. Other character types can easily work going off of 14s although what to advance becomes a question. If all character are made using the same PB it is possible some will have higher "primary" stats but for that they are normally weaker in another area which could then be exploited. I have to say you are right. 5 points from level to 20th and you don't get 9th spells till 17th anyway.
Ace_of_time 06-30-07, 09:40 PM	Practically needs, huh? So a spellcaster is basically useless unless he has an 18 in his primary stat? So, again, tell me: when did "the best possible stat" become "the only worthwhile stat"? That is flat-out incorrect (oh, and it's 'therefore', not 'there for'). Let's break this down. "Railroading" would be the GM assigning stats to the players directly. "Railroading" would be the GM telling each player what class he would be playing. "Railroading" would NOT be the GM allowing the players to pick exactly what stats they want from the point buy total! As nastynate (I think) said earlier: Rolling gives you the chance of high stats, point buy gives you the option of high stats. You may not (and that 'may not' is pretty damn strong) get good stats via rolling. You are guaranteed to have exactly the same option of high stats as all the other players with point buy. And yes, the GM is permitted to define how stats will be generated. It's not railroading. A GM who says "We will use 32 point buy" is guaranteeing each and every one of his players a set of good stats. Not straight 18's, sure. But definitely good enough to build a worthwhile character on. Now, that sort of 'railroading' I can live with :D Point buy is not railroading. Now: "Broken". If a mechanism is broken, it means that those who make characters designed to take advantage of it will consistently gain an advantage over those who don't. If everyone in a game uses point buy to make their characters, then no-one has the advantage. Everyone, by definition, gets to take advantage of the mechanism. If one person uses point buy and another rolls the dice and gets low stats, then the point buy person has the advantage, true. However, if the person who rolled got high stats, then he would have the advantage. Therefore, even in this unusual circumstance, point buy would not consistently grant an advantage to its user. Point buy is not broken. Guys. Please. That one was disproven three pages ago. Something new, okay? Well railroad takes options away from the players to make them do what the DM wants them to do. ( so it is easy for him, most of the time.) Now PB looks like it doesn't do this but looks can be deceiving. You are in-fact telling the player they can't have all high scores. In rolling at least they can if very lucky get all 18s on scores just like they could get all 3s if very unlucky. In points buy this is not an option and limits the players to what scores they want the players to have. Be it 10 and 11 with 15 PB or 13 and 14 and the points cost table farther keeps them from wanting to increase above 14. When the DM decides which PB to use he is in-fact deciding for the players how high most scores will be. When rolling leaves this up to the players how well they roll. In my game I use rolling and let my players roll on the table and then roll online with wizard dice roller tool and let them decide which to use. This also gets ride of whining about unlucky dice. Now it's ok to decide a power level for you world but taking away high score to make it easier on the DM is railroading. I just added 4 and 5 in to the lower score for the higher powers. This explain it. Sorry I miss spelled that, It happens sometimes.
navar100 07-01-07, 12:05 AM	In the gauntlet thread, my crusader rocked in the first challenge. His Steely Resolve I think won the MVP with Stone Power feat assist. He got a lucky hit to end the battle early, but the Steely Resolve/Stone Power combo got used, and its effect was paramount. "Only" having a 14 Strength did not hurt. His stats are ST 14 DX 11 CO 16 IN 8 WI 8 CH 14 My cleric, though, bombed big time. I was making use of DMM Quicken Spell at 1st level. With only 25 PB points, I had to dump strength at 10. It made all the difference. I used spells as best I could but I just could not hit the monster. An extra +1 or +2 to hit and damage (even taking into account Bless or Divine Favor) would have made the difference. His stats are ST 10 DX 10 CO 14 IN 9 WI 15 CH 14. Unlike the crusader, the cleric could not afford two 8s. He needed WI for spells, CO for hit points, CH for divine metamagic. Not much left. He can't afford a penalty to AC. He can't afford a penalty to hit. This character died horribly, twice with different spells prepared. Had I dumped Charisma to boost Strength he could have won the battle but would not have DMM Quicken Spell and in a typical game would not be turning undead regularly. The gauntlet is mainly about combat. Therefore, this cleric would be more suited to support. In a four man party he could probably do alright letting others engage the bad guys directly, but I tell you it was not fun watching this guy get torn to pieces. With no bodyguards (i.e. other party members to help him) he's dead meat.
Tytalus 07-01-07, 02:35 AM	3d6 = 10.5 average (11,11,11,10,10,10 = 15 PB) 4d6 drop the lowest = 12 average (12,12,12,12,12,12 = 24 PB) The median result of 3d6 & 15 PB = 10.5 The median result of 4d6 drop the lowest and 25 PB = 12 (yes I know 25 PB actually gives you a median of 12.0833333...but rounding off seems fairly reasonable) Care to explain where you got 30-31 PB? You don't seem to understand how PB works. Higher attribute values cost increasingly more, therefore using means of a single 4D6-DL roll and multiplying it by 6 doesn't work at all at approximating PB values. For example, your method doesn't account for the extremely high PB cost of a rolled 18. It's a common mistake, though. philipk has the right numbers (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12906926&postcount=317), by the way. Similar results are shown in this old thread here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8988425#post8988425). The OP actually derives a PB value of 29.9341 (with re-roll, as those are part of the 4D6-drop-lowest rules). This is pretty close to what it should be (~30.46), but unfortunately, the OP neglected to include the code for his simulation, so it's impossible to see where discrepancies might be. The half point doesn't really matter, though, it's just important to note that 4D6-dl is considerably above 28 PB. Let me point out that some of the posts in that thread are full of improperly applied math (i.e., assurances that the PB equivalent of 4D6-dl can be derived by taking the average of a single 4D6-dl roll, determining the PB equivalent, and multiplying by 6; just as you did. Another example is that the average 1st, 2nd, etc.-highest rolls can be used to determine PB equivalents). Points buy, ( with cost table)/ Roll go by average rolls 15= 10,11,10,11,10,11 / 3d6= 10,11,10,11,10,11 22= 12,11,12,11,12,12 / 4d6= 12,11,12,11,12,11 25= 12,12,12,12,12,13 / 4d6 Floating=12,11,12,11,12,12 28=12,12,13,13,13,13 / 5d6 drop 2 lowest=12,13,12,13,12,13 32= 13,13,13,13,14,14 / 5d6 reroll lowest 2=13,14,13,14,13,14 Same problem here. It just doesn't work that way.
Maekrix_Waere 07-01-07, 02:41 AM	Keep in mind that we're not dealing with three dice, but four; any three sixes on those four dice will give us an 18. As I said, my math may be off, but I believe the odds in that situation jump from 1/216 to 21/216. I think that should be it, with 4d6 drop the lowest. Three dice need a 6, and the other can have anything, thusly, ([1/6]^3)x(6/6). It might be 21/216 in 4d6 REROLL the lowest, but that sounds a bit high.
Tytalus 07-01-07, 02:50 AM	I think that should be it, with 4d6 drop the lowest. Three dice need a 6, and the other can have anything, thusly, ([1/6]^3)x(6/6). You are forgetting to consider the order of the dice. 1-6-6-6 is a different result (mathematically, not with respect to the resulting attribute value) than 6-6-6-1. The chances are: Exactly three 6s: (1/6)^3 * (5/6) * 4 = 20/1296. Exactly four 6s: (1/6)^4 = 1/1296. Total chance for an 18 total: 21/1296 = 3.5/216
Vaelan 07-01-07, 03:03 AM	True, but this doesn't support rolling against PB, which ,instead, solve it, even if incidentally, doit? No, it doesn't support rolling. It is, in fact, a possible condemnation. I thought that was clear. Thus, variety is decreased, and the odds of an unusual stat adding flavor to the character go down. So people will have to put thought into their characters rather than using a die roll to determine a gimmick? I hereby condemn point-buy forever! ;)
JolanthusTrel 07-01-07, 06:51 AM	My problem with point buy is that I have to spend 12 points just to clear the penalties, then have 13 points to spread over 6 stats. Str: 10 Dex: 13 Con: 13 Int: 12 Wis: 13 Cha: 12 Thats a 25 point buy, and a pretty weak ranger, 34lbs and he has a medium load? Studded Leather, Buckler, Longbow, 20 arrows, short sword, light mace is 37lbs and he hasn't even got adventuring gear yet! He's Definitaly not a melee combatant unless he takes weapons finesse, even then limited to light armour. I have no problem with him using a bow but 13 dex is not great either. But atleast everyone else is handicapped inthe same way... kinda Now, lets look at him at 12th level Str: 12 (+2 for Level advancement) Dex: 14 (+1 for Level advancement) Con: 13 Int: 12 Wis: 13 Cha: 12 Thats really poor for a 12th level character... and only 53 randomly rolled HP I mean how has he survived. thankfully he has +1 to his con or it could have been real nasty... he can only carry 45 pounds before hitting a meduim load...
Ace_of_time 07-01-07, 08:08 AM	You don't seem to understand how PB works. Higher attribute values cost increasingly more, therefore using means of a single 4D6-DL roll and multiplying it by 6 doesn't work at all at approximating PB values. For example, your method doesn't account for the extremely high PB cost of a rolled 18. It's a common mistake, though. philipk has the right numbers (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12906926&postcount=317), by the way. Similar results are shown in this old thread here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8988425#post8988425). The OP actually derives a PB value of 29.9341 (with re-roll, as those are part of the 4D6-drop-lowest rules). This is pretty close to what it should be (~30.46), but unfortunately, the OP neglected to include the code for his simulation, so it's impossible to see where discrepancies might be. The half point doesn't really matter, though, it's just important to note that 4D6-dl is considerably above 28 PB. Let me point out that some of the posts in that thread are full of improperly applied math (i.e., assurances that the PB equivalent of 4D6-dl can be derived by taking the average of a single 4D6-dl roll, determining the PB equivalent, and multiplying by 6; just as you did. Another example is that the average 1st, 2nd, etc.-highest rolls can be used to determine PB equivalents). Same problem here. It just doesn't work that way. My rolls are besided on average rolls. 3.5 means sometimes 3 and sometimes four. So on 3d6 it would, on average roll, be 3,4,3 or 4,3,4. On 4d6 it would be 3,4,3,4. On 4d6 reoll it would be 3,4,4,4 because you would reroll the 3 and get a 4. 5d6 would look like 3,4,3,4,5 or 4,3,4,3,4. 5d6 reroll would look like this 4,4,4,4,5 or 4,4,5,4,5 because you would reroll the 3 and get 4's and a high chance of 5's. Now you could roll higher or lower but they will average out most of the time to the numbers I have shown. Now as for PB i use text book PB from DMG and divide them up evenly. You could move points around to get higher stats in one score and lower in another but that's up to the player and the stats I posted is what the DM would go by when deciding which to use. Sorry if you don't like it.
Ack 07-01-07, 11:00 AM	My problem with point buy is that I have to spend 12 points just to clear the penalties, then have 13 points to spread over 6 stats. Str: 10 Dex: 13 Con: 13 Int: 12 Wis: 13 Cha: 12 Thats a 25 point buy, and a pretty weak ranger, 34lbs and he has a medium load? Studded Leather, Buckler, Longbow, 20 arrows, short sword, light mace is 37lbs and he hasn't even got adventuring gear yet! He's Definitaly not a melee combatant unless he takes weapons finesse, even then limited to light armour. I have no problem with him using a bow but 13 dex is not great either. But atleast everyone else is handicapped inthe same way... kinda Now, lets look at him at 12th level Str: 12 (+2 for Level advancement) Dex: 14 (+1 for Level advancement) Con: 13 Int: 12 Wis: 13 Cha: 12 Thats really poor for a 12th level character... and only 53 randomly rolled HP I mean how has he survived. thankfully he has +1 to his con or it could have been real nasty... he can only carry 45 pounds before hitting a meduim load... .. and yet, more than one of us has stated that we prefer 32 point buy. I would have done it something like this (with 25 pb): STR 16 DEX 13 CON 14 INT 10 WIS 10 CHA 8 A reasonable CON, a good STR, and a high enough DEX to be playing with those fun DEX based feats. At level 12, you can have CON 16 and DEX 14, raising your HP and your Defense. Yes, you would be a little light on skills and spells - but then, I've never been a spell-monkey. If this bothers you, then you can trim that 16 STR to a 14, raise the CHA to 10, and then put the last two points wherever you feel it would help the character. EDIT: As no-one has replied to this post yet, I will add in what I would use for the 32 pb for this character. STR 16 DEX 12 CON 14 INT 12 WIS 14 CHA 10 Alternatively, STR 14 DEX 12 CON 14 INT 14 WIS 14 CHA 12 YMMV.
Ack 07-01-07, 12:46 PM	For the record, one of the things I like about dice rolling is the fact that it is random. Rolling a d20 to determine whether you hit is random. Rolling 4d6 drop-the-lowest is considerably less so (and when you start to reroll and 1 or 2, the randomness drops again, drastically). I believe that I have proven that in sufficient detail in earlier posts. If a player embraced true randomness, he would surely return to the old standard of 3d6, let the dice fall where they may. Bring back the chance to have a stat fall randomly between 3 and 18! Reject these unclean modifiers and extra dice and rerolls! Randomness uber alles! [/sarcasm] :D
EvilIdiot 07-01-07, 01:19 PM	@caelic: ok ,trhilling is important while gaming, but is creating a character essential while rolling during session? The answer is simply no;you create characters before playing. I'm not saying that char. creation mustn't be thrilling as adventuring, it simply hasn't got to be so, you can do both ways; comparing these two types of "thrilling" isn't correct. @ace_of_time,tytalus: I strongly believe your calculus are wrong, due to the connection between pb and knapsack problem, remind that having mean 12 doesn't imply a PB of 30 pts at all, because PB is intelligent-drive and having all the same scores is inefficient,considering the opportunities of method itself and the necessities characters have to be meaningfully built. You won't like 6 12s, you would change them, using PB. If you have a sack in which you can put scores from 8 to 18, you would waste sack's capacity (PB's base)by putting all the same scores, since the goal of PB is not being numerically equivalent to rolling, but assigning scores. Having a character with scores below 16 built with 30,or even 28, pts is not good ,period.
Caelic 07-01-07, 01:23 PM	So people will have to put thought into their characters rather than using a die roll to determine a gimmick? I hereby condemn point-buy forever! ;) ...because, of course, people who don't PB never put thought into their characters. I realize you meant the above comment facetiously, but it still does nothing to help. One of the main reasons these threads always crash and burn is elitism and "My way is the right way" attitudes.
Caelic 07-01-07, 01:36 PM	@caelic: ok ,trhilling is important while gaming, but is creating a character essential while rolling during session? The answer is simply no;you create characters before playing. I'm not saying that char. creation mustn't be thrilling as adventuring, it simply hasn't got to be so, you can do both ways; comparing these two types of "thrilling" isn't correct. ...in your opinion. Given the number of PB advocates we've seen here complaining about how the entire game experience will be spoiled for them if they happen to roll below-average stats, I think it's clear that character generation is an integral part of the "thrilling" that comes later in the game. Nothing has got to be thrilling. You could eliminate dice rolling entirely using the same logic often advanced for PB. After all, if having a negative outcome due to dice rolling at character creation is bad and to be avoided, then logically, so is having a negative outcome due to dice rolling during an adventure. Dying is certainly likely to reduce the player's fun; even if raised, he'll be a level behind the curve, which is going to be at least as severe a handicap as lower stats. Therefore, clearly, we should avoid random dice rolls that might spoil a player's enjoyment this way...right? Before you accuse me of hyperbole, let me point out that none exists here; I have personally encountered a number of groups who play this way. Diceless roleplaying is past its heyday, I think, but still certainly exists. Me? I prefer not to go into a game with the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from knowing nothing bad can happen to my character unless I want it to. I like the challenge of knowing that my character might have a severe weakness and I'll have to think on my feet to find ways to overcome it. I like the possibility that my character might have a very strong stat that's not directly related to his profession or critical to him, and that I don't have to drastically reduce his effectiveness in other areas to make that happen. PB is a world where competent fighters never have an 18 Charisma and competent wizards never have an 18 Strength. The cleric is never more nimble than the ranger, and the paladin, far from being the towering paragon exemplified by Launcelot, is...competent, and not more than that. I can see your point of view; I just don't think that warm fuzzy feeling of security is worth creating a world where all of those things are absolutely impossible.
nastynate 07-01-07, 01:57 PM	PB is a world where competent fighters never have an 18 Charisma and competent wizards never have an 18 Strength. The cleric is never more nimble than the ranger, and the paladin, far from being the towering paragon exemplified by Launcelot, is...competent, and not more than that. Most rolling systems (the standard 4d6, drop the lowest, for example) also permit players to assign their scores to the attributes they want. I don't see it being anymore likely that a wizard would have an 18 Strength or a fighter would have an 18 Charisma, whether rolling or using PB to generate those attributes. I have made a fighter with a 16 Charisma using PB, just as I have assigned high Charisma to fighters when rolling ability scores. I like charismatic warriors, even if such a choice is suboptimal. Breaking stereotypes (mechanically) can be done with either system, if that is something you want to do, but neither system supports or impedes such a choice better or worse than the other.
Caelic 07-01-07, 03:40 PM	Most rolling systems (the standard 4d6, drop the lowest, for example) also permit players to assign their scores to the attributes they want. I don't see it being anymore likely that a wizard would have an 18 Strength or a fighter would have an 18 Charisma, whether rolling or using PB to generate those attributes. Likely, no. Possible, yes. Therein lies the difference. I have made a fighter with a 16 Charisma using PB, just as I have assigned high Charisma to fighters when rolling ability scores. I like charismatic warriors, even if such a choice is suboptimal. Breaking stereotypes (mechanically) can be done with either system, if that is something you want to do, but neither system supports or impedes such a choice better or worse than the other. Not so. Point buy actively penalizes you for breaking stereotypes. In order to have that 16 Charisma, your fighter must be worse in other stats--probably stats he needs. With point buy, a higher Charisma always and invariably means lower stats elsewhere. With die rolls, it's possible that you could, in fact, have a high stat to spare. It's not likely, no...but it's possible. Me? I like the creative challenge of taking the stats as rolled and crafting a character around them in most cases.
JolanthusTrel 07-01-07, 05:23 PM	.. and yet, more than one of us has stated that we prefer 32 point buy. I would have done it something like this (with 25 pb): STR 16 DEX 13 CON 14 INT 10 WIS 10 CHA 8 A reasonable CON, a good STR, and a high enough DEX to be playing with those fun DEX based feats. At level 12, you can have CON 16 and DEX 14, raising your HP and your Defense. Yes, you would be a little light on skills and spells - but then, I've never been a spell-monkey. If this bothers you, then you can trim that 16 STR to a 14, raise the CHA to 10, and then put the last two points wherever you feel it would help the character. EDIT: As no-one has replied to this post yet, I will add in what I would use for the 32 pb for this character. STR 16 DEX 12 CON 14 INT 12 WIS 14 CHA 10 Alternatively, STR 14 DEX 12 CON 14 INT 14 WIS 14 CHA 12 YMMV. So your saying you have to use a higher PB system to make it work, that doesn't seem right... And you do realise, a lot of the rangers core skills are wisdom based, Spot, survival, listen, heal. And why am I having to buy off my penalties. The baseline is ten when you roll, why has it been reduced to 8 when you PB?
Johnny_Angel 07-01-07, 08:32 PM	Rolling a d20 to determine whether you hit is random. Rolling 4d6 drop-the-lowest is considerably less so (and when you start to reroll and 1 or 2, the randomness drops again, drastically). I believe that I have proven that in sufficient detail in earlier posts. If a player embraced true randomness, he would surely return to the old standard of 3d6, let the dice fall where they may. Bring back the chance to have a stat fall randomly between 3 and 18! Reject these unclean modifiers and extra dice and rerolls! Randomness uber alles! [/sarcasm] :D Well, luckily for me, my group doesn't reroll 1s and 2s then. :D
Vaelan 07-01-07, 11:05 PM	...because, of course, people who don't PB never put thought into their characters. In my experience, people who rely on a fluke of the dice to add flavor to their character don't put thought into their characters. I'm not going to say that they all do, but I have noticed the tendency.
Tytalus 07-01-07, 11:07 PM	My rolls are besided on average rolls. 3.5 means sometimes 3 and sometimes four. So on 3d6 it would, on average roll, be 3,4,3 or 4,3,4. On 4d6 it would be 3,4,3,4. On 4d6 reoll it would be 3,4,4,4 because you would reroll the 3 and get a 4. 5d6 would look like 3,4,3,4,5 or 4,3,4,3,4. 5d6 reroll would look like this 4,4,4,4,5 or 4,4,5,4,5 because you would reroll the 3 and get 4's and a high chance of 5's. Now you could roll higher or lower but they will average out most of the time to the numbers I have shown. No, that's not how it works at all. Taking averages is fine for determining the average of straight rolls (3D6, 4D6, 5D6, etc.), but breaks down when you have a "drop lowest policy". You can't just "drop the 3", as the 3 doesn't really exist - the numbers (3,4,3,4) are just one possible representation of a roll that happens to be average for 4D6. By dropping the lowest, the distribution gets skewed (higher totals are more likely than lower rolls) and averages don't apply any more. Arbitrary guesswork like "you would reroll the 3 and get 4's and a high chance of 5's" might accidentally result in numbers that are close to the actual expected value, but has no mathematical foundations. For the same reasoning you can't use averages to calculate PB equivalents as described in my previous post. Again the distribution is skewed: the staggered cost of high PB values invalidates any method using averages. Note also that taking the average result of a single 4D6-DL roll, determining the PB equivalent and multiplying by 6 is also not a valid method of determining PB equivalents: it not only disregards the skewed PB cost of higher attribute values, it also completely ignores the rules for rerolling invalid characters, which help raise the PB equivalent of 4D6-DL. Sorry if you don't like it. It's not a question of preference, but of mathematical soundness.
Caelic 07-01-07, 11:11 PM	In my experience, people who rely on a fluke of the dice to add flavor to their character don't put thought into their characters. I'm not going to say that they all do, but I have noticed the tendency. Fair enough; I've noticed the tendency among those who are big advocates of PB to play repetitive characters without much flavor, who tend to be little better than stock, cliched stereotypes. Perhaps, though, that's a function of the individual, and not their preferred method of dice rolling, no? I have to admit that I find it amusing that generalizing that way about dice rollers amounts to making that general statement about the large majority of D&D players, both currently and historically.
Mock26 07-01-07, 11:26 PM	In my experience, people who rely on the "fairness" of the point buy system to add equality to the game lack the imagination neccesary to truly enjoy the game. I'm not going to say that they all do, but I have noticed the tendency.
Ace_of_time 07-02-07, 02:03 AM	@caelic: ok ,trhilling is important while gaming, but is creating a character essential while rolling during session? The answer is simply no;you create characters before playing. I'm not saying that char. creation mustn't be thrilling as adventuring, it simply hasn't got to be so, you can do both ways; comparing these two types of "thrilling" isn't correct. @ace_of_time,tytalus: I strongly believe your calculus are wrong, due to the connection between pb and knapsack problem, remind that having mean 12 doesn't imply a PB of 30 pts at all, because PB is intelligent-drive and having all the same scores is inefficient,considering the opportunities of method itself and the necessities characters have to be meaningfully built. You won't like 6 12s, you would change them, using PB. If you have a sack in which you can put scores from 8 to 18, you would waste sack's capacity (PB's base)by putting all the same scores, since the goal of PB is not being numerically equivalent to rolling, but assigning scores. Having a character with scores below 16 built with 30,or even 28, pts is not good ,period. I hate to have to keep saying but the PB on may list is beside on what the average roll would be on dice verses average score on PB. Increasing the score one way or the other would drop the Average score alot. Say you decide you want a 18 on one score for your spell caster. 18 cost 16 points instead of 6 for 14. So with 32 PB that leave 16 more points divied by 5 more score gives you 3 point to all and 1 one to go any where. 18, 12, 11, 11, 11, 11 giving you a average score of 12.333_ instead of 13,13,13,13,14,14 which give a average of 13.333_ the more you increase a score past wh I posted. 18,16, 9,9,8,8 and give you a average score of 11.333_. I didn't put points on beside on classes or anything else just wanted to show what the average scores are for each. Now pick the average scores for your PC will not be bad and picking a good race for your class would help. half orc fighter would have str16, dex 13, con 14, int 11, wis13, cha11 and gives you a 13.5 which ups yor average a liitle and still pretty good fighter scores. Wizard build would pick a different race like sub elf race of gray elf and put scores like this str 12 or 11, dex13 or 14, con13, int 16, wis 13, cha13 and still be 13.333.
Ack 07-02-07, 02:21 AM	So your saying you have to use a higher PB system to make it work, that doesn't seem right... No, I'm saying that you can use 25 pb to make it work, but 32 pb makes it work better. :D And you do realise, a lot of the rangers core skills are wisdom based, Spot, survival, listen, heal. Which is why I threw in the the option to boost WIS. What puts the most points into any skill? Not the stat bonus. The ranks you spend toward it. Stat bonus is nice, but not the be-all and end-all. And why am I having to buy off my penalties. The baseline is ten when you roll, why has it been reduced to 8 when you PB? No, the average is ten when you roll 3d6 (10.5, but let's not split hairs). It is not a 'baseline'. The reason PB extends down to 8 is to give us some variety. You know, the thing that many people seem to consider point buy lacks in? Rolling also allows for stats of 8 or below (though, with all the freebies you get, it's a rare character who ends up with more than one stat in that range). If a player with point buy wanted to (suppose he had a concept in mind for a very thick, very tough dwarven fighter-type) he could build a character with 8 INT and WIS, but with high CON (16 +2 for race bonuses) and STR (18 goes there) with 10 CHA (so as not to hamper Intimidate) and 10 DEX (mountain plate all the way :D) ... and you know, that spread is a lot easier to get deliberately with PB than accidentally with rolled stats. In short, if you have a concept you want to try out, then PB helps tremendously.
Thurbane 07-02-07, 04:30 AM	To me, the heart and soul of D&D is rolling up a new character. Different strokes for different folks, but my group has been rolling up our characters for over 20 years and have no plans to switch to an array or point buy any time soon...
EvilIdiot 07-02-07, 06:10 AM	@ace_of_time:I couldn't keep track of all the posts about pb and rolling equivalences, sorry, I addressed the wrong person;in fact your calculus (divide pts equally) is a good one,since it takes in account the different costs of scores in PB, nevertheless it is an inferior estimation of PB power. While rolling you have only one estimator of power:mean, by elevating its value you have increased that by a certain degree, which depends heavily on variance anyway. Using PB you don't have an estimator of power as good as mean is for rolling: having all 12s is inefficient ,since PB's goal is building a character; building a useless one means misusing PB's mechanism. So ,while your estimation for PB is good, it is still wrong, by a different degree of other methods, comparing that result with rolling's mean. Again the analogy with lotto: you're saying lotto is equivalent to a long time of working, which is partially true. ...about how the entire game experience will be spoiled for them if they happen to roll below-average stats, I think it's clear that character generation is an integral part of the "thrilling" that comes later in the game. Well, once characters are made, there's little thrilling by themselves: you already know how your char is at doing things, you can use items, skill points,feat,ecc to compensate those "interesting flaws", what makes them thrilling is playing Randomness has various degrees, even with rolling it isn't enjoyed fully, you have rerolling and such... You can get a character with interesting flaws and one whose only interesting feature is the way he doesn't manage to help his allies out, with rolling. We both know the second one is solved by PB, reducing the certainity of the first, if players want. I like the challenge of knowing that my character might have a severe weakness and I'll have to think on my feet to find ways to overcome it. I like the possibility that my character might have a very strong stat that's not directly related to his profession or critical to him, and that I don't have to drastically reduce his effectiveness in other areas to make that happen. true, there are some times, and it is statistically frequent, where this is negative:long-lasting campaigns where people invest lot of time by solving their chars' flaws to be effective together with their less flawed allies PB is a world where competent fighters never have an 18 Charisma and competent wizards never have an 18 Strength. The cleric is never more nimble than the ranger, and the paladin, far from being the towering paragon exemplified by Launcelot, is...competent, and not more than that. Rolling is a world where competent fighters may have 18 in charisma, but it's quite hard, where skinny wizards who blast people from feets away have more con and str than the poor cleric who runs into the battle to heal his buddies, and needs his heavy armour 'cos of his low dexterity... I agree with you but, out of 10,000 players, the opportunity to have unbalanced group, as in my example, is higher than having balanced groups where characters have good stats. Interestingly, balance occours when characters have decent stats,the ones you would say make a competent character, and which are easily achievable with pb. I can see your point of view; I just don't think that warm fuzzy feeling of security is worth creating a world where all of those things are absolutely impossible. I find hard to keep track of everyone's stataments and moods myself , so I'm not surprised about this post :D , I already said rolling isn't necessarily evil nor broken from a practical pov,however it is mathematically biased compared to PB and doesn't have all the mighty features someone here supports; as regards the historical, typical ,lovely and etc thrilling of rolling , I agree We're discussing on different ,and equally valuable, levels:you're discussing from a practical/empirical pov, me from a global/theorical pov, and I believe we can agree on each other's ideas about breaking stereotypes: PB is strongly balancing, so you need high bases to break stereotypes, while you need luck/unluck while rolling. Finally, saying PB bases are generally too "low", i.e. most PBers here promote 32, is a pro of the method:you can guess that high bases aren't uber-powerful, PB works by choosing different bases as well.
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 10:43 AM	Which brings us back to the central issue I have with point buy: unless it's a very generous point buy, it makes certain classes all but unplayable... There must either be some awfully unlucky players (and intractable DMs) at other tables, See these two points together TYPIFY the "Rolling is better" crowd Either they want a VERY generous Point buy OR they want to roll and ONLY an "Intractable" DM would make them keep rolls like (14, 10,10,10,10,8.) "Oh BOO HOO I wanted two 18's and got only a single 15 as my high score, Please Mr Haul, let me roll again, Waah Waah Waah!" This is directly relates to the insane Idea that "Only Through Rolling could we see fighters with 18 Charisma because blah blah point buy blah blah" - Sure IF the DM gives such generous rolls that ALL your numbers are in the 16-18 range, then a fighter might put an 18 into charisma - after they put an 18 into strength and Constitution and a 16 into Dexterity and Wisdom, and really who wants an 18 Charisma is it means an 8 Intelligence? But that same level of generosity could be found with an 80 point PB. People who INSIST on rolling do so because they want BIG, BIG, REALLY BIG Numbers. People can prefer rolling (generally because they get better scores) without insisting on it, but those who INSIST they must be allowed to roll do so because they want those "BIG, BIG, REALLY BIG" Scores. All the inaccurate statistics (and some are wildly inaccurate) prove only that certain posters know nothing about statistics. All the disingenuous claims about "Optimizers Prefer PB" ignore the demonstrable fact (from posts on this thread) that Rollers are VOCAL in their demands for better attributes than a 25 PB/Elite Array. Rolling is for BIG, BIG, REALLY BIG Scores, and all the "alternate methods" suggested (4d6 re-roll 1's, 5d6 roll twelve times keep the best six, etc.) attest to this. Because for RANDOM characters you need Roll 3d6 IN ORDER, ONCE, and play that character. Even if you get 9, 8, 8, 7, 6, 3. (Which BTW is JUST as likely on 3d6 as 12, 13, 13, 14, 15, 18)
LCD2YOU 07-02-07, 10:51 AM	Rolling is for BIG, BIG, REALLY BIG ScoresIs so unlike PB where the SAD class type characters can get 18 in their primary stat and a good one in another stat then ignore the rest. Maybe PB where no one is allowed to buy anything above 15. Still Mad style characters are screwed in low to mid point buys.
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 11:13 AM	Is so unlike PB where the SAD class type characters can get 18 in their primary stat and a good one in another stat then ignore the rest. OOH so scary - the Wizard with an 18 int and a 14 in, Which is it Constitution or Dexterity? With at most an 11 in the other and 8's in ALL their off attributes (Strength, Wisdom and Charisma). ON THIS THREAD I've seen various pro-rollers claim To "NEED" an 18 Int + 14 Dex and Con That Elite Array and 25 PB are "Crap" That they want a 16 Int and Dex for their Wizards. That the rolls of 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 should be re-rolled WITH DM Permission because (despite meeting the legal requirements for a playable character under RAW) the rolls are unplayable. That the better methods of rolling (the methods their group uses) are Roll 5d6 keep three re-roll the lowest two scores, roll 4d6 re-roll ones roll two sets of attributes and keep the better, have the DM let players who are substantially below the others re-roll, etc. ONCE the decision has been made to ROLL then the only fair method (by RAW) is to keep the first characters with minimal attributes (and 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 IS a legal character) otherwise the distribution gets skewed and the method is no longer FAIR by the rules. Anyone who INSISTS on rolling should be PREPARED to accept a character with rolls of (14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8) or they DON"T REALLY want the RANDOM rolls, just the BIG rolls. Yet those are the very people who REPEATEDLY, ON THIS THREAD, have dismissed the attributes of Elite array (which is a LOT better than 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8) as "Weak" Yeah, if you roll with Monty Haul and he lets you skew the statistics until every character has at least one 18 and two 16's.
Steely_Dan 07-02-07, 11:19 AM	Maybe PB where no one is allowed to buy anything above 15. Maybe something like the Elite Array?
LCD2YOU 07-02-07, 11:20 AM	That's great there OravennasBrother with your diatribe. Monty Haul? Wow, obviously you've never seen my game. All I've ever said and will continue to say is PB is no Panacea. It has its own drawbacks as much as rolling. Personally, I like 4d6, drop lowest. I've used PB, 28 points, before and it was just ok. If you felt the need to go to PB to stop your Monty Haul campaign (I've found a lot of people who rant about and hate something was because they did it and feel everyone else plays as crappy as they) good for you.
LCD2YOU 07-02-07, 11:21 AM	Maybe something like the Elite Array?Possibly. But that doesn't address the fact that MAD style characters are still screwed.
Steely_Dan 07-02-07, 11:27 AM	Possibly. But that doesn't address the fact that MAD style characters are still screwed. What's wrong with a Monk having Str 15, Dex 12, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8, next to the fighter who has Str 15, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8?
LCD2YOU 07-02-07, 11:34 AM	What's wrong with a Monk having Str 15, Dex 12, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8, next to the fighter who has Str 15, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8?Nothing there. But take a Paladin (my favorite MAD class example). What are you going to stick the 8 in? Intelligence? I guess the skills of Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Ride, Knowledge Whatever, etc. are going to be low. Funny as so many feel a Paladin SHOULD have those things to determine if someone's on the up and up. Dexterity? Is this in hope that they'll get heavy armor? What about level 1 when they have no cash (which is about up to levels 4 or 5 in my campaign). What about initiative? Yeah, there's Improved Initiative but anyone can take that Feat too. As one person pointed out, a Paladin on Horseback at 1st level, yeah, a Lt. Riding Horse which is only good during the day, almost always aboveground and best on level ground. The other stats aren't much better options if the Paladin is going to do any melee AND casting. Perhaps a modified "Elite Array" of 14, 13, 13, 12, 12 and 12 for a Paladin? Yeah a bit more points (which is what I've been saying all along for MAD characters, they need a few more points, in this case 3) but they aren't glaring out in any one.
Ack 07-02-07, 11:45 AM	Possibly. But that doesn't address the fact that MAD style characters are still screwed. I still don't see that. In fact, with PB, it's cheaper to have two stats at 14 than one at 18 (for the same bonus total). You can have a 14 and a 16 for the same cost as one at 18. A 16 and two 14s? That's 22 points. Even assuming 25 PB, that still allows for 3 stats at 9 or a 10, a 9 and an 8. When you use 32 point buy (which I do) your MAD character can have a 16, two 14s, two 12s and a 10. Or if you want two 16s and a 14, go for it - a 12-10-8 run isn't gonna kill you. And this screws MAD how?
LCD2YOU 07-02-07, 11:47 AM	So S_D, Taking your Fighter, Str 15, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8 (I changed Con and Dex as I prefer not getting hit in the first place) Applying to the Wizard, Str 12, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 15, Wis 10, Cha 8 Rogue, Str 13, Dex 15, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 8 Cleric, Str 12, Dex 13, Con 10, Int 8, Wis 15, Cha 14 Sorcerer, Str 12, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 15 Then the Paladin, Str 12, Dex 12, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 14 I'd say they are all equivalent. Jury is still out on the Monk though. I'm not sure if your placement, Str 15, Dex 12, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8, my modified elite, Str 12, Dex 15, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8 or the modified Elite Array, Str 12, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 12 (like what does a Monk need with Charisma?) is better. Right now, I'm leaning towards the middle => Str 12, Dex 15, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8
LCD2YOU 07-02-07, 11:55 AM	I still don't see that. In fact, with PB, it's cheaper to have two stats at 14 than one at 18 (for the same bonus total). You can have a 14 and a 16 for the same cost as one at 18. A 16 and two 14s? That's 22 points. Even assuming 25 PB, that still allows for 3 stats at 9 or a 10, a 9 and an 8. When you use 32 point buy (which I do) your MAD character can have a 16, two 14s, two 12s and a 10. Or if you want two 16s and a 14, go for it - a 12-10-8 run isn't gonna kill you. And this screws MAD how?At 32 plus points, which I've said before, the playing field more or less equalizes. The problem is it is only after 32 points and higher. At 36 points, it is no longer an issue. You are correct that anyone wanting to buy an 18 gives up a lot. At 32 points (which I may give the MAD classes 1 or 2 more points), to be a MAD style class is no longer screwed from the start. At 25 points and below, they are completely hosed. At 28 points, some people think it's even but it is not. If the players wanted a 25 PB game, the MAD style classes get 28 points. At 28 points, the MAD style gets 30 points. In order to not have the person do a Monk 1/Sorcerer 5, I ask the player what their character concept is BEFORE they put pen to paper. If they want to multiclass, no problem. If they want to go maybe 5 levels total into or multi-class after just 1st level from the MAD class, they won't get the extra points. I call that DM-Player sitting down and going over the concept before the game starts. Seems to remove a lot of stumbling blocks.
Ack 07-02-07, 11:59 AM	I've never really looked into monk - what does it need to not suck utterly? I'm guessing DEX and what?
LCD2YOU 07-02-07, 12:10 PM	I've never really looked into monk - what does it need to not suck utterly? I'm guessing DEX and what?Actually, the only stat I can see for a Monk to be a Dump Stat is Cha. Monk Str - To hit/Damage as they are a pseudo melee type. Dex - Initiative, Reflex Saves (they make good mage killers) and no to get hit as they don't wear armor. Con - Saves and HP again as they do go in and fight Int - Let's see, Combat Expertise. Sounds good to decrease your to hit bonus, up to 5, for a corresponding increase in AC. Wis - Saves and AC Cha - ????? Paladin Str - They are a melee, frontline fighting type. Dex - Let's see, better saves, initiative, bow weapons, the fact they don't all start in heavy plate armor. Oh yes, Combat Reflexes. Wouldn't do to have people streaming past you to get to the guys your standing in front of now would it? Con - Saves and HP Int - See Monk for Combat Expertise and more skill points for Sense Motive and such. Wis - Spells, Spell DCs, Saves Cha - Lay on hands, Turning, Sacred Save Bonus For the Paladin, the best "dump stat" I can see is Con. I am of the mind that "not getting hit >> than getting it and taking it", "fighting smart >> wading in and hitting things" and finally "options and movement >> standing still and doing one thing only". That is why I think Con is the weakest stat of the Paladin.
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 12:37 PM	At 32 plus points, which I've said before, the playing field more or less equalizes. The problem is it is only after 32 points and higher. At 36 points, it is no longer an issue. At 32 points (which I may give the MAD classes 1 or 2 more points), If the players wanted a 25 PB game, the MAD style classes get 28 points. WOW - 36 Point PB - and you call ME Monty Haul. My players all tell me I walk the line between Strict and Killer, but I do TRY to avoid the latter appellation. Though sometimes when players do something really stupid (or the dice fall badly for a party which forgets to retreat) the body count can rise. 25 PB is Fair to all classes - show me a 25 PB wizard with 18 Int and I'll show you a wizard dying for lack of AC/Reflex Saves or HP/Fortitude Saves. All the Hyperbole about MAD classes is just an excuse for players who want the K3WL L33T classes like Paladin and Monk and ALSO want to have Maximized combat prowess. Hur Hur my Paladin is UB3R - he got 18 Strength and 16 Constitution, Dexterity, Charisma and Wisdom, and he still has a 14 Int, Hur Hur Hur arn't I a gud rollplayer Hur Hur Hur.
LCD2YOU 07-02-07, 01:03 PM	WOW - 36 Point PB - and you call ME Monty Haul.Wow, good example of when you don't have facts, go strsight to hyperbole. 1: I didn't say I use 36 PB. I said that at 36 PB, there is no difference and PB equalizes out for all character types. 2: I made note that people who complain about things being this way or that are guilty of doing the same thing earlier. Like the most vocal anti-smoking adherents are ex-smokers.My players all tell me I walk the line between Strict and Killer, but I do TRY to avoid the latter appellation. Though sometimes when players do something really stupid (or the dice fall badly for a party which forgets to retreat) the body count can rise.Good for you.25 PB is Fair to all classes - show me a 25 PB wizard with 18 Int and I'll show you a wizard dying for lack of AC/Reflex Saves or HP/Fortitude Saves.Ok, 25 PB Wizard: Str 8 Dex 13 Con 10 Int 18 Wis 10 Cha 8 Otay, the 8 Str and Cha hurts the Wiz how? The DC of 17 for certain spells at 1st level, if they are human and take Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus really make up for it. Now, a 25 PB Paladin: Str 10 Dex 14 Con 10 Int 14 Wis 12 Cha 13 Yeah, I'll play that, but the guy will be an archer. First 2 feats? Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot. Yeah, I'll be wading into Melee sometime next week. Does fighting from the rear violate what you think is a Paladin's CoC? Or would you prefer the mindless tank? Str 14 Dex 9 Con 14 Int 8 Wis 14 Cha 14 Yeah, my AC at 1st level is only 15 with Chain Shirt and Large Shield, but you'll metagame and have the bad guys attack other players, right? When this guy gets to 5th level, don't expect anyone playing a genius (his IQ is only 5 points above Homer). My characters skills, all 16 whopping points, are in Ride, Knowledge Religion, Diplomacy, Swim, Jump, Climb Craft Arms and Armor, Spot, etc., with about 2 or 3 ranks in each. Being subtle is not my forte. As for this part: All the Hyperbole about MAD classes is just an excuse for players who want the K3WL L33T classes like Paladin and Monk and ALSO want to have Maximized combat prowess. Hur Hur my Paladin is UB3R - he got 18 Strength and 16 Constitution, Dexterity, Charisma and Wisdom, and he still has a 14 Int, Hur Hur Hur arn't I a gud rollplayer Hur Hur Hur.I don't think anyone has said that. If I'm wrong, please point that out.
EvilIdiot 07-02-07, 01:06 PM	@LCD2YOU: how , precisely, do MAD classes get helped with rolling? Some people may want rolling for big numbers but, as we said before, that's a false myth/hope.
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 01:21 PM	1: I didn't say I use 36 PB. I said that at 36 PB, there is no difference and PB equalizes out for all character types. And how would you know UNLESS you have played with 36 PB? I've asked my DM to run a 15 PB campaign - because I ENJOY a CHALLENGE - you know having to win by playing cleverly, not just overpowering the opposition. Or perhaps you don't know I would hate to make a false assumption about you. Ok, 25 PB Wizard: Str 8, Dex 13, Con 10, Int 18, Wis 10, Cha 8 Otay, the 8 Str and Cha hurts the Wiz how? The DC of 17 for certain spells at 1st level, if they are human and take Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus really make up for it. Well since you've already accounted for the first level feats (Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus) the 4 HP from 10 Constitution do hurt. Unless Monty lets you start play above level 1. I don't want to make assumptions about your campaign. But if I were running then that Wizard would have serious problems. 8 Charisma - not many people will like your character. 8 strength - sounds like you are at medium load pretty fast - even without armor that weight limit, 26 lb., will come up fast. I also note that you didn't take a 14 in dexterity? I suppose you wanted to avoid the 9 Wisdom? See PB is about trade-offs. If a player wants a character with an 18 they have to come up with the points from somewhere else. With rolling all a player needs to do is Cry to Monty for enough re-rolls to get an 18 and the back-up attributes they want. Unless they don't play with Monty. Then they have to cry to the boards to try and build support for their not-Monty to try and pressure them to become Monty.
LCD2YOU 07-02-07, 01:29 PM	@LCD2YOU: how , precisely, do MAD classes get helped with rolling? Some people may want rolling for big numbers but, as we said before, that's a false myth/hope.The typical 4d6 drop the lowest die is around 32 points. 4d6, drop the lowest die and re-roll 1s about 36 points. Which, as I said, is where things equal out. Also, a slightly better than average 4d6, drop lowest can easily make stats between 12 and 15 inclusive. Not too high and definitely none that need to be "dumped" which is why I think rolling helps MAD characters. Again, both have their Pros and Cons. To say that PB beats rolling is a fallacy.
LCD2YOU 07-02-07, 01:49 PM	And how would you know UNLESS you have played with 36 PB?It's called Math and statistics. Ever hear of it?I've asked my DM to run a 15 PB campaign - because I ENJOY a CHALLENGE - you know having to win by playing cleverly, not just overpowering the opposition.Clever is fine. Metagaming is not. See, I have this thing where I range the puzzles based on the character's stats. So if you run into a puzzle that needs resolving, yeah you can use dice rolls or solve it yourself. But here's the rub, if you have an character with an 18 Int, you're going to get a different puzzle to solve. The 18 Int character might get a hard word puzzle for the player to solve. The 8 Int character would get a PDE for the player to solve. See, I don't take metagaming by stat dumping well at all. Want to drop an 8 into intelligence? Sure be creative all you want, just because your character can't take in everything (dumb characters do not see everything - the player must ask and the dumber the character the more they must ask) means you the player don't get the full story. After all you are playing through your character's eyes, right? Coming up on a door. Int 18 - You see and marvelously carved door infront of you. The marking are that of a pre-dynastic age. One thing that bothers you is the discoloration at the base of the door, possibly a scorch mark. Int 14 - You see a well fashioned door with writings you've never seen before. The door has some discolorations on it, especially near the bottom. Int 8 - You see a door with funny marking. It looks solid, though soiled and the like it's rusting or something. Int 5 - You see door. Have an 8 Cha? Don't expect people to listen to you or take you all that seriously.Or perhaps you don't know I would hate to make a false assumption about you.Why stop now? You've already done it several times and you're concerned about it now?Well since you've already accounted for the first level feats (Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus) the 4 HP from 10 Constitution do hurt. Unless Monty lets you start play above level 1. I don't want to make assumptions about your campaign. But if I were running then that Wizard would have serious problems.Like what exactly? DM metagaming to get me or is it structural inertia that is built in your games? I can't decide.8 Charisma - not many people will like your character.Dislike? what about something more like ignore? I'd hate to see what 5 Cha is.8 strength - sounds like you are at medium load pretty fast - even without armor that weight limit, 26 lb., will come up fast.Like what does a wizard carry?I also note that you didn't take a 14 in dexterity? I suppose you wanted to avoid the 9 Wisdom?Yup.See PB is about trade-offs. If a player wants a character with an 18 they have to come up with the points from somewhere else. With rolling all a player needs to do is Cry to Monty for enough re-rolls to get an 18 and the back-up attributes they want. Unless they don't play with Monty. Then they have to cry to the boards to try and build support for their not-Monty to try and pressure them to become Monty.Ok Monty. I've never said that MAD requires 18. Nor have I said anything like what you're pointing out here. As for "making things difficult for the Wizard", there are Monty Hauls and then there are the killer DMs who get off killing characters because they are basically wastes of protoplasm. Making things uniform is what is needed. The traps, foes and more the characters face should be no different if they were a bunch of fighters, Monks, Wizards or better yet a mixed party. Singling out a single character for "extra fun" is the mark of a poor DM. Like you feel that 10 Con is too little, well it's your world, but isn't that what everyone has? 8 Str is not a problem for a Wizard as they carry what now? 8 Cha means "dislikes"? Wow that's a crappy thing to do. What's a 9 Cha then? When do people automatically start liking you? Why don't you read what I really posted instead of your strawman. I've said nothing about always needing high point characters just that if you're going to play PB, MAD classes should get a few extra points to compensate.
Caelic 07-02-07, 01:53 PM	All the Hyperbole about MAD classes is just an excuse for players who want the K3WL L33T classes like Paladin and Monk and ALSO want to have Maximized combat prowess. Hur Hur my Paladin is UB3R - he got 18 Strength and 16 Constitution, Dexterity, Charisma and Wisdom, and he still has a 14 Int, Hur Hur Hur arn't I a gud rollplayer Hur Hur Hur. Now, see, this is exactly the kind of undeserved elitism that invariably wrecks threads like this. Wow. You use an alternate method of character generation, so you feel entitled to look down your nose at the majority of D&D players who don't and characterize them as moronic powergamers. Color me impressed.
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 02:13 PM	It's called Math and statistics. Ever hear of it? I'm more familiar with statistics than the posters who have spouted off statistics on this thread. Go look back and see all the misapplications of basic probability. Much like determining that "This rolling system is comparable to 36 PB" when ANY system of rolling will NEVER match the uniformity of a PB (unless you're actually talking from a sole experience 96 PB vs Roll until you get straight 18 system - then yes those are equal in every way) shows the grasp of statistics of some posters on this thread. Clever is fine. At 15 PB I'd use 5 10's and a 13. Average guy with one thing they do well. And talk about METAGAMING - "Well as DM I'm going to determine that the Average Int Guy has to ask exacting questions to get basic information. Hur Hur." What about WIS - you know the GAME BASED attribute that modifies SPOT? See I am of the opinion that since 15 PB (normal people) leaves the vast majority of attributes the 8 (lowest) to 14 (top) then those represent fairly extreme attributes. Certainly the only measurable attribute (strength) reinforces that and then well .... I've said nothing about always needing high point characters just that if you're going to play PB, MAD classes should get a few extra points to compensate. But THAT (extra points for MAD) IS exactly the same as having high points.
LCD2YOU 07-02-07, 02:22 PM	I'm more familiar with statistics than the posters who have spouted off statistics on this thread. Go look back and see all the misapplications of basic probability. Much like determining that "This rolling system is comparable to 36 PB" when ANY system of rolling will NEVER match the uniformity of a PB (unless you're actually talking from a sole experience 96 PB vs Roll until you get straight 18 system - then yes those are equal in every way) shows the grasp of statistics of some posters on this thread.True, but I'm not one of them.At 15 PB I'd use 5 10's and a 13. Average guy with one thing they do well. And talk about METAGAMING - "Well as DM I'm going to determine that the Average Int Guy has to ask exacting questions to get basic information. Hur Hur." What about WIS - you know the GAME BASED attribute that modifies SPOT?You mean what I use for memory and such? Oh, I use that too.See I am of the opinion that since 15 PB (normal people) leaves the vast majority of attributes the 8 (lowest) to 14 (top) then those represent fairly extreme attributes. Certainly the only measurable attribute (strength) reinforces that and then well ....So when do people automatically like you with a charisma of what then? What is the day to day difference between a Wisdom of 8 and Wisdom of 14 then to you?But THAT (extra points for MAD) IS exactly the same as having high points.I fail to see how 2 or 3 extra Points is "having high points". I'd like to see you 25 point Paladin.
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 02:47 PM	True, but I'm not one of them. Really, well what about 4d6, drop the lowest die and re-roll 1s about 36 points. Because without some MATH/Statistics to back that up it is just a GUESS. Go ahead tells us how you determined that 4d6 drop lowest and re-roll 1s is "about" 36 points. Then explain how a campaign based on such Monty Haul rolling methods actually supports any claim that Rollers are not trying to get increasingly high scores. PB is fair. No Matter How MAD the SAD argument gets, there are no classes which are disallowed by RAW for having low attributes; even spellcasters do not REQUIRE spell-casting attributes. It just would seem a bit odd for someone to choose to play a Wizard with 9 Int. I can (almost) see a level of Bard with 8 Charisma if you want Dragon Disciple for its attributes boosts (even though I don;t allow the class in games I run), but meh.
Caelic 07-02-07, 03:05 PM	Well, once characters are made, there's little thrilling by themselves: you already know how your char is at doing things, you can use items, skill points,feat,ecc to compensate those "interesting flaws", what makes them thrilling is playing [quote] You can get a character with interesting flaws and one whose only interesting feature is the way he doesn't manage to help his allies out, with rolling. ...or you can get that with PB. I've seen plenty of incompetently-designed and played PB characters. Given the default system, I will bluntly state it: it is impossible to generate a character that a good player cannot use to contribute to the party. We both know the second one is solved by PB, reducing the certainity of the first, if players want. No, we don't. You believe it...wrongly. I know that your constant insistence that the default die-roll method is likely to produce helpless/worthless characters on a regular basis is hyperbolic in the extreme and unsupported by fact. true, there are some times, and it is statistically frequent, where this is negative:long-lasting campaigns where people invest lot of time by solving their chars' flaws to be effective together with their less flawed allies Yeah. I mean, can you imagine a fighter-mage who had a high Intelligence, but really horrible Strength and Constitution, and had to rely on items to get them up to a level where he could do his job competently? Or what about a wizard who rolled a horrible Con score? I mean, who would play a wizard with no Con? The rest of the party would constantly have to protect him from ANY damage! It's a good thing PB eliminates the fools who would create such terrible characters. Oh, wait: that would be Elric of Melnibone and Raistlin, wouldn't it? And again, we're back to the central objection I have to PB. It may not make it impossible to play certain builds, but it certainly discourages it...and, generally, they're the builds that could use a little encouragement, regardless of the method of stat generation, because they're hard to pull off well to start. Fighter/Mage, for example, has been an iconic role for decades. He needs Strength to hit in melee and Constitution to make up for his subpar hit dice. He's almost certainly going to need Dexterity, because he's not strapping on plate mail and won't have the uber-groovy protective spells until later in his career. Obviously, he needs either Intelligence or Charisma, depending on his spellcasting stat, and he probably can't get away with a 14 in the spellcasting stat, if he wants to be even a halfway-decent spell slinger. So let's say 28 PB. You're almost certainly going to wind up with: Str:14 Dex:14 Con:14 Int:16 Wis:8 Cha:8 or: Str:14 Dex:14 Con:14 Int:8 Wis:8 Cha:16 A world where every lordly elven Fighter/Mage is either thick as a brick or has no social graces. I suppose it would be an interesting world, but not the one I envision. Rolling is a world where competent fighters may have 18 in charisma, but it's quite hard ...as it should be; Charisma that high should be rare, not an everyday occurrence. But neither should it be a nonexistent occurrence. , where skinny wizards who blast people from feets away have more con and str than the poor cleric who runs into the battle to heal his buddies, and needs his heavy armour 'cos of his low dexterity... ...because, heaven knows, in a realistic campaign, every priest is strong and sturdy, every mage is bookish and frail (but oddly, all of them seem to be healthy to the tune of a 14 Con.) A flabby, out-of-shape priest? A wizard who can beat him at arm wrestling? Perish the thought! Away with such nonsense! I agree with you but, out of 10,000 players, the opportunity to have unbalanced group, as in my example, is higher than having balanced groups where characters have good stats. Purely subjective statement on your part. Impossible to objectively back up, and as such, useless to the discussion. Interestingly, balance occours when characters have decent stats,the ones you would say make a competent character, and which are easily achievable with pb. Well, no, it doesn't. With "Balanced Stats," the Druid will massively upstage the Fighter, the Cleric will do just about everything better than the Paladin, and the Wizard will...well, Wizards always kick butt. The game is not balanced. Pretending that giving everyone the same starting stats makes it balanced is not going to make it so. We're discussing on different ,and equally valuable, levels:you're discussing from a practical/empirical pov, me from a global/theorical pov, and I believe we can agree on each other's ideas Oh, no; my point of view is that of someone who's been professionally designing games for 20 years. I know how to make a balanced point-buy system. It's going to look a heck of a lot more like GURPS or the Hero System than D&D. I also know that no amount of theoretical design discussion is going to change the fact that D&D is already designed. It already exists, and it's fundamentally unbalanced. It's always been fundamentally unbalanced, but ironically became moreso in 3.0, when they removed certain balancing factors (differential experience tables, for one.) I don't believe in trying to shove square pegs into round holes. If I want a balanced game, I'll play one of a dozen systems other than D&D. I'll play D&D if I want, you know...D&D. Now, I will freely acknowledge that your position is reasonable; you prefer point buy. The problem is the folks who are going around bellowing "Raaaar! You use dice! You're Monty Haul! Real roleplayers use point buy! Real roleplayers have 14s in their prime stats! An 18 is munchkin!" Anyone who's convinced that their stats (or the method by which they generate them) make them a good roleplayer is, by definition, probably a pretty crappy roleplayer.
LCD2YOU 07-02-07, 03:40 PM	Really, well what aboutIf you want it.Because without some MATH/Statistics to back that up it is just a GUESS. Go ahead tells us how you determined that 4d6 drop lowest and re-roll 1s is "about" 36 points.It is about 40 pages but the whole thing started to boil down to arrays like this. 6_4_3_(5) = 15 => 8pt 5_3_2_6 = 14 => 6 pt 4_2_(4)_5 = 13 => 5pt 3_(3)_6_4 = 13 => 5pt 2_6_5_3 = 14 => 8pt (2)_5_4_2 = 11 => 3pt 6_5_4_3 = 15 => 8pt 5_4_3_2 = 12 => 4 pt 4_3_2_(2) = 9 => 1pt 3_2_(3)_6 = 12 => 4pt 2_(4)_6_5 = 15 => 8pt (5)_6_5_4 = 16 => 10pt 6_5_4_(2) = 15 => 8pt 5_4_3_6 = 15 => 8 pt 4_3_2_5 = 12 => 4pt 3_2_(3)_4 = 10 => 2pt 2_(4)_6_3 = 13 => 5pt (5)_6_5_4 = 16 => 10pt 6_5_4_3 = 15 => 8pt 5_4_3_2 = 12 => 4 pt 4_3_2_(5) = 12 => 4pt 3_2_(4)_6 = 13 => 5pt 2_(3)_6_5 = 14 => 8pt (2)_6_5_4 = 15 => 8pt Where (#) is a re-rolled 1 The first is a 35 point character, the second is 35 points, the third 37, the fourth is 37 and when all averaged comes out to 36 points which is "about" 36 points on my planet. How about yours? Then explain how a campaign based on such Monty Haul rolling methods actually supports any claim that Rollers are not trying to get increasingly high scores.So everyone who doesn't play 25, 22 or for real gamers 15 PB are Monty Haulers? Wow. Elitest to the core aren't you?PB is fair.PB has its place. It starts everyone off at the same point but it's like giving everyone a Pinto while pulling different loads. Then telling those that have the fifth wheel behind their Pino saying, "Well the guy pulling the bike trailor has a Pinto too so it's fair".No Matter How MAD the SAD argument gets, there are no classes which are disallowed by RAW for having low attributes; even spellcasters do not REQUIRE spell-casting attributes. It just would seem a bit odd for someone to choose to play a Wizard with 9 Int. I can (almost) see a level of Bard with 8 Charisma if you want Dragon Disciple for its attributes boosts (even though I don;t allow the class in games I run), but meh.But like pulling the fifth wheeler behind your Pinto, a few more bits of horse power makes it equivalent which is not the same as the way you're using "fair".
Ack 07-02-07, 04:00 PM	...or you can get that with PB. I've seen plenty of incompetently-designed and played PB characters. ... whereas other people seem to think that PB is the sole province of optimisers and powergamers. Hmm.. could it be that incompetence in design and play of characters could be independent of the stat generation system, much the same as the imbalance between MAD and SAD? At least a player can learn to place stats effectively with PB. It's extremely hard to learn to roll the stats you want (without GM collusion, anyway). Given the default system, I will bluntly state it: it is impossible to generate a character that a good player cannot use to contribute to the party. Granted - unless the rest of the party is so far above him in stats that whatever he can do, they can do better. And, when all stats are rolled, this is not only possible but (in a large party) somewhat likely to happen. In PB, it will never happen. No, we don't. You believe it...wrongly. I know that your constant insistence that the default die-roll method is likely to produce helpless/worthless characters on a regular basis is hyperbolic in the extreme and unsupported by fact. The fact that it doesn't is only due to the fact that 'sub-standard' stat arrays get re-rolled. The definition of 'sub-standard' varies from GM to GM, of course. In fact, the 'drop the lowest' part of 4d6 DTL is semantically equal to '3d6 reroll the lowest (and ignore any result lower than the original roll)'. Rerolls again. And let's not even get into the "reroll 1s" and "reroll 1s and 2s" that we get. Yeah. I mean, can you imagine a fighter-mage who had a high Intelligence, but really horrible Strength and Constitution, and had to rely on items to get them up to a level where he could do his job competently? Or what about a wizard who rolled a horrible Con score? I mean, who would play a wizard with no Con? The rest of the party would constantly have to protect him from ANY damage! It's a good thing PB eliminates the fools who would create such terrible characters. Oh, wait: that would be Elric of Melnibone and Raistlin, wouldn't it? Well, that would depend on the PB level, wouldn't it? I tend to de-prioritise stats that aren't directly to do with the concept I have in mind. Where you'd have problems would be if you rolled a wizard with no stat above 14. Six 14s is a nice array (and would require 36 PB) but will not make for a really great wiz or anything else that people seem to think needs an 18 in the top spot. :D You may arrive at straight 14s with rolling, but it's highly unlikely for anyone to pick that array with PB ... unless they wanted to. ...as it should be; Charisma that high should be rare, not an everyday occurrence. But neither should it be a nonexistent occurrence. .. such as if someone chose to have CHA 18 with their point buy? ...because, heaven knows, in a realistic campaign, every priest is strong and sturdy, every mage is bookish and frail (but oddly, all of them seem to be healthy to the tune of a 14 Con.) Not all. You can't claim every character ever made with PB had at least 14 CON. If I ever made a character defined as "bookish and frail" then his CON would be 11 at most. A flabby, out-of-shape priest? A wizard who can beat him at arm wrestling? Perish the thought! Away with such nonsense! Hell, I'd play it just for fun. And I'd build 'em with point buy :D Purely subjective statement on your part. Impossible to objectively back up, and as such, useless to the discussion. Well, no, it doesn't. With "Balanced Stats," the Druid will massively upstage the Fighter, the Cleric will do just about everything better than the Paladin, and the Wizard will...well, Wizards always kick butt. The game is not balanced. Pretending that giving everyone the same starting stats makes it balanced is not going to make it so. But it does negate the potential for rolled stats to exacerbate the imbalance. Oh, no; my point of view is that of someone who's been professionally designing games for 20 years. I know how to make a balanced point-buy system. It's going to look a heck of a lot more like GURPS or the Hero System than D&D. I play GURPS, and from that pov, the point-buy system makes D&D look more attractive to me. I like being able to choose my stats in an orderly and balanced fashion. I also like being able to pick skills using a range of points. In fact, in those two ways, D&D seems to be converging on the GURPS-style point buy setup in rather an interesting fashion (IMO, of course). I also know that no amount of theoretical design discussion is going to change the fact that D&D is already designed. It already exists, and it's fundamentally unbalanced. It's always been fundamentally unbalanced, but ironically became moreso in 3.0, when they removed certain balancing factors (differential experience tables, for one.) I don't believe in trying to shove square pegs into round holes. If I want a balanced game, I'll play one of a dozen systems other than D&D. I'll play D&D if I want, you know...D&D. Now, I will freely acknowledge that your position is reasonable; you prefer point buy. The problem is the folks who are going around bellowing "Raaaar! You use dice! You're Monty Haul! Real roleplayers use point buy! Real roleplayers have 14s in their prime stats! An 18 is munchkin!" Anyone who's convinced that their stats make them a good roleplayer is, by definition, probably a pretty crappy roleplayer. Actually, the problem is also the folks (on this board, no less) who first tried to make the SAD/MAD discrepancy problem into something that was solely the fault of point buy, and who simultaneously said that "point buy makes for crappy stats because, you know, we can't roll all the 18s that we want" and that "32 point buy is overpowered so we're going to use 25 point buy for all our examples to tear it down". A majority of the posts by point buy people on this board have been attempting to refute such baseless attacks on what point buy truly is. And isn't.
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 04:13 PM	If you want it.It is about 40 pages but the whole thing started to boil down to arrays like this. 6_4_3_(5) = 15 => 8pt 5_3_2_6 = 14 => 6 pt 4_2_(4)_5 = 13 => 5pt 3_(3)_6_4 = 13 => 5pt 2_6_5_3 = 14 => 8pt (2)_5_4_2 = 11 => 3pt Where (#) is a re-rolled 1 The first is a 35 point character, the second is 35 points, the third 37, the fourth is 37 and when all averaged comes out to 36 points which is "about" 36 points on my planet. How about yours? SO you didn't actually use statistical analysis, just a few examples? Fine, but trying to pass that off as "accurate" is like trying to pass off 36 PB as "Normal Power Levels" The DEFAULT Power Level for D&D is the Elite array, which is nicely synced with 25 PB. 36 PB is A LOT higher than 25 PB and creates a resultant increase in PC power. More PC power means less challenge; can you follow that Logic? Throughout this thread the Rollers have invariably insisted that 25 PB is NOT ENOUGH to generate the attributes they feel are needed for their characters. Higher Attributes = More Powerful Characters. IT IS that simple. Don't believe me? Take any Character, of any class and Race, and increase all their attributes by 2 points across the board. Then compare the Two Characters mechanically. So until the roller crowd stops asking for MORE (in the form of higher base attributes) the only conclusion possible will remain that the rollers want Higher Attributes and that any other consideration is secondary.
Caelic 07-02-07, 04:25 PM	... whereas other people seem to think that PB is the sole province of optimisers and powergamers. Perhaps some think that; I merely said that PB favors optimizers, because it deemphasizes luck and emphasizes skill. Chess is not the sole province of rated players who dedicate large amounts of their life to mastering the game...but it favors them heavily. Hmm.. could it be that incompetence in design and play of characters could be independent of the stat generation system, much the same as the imbalance between MAD and SAD? Certainly it could; that's precisely the point I was trying to make. At least a player can learn to place stats effectively with PB. It's extremely hard to learn to roll the stats you want (without GM collusion, anyway). I think we're simply in disagreement about whether being guaranteed the stats you want is a good thing. Granted - unless the rest of the party is so far above him in stats that whatever he can do, they can do better. Ultimately, stat differences won't determine this. Classes will. You will get to the point where the wizard or the cleric can do anything that the fighter can do, only better. It's the nature of the game. As I said, if I want to avoid massive disparities in power, there are other games on the market that are better-suited. And, when all stats are rolled, this is not only possible but (in a large party) somewhat likely to happen. I suppose that depends on what you define as "so far above." What's more likely, in my experience, is that one character might have outstanding stats. It's just that, at least in the group I play in, that's not a big deal. Nobody gets angry or jealous because that one person has better stats. That might be different in some other groups; I don't know. In PB, it will never happen. Sure it will, just in a different fashion. The guy who has his heart set on playing a fighter/mage will find himself constantly upstaged in both areas...not just because he lacks the class-based capabilities of a straight fighter or a straight mage, but because he lacks the stats to back up what capabilities he does have. His lower BAB and hit dice will be exacerbated by his lower Strength and Con; his lower spellcasting level will be exacerbated by his lower Int. The fact that it doesn't is only due to the fact that 'sub-standard' stat arrays get re-rolled. The definition of 'sub-standard' varies from GM to GM, of course. In fact, the 'drop the lowest' part of 4d6 DTL is semantically equal to '3d6 reroll the lowest (and ignore any result lower than the original roll)'. Rerolls again. And let's not even get into the "reroll 1s" and "reroll 1s and 2s" that we get. It seems to me like you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too, Ack. On the one hand, dice rolling is bad because it's random and can produce bad characters; on the other hand, dice rolling is bad because it has mechanisms in place to avoid truly bad characters and therefore isn't totally random. .. such as if someone chose to have CHA 18 with their point buy? ...in which case they're going to be worse at something else, which will tend to channel them into certain classes. You'll see Bards and Sorcerors with 18 Charisma; you won't see Fighters, because a competent player will say "I'll suck as a fighter if I blow the points on an 18 Charisma." The mighty warrior whose words motivate armies to go to war simply isn't as viable. You might be able to motivate armies, or you might be a mighty warrior, but you're not going to see both in the same character. Not all. You can't claim every character ever made with PB had at least 14 CON. If I ever made a character defined as "bookish and frail" then his CON would be 11 at most. No, but I can claim that that seems to be the magic number for most characters. I suspect that if we randomly sampled, say, a hundred 28 PB characters from different campaigns, we'd find that 14 was the mode. Hell, I'd play it just for fun. And I'd build 'em with point buy :D Kudos to you, then. I guess my question is: why should people like you, who are willing to try something different, automatically take penalties for it? I play GURPS, and from that pov, the point-buy system makes D&D look more attractive to me. I like being able to choose my stats in an orderly and balanced fashion. I also like being able to pick skills using a range of points. In fact, in those two ways, D&D seems to be converging on the GURPS-style point buy setup in rather an interesting fashion (IMO, of course). The problem is that D&D is built on certain core design mechanisms that aren't compatible with nor conducive to point buy. Seriously: try to convert, say, a fifth-level druid and a fifth-level fighter to GURPS. Get the closest approximation you can. See how the point totals stack up. I can just about guarantee you that the Druid is going to be a massively higher-point character. What does it matter if you say "Everyone has X points to buy stats," if you then turn around and say "...but Bob has 400 points to spend on powers and skills, and Bill only has 100"? Actually, the problem is also the folks (on this board, no less) who first tried to make the SAD/MAD discrepancy problem into something that was solely the fault of point buy, It's not; it simply tends to discourage the creation of MAD characters. and who simultaneously said that "point buy makes for crappy stats because, you know, we can't roll all the 18s that we want" Unfair, hyperbolic, and ad hominem. You know that's not the actual position. There's a difference between saying "I want lots of 18's on my character!" and saying, "I don't want a world where the character with more than one 18 cannot exist." and that "32 point buy is overpowered so we're going to use 25 point buy for all our examples to tear it down". A majority of the posts by point buy people on this board have been attempting to refute such baseless attacks on what point buy truly is. And isn't. Well, there you're practicing a bit of a double standard, aren't you? You're constantly bringing up dice rolling schemes other than the standard 4d6DL in your criticisms of dice rolling; is it fair to cry foul when people bring up point buy schemes other than your preferred 32-point? I dunno; I guess I just don't understand the passion people have for this subject overall. Give me dice, I'll roll up a character, and he'll kick butt. Give me a point buy, and I'll stat out a character, and he'll kick butt. I don't care what I roll; I don't care what the PB is; he'll still kick butt.
Caelic 07-02-07, 04:30 PM	The DEFAULT Power Level for D&D is the Elite array, No; the default power level is "4d6 drop the lowest die." The game was designed around the assumption that players would use that stat generation method. The CR system was designed around the premise that players would use that stat generation method. The majority of players worldwide use that stat generation method. You're using a variant rule. That's fine, but don't start making it out to be other than what it is. If they'd intended elite array to be the default, that's the system they would have put in the PHB, and dice rolling would be a variant in the DMG.
Mock26 07-02-07, 04:32 PM	Some people may want rolling for big numbers but, as we said before, that's a false myth/hope. Well, people have the false myth/hope of winning the lottery, yet they still buy tickets, and someone does win the lottery. So, it is not a false myth/hope. It might be imporbable, but it is definitely NOT false. Oh, no; my point of view is that of someone who's been professionally designing games for 20 years. I know how to make a balanced point-buy system. It's going to look a heck of a lot more like GURPS or the Hero System than D&D. Out of idle curiosity, what games have you designed or helped design?
Ack 07-02-07, 04:42 PM	It seems to me like you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too, Ack. On the one hand, dice rolling is bad because it's random and can produce bad characters; on the other hand, dice rolling is bad because it has mechanisms in place to avoid truly bad characters and therefore isn't totally random. Dice rolling is not bad, or broken. I have used it many times before. However. People who claim to prefer dice rolling because of its 'randomness' are almost certainly not in favour of said randomness producing a character of universally mediocre statistics. They want the randomness to go the other way. Unfortunately, randomness being what it is, many of the rolls are unfavourable (roughly half of them below average, for example). So mechanisms are put in place to bump up the average of dice rolling so that a 'random' roll will be more likely to get them the stats they want to use. Which basically defeats the purpose of calling it 'random', especially when you have to use extra dice, re-rolled low numbers and GM dispensation (and you know people do it) to get the stats they really wanted in the first place. And after all that, they still call it 'random'. That's what I have an issue with; I don't mind rolling dice for stats, but fer cryin' out loud, recognise it for what it is, not for what it used to be. Well, there you're practicing a bit of a double standard, aren't you? You're constantly bringing up dice rolling schemes other than the standard 4d6DL in your criticisms of dice rolling, but you cry foul when people bring up point buy schemes other than your preferred 32-point? I've only mentioned 4d6DTL and the two "reroll low numbers" variations. The only other rolling scheme I've mentioned is 3d6. 4d6 DTL is the one I'm most used to, but I recognise that it isn't as purely random (as I have mentioned above) as some people seem to want to think. And I still prefer point buy. Oh, and yes: being guaranteed the stats I want (within the framework of the point buy total) is a good thing IMO.
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 04:47 PM	No; the default power level is "4d6 drop the lowest die." Well I'm looking at the DMG RIGHT NOW and it says (and I am quoting) "Default Array: Use the following scores, arranged as desired: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8." So while the 4d6 is the method used by the PHB (presumably for ease of introducing players to the game) the DEFAULT method is clearly labeled as such in the DMG. That method IS the elite array and conforms to a 25 PB.
Ack 07-02-07, 04:47 PM	PB has its place. It starts everyone off at the same point but it's like giving everyone a Pinto while pulling different loads. Then telling those that have the fifth wheel behind their Pino saying, "Well the guy pulling the bike trailor has a Pinto too so it's fair".But like pulling the fifth wheeler behind your Pinto, a few more bits of horse power makes it equivalent which is not the same as the way you're using "fair". I've suggested several times on this thread for the concept of a 4-point stat boost for people playing MAD builds. No-one took it up. Seems to me they were more interested in painting point-buy as part of the problem than in looking for solutions.
Caelic 07-02-07, 04:58 PM	Well I'm looking at the DMG RIGHT NOW and it says (and I am quoting) "Default Array: Use the following scores, arranged as desired: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8." So while the 4d6 is the method used by the PHB (presumably for ease of introducing players to the game) the DEFAULT method is clearly labeled as such in the DMG. That method IS the elite array and conforms to a 25 PB. Uhm...yeah. You might want to, you know, read more than one line. You know, like the part that reads, In addition to the standard method for generating ability scores presented in the Player's Handbook (roll 4d6, discard the lowest die, and arrange as desired), here are eight options you might want to consider using in your campaign: Also, y'know, it's funny, but my DMG doesn't say "Default Array" in the section about generating characters. It says "Elite Array." Unless the same text appears somewhere other than on page 169, under "ability scores?"
Caelic 07-02-07, 05:03 PM	Out of idle curiosity, what games have you designed or helped design? I've done work for the following systems: Battlelords of the 23rd Century Hackmaster Arduin Rolemaster AD&D (second edition) ...and some very minor contributions to 3.5.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-02-07, 05:04 PM	OravennasBrother You are constantly going on about the evils of the "Monty Haul" DM's that play with "Insane stat generation methods like 32-6 PB." What Monty Haul DM's are you talking about? Because making everyone that plays with a PB higher than 25 out to be a Monty Haul player is flat out ridiculous. Yet, you seem to be doing it all the time. P.s. Would you please STOP typing random words in ALL caps? It's quite annoying. ...and some very minor contributions to 3.5. Share with us?
Caelic 07-02-07, 05:07 PM	Share with us? Can't, ATM, I'm afraid. NDA. :/
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-02-07, 05:10 PM	Can't, ATM, I'm afraid. NDA. :/ Wait, it's not out yet or you just aren't allowed to tell us what you designed? It's just that I am curious, after seeing some of your stuff on the CO boards I thought that it could be pretty interesting to read your material.
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 05:25 PM	Also, y'know, it's funny, but my DMG doesn't say "Default Array" in the section about generating characters. It says "Elite Array." Unless the same text appears somewhere other than on page 169, under "ability scores?" Oops, my bad. I was so underwhelmed by 3.5 that I kept the 3.0 rules and used the SRD for a reference of the changes. If you have 3.0 then look on Page 19 of the DMG. Now I've done work for the following systems: Battlelords of the 23rd Century Is not exactly the sort of design experience that impresses me. That one showed up on the dollar discount rack at my FLGS and after purchasing and reading it I wondered why I wasted the buck. Back on topic. All the rollers who comment on the scores they find acceptable have UNIVERSALLY discounted as unplayable the array 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8. BY the RAW for rolling attributes, that is a KEEPER. Anyone who does not want to have the chance of getting those attributes should be in favor of point buy. The ranges in the DMG are (hopefully still) from a low of 15 to a high of 32 points for PB. Any DM who routinely grants re-rolls to legal attribute arrays or who goes above a 32 PB is in fact GIVING the players extra power. That falls under the definition of Monty Hall in my book. Even if you disagree about the definition, GIVING the players higher attributes, regardless of the method, is just GIVING the players higher attributes. It does not mystically make for a better campaign. It ONLY makes for a campaign with HIGHER attributes. In POINT OF FACT - having higher attributes LOWERS the challenge which ANY obstacle presents. Thus players who want a greater challenge should desire LOWER attributes. Similarly those who have higher attributes face less challenge, and the conclusion which can be reached is that those who DESIRE higher attributes also DESIRE less challenge.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-02-07, 05:30 PM	Similarly those who have higher attributes face less challenge, and the conclusion which can be reached is that those who DESIRE higher attributes also DESIRE less challenge. No, it doesn't. All it means is that they desire higher attributes. The Challenge of monsters can remain the same, whether this appears in the form of tougher monsters or simply better tactics employed by the DM is of no consequence.
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 05:50 PM	No, it doesn't. All it means is that they desire higher attributes. The Challenge of monsters can remain the same, whether this appears in the form of tougher monsters or simply better tactics employed by the DM is of no consequence. Absolutely inconceivable. Did I misspell some portion of my statement? Given any particular Obstacle, higher attributes make for less of a challenge. How hard is that? Two characters, identical except one has +2 on their attributes across the board. Both face identical obstacles. Which has the tougher challenge?
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-02-07, 05:53 PM	Absolutely inconceivable. Did I misspell some portion of my statement? Given any particular Obstacle, higher attributes make for less of a challenge. How hard is that? Two characters, identical except one has +2 on their attributes across the board. Both face identical obstacles. Which has the tougher challenge? The one with the lower attributes of course. But that was my point, if you have higher attributes, the stakes are/should be higher. Say, at level one, instead of facing four goblins you face four orcs. Or something to that effect. That way the challenge remains the same and you avoid "Monty Haul" syndrome.
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 06:02 PM	The one with the lower attributes of course. But that was my point, if you have higher attributes, the stakes are/should be higher. Say, at level one, instead of facing four goblins you face four orcs. Or something to that effect. That way the challenge remains the same and you avoid "Monty Haul" syndrome. OH so you want the Squad Leader East Front Tank Syndrome? Add +2 to penetration of all tank guns and +2 to the armor of all tanks and you get the transition from 1941 scenario tanks to 1943 scenario tanks. Wooo. Only I'd rather use 1941 tanks to take on 1943 enemies, just for the challenge.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-02-07, 06:07 PM	OH so you want the Squad Leader East Front Tank Syndrome? Add +2 to penetration of all tank guns and +2 to the armor of all tanks and you get the transition from 1941 scenario tanks to 1943 scenario tanks. Wooo. Only I'd rather use 1941 tanks to take on 1943 enemies, just for the challenge. Then I'd be using 1943 tanks to take on 1945 enemies. To keep with the metaphor. I like powerful characters, but I want to feel challenged at every turn, heck it's probably the thing I like most about this game. I just like feeling challenged with a character that is really hardcore. What's wrong with that? Edit: Something seems to make you think that you run more challenging games than all of the rest of us. What makes you think that? Do you know how I, for example, run my encounters when I DM? Or how my friends do?
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 06:27 PM	Edit: Something seems to make you think that you run more challenging games than all of the rest of us. What makes you think that? Do you know how I, for example, run my encounters when I DM? Or how my friends do? I know how you generate characters, that's generally pretty indicative. High Attributes = Generous DM. Generous DM = Boring Campaign. That is of course my experience from a multitude of different campaigns, so you MIGHT have found the rare DM who gives high attributes and is NOT a generous DM, but the odds are against it.
Mock26 07-02-07, 06:35 PM	I know how you generate characters, that's generally pretty indicative. High Attributes = Generous DM. Generous DM = Boring Campaign. That is of course my experience from a multitude of different campaigns, so you MIGHT have found the rare DM who gives high attributes and is NOT a generous DM, but the odds are against it. My experience over the years from a multitude of different campaigns is that generous DM's create challenging and fun games, so the odds are definitely for it.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-02-07, 06:36 PM	I know how you generate characters, that's generally pretty indicative. High Attributes = Generous DM. Generous DM = Boring Campaign. That is of course my experience from a multitude of different campaigns, so you MIGHT have found the rare DM who gives high attributes and is NOT a generous DM, but the odds are against it. Guess I lucked out? Side note, how do I generate my characters?
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 07:01 PM	Guess I lucked out? Side note, how do I generate my characters? Ahh the advantages of leaping into the fray after so many pro-rollers have posted their particular overpowered (by virtue of creating universally higher attributes than the standard methods) attribute generation preferences that the names all blur together, all those incorrect statistics (like people giving a few examples as Proof of a mathematical average) derailing the thread from the basic question of whether Rolling is broken, etc. Well How do you generate Attributes? If you roll 4d6, is it per the book? If so how do you, as a DM deal with having two players, player A wants to be a paladin and player B wants to be a druid, then they roll and A gets (14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8) and B gets (18, 16, 16, 16, 16, 14)? If you play would you play with the attribute rolls of A? If you don't let the rolls stand then you are NOT using the Rolling method presented in the rules. At that point you should consider using Point Buy because it alleviates that problem. Naturally all those who prefer rolling will start (again) about how the DM should just let A re-roll. One of the rolling Guru's will tell us how he designed a better chocolate chip cookie Game, and thus KNOWS all about everything. Yada Yada Yada - the whole thread will repeat, and we'll get another SAD debate about MADness etc. But none of that will change the final balance: PB keeps player Characters on a more even even footing than rolling. AND when people start using rolling systems which are more generous than the standard 4d6 then the characters get increasingly powerful. Wanting Higher attributes has NO meaning beyond a DESIRE for higher attributes. Yet those higher averages are the reason SO many players (were they but to admit it) refuse to go to point buy.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-02-07, 07:09 PM	If we roll, we use 4d6 per the book. Usually in order too. We don't roll alot however, we only roll when we play things like the Tomb of Horrors as a one-shot. (Interesting tidbit, we played that module a few weeks back, 4d6 in order. One player had something like 45ish PB total. The others all hovered around 22-6. The player that was easily the most powerful was one with a 23 PB equivalent.) Most of the time, we use PB. If starting at low levels, the PB will be low. 25 is normal for levels 1-3 or so. Starting at higher levels usually also means starting with a higher PB. For levels 4-9 or so for example, it's 28.
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 07:16 PM	Most of the time, we use PB. If starting at low levels, the PB will be low. 25 is normal for levels 1-3 or so. Starting at higher levels usually also means starting with a higher PB. For levels 4-9 or so for example, it's 28. Well see then you DON'T have a generous DM - you have a Strict DM. Generally speaking Strict DM's are GOOD DM's. Lucky You.
Caelic 07-02-07, 07:20 PM	Well see then you DON'T have a generous DM - you have a Strict DM. Generally speaking Strict DM's are GOOD DM's. Lucky You. ...and then again, sometimes you get the exception who's just arrogant and has control issues, so there you go.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-02-07, 07:25 PM	Well see then you DON'T have a generous DM - you have a Strict DM. Generally speaking Strict DM's are GOOD DM's. Lucky You. I don't know. We sure don't play Core only. In fact, pretty much anything is allowed so long as you aren't being a Steve. My usual DM's main concern in character generation is inter-party power discrepancy. He tries to minimize it as well as he can and the optimizers in the group do their best to help the ones that are less skilled to make good characters. The point I was trying to make though, was that there is nothing inherently bad about playing with higher stats. If those stats come with an incompetent DM, of course the game is going to be boring. But if they don't, I daresay I could have fun like that.
Mock26 07-02-07, 07:36 PM	Ahh the advantages of leaping into the fray after so many pro-rollers have posted their particular overpowered (by virtue of creating universally higher attributes than the standard methods) attribute generation preferences that the names all blur together, all those incorrect statistics (like people giving a few examples as Proof of a mathematical average) derailing the thread from the basic question of whether Rolling is broken, etc. Well How do you generate Attributes? If you roll 4d6, is it per the book? If so how do you, as a DM deal with having two players, player A wants to be a paladin and player B wants to be a druid, then they roll and A gets (14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8) and B gets (18, 16, 16, 16, 16, 14)? If you play would you play with the attribute rolls of A? If you don't let the rolls stand then you are NOT using the Rolling method presented in the rules. At that point you should consider using Point Buy because it alleviates that problem. Naturally all those who prefer rolling will start (again) about how the DM should just let A re-roll. One of the rolling Guru's will tell us how he designed a better chocolate chip cookie Game, and thus KNOWS all about everything. Yada Yada Yada - the whole thread will repeat, and we'll get another SAD debate about MADness etc. Who cares if anyone is NOT using the rolling method presented in the rules? There is nothing that states that they have to use the methods presented in the rules. And what is wrong with a DM allowing a player to reroll their stats? Even if the DM allows the player to reroll there is still the element of randomness in it. A lot of players enjoy the randomness of rolling for their stats, and if a DM is nice and allows a reroll or boosts some stats so a player can play the character claass he wants, how does that make that stat-generating system flawed? It doesn't. It just means that the DM is being nice. But, like I said, rerolling your stats still has an element of randomness in it. But none of that will change the final balance: PB keeps player Characters on a more even even footing than rolling. And where in the rules does it state that players HAVE to be on a more even footing in order to enjoy the game? It doesn't. There is nothing that prevents players from enjoying themselves if their characters start on an uneven footing. Well, there is immaturity, but that is a reflection of the players involved, not the system used to generate the stats. AND when people start using rolling systems which are more generous than the standard 4d6 then the characters get increasingly powerful. Wanting Higher attributes has NO meaning beyond a DESIRE for higher attributes. Yet those higher averages are the reason SO many players (were they but to admit it) refuse to go to point buy. So what if someone is NOT using the standard rolling method in the DMG? A DM is free to modify any aspect of the game, including how stats are generated. A modified dice rolling system (such as rolling 4d6, drop the lowest, reroll 1's and 2's) still has an element of randomness in it. And, it is no different than a high point buy system. But, again, so what? People are free to generate stats in any manner that is approved by the DM, even if it goes agains what is listed in the DMG. And, not everyone rolls just for the sake of getting higher stats. And if they do, again, so what? It is the same reason why some people favor higher point buys. But, it doesn't matter, because SO many players who prefer rolling methods do so because they like the randomness of it.
Caelic 07-02-07, 07:43 PM	People are free to generate stats in any manner that is approved by the DM, even if it goes agains what is listed in the DMG. Heck, let's note for the record that more generous dice rolling schemes are hardly "against what is listed in the DMG." 4d6 with a floating reroll, 4d6 discard lowest reroll one score, and 5d6 discard the two lowest dice are all suggested in precisely the same place and manner as elite array or any of the point buys. Variants all; all equally valid.
rstockham 07-02-07, 08:11 PM	In my group, we use a point buy method developed by our DM. It allows for very low scores and very high scores, but without any randomization. Note that a score of 3 is minimum. It results in scores similar to 25 pb, but with higher and lower scores. 3 = 15pt. 4 = 17pt. 5 = 19pt. 6 = 22pt. 7 = 25pt. 8 = 29pt. 9 = 33pt. 10 = 38pt. 11 = 43pt. 12 = 49pt. 13 = 56pt. 14 = 64pt. 15 = 73pt. 16 = 84pt. 17 = 95pt. 18 = 109pt. Allow for 302 points for 25pb. email me if you want the math behind it.
navar100 07-02-07, 11:49 PM	No, I'm saying that you can use 25 pb to make it work, but 32 pb makes it work better. :D Which is why I threw in the the option to boost WIS. What puts the most points into any skill? Not the stat bonus. The ranks you spend toward it. Stat bonus is nice, but not the be-all and end-all. No, the average is ten when you roll 3d6 (10.5, but let's not split hairs). It is not a 'baseline'. The reason PB extends down to 8 is to give us some variety. You know, the thing that many people seem to consider point buy lacks in? Rolling also allows for stats of 8 or below (though, with all the freebies you get, it's a rare character who ends up with more than one stat in that range). If a player with point buy wanted to (suppose he had a concept in mind for a very thick, very tough dwarven fighter-type) he could build a character with 8 INT and WIS, but with high CON (16 +2 for race bonuses) and STR (18 goes there) with 10 CHA (so as not to hamper Intimidate) and 10 DEX (mountain plate all the way :D) ... and you know, that spread is a lot easier to get deliberately with PB than accidentally with rolled stats. In short, if you have a concept you want to try out, then PB helps tremendously. What if a player wants to play a human and thus has no stat adjustment? He's just screwed then.
navar100 07-02-07, 11:52 PM	See these two points together TYPIFY the "Rolling is better" crowd Either they want a VERY generous Point buy OR they want to roll and ONLY an "Intractable" DM would make them keep rolls like (14, 10,10,10,10,8.) "Oh BOO HOO I wanted two 18's and got only a single 15 as my high score, Please Mr Haul, let me roll again, Waah Waah Waah!" This is directly relates to the insane Idea that "Only Through Rolling could we see fighters with 18 Charisma because blah blah point buy blah blah" - Sure IF the DM gives such generous rolls that ALL your numbers are in the 16-18 range, then a fighter might put an 18 into charisma - after they put an 18 into strength and Constitution and a 16 into Dexterity and Wisdom, and really who wants an 18 Charisma is it means an 8 Intelligence? But that same level of generosity could be found with an 80 point PB. People who INSIST on rolling do so because they want BIG, BIG, REALLY BIG Numbers. People can prefer rolling (generally because they get better scores) without insisting on it, but those who INSIST they must be allowed to roll do so because they want those "BIG, BIG, REALLY BIG" Scores. All the inaccurate statistics (and some are wildly inaccurate) prove only that certain posters know nothing about statistics. All the disingenuous claims about "Optimizers Prefer PB" ignore the demonstrable fact (from posts on this thread) that Rollers are VOCAL in their demands for better attributes than a 25 PB/Elite Array. Rolling is for BIG, BIG, REALLY BIG Scores, and all the "alternate methods" suggested (4d6 re-roll 1's, 5d6 roll twelve times keep the best six, etc.) attest to this. Because for RANDOM characters you need Roll 3d6 IN ORDER, ONCE, and play that character. Even if you get 9, 8, 8, 7, 6, 3. (Which BTW is JUST as likely on 3d6 as 12, 13, 13, 14, 15, 18) So you're a better player because you play characters without any 18s or if you do have one you also have lots of 8s. :rolleyes:
Ace_of_time 07-02-07, 11:59 PM	No, that's not how it works at all. Taking averages is fine for determining the average of straight rolls (3D6, 4D6, 5D6, etc.), but breaks down when you have a "drop lowest policy". You can't just "drop the 3", as the 3 doesn't really exist - the numbers (3,4,3,4) are just one possible representation of a roll that happens to be average for 4D6. By dropping the lowest, the distribution gets skewed (higher totals are more likely than lower rolls) and averages don't apply any more. Arbitrary guesswork like "you would reroll the 3 and get 4's and a high chance of 5's" might accidentally result in numbers that are close to the actual expected value, but has no mathematical foundations. For the same reasoning you can't use averages to calculate PB equivalents as described in my previous post. Again the distribution is skewed: the staggered cost of high PB values invalidates any method using averages. Note also that taking the average result of a single 4D6-DL roll, determining the PB equivalent and multiplying by 6 is also not a valid method of determining PB equivalents: it not only disregards the skewed PB cost of higher attribute values, it also completely ignores the rules for rerolling invalid characters, which help raise the PB equivalent of 4D6-DL. It's not a question of preference, but of mathematical soundness. I didn't use math so that might be why. D&D uses 4D6 for reg roleplaying which is a challenging campaign and in the DMG that matches to 22 in PB. All I did was match up power levels with PB and rolls and post average rolls and the took 22 points and divided then evenly. Math wise 22 points divides into six abilities 3 times with 4 points left over. With a start of 8 on all thats 2-11s and 4-12s. Which is what I posted sorry. players can move points if they want but DMs will uses these number to decide what power level to start. And here lays the railroading. PB, that starts with 8 so scores will not be to low, has a cost that keeps players from making to many high scores. DM's use this to keep players from get to many high scores and make the player think it's their fault because they decided where to put the points. The simple facts is no other time in the game do higher scores cost more points. In rolling the is at least the chance of getting all high scores which there is no chance of in PB. If you want math on it then look at the higher score. The higher they put scores the lower their average score is in PB which also doesn't happen in rolls.
Caelic 07-03-07, 12:01 AM	So you're a better player because you play characters without any 18s or if you do have one you also have lots of 8s. :rolleyes: No, he's a better player because all the rest of us (including Gary Gygax himself) are evil, rotten Monty Haul powergamers who don't understand that the game was meant to be played on a 15 PB. ;)
navar100 07-03-07, 12:02 AM	WOW - 36 Point PB - and you call ME Monty Haul. My players all tell me I walk the line between Strict and Killer, but I do TRY to avoid the latter appellation. Though sometimes when players do something really stupid (or the dice fall badly for a party which forgets to retreat) the body count can rise. 25 PB is Fair to all classes - show me a 25 PB wizard with 18 Int and I'll show you a wizard dying for lack of AC/Reflex Saves or HP/Fortitude Saves. All the Hyperbole about MAD classes is just an excuse for players who want the K3WL L33T classes like Paladin and Monk and ALSO want to have Maximized combat prowess. Hur Hur my Paladin is UB3R - he got 18 Strength and 16 Constitution, Dexterity, Charisma and Wisdom, and he still has a 14 Int, Hur Hur Hur arn't I a gud rollplayer Hur Hur Hur. As I thought. A DM who hates it that a player character is actually good at something. Have an 18? You must be punished and die as I exploit your weaknesses to the max. Want to be a "competent" paladin? You munchkin you! How dare you want something like that. You must bow to my DMinence you pathetic fool. Be grateful I let you get a 14 you power hungry mongrels.
Caelic 07-03-07, 12:11 AM	You must bow to my DMinence you pathetic fool. Be grateful I let you get a 14 you power hungry mongrels. Ooo...DMinence! I like that! Mind if I steal it? Always a pleasure to encounter a well-turned phrase.
windscar18 07-03-07, 12:12 AM	Well see then you DON'T have a generous DM - you have a Strict DM. Generally speaking Strict DM's are GOOD DM's. Lucky You. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's all I have to say, oh wait, I'd also like to say this... Where the heck did you ever get THAT idea?
Vaelan 07-03-07, 01:51 AM	Given any particular Obstacle, higher attributes make for less of a challenge. True, but irrelevant. Nobody is saying that using high point-buys or generous rolling methods should be done without adjusting the obstacles. My philosophy is to keep the game flexible. I don't consider the issue of balance as what generation method I'm using so much as what degree/frequency of challenge the group decides would be appropriate. As a side matter, the generation method is decided and, according to the results of the first question, the challenges are created. If the players want 18s across the board, which they have opted for at least once in the past, but still want a challenging game, then they will frequently be facing opponents that through a variety of factors that aren't ability scores still manage to challenge the party. Tying game balance and generation methods together so inextricably seems a little silly to me. Only I'd rather use 1941 tanks to take on 1943 enemies, just for the challenge. If it were as simple as that, I would agree with you. In the face of equivalent options, go for the simpler option. Ability scores aren't that simple, though. And here lays the railroading. I think I might be the most hands-off DM on these boards that actually bothers to play D&D rather than a game that focuses on cooperative storytelling. Even I find no fault with this supposed "railroading". The group should come to some agreement as to the overall power level, both in magnitude and relatively, of the game. And where in the rules does it state that players HAVE to be on a more even footing in order to enjoy the game? It doesn't. I don't think this was ever the point. I believe the point is that nobody is going to be justified in being bothered by equality while there are going to be people that are justifiably bothered by inequality. There is nothing that prevents players from enjoying themselves if their characters start on an uneven footing. Well, there is immaturity, but that is a reflection of the players involved, not the system used to generate the stats. Which is easier to change: the players or the system? I think that some of the benefits of point-buy have been established quite well in this thread. I don't agree with practically everything that this particular poster says, but this is a pretty basic argument that has already been hashed out, rehashed, turned into a horse, killed, and beaten.
Ack 07-03-07, 03:08 AM	What if a player wants to play a human and thus has no stat adjustment? He's just screwed then. So he plays a human. He gets slightly less bang for his PB buck (given that nonhuman PCs will generally use the reduced stat for the dump stat and the increased stat as the primary stat), but on the other hand you have the extra feat and skill points (which means that, unless he's playing an INT-intensive class, he can get away with a level or two less in INT). And if he's rolled for stats instead? There is absolutely no guarantee that he's any less screwed. I didn't use math so that might be why. D&D uses 4D6 for reg roleplaying which is a challenging campaign and in the DMG that matches to 22 in PB. All I did was match up power levels with PB and rolls and post average rolls and the took 22 points and divided then evenly. Math wise 22 points divides into six abilities 3 times with 4 points left over. With a start of 8 on all thats 2-11s and 4-12s. Which is what I posted sorry. players can move points if they want but DMs will uses these number to decide what power level to start. Actually 4d6DTL has an average of 12.24, which effectively adds up to 12,12,12,12,13,12. Which is 25 point buy. :D However. I cannot see any roleplayer accepting a stat array like that. In fact, the PHB doesn't accept it either. However, it does accept an array like 12,12,12,12,14,11 - which I still can't see a roleplayer accepting (and comes out to 25 PB). A more acceptable array might be 11,11,11,11,18,11 (still holding to the average of 12.24) with a PB total of 31. Still not good enough? Hmm. So in other words, the only really acceptable stat arrays are the ones above 32 point buy? Or does anyone actually ever roll the dice with the intent of getting amusingly low stat totals?
Ack 07-03-07, 03:27 AM	[spelling corrected here and there :D] And here lays the railroading. PB, that starts with 8 so scores will not be too low, has a cost that keeps players from making too many high scores. Correction: to ensure that no-one overshadows anyone else. This can spoil player fun. You know this. DM's use this to keep players from get too many high scores and make the player think it's their fault because they decided where to put the points. Paranoid much? A game where all stat arrays start out on an equal footing has a much better chance of being a fun game for all concerned. Once again, you know this. The simple facts is no other time in the game do higher scores cost more points. In rolling there is at least the chance of getting all high scores which there is no chance of in PB. Yes, we know you want all high scores and not have to pay for them. It's nice that you admit it, anyway. Unfortunately, given the average distribution of dice rolls, the chances are that when someone rolls all high scores, someone else will roll uniformly low. Do you want to be the one stuck with two 14s as your best rolls and the rest 11s and 10s, when a couple of your friends have 18s and 17s across the board? The chance of getting all high scores is the same as the chance of getting all low scores. Unless, of course, you're skewing the results deliberately. And someone's going to get stuck with the low rolls. And when they appeal to the GM and get a free re-roll, they are effectively artificially improving their "chance" for a better stat array. In other words, reducing the randomness. (If you roll a d6 once and say, "If it comes up 6, I win.", that's random. If you roll it six times and say, "If it comes up 6 on any of those rolls, I win.", that's a lot less random.) If you want math on it then look at the higher score. The higher they put scores the lower their average score is in PB which also doesn't happen in rolls. ... which evens things out for MAD characters, as it happens. Something that has been a point of contention all the way through this thread. Personally, I don't care if I start at 15 PB or 50 PB - just so long as everyone else in the game starts with the same total. I don't have that assurance with rolling.
Steely_Dan 07-03-07, 04:08 AM	But take a Paladin (my favorite MAD class example). What are you going to stick the 8 in? Intelligence? I guess the skills of Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Ride, Knowledge Whatever, etc. are going to be low. Funny as so many feel a Paladin SHOULD have those things to determine if someone's on the up and up. Dexterity? Is this in hope that they'll get heavy armor? What about level 1 when they have no cash (which is about up to levels 4 or 5 in my campaign). What about initiative? Yeah, there's Improved Initiative but anyone can take that Feat too. As one person pointed out, a Paladin on Horseback at 1st level, yeah, a Lt. Riding Horse which is only good during the day, almost always aboveground and best on level ground. The other stats aren't much better options if the Paladin is going to do any melee AND casting. "So, the basic problem is that the paladin is still around." *in the voice of Bill Murray* What I'm getting from your post is not that there is a problem with point buys or MAD classes etc, it's that there is a problem with the paladin class. …Which there is.
EvilIdiot 07-03-07, 07:53 AM	@LCD2YOU:Still the wrong measures. 1)I linked a simulation in my first post where it is numerically demonstrated rolling doesn't help you with high values 2)PB is a self-balancing/intelligent-driven tool, either the mean you use is an intelligent PB configuration or it can't mean anything, and that's so. *in terms of points use, not character's 3)what about variance? 4)Again, few people here say simply "PB beats", me and other people keep saying that there are lots of false myths around rolling and pb, no more than that. @Caelic:hmm, no hyperboles here. I always speak in statistical*** terms, the ones who explain why some people prefer PB: it's "easy", but not sure, to have weak chars among strong ones s. t. the group is unbalanced, with rolling. When I made the example of wizards/cleric...ecc I was just pointing out the possible negative outcomes of rolling. I wasn't saying that was the norm, simply that if you say a fighter can have 18* in charisma, it is still more frequent, compared to that 18, having characters with a more penalizing set of score s.t. they may** need fixes for their flaws, we were both considering the tails of rolling's pdf. This doesn't mean ,again, that you mustn't have such weak character for game's sake, it is just a dual comparison of your statement. *saying that 18 is hard simply highlights it is not that frequent. ** depending on group ,adventure,dm ,etc.... *** statistic doesn't make me sure of nothing except the fact that out of <insert great number> players it is easier to have unbalanced parties(provided for that party disparity is a problem) than balanced parties with high scores, and, always because of the pdf's shape, it is more frequent to have characters between 12 and 16 scores; then there are actual parties: highly random sampling takes us to the real party, where you have balanced parties , with significant variance between characters, more frequently than unbalanced ones, always because the pdf's shape resembles a binomial/gaussian. <statistic off>Finally thrilling:still I have to agree with you about the great value of thrilling while creating characters, which depends as well on the fact there's a chance of having high rolls( with all the positive advantages we both listed in our previous posts) but this doesn't imply PB kills all the thrill you can have, i.e. it doesn't necessarily ruin the thrilling of actually playing your characters, <statistic on>nor that rolling is the method for high-heroic-unusual stasts, since, dually, you have really more chances of rolling low scores I said anything I could do, please keep in mind the meaning of my first post to avoid unnecessary misreading. cheers :tiphat:
OravennasBrother 07-03-07, 09:11 AM	And where in the rules does it state that players HAVE to be on a more even footing in order to enjoy the game? The page where every character starts at FIRST level. There is nothing that prevents players from enjoying themselves if their characters start on an uneven footing. How Uneven? Would you be willing to bring in a 1st level character to a 12th level campaign? What if, in addition to being first level to their 12th, you have an attributes array of 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 and all the 12 level characters had nothing below a 16 before level add and gear were counted? If that is too uneven then define where it becomes too uneven. Another thing - with 25 PB or elite array, there exists a variance between characters. Using elite array there are 120 different ways to arrange attributes. More if one character has a base 15 in an attribute and another has a base 8, then the character with the 15 is Markedly better in that attribute than the character with the 8. When every rolls generously and gets arrays with all the numbers in the 16 to 18 range there is virtually no variance in characters - they all have amazing potential for EVERYTHING. They become an army of clones. Booooooring.
geekling 07-03-07, 11:04 AM	You like rolling, find those 5 mins of stat generation thrilling, you prefer the randomness of it. Good for you, no really I mean it, good for you! If you're playing in my game, we're using point buy. Your 5 mins of thrill weighs very lightly against that other guy in the group who already has a concept he's dying to play. Point buy guarantees that he can play it. {1} Random generation does not. He might be able to, and then again, he might not and might end up with a set that makes it impossible. Ending up with a character that just is not fun to play because he had his heart set on something else. So it's your 5 mins of thrill vs. the playing the whole campaign with a character he didn't want to play for someone else in the group. Not a difficult choice. If you want random - there's nothing stopping you taking a PB and randomly assign the points. Here I'll even give you a suggestion. Pick up 4 d6s. Roll them. Drop the lowest. Add the remaining ones up. Check how much it would cost to buy that score using the PB system. Deduct that many points from your PB. Repeat until you've run out of points in the PB. There you go. You get your thrill of rattling dice, your random stats, the other guy gets his secure PB, everyone happy. {1}Insert silly counter argument about some ridiculous concept that is impossible with PB because it absolutely requires at least four 18's. - If you're the one thinking about posting it. Don't bother.
Steely_Dan 07-03-07, 11:10 AM	Your 5 mins of thrill weighs very lightly against that other guy in the group who already has a concept he's dying to play. Point buy guarantees that he can play it. {1} Random generation does not. He might be able to, and then again, he might not and might end up with a set that makes it impossible. Ending up with a character that just is not fun to play because he had his heart set on something else. So it's your 5 mins of thrill vs. the playing the whole campaign with a character he didn't want to play for someone else in the group. Exactly, I prefer to not have one player dancing around the living room because of his good "luck" when he/she rolled his ability scores, and the other guy crying into his soup because of his bad "luck" when he rolled for his ability scores.
J_Vhad 07-03-07, 11:21 AM	A few questions I have. First off at Ack, what is wrong with a 12,12,12,12,14,11? It's a 25 points buy. It's actually pretty close to what many a Paladin and Monk are forced to deal with in point buy because they have only one true dump stat and most don't want it to abysmal. Usually you'd see a 13 instead of an 11 and a 10 as the low, but really it's not a bad set of stats. The person is at least average in everything and exceptional in one thing. I find it ironic that your claims of PB against rolling have revolved around an elitist view of yourself and the proclamation "I don't have to have 18s to be happy," but you scowl at 25 point buy scores as though they were too low for anyone to have fun with. The 12,12,12,12,12,13 isn't even bad. The person is above average in every category, and afterall, as you pointed out it's skills and abilities that are going to be making up most of the bonuses in what you're good at. Second at Evil, you continue to claim that rolling does not help with a chance at getting multiple high stats, and of course claim you've proven this. The claim from the rollers was never that you have a superior chance of ALWAYS rolling high stats. It was that it gives you a better chance of getting higher stats than PB does. I would like to see how this is false. With Point Buy (standard 25) there is a fixed limit on how high the stats you can get are. Even at a 32 you can get 2 18s and 4 8s. Does rolling not offer a chance (however small it may be) at getting better stats than an equivalent point buy offers? The answer there has to be a yes, there is always a chance of getting straight 18s or an 18 a couple sixteens and a few eights. Strangely it seems the rollers have been trying simply to disprove false claims just as yourself. That Point Buy is "fairer". Point Buy cannot be "fairer" because it fails to take into account the imbalance of the classes. To Brother, woldn't it depend greatly on the DM? I mean if the DM is Sir TPKsalot then no I wouldn't bother. I'd just wait for the next TPK and offer to run a game of my own. But if it's a real campaign ten sure. Every good band of heroes have their lowly squire. You pointed out, Every character starts out at FIRST level. Does it say Every character starts out at FIRST level and with Equal ability scores? No. Not all heroes are made equal and the book doesn't say they are. Now again, what is wrong with 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8? Is it a bad set of scores? No. You have a hero that's average at most things, slightly below average in one area and exceptional in another area. What is wrong with this? And how can you gripe about rolling creating clones when Point Buy has much less variance? To everyone, why does everyone insist on bending both sides to extremes rather than arguing the basic nature of it. Do some rollers power game to the nine hells and back? sure. Do some PBers power game to the nine hells and back? sure. Some rollers roll 5D6 rerolling 1-5s, some PBers give a 80 PB. Some rollers use 3D6 organic after choosing class. Some PBers give 12 PB. Why would you use these to argue what is fair? Or preferrable? Is it impossible that some people, a majority even, use the system that is suggested for each generation method?
Caelic 07-03-07, 11:22 AM	Or does anyone actually ever roll the dice with the intent of getting amusingly low stat totals? Actually, yes. A very low stat can be as interesting to roleplay (if not moreso) than a very high one. A Charisma of 4? That's tough to roleplay properly...particularly if you're not just going to go for comic relief. A Wisdom of 4? Likewise. I fairly recently played a Druid with a Dexterity of 4--the Dex was a major part of his reason for becoming a Druid. He had a crippling disease not unlike muscular dystrophy that caused him to shake uncontrollably in human form; he hated the feeling of helplessness that that caused, which led him to seek ways to forsake that form altogether.
Caelic 07-03-07, 11:29 AM	Correction: to ensure that no-one overshadows anyone else. This can spoil player fun. You know this. For some players, maybe. I would suggest (with apologies to SteelyDan) that if a group of players includes some who "dance around" when they get high stats and others who "cry in their soup" and can't have fun if somebody else has better stats, that's a shortcoming of the players, not the system. A player who goes into a sulk and can't have fun because his buddy Bob has higher stats is also likely to go into the same mode if Bob consistently gets the killing blow in combat, or Bob rolls consistently better saving throws, or Bob winds up getting a nifty magical sword that gives him an edge in combat. I don't know; I guess I'm just spoiled when it comes to quality of player, because these problems don't crop up in the group I play with. Heck, if I'm not mistaken, the current party leader has the lowest overall stats in the group. In fact, I believe they're very close, Ack, to the stats that you suggested no roleplayer would be happy with--mostly 10's-12's, with perhaps a couple of 13's and a 14. Oddly enough, he's doing just fine with those stats...with nary a tear into his soup, or a muttered curse at his ill fortune in not being perfectly balanced with the rest of the group.
Ack 07-03-07, 11:42 AM	For some players, maybe. I would suggest that if a group of players includes ones who "dance around" when they get high stats and others who "cry in their soup" and can't have fun if somebody else has better stats, that's a flaw of the players, not the system. A player who goes into a sulk and can't have fun because his buddy Bob has higher stats is also likely to go into the same mode if Bob consistently gets the killing blow in combat, or Bob rolls consistently better saving throws, or Bob winds up getting a nifty magical sword that gives him an edge in combat. I don't know; I guess I'm just spoiled when it comes to quality of player, because these problems don't crop up in the group I play with. Heck, if I'm not mistaken, the current party leader has the lowest overall stats in the group. I said can spoil player fun. I even italicised it. I did not say "will, in every case, without exception, cause even the most mature player to throw a hissy fit". I said "can spoil player fun". The possibility is there. You know it is. And it's more likely to do so when Bob (who has the higher stats) gets to do the killing blow every time because of his higher stats, or wins the magical sword because he managed to use his higher stats to gain it first. And it's even less fun when the GM adjusts the challenges to give Bob a workout and the lower-stat character dies because he gets hit with something that Bob could have taken but he can't. In short, when Bob of the Uber Stats begins to overshadow the game, it can be a game breaker. You know it. Just because it's not happening to your group, right now, doesn't mean it can't or won't ever happen.
Steely_Dan 07-03-07, 11:47 AM	I would suggest (with apologies to SteelyDan) that if a group of players includes some who "dance around" when they get high stats and others who "cry in their soup" Okay, I probably exaggerated, but it was a funny image, don't you think?
Caelic 07-03-07, 11:56 AM	I also know that inter-party personal conflicts can spoil the fun for some players. I know that having one player achieve significant successes in the game because of his individual efforts that overshadow other players' accomplishments--a patent of nobility, say--can spoil the fun for some players. I know that playing a fighter and discovering that at higher levels, you're largely superfluous to the spellcasters can spoil player fun, and probably has a significantly higher chance of doing so than higher stats. That doesn't mean that, by banning all of these things, I'm going to have a superior game wherein everyone is happy all the time. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Which brings us back to the actual topic of the thread: is rolling for ability scores broken? The answer is no, it isn't. It works just fine. It has worked just fine for more than three decades now. For most of that time, a player who simply refused to be happy with anything other than playing a given character with set stats and got angry if he couldn't have it...or if someone else had better stats...was rightly recognized to be the source of his own problem. Such a player is going to have a problem regardless of game-system. Take him into GURPS or Champions; if someone else understands the system better and designs a more efficient character who outshines his, he'll be every bit as unhappy as if the stats were randomly rolled. Heck, stick him in a game of Monopoly and have him consistently land on other peoples' properties, and you'll probably see the same problem surface. So, yes, the problem is there, but frankly, I don't see it as a particularly big problem, nor one worth catering to or worrying about overmuch...because I know that in the right group of players, it's not a problem.
Caelic 07-03-07, 11:57 AM	Okay, I probably exaggerated, but it was a funny image, don't you think? Well, yes, but if I didn't snitch your choice of phrase, I wouldn't have been able to finish up my response with "nary a tear in his soup." ;)
geekling 07-03-07, 12:00 PM	if a group of players includes some who "dance around" when they get high stats and others who "cry in their soup" and can't have fun if somebody else has better stats, that's a shortcoming of the players, not the system. Taken out of context as that parabole was in reply to my comment about players coming to the table with a concept they're dying to play. The 'high stats' and 'better stats' are all your vaule added to it. One could be snide and add something of how that reflects on you. But I think I'll pass. Billy is crying in his soup because he got unlucky and rolled a set that makes his concept of someone who'd be just an average Joe - if it wasn't for being a PC in a D&D game, impossibe. While he wanted no extreme stats in either direction. He rolled three 18s, a 4 and two 12's. Bob is dancing around because his rolled set fits perfectly with the concept he had in mind. Even if they are 'worse' stats than Bob's. He got lucky. Billy is crying in his soup because playing superman physically but a blubbering idiot. Is not his cup of tea. Nor is playing a crippled genious. He just wanted to play an average joe. But now he's stuck with a character he won't enjoy playing.
Caelic 07-03-07, 12:06 PM	Taken out of context as that parabole was in reply to my comment about players coming to the table with a concept they're dying to play. Irrelevant distinction. Both are symptoms of the same problem, and it's the player's problem, not the system's. (And, incidentally, I think the word you were looking for is "parable," and it's not exactly one of those, either.) The 'high stats' and 'better stats' are all your vaule added to it. One could be snide and add something of how that reflects on you. But I think I'll pass. Of course, a self-referential snide comment by implication is still a snide comment. Billy is crying in his soup because he got unlucky and rolled a set that makes his concept of someone who'd be just an average Joe - if it wasn't for being a PC in a D&D game, impossibe. While he wanted no extreme stats in either direction. He rolled three 18s, a 4 and two 12's. Bob is dancing around because his rolled set fits perfectly with the concept he had in mind. Even if they are 'worse' stats than Bob's. He got lucky. Billy is crying in his soup because playing superman physically but a blubbering idiot. Is not his cup of tea. Nor is playing a crippled genious. He just wanted to play an average joe. Then both Billy and Bob, frankly, need to get a grip. It's a game. If Billy's so inflexible that he can only have fun with one character concept, and gets distraught if it's denied to him...well, I hope he works out that problem in time. Frankly, I'd rather he not do it at my table. I mean, seriously...let's run down the possibilities with Billy. Bob: "Bill, c'mon, these are great stats you rolled! So you have one bad stat." Billy: "*Sob* I don't care! I didn't want high stats! High stats are bad!" Bob: "Uhm...well, okay. You know the DM probably isn't going to have a big problem letting you lower high stats, right?" Billy: "*Sob snort sniffle* Doesn't matter! I'll still have a 4! I didn't want any low stats! I don't want to play a cripple or an idiot!" Bob: "Oh, c'mon...it's one stat. Okay, so you don't want a 4 in Strength or Intelligence. I can understand that. What about a 4 in Charisma? Maybe you're hideously scarred and bitter about it..." Billy: "Noooo! I can't play an ugly character!" Bob: "Well, then, what about Wisdom? You're a great guy; you're just really impulsive and have no willpower." Billy: "Nooooo! I can't play a character who doesn't have self-control!" Bob: "Well, then, what about..." Billy: "Nooooo! I can't have low stats THERE, either! My fun is RUINED! *sob snivel snort sob*" (Exaggerated, sure, but I'm not the one who insisted ol' Billy was "crying in his soup" over this.) Bob's easy to deal with; a mild verbal smackdown to remind him that gloating is unseemly should do the trick.
Ack 07-03-07, 12:23 PM	A few questions I have. Me too. First off at Ack, what is wrong with a 12,12,12,12,14,11? It's a 25 points buy. It's actually pretty close to what many a Paladin and Monk are forced to deal with in point buy because they have only one true dump stat and most don't want it to abysmal. Usually you'd see a 13 instead of an 11 and a 10 as the low, but really it's not a bad set of stats. The person is at least average in everything and exceptional in one thing. First off: why is it you didn't pose any of these searching questions to the rolling crew if you are so unbiased? To answer your question: I have no problems with 25 point buy. If the GM says that's what we're using, then I'll use 25 pb. I'd work the numbers a little differently, but that's just me. Maybe a couple 10s in there, and possibly upward of a 16. Note that a Monk needs STR, DEX and WIS ... but then, if you look more closely at it, DEX isn't so urgent, because monks get the WIS bonus attached to the AC as well. So a 16 in WIS, a 12 in DEX, another in STR ... then it's 7 points to spread as you will between CON, INT and CHA. That's how I'd play it, anyway. I find it ironic that your claims of PB against rolling have revolved around an elitist view of yourself and the proclamation "I don't have to have 18s to be happy," but you scowl at 25 point buy scores as though they were too low for anyone to have fun with. The 12,12,12,12,12,13 isn't even bad. The person is above average in every category, and afterall, as you pointed out it's skills and abilities that are going to be making up most of the bonuses in what you're good at. I have said that I prefer 32 point buy, and so do the majority of people I game with, GMs and players. I could play 25 point buy; if it was the declared level for the game, I'd quite happily work with it. And yes, the 12s-and-13 array is perfectly good for most games. I've worked with worse. (Note that the PHB would declare it 'unfit' if it was rolled up with 4d6 DTL - I'm not sure what that says about the PHB or those who wrote it). Second at Evil, you continue to claim that rolling does not help with a chance at getting multiple high stats, and of course claim you've proven this. The claim from the rollers was never that you have a superior chance of ALWAYS rolling high stats. It was that it gives you a better chance of getting higher stats than PB does. I would like to see how this is false. With Point Buy (standard 25) there is a fixed limit on how high the stats you can get are. Even at a 32 you can get 2 18s and 4 8s. Does rolling not offer a chance (however small it may be) at getting better stats than an equivalent point buy offers? The answer there has to be a yes, there is always a chance of getting straight 18s or an 18 a couple sixteens and a few eights. As was said earlier (I think by nastynate), rolling gives you a chance at high stats, while PB gives you the option for high stats. Note that no matter how many times you roll for stats, you don't become any more likely to get better numbers. The dice are always going to fall where they may. Meanwhile, in PB, practice does indeed improve your chance to apply stats where they will do the most good for the point buy level you are working with. The average spread for 4d6DTL is equivalent to 25 point buy. This is not a bad spread, as numbers go. However, keep these two points in mind: 1) Quite a few 25 PB-equivalent spreads are "unacceptable" by PHB judgement as being "too low" for a proper stat array, and are thus re-rolled. 2) If the average is equivalent to 25 PB, then more than half of all possible 4d6 DTL arrays must be equivalent to 25 PB or less. 3) Therefore, approximately half of all 4d6DTL stat arrays are deemed unacceptable by PHB standards. Strangely it seems the rollers have been trying simply to disprove false claims just as yourself. That Point Buy is "fairer". Point Buy cannot be "fairer" because it fails to take into account the imbalance of the classes. The classes were unbalanced before point buy ever made an appearance. Point buy doesn't need to balance that to justify itself. What it does do is present everyone with the same chance for good stat arrays at character creation. Rolling does not. Incidentally, as mentioned, point buy does help balance MAD vs SAD to some degree. On the other hand, there exists a more than 50/50 chance that rolling will increase the disparity between two unbalanced classes. To Brother, woldn't it depend greatly on the DM? I mean if the DM is Sir TPKsalot then no I wouldn't bother. I'd just wait for the next TPK and offer to run a game of my own. But if it's a real campaign ten sure. Every good band of heroes have their lowly squire. Sure - do you want to be him, just because your rolls sucked? You pointed out, Every character starts out at FIRST level. Does it say Every character starts out at FIRST level and with Equal ability scores? No. Not all heroes are made equal and the book doesn't say they are. Though it helps with game enjoyment if they are equivalent. Point buy guarantees that. Rolling does not. Now again, what is wrong with 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8? Is it a bad set of scores? No. You have a hero that's average at most things, slightly below average in one area and exceptional in another area. What is wrong with this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Though I can see people wanting to re-roll it.:D And how can you gripe about rolling creating clones when Point Buy has much less variance? I don't see how one side has any more or less variance than the other. To everyone, why does everyone insist on bending both sides to extremes rather than arguing the basic nature of it. Do some rollers power game to the nine hells and back? sure. Do some PBers power game to the nine hells and back? sure. Some rollers roll 5D6 rerolling 1-5s, some PBers give a 80 PB. Some rollers use 3D6 organic after choosing class. Some PBers give 12 PB. Why would you use these to argue what is fair? Or preferrable? Is it impossible that some people, a majority even, use the system that is suggested for each generation method? I'd just like one roller to accept, however grudgingly, that point buy is fair. Before races come into it, before classes come into it, before anything else comes into it. When it comes down to creating stat arrays that are equivalent in nature, so that all players can have fun in their chosen niche, point buy guarantees fairness. Rolling does not. It's as simple as that.
LCD2YOU 07-03-07, 12:38 PM	Hey OravennasBrother you are a liar.SO you didn't actually use statistical analysis, just a few examples?It's 40 pages long, I was having fun with one of my Analsys programs. so now you're not just a liar but a fraud. You obviously and purposely forgot the part where I say that the whole thing is 40 pages long but it all seems to boil down to those arrays. Soare you obtuse willfully, aka a troll, or are you ignorant because you have no other choice, aka mentally slow? Which is it? My money is both.Fine, but trying to pass that off as "accurate" is like trying to pass off 36 PB as "Normal Power Levels".I never did. So show where I did or be taken as nothing but a fool and a liar. The highlighted part is what I want you show me where I claimed or said such a thing or I will be calling you on it and calling you a liar everytime you post.The DEFAULT Power Level for D&D is the Elite array, which is nicely synced with 25 PB.Ah, but you are wrong. Caelic did show you where the default is 4d6, drop the lowest die. OBTW, 4d6 drop lowest is about the same as a 28 PB. I know you won't be able to follow it, just as you wouldn't be able to fathom that 3d6 straight is about the same as a 15 PB.36 PB is A LOT higher than 25 PB and creates a resultant increase in PC power. More PC power means less challenge; can you follow that Logic?Logic yes, your twisted version of facts and truth? No. My mind can't squeeze through such a small hole.Throughout this thread the Rollers have invariably insisted that 25 PB is NOT ENOUGH to generate the attributes they feel are needed for their characters.Which isn't me, save that if you're going to hold your players to 25 PB that the MAD classes get a few more points, 3 or so.Higher Attributes = More Powerful Characters. IT IS that simple.Wow, you're right! But even a stopped clock is right twice a day.Don't believe me? Take any Character, of any class and Race, and increase all their attributes by 2 points across the board. Then compare the Two Characters mechanically.Uh, already been doing that.So until the roller crowd stops asking for MORE (in the form of higher base attributes) the only conclusion possible will remain that the rollers want Higher Attributes and that any other consideration is secondary.Maybe for a poor DM. Good DMs like myself can roll with the punches quite easily. So are you a liar? No? Then from above go and either apologize for putting crap on the board and saying I said it or be what you are, a liar.
LCD2YOU 07-03-07, 12:44 PM	Well Ack, I agree that a good way to solve it would be to give MAD classes more points. I salute you. Either that or the "Elite Array" with the modified "Elite Array" for MAD classes that I did some time ago.
EvilIdiot 07-03-07, 01:12 PM	First off at Ack, what is wrong with a 12,12,12,12,14,11? It's a 25 points buy. It's actually pretty close to what many a Paladin and Monk are forced to deal with in point buy because they have only one true dump stat and most don't want it to abysmal. Usually you'd see a 13 instead of an 11 and a 10 as the low, but really it's not a bad set of stats. The person is at least average in everything and exceptional in one thing. Hmm..same-scores is an awful char, even if it's a monk; it has been already said: mad classes are gimped/inefficient/troublesome with any system, 'cos you need more stats... I find it ironic that your claims of PB against rolling have revolved around an elitist view of yourself and the proclamation "I don't have to have 18s to be happy," some pro-rollers supproted the opposite...and it's a fact, but only from a pratical pov(it has nothing to do with 'elitarism' by itself): with pb you can't have 18s as easily as with rolling, so using PB while looking forward to 18s would be contraddictory, wouldn't it? but you scowl at 25 point buy scores as though they were too low for anyone to have fun with. The 12,12,12,12,12,13 isn't even bad. It has been highlighted that PB is self-balanced in such a way low bases are really 'low' but, on the other hand, the method lets you choose bases. The person is above average in every category, and afterall, as you pointed out it's skills and abilities that are going to be making up most of the bonuses in what you're good at. Being above average is pointless if you're good at nothing; a commoner with those stats may be interesting as commoner, not as any other class which needs one or two decents stats. you continue to claim that rolling does not help with a chance at getting multiple high stats, and of course claim you've proven this. The claim from the rollers was never that you have a superior chance of ALWAYS rolling high stats. It was that it gives you a better chance of getting higher stats than PB does. Give me a character with 2 18s; probably he's hard to get with PB, ok, something I stated myself and everybody knows. It's like playing lotto: we know you can win more money than working; my point is that you have higher chances of loosing than winning; in terms of stat, chances of having lots of high scores are much lower than having lots of low ones If you like rolling because it is certainly better for MAD classes because/or it lets you have higher stats than rolls, you're wrong; if you like rolling because there's a little chance, actaully lower than the opposite, of having high scores, you're right. Difference between false hopes(former) and certainity(latter); I hope that's clear 'cos it's a triky argument. Anyway I do not make claims, I just considered the simulation linked here, (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12901282&postcount=292) in my first post. Strangely it seems the rollers have been trying simply to disprove false claims just as yourself. That Point Buy is "fairer". Point Buy cannot be "fairer" because it fails to take into account the imbalance of the classes. Rolling is even worse then, accordin to this concept,but the concept of fairness differs, they've already been discussed, I'm not going, If you don't mind, to repeat themselves, risking to express them badly/forget
Ack 07-03-07, 01:13 PM	@LCD2YOU: Finally. I proposed that about three pages ago. Also - lay off on the insults ("liar and fraud") before you get this thread locked. We've managed to keep it civil so far; don't be the first to start a flame war. You said you did a 40 page analysis. We haven't seen it; all we know is what you said. 4d6DTL has an average of 12.24; this makes it roughly equivalent to 25 PB. It has been pointed out that point buy does actually help with the SAD/MAD disparity; that is, an 18 (with +4 bonus) is more expensive than two 14 (each with +2 bonus) and the same cost as a 16 and a 14 (with a total of +5 bonus). So it's actually in the player's best interest to have a spread of lower-than-18 stats than to go for the be-all-and-end-all.
Caelic 07-03-07, 01:17 PM	I'd just like one roller to accept, however grudgingly, that point buy is fair. Before races come into it, before classes come into it, before anything else comes into it. When it comes down to creating stat arrays that are equivalent in nature, so that all players can have fun in their chosen niche, point buy guarantees fairness. Rolling does not. It's as simple as that. Grudgingly? I accept it freely. Point buy is fair. So is taking 10 on all dice rolls. So is saying that everyone has to play the same class, so nobody excels on that basis. So is insisting that the DM can never throw a challenge at the party that has capabilities beyond those of the party. Those are all "fair." The thing is, I'm not all that concerned with "fair." I'm concerned with "fun." A lot of the fun in D&D comes from things that are inherently unfair.
Caelic 07-03-07, 01:25 PM	in terms of stat, chances of having lots of high scores are much lower than having lots of low ones You keep saying this, and it's simply wrong. Not true. Demonstrably false. If you claim to have done a statistics breakdown that proves this, then your statistics breakdown was wrong. On straight 3d6, your odds of a high score are precisely equal to your odds of the corresponding low score. You have as good a chance of an 18 as of a 3; you have as good a chance of a 17 as a 4. Add in another die and drop the low die, and you skew the results in favor of high ability scores. You now have a much higher chance of an 18 than a 3; the odds of getting an 18 have increased, and the odds of getting a 3 have decreased. Your chances of having lots of high scores are now higher than your chances of having lots of low scores. Now let's add in the fact that (as Ack points out) a large number of bad stat arrays are, by the default method, simply wiped off the board. If you have lots of bad stats, you roll over. It's as simple as that. Once again, the distribution is strongly skewed towards good scores. It's not only not more statistically likely to have a lot of bad scores than a lot of good scores; it's nigh-impossible to have a lot of bad scores. The only possible justification you can offer for this statement is a hugely subjective one. If you define "bad" as anything below 15, and "good" as, say, 16-18, then you might be able to claim that it's "statistically more likely" to get bad scores than good scores. But, since that claim is based on an entirely subjective (and pretty far-fetched) definition of "good" and "bad," it lacks any sort of objective validity.
Ack 07-03-07, 01:26 PM	Grudgingly? I accept it freely. Point buy is fair. So is taking 10 on all dice rolls. So is saying that everyone has to play the same class, so nobody excels on that basis. So is insisting that the DM can never throw a challenge at the party that has capabilities beyond those of the party. Those are all "fair." The thing is, I'm not all that concerned with "fair." I'm concerned with "fun." A lot of the fun in D&D comes from things that are inherently unfair. :twitch: That is not what I meant, and you know it. Stats are the basis for your character. They are the first things you get, and the last things you lose. Even if they change, they will return to normal (unless they are improved by levelling up. But hey, that's a good thing). My point here is that nothing breaks a game faster than one player rolling the absolute lowest of the acceptable range, and another rolling the highest. Either the GM has to shoehorn them both into the same game (and the very mechanics of the game will work against it, even if the players are both willing) or he has to admit that the rolling method didn't work that time, and adjust them somehow. He can get the person who rolled high to reduce his stats (never fun) or he can simply give the person with lower stats a boost, either with a re-roll or with extra numbers on his stats. Either way, this proves that the rolling method is unfair in an un-fun way. With point buy, such stat adjustment is never required.
Caelic 07-03-07, 01:38 PM	My point here is that nothing breaks a game faster than one player rolling the absolute lowest of the acceptable range, and another rolling the highest. Quite a bit of hyperbole here. I can think of a number of things that break a game faster, and when you have to cite the most extreme example to prove your case, it's a shaky case. Either the GM has to shoehorn them both into the same game ...or exercise his DM's power of discretion to make a few tweaks to the stats, which is a possibility most of the anti-rolling crowd don't seem to consider... (and the very mechanics of the game will work against it, even if the players are both willing) Err...no. Stats just plain don't make that big a difference. At very low levels, they may well be the difference between living and dying; then again, at very low levels, one crappy roll on a d20 is going to kill your character in any case, and he probably won't be coming back. At higher levels, there are level-up increases, there are stat boosting items, there are items and spells to increase otherwise-weak saves, there are entire mechanic sets which allow you to toss your stats out the window and replace them with much higher stats if you want to. The fighter's 13 Strength really isn't much of a factor once the party wizard starts Polymorphing him into a troll. Good heavens, I played a Master of Many Forms with one...count it...one 14. Every other stat was 11 or below. Technically, the character was "stillborn." He still dominated combat. The ironic thing? This was in a campaign with the sorts of players we've been discussing...the ones who grumble and have no fun if someone else has higher stats. And they were, indeed, grumbling over how effective my character was despite the fact that he had the lowest stats by far in the group. Giving such a player equal stats...or even superior stats...won't stop him from grousing. or he has to admit that the rolling method didn't work that time, and adjust them somehow. He can get the person who rolled high to reduce his stats (never fun) or he can simply give the person with lower stats a boost, either with a re-roll or with extra numbers on his stats. Ah! Hallelujah! Someone who actually takes this possibility into account! I salute you, sir. Either way, this proves that the rolling method is unfair in an un-fun way. ...but not here. No. This proves that the rolling method can be un-fun for some players. Please don't presume to claim that it's a universal truth, because it's not. With point buy, such stat adjustment is never required. ...and the putative player's problems will simply surface in other ways instead. You've treated the symptom, not the disease.
OravennasBrother 07-03-07, 01:41 PM	One thing a lot of posters seem to not understand is that a mathematical proof is dependent on a proof, not examples; regardless of the number of examples cited. The difference between 1 example and 1,000 examples is immaterial in terms of a proof. An inductive proof generally BEGINS by showing that something is true for a particular case, but it then proceeds to prove that whenever the desired condition holds for N it then also holds for N+1. A deductive Proof needs no example, it proceeds from definitions and previously proven statements to arrive at a conclusion. A Proof by contradiction begins by assuming that what is to be proven is false and then showing that the assumption leads to a contradiction hence what was assumed false cannot be false and must be true. SO to be absolutely clear - a Proof by example is NOT a proof, rather it MAY be an indication of where to look when conducting a proof, but it is NOT a proof.
EvilIdiot 07-03-07, 01:43 PM	You keep saying this, and it's simply wrong. Not true. Demonstrably false. If you claim to have done a statistics breakdown that proves this, then your statistics breakdown was wrong. I keep saying to read my first post, where's a link to a simulation; as you know simulations, if system is simple, are easier to manage than complex formulas; I explicited the considerations I made about that simulation, which are real number, please consider that; I may have misread percentages, but I don't think so. The only possible justification you can offer for this statement is a hugely subjective one. If you define "bad" as anything below 15, and "good" as, say, 16-18, then you might be able to claim that it's "statistically more likely" to get bad scores than good scores. But, since that claim is based on an entirely subjective (and pretty far-fetched) definition of "good" and "bad," it lacks any sort of objective validity. I'm trying to keep this discussion civil, as anyone here, however stating such things after have ingnored the sources my data comes from, is just unpleasant.
LCD2YOU 07-03-07, 01:43 PM	@LCD2YOU: Finally. I proposed that about three pages ago.Good because I proposed that on several PB threads over the past 2 years.Also - lay off on the insults ("liar and fraud") before you get this thread locked. We've managed to keep it civil so far; don't be the first to start a flame war.Why don't you start with my target. Check with what OravennesBrother has been spewing. If you think he's not been insulting and such, you're mistaken.You said you did a 40 page analysis. We haven't seen it; all we know is what you said.Which is not what OravennasBrother is saying. He's taking things out of context and then distorting them. Where'd you like me to publish all 40+ pages? Something tells me OravennasBrother would be incapable of seeing it anyways so what's the point?4d6DTL has an average of 12.24; this makes it roughly equivalent to 25 PB.It does? Can you show me where you got that? My analysis comes out to 28 points, because it includes one or two stats that are 15s or higher that are almost always going to show up. 12.25 is what I get as well from 4d6DTL for a total of "75/76 total when the stats are added up". But 15, 15, 12, 12, 10, 10 while totaling 75 points is a 28PB. Most of the permutations of 4d6DTL gives one stats like these: 15, 15, 13, 12, 11, 9 14, 14, 13, 13, 11, 11 15, 14, 13, 12, 12, 10 15, 15, 13, 12, 11, 10 If you think it is different, please show us your work.It has been pointed out that point buy does actually help with the SAD/MAD disparity; that is, an 18 (with +4 bonus) is more expensive than two 14 (each with +2 bonus) and the same cost as a 16 and a 14 (with a total of +5 bonus). So it's actually in the player's best interest to have a spread of lower-than-18 stats than to go for the be-all-and-end-all.Only at the high ends, which I agree.
Mock26 07-03-07, 01:44 PM	The page where every character starts at FIRST level. Nope. Not written. I checked the rules and it doesn't say anything about requiring an even footing in order for the game to be enjoyable. How Uneven? Would you be willing to bring in a 1st level character to a 12th level campaign? What if, in addition to being first level to their 12th, you have an attributes array of 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 and all the 12 level characters had nothing below a 16 before level add and gear were counted? If that is too uneven then define where it becomes too uneven. There is a big difference between two characters of the same level with differing stats and two characters seperated by 10 levels of experience! I will give you an example from the (2nd edition) campaign I am currently DMing. 6th level dwarf fighter: 14, 12, 10, 13, 16, 13 (Str. Int. Wis. Dex. Con. Cha.) and 5th/6th level dwarf fighter/thief: 18/26, 16, 16, 18, 18, 12. These stats were rolled in front of me using the 4d6 drop the lowest and place wherever you want. One set of stats was rolled. Both of the players have a blast playing both of their characters, despite the fact that the fighter/thief has a big advantage in combat in terms of bonuses to hit and to damage. But, it doesn't affect either of them. They enjoy the game, equally. Yet, you seem to imply that it would be impossible for them to enjoy playing D&D. Another thing - with 25 PB or elite array, there exists a variance between characters. Using elite array there are 120 different ways to arrange attributes. More if one character has a base 15 in an attribute and another has a base 8, then the character with the 15 is Markedly better in that attribute than the character with the 8. When every rolls generously and gets arrays with all the numbers in the 16 to 18 range there is virtually no variance in characters - they all have amazing potential for EVERYTHING. They become an army of clones. Booooooring. Yes, when everyone rolls with a generous system, it is more likely that you will get similar scores, but the same happens when you use a generous point buy system. But, you seem to be assuming that everyone who rolls is using a generous system and will get similar groups of stats. But, not everyone uses a generous dice rolling system. In fact, by it's very nature, a point buy system is MORE likely to generate your so-called aremy of clones as it is way less random than rolling of the dice. Booooooring. Oh, there are also just as many different ways to arrange the stats that you have rolled up as you have generated with a point buy system.
LCD2YOU 07-03-07, 01:44 PM	@OvarennesBrother: Great. Let's see your proofs.
J_Vhad 07-03-07, 01:48 PM	First off: why is it you didn't pose any of these searching questions to the rolling crew if you are so unbiased? What should I ask? How come you insist PB is unfair? Oh wait, I already know that. Uhm...lets think again. Nothing is coming to mind. I'm not biased against either system. They both have their flaws. Neither is completely fair, I'm posing these questions to people who claim that PB is a better system because it is "fair". It isn't. On top of this it has a negative influence on Roleplaying and Classes. A.) Reinforces Stereotypes. (Claim what you want, but a majority of fighters I've seen in LG (28 point buy so it's above standard) are either dumb and uncharismatic or spiked chain wielders. This hurts players and the roleplaying in my opinion as anything creative fighter/mage, charismatic leader, ect. is penalized heavily.) B.) Furthers the gap between MAD and SAD classes. (Again, MAD classes are already weaker than SAD classes balance wise in most cases, giving them the same points weakens them further as they lose effectiveness due to the spreading of points. At high levels this isn't really an issue due to magic items and the multitude of modifiers, but at low levels it creates the same problem that PB supposedly fixes...uneven footing.) That isn't being biased that is looking at the numbers and the system and realizing that a good character gen has to take into account the system. Note that a Monk needs STR, DEX and WIS ... but then, if you look more closely at it, DEX isn't so urgent, because monks get the WIS bonus attached to the AC as well. So a 16 in WIS, a 12 in DEX, another in STR ... then it's 7 points to spread as you will between CON, INT and CHA. That's how I'd play it, anyway. A melee fighter doesn't need AC? They can't wear armor without loosing most of what makes them a monk. a 14 dex and 16 wis give you a 15 AC. Now if you're small race, like a gnomes or halfling you can get up to 16 easily or 17 even. But that kills your ability to damage and speed, both of which are very important to a monk. DEX is obviously important to a monk, a 12 dex leaves them at a 14 AC (while not much lower than the 15, every point matters drastically starting out). If anything STR is easier to drop to a ten and weapon finesse at third level. However this isn't a thread about Optimizing a monk, it's about Rolling, and now has become tied to PB. Are MAD classes less effective with PB than SAD classes? As was said earlier (I think by nastynate), rolling gives you a chance at high stats, while PB gives you the option for high stats. Note that no matter how many times you roll for stats, you don't become any more likely to get better numbers. The dice are always going to fall where they may. Meanwhile, in PB, practice does indeed improve your chance to apply stats where they will do the most good for the point buy level you are working with. But this is flawed again. Rolling gives you a chance for high stats, a chance for mediocre stats, a chance for low stats (although not as big since truly low stats get rerolled). Your stats arn't dependant on what you are going to be. What you are going to be is usually dependant on your stats. You don't become more likely to roll higher numbers obviously but you always have the same chance of rolling higher numbers. It isn't high numbers though that is the point. It is MAD compatible numbers. If a player gets 14,14,14, 16, 12, 8. That is the equivalent of a 32 point buy and can make a decent monk. It's not really that powerful, nor is it too terribly unlikely for a character to get four good stats like that. Now the player that rolls 12,10, 9, 10, 18, 13 has the equivalent of a 30 PB equivalence. Are they that unmatched? Will they be about equal? Yes. Most likely by fifth level the lower one will already be outshining the first one as a SAD class. So how is rolling unfair? Because someone might not play what they want? Can people not make a character to fit what they rolled? When you design your character concept is not up to the system, it's not part of the system, it's up to you. Rolling accomodates more concepts than PB does. That is not being biased, that is not an opinion, that is true. It has more outcomes. The classes were unbalanced before point buy ever made an appearance. Point buy doesn't need to balance that to justify itself. What it does do is present everyone with the same chance for good stat arrays at character creation. Rolling does not. Incidentally, as mentioned, point buy does help balance MAD vs SAD to some degree. On the other hand, there exists a more than 50/50 chance that rolling will increase the disparity between two unbalanced classes. You're right PB does not need to fix it to be an ok system. However to be a system that is "fairer" than rolling, it needs to at least take the classes into consideration and work with them better than rolling. It does not, therefore it is not. As for the 50% issue. I still disagree with that. The vast majority of rollers determine what they are playing after they roll. Most of them don't make a MAD concept with stats that don't support it in rolling. So it rarely increases the gap while offering a chance at decreasing it. The big issue here though, is that it is a team game. As a team game the players should be making their characters together. I'm not familiar with sports or most popular games, but for an example, do most football teams field the slowest guy with the poorest aim as quarterback? Do they field seven quarterbacks? Not to my knowledge. You players should be able to sit among one another and create characters to help the groups efficiency. If they rolled stats, they should be able to compare them with each other and see who is ahead and behind before creating the characters. Now this doesn't mean people get shoe horned into roles they don't like, but if Bob sees that he's going to be miles ahead of the rest of the group, he can make a monk or a paladin and be on pretty even grounds starting out. Meanwhile if Jake is a little behind he can maximize himself in one area of rogueness (like dex skills and ranged) rather than branching out as far as he otherwise would. Does this narrow characters? It can depending on the players. As much as Point Buy? Not even close. Though it helps with game enjoyment if they are equivalent. Point buy guarantees that. Rolling does not. Why? It's not required. It's not needed. So if it helps with enjoyment chances are, it's has nothing to do with the system and everything with the player/s. Now I'm not saying that PBers are immature, nor that using it is, but using this as an arguement is a little lame. If a person requires equal footing for enjoyment that is not a problem with the system, that is a charactersistic of the person or group. On top of this Point Buy isn't even truly equivalent as has been pointed out. So, yes if the illusion of equivalence helps with enjoyment then PB might help certain groups. This isn't a deal with the system though and certainly because certain groups require it doesn't make it "fairer". Sure - do you want to be him, just because your rolls sucked? 14, 10,10,10,10, 8 do not suck first of all, they actually have a potential. Second, the rolls wouldn't be determining that in the case you supplied. It would be the DM sticking you at first level and everyone else at 12th level? What's wrong with playing the D&D version of Kenny? I don't see how one side has any more or less variance than the other. Can you get 3,3,18,18,16,10 in anything under a 44 PB? (this is of course assuming your DM lets you drop 8s to 3s out of your own choice) No. Can you roll it on 3D6? yes. One example right there. I'm not going to keep going because frankly, I don't have the time. I'd just like one roller to accept, however grudgingly, that point buy is fair. Before races come into it, before classes come into it, before anything else comes into it. When it comes down to creating stat arrays that are equivalent in nature, so that all players can have fun in their chosen niche, point buy guarantees fairness. And you wont'. If the game were balanced, Point Buy would be fair. Without a balanced game, point buy can never be fair. Thats as simple as it gets. Now if people were using point buy to just right random numbers on a sheet of paper it would be fine and fair. However, point buy is used to make characters. Characters are not just random numbers, they have classes and races. These are both integral parts of character generation. Point Buy only guarantees fairness to SAD classes. The problem here is you seem to be taking it that the claim is point buy isn't fair to characters, but that isn't what I'm proposing, nor is it what I've taken from other players posts. Point Buy isn't fair to the player. Why? Because there is NEVER the chance of being as effective as the SAD class with a monk or paladin, EVER in your characters career. So, what does this do? Is means you can either A.) make an inferior character or B.) limit yourself to SAD classes. Why is this unfair to the player? Prob A.) No matter how many campaigns you play in the weaker classes (MAD) are always going to even less effective as usual if you continue with point buy. Prob B.) Sterotypical characters. The party will generally compose of less interesting characters as they will be all min/maxed to be effective. Rolling does not. Rolling gives the player a hand in his abilities through luck rather than choice. As long as the same method is used for each character it is as fair as possible to be. It also negates Prob A.) as chances are if you play many campaigns at all you will finally roll in one where you can play a MAD character and not lag behind (either through high scores or decent scores while the other players lag behind). Prob B.) dissapears as well, as sometimes the stats will inspire a player to do something he wouldn't in point buy. Yes, sometimes a players goes "I got an extra sixteen, I could put it into dex, but I'll be wearing full plate as a fighter. I'll throw it into wisdom and have been training as a combat medic." Can a PB character do that. Sure, but he's heavily penalized for it, or gets not character stats for his background (depending on if he actually boosts his wis or if he just writes it in despite his character not reflecting it). It's as simple as that. Strangely it's not, I would think after 16 pages some people would realize this. But :cookie: to everyone here since I lost my bet. Jepordy did not crop up on page 15.
Caelic 07-03-07, 01:51 PM	I'm trying to keep this discussion civil, as anyone here, however stating such things after have ingnored the sources my data comes from, is just unpleasant. Idiot (y'know, it's a bit hard to keep the tone civil when you have to start by calling someone "Idiot" because that's their name...) I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it: if your simulation leads to the conclusion that you will get more low scores than high scores, then there's something wrong with the simulation. Step back for a moment and see the forest; we're starting with a situation where high outcomes and low outcomes are equally likely, and we're skewing it solely in favor of high outcomes. There are no biases in favor of low outcomes. In such a situation, it is impossible that the system will favor low outcomes. If a simulation shows that it does, then a number of possibilities exist: 1. We're dealing with different usage of terms, as I mentioned in my prior post; perhaps the person running the simulation defines "low" differently. 2. The simulation lacked sufficient sample size. 3. The simulation was predicated on faulty data at some point. 4. The simulation was a genuine statistical fluke. They happen. None of this changes the fact that 4d6DL is biased in favor of higher scores, and that, on average, it will produce more high scores than low scores. Now: I rather suspect that you are predicating your claim on the basis that your simulation factors in point costs, and, on average, people are going to roll more stats with comparatively low point cost (8-14) than stats with disproportionately high point cost (15-18.) Consequently, the average PB value will seem low. This is, of course, exactly what I said in my prior post, albeit in different terms: the only way you can make the claim of "more low stats" is if you define "low stat" as below 15 and "high stat" as 15 and above.
Caelic 07-03-07, 02:22 PM	If the game were balanced, Point Buy would be fair. Without a balanced game, point buy can never be fair. Even in a totally balanced system, the problem remains. Is it fair that I have an excellent memory and can accurately memorize and recall massive chunks of rules information, whereas another player might lack that capacity? Is it fair that I have the leisure time to do so, whereas another player might not? Is it fair that I have the discretionary income to buy all of those rules, while another player might have to be content with borrowing the rulebooks from time to time? None of those things are "fair," and all of them, in my experience, have a much greater impact on relative character power than any disparity in statistics.
J_Vhad 07-03-07, 02:39 PM	Even in a totally balanced system, the problem remains. Is it fair that I have an excellent memory and can accurately memorize and recall massive chunks of rules information, whereas another player might lack that capacity? Is it fair that I have the leisure time to do so, whereas another player might not? Is it fair that I have the discretionary income to buy all of those rules, while another player might have to be content with borrowing the rulebooks from time to time? None of those things are "fair," and all of them, in my experience, have a much greater impact on relative character power than any disparity in statistics. I take it as an asumption that they're playing D&D which is a teambased game. As has been stated before in this thread, if the group isn't working and playing as a team, then the character generation system isn't the problem at all. Working as a team requires more than just helping another character in the dungeon, it also involves helping them make their characters efficient. Usually though, in my experience, the DM is the player with the most experience and willing to help those who arn't as familiar. But again, the generation method must take into account the rest of the system (classes, races, feats, ect.). The players flaws shouldn't be what determines whether it is fair or unfair, for their will always be a player that is less mature, doesn't have as much time, has an absent minded memory, ect. So yes, in a balanced system it would be fair as far as generation systems go. If we follow your route then no system would ever work to any degree of fairness and people would be justified complaining about inane things like "I should get a reroll because the air was on when Johnny rolled his 18s."
OravennasBrother 07-03-07, 02:42 PM	@OvarennesBrother: Great. Let's see your proofs. I get paid for proofs. You want to spend $200 then fine I'll give you a proof, otherwise No, I'm not solving your problem for you. I can tell if someone else's proof is well constructed; for instance, 40 pages of examples IS NOT A PROOF.
Ace_of_time 07-03-07, 02:43 PM	So he plays a human. He gets slightly less bang for his PB buck (given that nonhuman PCs will generally use the reduced stat for the dump stat and the increased stat as the primary stat), but on the other hand you have the extra feat and skill points (which means that, unless he's playing an INT-intensive class, he can get away with a level or two less in INT). And if he's rolled for stats instead? There is absolutely no guarantee that he's any less screwed. Actually 4d6DTL has an average of 12.24, which effectively adds up to 12,12,12,12,13,12. Which is 25 point buy. :D However. I cannot see any roleplayer accepting a stat array like that. In fact, the PHB doesn't accept it either. However, it does accept an array like 12,12,12,12,14,11 - which I still can't see a roleplayer accepting (and comes out to 25 PB). A more acceptable array might be 11,11,11,11,18,11 (still holding to the average of 12.24) with a PB total of 31. Still not good enough? Hmm. So in other words, the only really acceptable stat arrays are the ones above 32 point buy? Or does anyone actually ever roll the dice with the intent of getting amusingly low stat totals? OK one there is no 25 PB in the DMG sorry. Two I do in deed have 4d6 on 25 PB too and added it because some people on here use it alot. but it not in RAW of PB. Math wise there is a number of different ways to get 12.24 but again I didn't go with math I went with the average rolls. RAW says on d6 average is 3.5. That means over time it will average out to 3's on 5o% and 4's on the other. If you want to average out a 100 rolls and see what 4d6 over go for it. I know that 3D6 math wise is 10.5, 4d6 is 14, 5d6 is 17.5 and that minus off 3.5 would put these at 4d6 is 10.5, and 5d6 is 10.5. Also didn't go this way ether. 12.24 divided by 3.5 = 3.4971428 Average. What math do you use for yours?
LCD2YOU 07-03-07, 02:46 PM	I get paid for proofs. You want to spend $200 then fine I'll give you a proof, otherwise No, I'm not solving your problem for you. I can tell if someone else's proof is well constructed; for instance, 40 pages of examples IS NOT A PROOF.It starts off with a MathCad equation for probabilities. But I don't think I've said anything about proof, just that in all of the permutations I've seen, from the equations I've given it, 4d6DTL re-roll ones comes out to be 36 points. If I did say "I have 'proof'", I was wrong and mispoke.
Ace_of_time 07-03-07, 02:46 PM	True, but irrelevant. Nobody is saying that using high point-buys or generous rolling methods should be done without adjusting the obstacles. My philosophy is to keep the game flexible. I don't consider the issue of balance as what generation method I'm using so much as what degree/frequency of challenge the group decides would be appropriate. As a side matter, the generation method is decided and, according to the results of the first question, the challenges are created. If the players want 18s across the board, which they have opted for at least once in the past, but still want a challenging game, then they will frequently be facing opponents that through a variety of factors that aren't ability scores still manage to challenge the party. Tying game balance and generation methods together so inextricably seems a little silly to me. If it were as simple as that, I would agree with you. In the face of equivalent options, go for the simpler option. Ability scores aren't that simple, though. I think I might be the most hands-off DM on these boards that actually bothers to play D&D rather than a game that focuses on cooperative storytelling. Even I find no fault with this supposed "railroading". The group should come to some agreement as to the overall power level, both in magnitude and relatively, of the game. I don't think this was ever the point. I believe the point is that nobody is going to be justified in being bothered by equality while there are going to be people that are justifiably bothered by inequality. Which is easier to change: the players or the system? I think that some of the benefits of point-buy have been established quite well in this thread. I don't agree with practically everything that this particular poster says, but this is a pretty basic argument that has already been hashed out, rehashed, turned into a horse, killed, and beaten. This is different from what I'm talking about. Your sitting the group down and deciding which rolling method to use which means they get to chose which one and would not be railroading.
OravennasBrother 07-03-07, 02:51 PM	OK one there is no 25 PB in the DMG sorry. Two I do in deed have 4d6 on 25 PB too and added it because some people on here use it alot. but it not in RAW of PB. Math wise there is a number of different ways to get 12.24 but again I didn't go with math Well consider the following rolls on 4d6 keep the top 3 1,6,5,4 2,1,6,5 3,2,1,6 4,3,2,1 5,4,3,2 6,5,4,3 The Scores you get are 15, 13, 11, 9, 12, 15 which would require a 29 PB, they are based on having an even distribution of rolls over the course of 24 rolls, and they are JUST as inaccurate (for determining a statistical distribution) as your going with 3/4 all the time.
LCD2YOU 07-03-07, 02:56 PM	Deleted
Caelic 07-03-07, 02:57 PM	I take it as an asumption that they're playing D&D which is a teambased game. As has been stated before in this thread, if the group isn't working and playing as a team, then the character generation system isn't the problem at all. Precisely! Absolutely! We're on the same page. And this is the underlying problem to which I have referred in previous posts. In a game where players are happy or unhappy based on whether another character is more or less powerful than they are, there's a much larger problem than simply point-buy-versus-rolling. The problem is that the player dynamic is, at least to some extent, competitive rather than cooperative. The party fighter has an 18 Strength and Con? Great! Wonderful! Marvelous! That means he'll be able to protect my 8 Strength, 12 Con wizard better, and that our friend's 14 Strength, 14 Con cleric won't have to work as hard to keep him on his feet! Working as a team requires more than just helping another character in the dungeon, it also involves helping them make their characters efficient. Usually though, in my experience, the DM is the player with the most experience and willing to help those who arn't as familiar. To be certain! But the truth is that while I can help a less-experienced player to be more efficient, I can't necessarily make them as efficient as I'm going to be--just as, say, a piano teacher can teach a student to be better, but can't instantly teach him/her to be the teacher's equal. That takes time and practice. In a group with a positive dynamic, this isn't a problem; however, in a group where players compare themselves to the other characters and grouse if they don't measure up, it can be. If we follow your route then no system would ever work to any degree of fairness and people would be justified complaining about inane things like "I should get a reroll because the air was on when Johnny rolled his 18s." I think you misunderstand the thrust of my argument...which is that striving for total "fairness" is a quixotic goal at best. Better by far to strive for "fun."
Caelic 07-03-07, 03:00 PM	As a side note: guys. Please. Tone down the ad hominem. I'm not all that impressed with OB's arguments or tone, either, but calling him names isn't going to further the discussion or improve his sunny demeanor.
Ace_of_time 07-03-07, 03:11 PM	[spelling corrected here and there :D] Correction: to ensure that no-one overshadows anyone else. This can spoil player fun. You know this. Paranoid much? A game where all stat arrays start out on an equal footing has a much better chance of being a fun game for all concerned. Once again, you know this. Yes, we know you want all high scores and not have to pay for them. It's nice that you admit it, anyway. Unfortunately, given the average distribution of dice rolls, the chances are that when someone rolls all high scores, someone else will roll uniformly low. Do you want to be the one stuck with two 14s as your best rolls and the rest 11s and 10s, when a couple of your friends have 18s and 17s across the board? The chance of getting all high scores is the same as the chance of getting all low scores. Unless, of course, you're skewing the results deliberately. And someone's going to get stuck with the low rolls. And when they appeal to the GM and get a free re-roll, they are effectively artificially improving their "chance" for a better stat array. In other words, reducing the randomness. (If you roll a d6 once and say, "If it comes up 6, I win.", that's random. If you roll it six times and say, "If it comes up 6 on any of those rolls, I win.", that's a lot less random.) ... which evens things out for MAD characters, as it happens. Something that has been a point of contention all the way through this thread. Personally, I don't care if I start at 15 PB or 50 PB - just so long as everyone else in the game starts with the same total. I don't have that assurance with rolling.You forget that my last game was played with 15 points buy. As for my scores Don't care which one high or low is all the same to me. If they are high I go fighter if they are low then I go spell caster. As I have never been a player and my 12 years of DMing I can make any PC scores playable. If they really do roll low but just higher then what RAW would allow reroll I help my players make it playable or let them use a Monster class to caught up with other players on scores. But no mater what I let my players decide what way to roll and then decide on monsters and the like. All I decide on is power level. I had a game once where we broke up the 1st level into sub-levels and went to school for training for four years. We broke it up into 4 months of 4 skills training and then 4 more months of skills training. After each year gain skill points and hp at the beginning. we used race average to start and roll a skills check at the end of each class (4 months have gone by) DC 15 to gain plus 1 point to that ability score using crit range 20 threat then DC 15 for a plus 1 bonus. After four years they would have set abilities and start out as Heroes. We even role played the 4 months out of school. It was allot of fun and my players have never had a better time creating a PC. Starting scores don't bother me. I make it a challenge for them no matter what their scores are. If I have one player role all 18s and another roll 5 11s and one 14 then the 18 player becomes the tank/ healer and the 14 becomes the blaster wizards or sorc.
LCD2YOU 07-03-07, 03:14 PM	What Caelic said. I am guilty of coming off of the handle and I apologize. But as Caelic also stated PB does not make things equal. Some players will be upset when after they create their PCs using PB that some have bad luck with dice (why I don't shoot craps) and don't hit/save/etc. Also, using dice over PB doesn't make a game a "Monty Haul". Monty Haul is not from high stats. Even a low stat game can be a Monty Haul campaign. Don't like "high points"? Roll 3d6 six times in a row for each stat. That will make a low point game and make players play characters they may not otherwise play. Skill and experience will almost always beat out raw stats. It is like the old saying "Age and Treachery will win against Youth and Enthusiasm". PB has it's problems as does dice rolling. To say one is superior is fallacy.
Ack 07-03-07, 03:15 PM	OK one there is no 25 PB in the DMG sorry. Two I do in deed have 4d6 on 25 PB too and added it because some people on here use it alot. but it not in RAW of PB. Math wise there is a number of different ways to get 12.24 but again I didn't go with math I went with the average rolls. RAW says on d6 average is 3.5. That means over time it will average out to 3's on 5o% and 4's on the other. If you want to average out a 100 rolls and see what 4d6 over go for it. I know that 3D6 math wise is 10.5, 4d6 is 14, 5d6 is 17.5 and that minus off 3.5 would put these at 4d6 is 10.5, and 5d6 is 10.5. Also didn't go this way ether. 12.24 divided by 3.5 = 3.4971428 Average. What math do you use for yours? There's probably an elegant formula for it, but I didn't have the time or inclination to work it out, so I used brute force. I set up an Excel spreadsheet and entered every single permutation of 4d6 (all 1296 of them) and set it up to drop the lowest and add the rest, for each permutation. Then I added them up and divided the total by 1296. My final number, just for interest's sake, was 12.24459877. On 4d6DTL, you have the following chances to get the given number or above: 18: 1.62% 17: 5.79% 16: 13.04% 15: 23.15% 14: 35.49% 13: 48.77% 12: 61.65% 11: 73.07% 10: 82.48% 9: 89.51% 8: 94.29% 7: 97.22% 6: 98.84% 5: 99.61% 4: 99.92% I've also got the numbers for 5d6 D2L if you want... :P
Caelic 07-03-07, 03:31 PM	Ack, Do your calculations factor in "stillborn" characters? How do you compensate for the fact that a good many characters with, say, a 4 in a stat will simply be discarded from the pool of data? It seems to me that, using the default method, the stats are going to skew higher than your calculations indicate.
Ack 07-03-07, 03:36 PM	Ack, Do your calculations factor in "stillborn" characters? How do you compensate for the fact that a good many characters with, say, a 4 in a stat will simply be discarded from the pool of data? It seems to me that, using the default method, the stats are going to skew higher than your calculations indicate. This is true; however, my spreadsheet is set up for individual stat rolls, not stat arrays. I could work on something to cover arrays, but I'd have to think about it. Interesting problem...
Caelic 07-03-07, 03:39 PM	It'd be a daunting exercise. You'd have to crunch all the permutations, determine which ones fell below the "acceptable" threshold, eliminate them, and make your calculations based on the remaining pool of arrays. Way too much math for this English teacher. ;)
LCD2YOU 07-03-07, 03:40 PM	Ack, Do your calculations factor in "stillborn" characters? How do you compensate for the fact that a good many characters with, say, a 4 in a stat will simply be discarded from the pool of data? It seems to me that, using the default method, the stats are going to skew higher than your calculations indicate.That is something that has always bothered me. "10s and 11s are average". Great. But how many characters with a Con of 7 or less would actually make it past the age of 12 in a society that is often portrayed in DnD?
Ack 07-03-07, 03:42 PM	It'd be a daunting exercise. You'd have to crunch all the permutations, determine which ones fell below the "acceptable" threshold, eliminate them, and make your calculations based on the remaining pool of arrays. Way too much math for this English teacher. ;) Well, I can make a start, just by crunching all the permutations. That's the easy bit. This is what spreadsheets were made for. :D
OravennasBrother 07-03-07, 03:52 PM	Well, I can make a start, just by crunching all the permutations. That's the easy bit. This is what spreadsheets were made for. :D It's a lot quicker to just write a quick program; Basic, Fortran, C, Pascal, any of those wold work if you now them. Just use nested loops to create all the possible score combinations and selectively keep only those attribute arrays which are "acceptable". With modern computer speeds the calculation time won't really be that high. Once you get the basic program down any modifications will be fairly intuitive. You will need the appropriate Interpreter/compiler, but....
LCD2YOU 07-03-07, 04:02 PM	TO quote the immortal Bugs Bunny, "What a Maroon." Guess what - posting something from an e-mail can also be considered flaming, and you're already reported - again. PS the WizO's don't moderate PM'sWell, now they can see what you really are. As for flaming, I only quoted you directly. Nothing added, nothing removed. Your glory is noted. But still, to get back on topic. If one wanted to get everyone on an "even playing field", one should perhaps use the same stats for everyone in the group with, and I agree with Ack, more "points" given to MAD class characters. Playing 15, 22, 25, 28, 32, 36 ...... 96 points doesn't matter. The DM assigns the points and hands them out. Of course I would not play in a control freaks game who actually did that.
Ack 07-03-07, 04:04 PM	Whoa, whoa, whoa ... jeez, enough already.
Caelic 07-03-07, 04:08 PM	Houston, that's a negative on that orbital trajectory...downward velocity is picking up...
LCD2YOU 07-03-07, 04:21 PM	No, it doesn't have to end. The thing is, PB adherents and detractors appear to be in the same mold as Psionic adherents and detractors. It can get quite heated as witnessed here. So is Psionics broken? Depends on who you ask. Personally, I don't think they are broken but I generally don't use them, save for special encounters. Is rolling broken? Depends on who you ask. I don't think so. Does it have it's share of problems? Sure, but it is nothing a mature DM and group of players can't overcome.
J_Vhad 07-03-07, 04:33 PM	IR-FASB, we copy, heading for rocky landing, buckle up and lockdown in T minus 4. Seriously though, it seems there is a great difference in what people's opinions what low scores are and what high scores are. So a quick question? What do you consider a low score in something? 8? 6? 12? What do you consider a high score in something? 18? 16? 12? I personally consider anything under a 9 to be on the low side, and 14 plus to be on the high side. Why? Well, maybe it's just the way we've always played, but and 8 is barely smarter than Homer Simpson, which puts into my mind a person of low intelligence. We've always thought of a ten as average so nine is just barely under it. I don't consider it a low score as it's almost average (in the world, nto for heroes), just not a good score. I consider 14+ to be a high score in an area mostly due to prerequisites on feats. A lot of low level feats (the ones likely to be taken by heroes before experience boosts their stats) have a prereq score of 13 (power attack, dodge, combat expertise of the top of my head). To me these represent a person needing to be decently above average to take, a 14 is higher than that decently above average so I consider it a high score. The only exception I to this I can see right off the bat is Two-Weapon Fighting which requires a 15 dex, but then again I can see it taking a truly exceptional person for that feat as it effectively gives you ambidexterity (I'm a good shot with a gun but my off-hand is practically useless for anything but holding the rifle up) and the ability to gracefully (or not depending on your BAB) swing things around in a mostly accurate manner.
LCD2YOU 07-03-07, 04:48 PM	Houston, may get to straighten it out and go there still. Low scores are under 8. Even then, as J_Vhad stated, if IQ = 10*Int, with Homer Simpson having a 75 IQ, a PC with an 8 Int is not much brighter. Can anyone imagine just how stupid a character with an 8 Int is? The reverse is that anything above a 12 is considered "high". That would leave "bad/crappy/poor" scores to be 5 or less and exceptional scores to be 16 or higher. But as for feats, they do give a good indication. Some of the "lower" stats needed are 13 to get some of the better feats. Then to have things like Improved TWF you need a 17 then a 19 for the next one up. Obviously those people are rare and the stats to get them should be likewise harder to obtain.
OravennasBrother 07-03-07, 04:59 PM	Well, maybe it's just the way we've always played, but and 8 is barely smarter than Homer Simpson, which puts into my mind a person of low intelligence. We've always thought of a ten as average so nine is just barely under it. Eight or lower comes up too often on a 3d6 distribution (the one which commoners hypothetically use) to represent an 80 IQ. Remember that even with a 3 Int the character is still literate (barbarians excepted) and 8 is WAY above 3. 8's are below average but not catastrophically so. I tend to think of 13 as pretty good and shun anything below 8.
Caelic 07-03-07, 05:23 PM	I'd actually agree with OB's assessment, with the proviso that if a score below 8 fits the character's concept...or I can expand on the concept to fit it...I wouldn't shun it. That 4 Dexterity added an interesting new dimension to a fairly straightforward druid, for instance.
wrecan 07-03-07, 05:39 PM	My solution to the Point Buy v. Rolling debate is simple: Level Adjustment. Level Adjustment preserves the randomness and diversity of stats with rolling and the fairness of PB. Hobgoblins, after all, have a LA of +1 and they only have an extra +2 to one stat. Drow have LA +2 for a Cha +2 bonus, spell resistance and darkvision (coupled with light sensitivity). If inhumans with moderately higher stats get a LA, so should player races. The only objections I can see with this would be if you're starting at Level 1. But disparity in abilities is worst at low levels. I say, let the player with the high stats play, but make him buy off his LA before continuing and don't let the LA distinction between the strongest and weakest players exceed +3.
LCD2YOU 07-03-07, 05:47 PM	If I remember correctly, IQs of 80 to 120 make up 80% of the given population with IQs of less than 80 and greater than 120 both having 10% of the population. In a standard distribution of 3d6, 7 or less (and those of 13 and higher), happen in almost 1/6, 16.2%, of the population. That is higher percentages than what the standards of IQ holds. Also, only a person with an IQ less than 30 can't learn to read. A person with say a 30 supposedly can learn to the 1st grade level. So that would mix with the IQ ~ 10* Int theory.
wrecan 07-03-07, 06:02 PM	Here is the standard IQ distribution http://wilderdom.com/images/IQ.gif Here is a chart for 3d6 distribution http://www.ajs.com/~ajs/images/bellcurve.png As you can see, although the charts have complementary curves, IQs under 70 and over 130 are so rare as to be wholly grouped together as a 3 and 18, respectively on a 3d6. According to Wechsler (http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm), 69 and under is called "Extreme Low" (what used to be called "Retarded"). 130 and above is considered "Very Superior" and is considered prodigy level. Anything between 80 and 110 is considered average. Int *10 really doesn't work. I'd go with 3 = 69- (Extreme Low) 4 = 70 (Borderline) 5 = 75 (Borderline) 6 = 80 (Low Average) 7 = 85 (Low Average) 8 = 90 (Average) 9 = 95 (Average) 10 = 98 (Average) 11 = 102 (Average) 12 = 105 (Average) 13 = 110 (High Average) 14 = 115 (High Average) 15 = 120 (Superior) 16 = 125 (Superior) 17 = 130 (Superior) 18 = 131+ (Very Superior)
Caelic 07-03-07, 06:12 PM	Which test, wrecan? Stanford-Binet? WAIS? There are some minor variations depending on test, particularly at the high end. (There's also the issue of whether an IQ test actually measures overall intelligence, but that's perhaps a bit too far afield for the purposes of our discussion.)
LCD2YOU 07-03-07, 06:19 PM	The IQ and 3d6 Distributions do not mix. The challenge is to get the distribution in line with the IQ. Interesting idea. What can mix are the results of low IQ/Int. Supposedly a person with a 3 Int can read. That is in line with a person with an IQ of 30 can read at the 1st Grade level. "See Spot" "See Jane" "See Jane is petting Spot" Just because a person can read doesn't mean they can understand what they are reading. Case in point Florida Ballots.
OravennasBrother 07-03-07, 06:19 PM	That 4 Dexterity added an interesting new dimension to a fairly straightforward druid, for instance. Dexterity does happen to be my favored Dump Stat, so If I got a low roll that is where it would go (though the last time a DM had me roll my attributes were on the high side). Still I would hate to have some DM try that old Lame Intx10 for IQ. IQ under 65 is less than 1% of the population, so an INT of 3 to 4 should be around 65 IQ.
wrecan 07-03-07, 06:20 PM	Which test, wrecan? Stanford-Binet? WAIS? There are some minor variations depending on test, particularly at the high end. It doesn't matter. All the tests are designed to measure intelligence and distribute them according to the Gaussian curve above. This is the generally accepted rating system. While various tests have different issues about how accurate they are, that's not important for our purpose. For our purpose, we are assuming IQ is an accurate and commonly understood measure of intelligence. All that matters then is matching points on the IQ distibution graph with points on the 3d6 distribution graph. INT*10 is not an accurate translation 3d6-to-IQ. (There's also the issue of whether an IQ test actually measures overall intelligence, but that's perhaps a bit too far afield for the purposes of our discussion.) Agreed. I'm not endorsing IQ tests. I'm simply accepting as a premise of the discussion that reducing Intelligence (D&D) scores to Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores is a helpful endeavor.
Mock26 07-03-07, 06:30 PM	Heck, let's note for the record that more generous dice rolling schemes are hardly "against what is listed in the DMG." 4d6 with a floating reroll, 4d6 discard lowest reroll one score, and 5d6 discard the two lowest dice are all suggested in precisely the same place and manner as elite array or any of the point buys. Variants all; all equally valid. Well, technically, using a point buy system or any method other than rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest die is just like rolling initiative at the beginning of each round, it is OPTIONAL! The Player's Handbook offers up one method of generating stats, and that is by rolling the dice. All the other methods are listed as "options" and that, by definition, makes them optional. I'd just like one roller to accept, however grudgingly, that point buy is fair. Before races come into it, before classes come into it, before anything else comes into it. When it comes down to creating stat arrays that are equivalent in nature, so that all players can have fun in their chosen niche, point buy guarantees fairness. I will freely admit that using a point buy system is fair, in the sense that it lets everyone start on a level playing field in regards to their stats. But, I also think that rolling the dice is fair because everyone has the same chance as everyone else. I will also say, once again, that there is no need for fairness (in regards to stats) in order to enjoy the game. But, I do freely admit that a point buy system is fair and creates a level playing field in regards to stats.
StevenO 07-03-07, 08:19 PM	... I will freely admit that using a point buy system is fair, in the sense that it lets everyone start on a level playing field in regards to their stats. But, I also think that rolling the dice is fair because everyone has the same chance as everyone else. I will also say, once again, that there is no need for fairness (in regards to stats) in order to enjoy the game. But, I do freely admit that a point buy system is fair and creates a level playing field in regards to stats. This is good to hear. I also hope that the point buyers agree that rolling is fair provided multiple rolls, rerolls, and DM "stat adjustments" aren't used to improve those who get low but "legal" stats. Although there is some dispute about what PB equivalents to various die rolling methods are it is safe to say that as more dice are rolled (or rerolled) the PB needed to match the expected results starts to increase quickly. Enjoying the game has almost nothing to do with actual game mechanics. It may no longer be D&D as we know it but some "games" may just be huge social role playing setting were dice are never even touched. Waaaaay back at the start of the threat the question was "Is rolling for ability scores broken?" and the real answer to that always has been NO, assuming standard rolling. The problem is that wildly different stat values caused by rolling can have a big effect when looking at the game mechanics. If you want to make ANY character better mechanically just give it +2 to each stat even if it doesn't change how the character is played at all.
Tytalus 07-03-07, 10:43 PM	die. OBTW, 4d6 drop lowest is about the same as a 28 PB. 4d6DTL has an average of 12.24; this makes it roughly equivalent to 25 PB. Please, we've been through this. 4D6-DL characters have, depending on how you cost rolled values of less than 8 (which are not possible with PB), a PB equivalent of 30-31. Ack: again, you can't use the average of a single roll for determining the PB equivalent of 4D6-DL characters, for two reasons: First, the PB cost is skewed, i.e., higher values cost considerably more than lower ones. I.e., it's not a symmetrical distribution and averages don't apply for more than one roll. Second, you are ignoring characters that qualify for re-rolling. Unfortunately, the math behind 4D6-DL characters (according to the rules) is extremely complex and thus either calls for random sampling or enumeration of all results. The latter is generally prohibitively expensive (6^24 distinct ways to 'roll' the stats are simply too many to simulate on current PCs. Yes, that's the right number.), unless you use very clever (and complex) math (reducing the complexity to 16^6, please don't ask me to explain how). Random sampling, on the other hand, can be done by anyone with rudimentary programming skills (heck, even spreadsheet calculations do the trick). It's still not trivial (people tend to be rather uncritical of their code and occasionally overlook mistakes), but with a current computer generating a million or more characters for this purpose is not a problem. However, each character needs to be simulated by 24 die rolls, not just 4.
Mock26 07-03-07, 11:16 PM	Just for idle curiosity, here is a random sampling of 20 sets of ability scores taken out of 20,000. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Mock26/20of20000.jpg
Vaelan 07-03-07, 11:43 PM	Good heavens, I played a Master of Many Forms with one...count it...one 14. Every other stat was 11 or below. Technically, the character was "stillborn." He still dominated combat. You played a character with a focus on replacing three (possibly two, depending on time) ability scores with the ability scores of other creatures. Of course your natural ability scores would be of little importance. On top of this it has a negative influence on Roleplaying and Classes. A.) Reinforces Stereotypes. (Claim what you want, but a majority of fighters I've seen in LG (28 point buy so it's above standard) are either dumb and uncharismatic or spiked chain wielders. This hurts players and the roleplaying in my opinion as anything creative fighter/mage, charismatic leader, ect. is penalized heavily.) You're blaming the system for choices made by the players. You're also holding up one example of point-buy as applicable to all use of point-buy. This is not a terribly compelling argument. What you're actually arguing is that people will be shameless munchkins and ignore roleplaying unless... rolling dice somehow forces them not to? Okay, that isn't perfectly accurate, but I'm happy with it because it conveys the general idea. As for the "penalizing", give them a few more points than they need. B.) Furthers the gap between MAD and SAD classes. (Again, MAD classes are already weaker than SAD classes balance wise in most cases, giving them the same points weakens them further as they lose effectiveness due to the spreading of points. At high levels this isn't really an issue due to magic items and the multitude of modifiers, but at low levels it creates the same problem that PB supposedly fixes...uneven footing.) The dependance upon multiple ability scores tends to come with a bonus: greater potential for gain due to ability scores. A high point-buy could take advantage of this to bring the classes into, or at least closer to, balance. Let's say that we give everyone 500 in every ability score. Everyone gets +245 to everything. While this exaggerates the effect that ability scores have, it can still demonstrate my point since my point has nothing to do with magnitude. If it does come down to magnitude, rather than simple presence, I will use numbers that don't warp the game. Nobody hits Monks because they get two ability scores to AC. Paladins never fail a save because they get two ability scores to saving throws. Paladins get a guaranteed hit when they Smite because Smite adds their Charisma modifier to their attack roll. Have I demonstrated an advantage? This is different from what I'm talking about. Your sitting the group down and deciding which rolling method to use which means they get to chose which one and would not be railroading. The communication I have described could just as easily be limited to "This campaign will use this point-buy because blahblahblah. Do you guys want to play?" I would think significantly less of that than my own preferred methods, but I still wouldn't have a problem with it. I just think you're going a little overboard with the paranoia, and I know a thing or two about going overboard with the paranoia! ;) In a game where players are happy or unhappy based on whether another character is more or less powerful than they are... You may be oversimplifying the matter a bit. I've seen people react to wildly differing ability scores and I've seen people react to wildly different classes. There is a definite difference in the response. I'm not sure the problem is power so much as differing ability scores. If inhumans with moderately higher stats get a LA, so should player races. That operates under the assumption that LA is a viable mechanic in general. That aside, I think it is relatively easy to show that it is not a viable mechanic for this purpose. LA's value fluctuates between levels. At low levels, LA is less significant than at high levels. The value of ability scores also fluctuate between levels. At low levels, ability scores are more significant than at high levels. A system under which a character pays the least when it gains the most and pays the most when it gains the least is not a good system. If you were to change LA to be fluid, rather than static, and not take away the entirety of a hitdie but rather select benefits, then I could see the system working. I also hope that the point buyers agree that rolling is fair provided multiple rolls, rerolls, and DM "stat adjustments" aren't used to improve those who get low but "legal" stats. Why? Ultimately, this claim comes down to opinion. It is a basic difference between looking at "this game" or "these games". Personally, I disagree. I think rolling is markedly unfair. But I don't make a habit of railing against rolling because I don't necessarily agree that "fair"ness is something that is always strictly necessary.
Caelic 07-04-07, 12:27 AM	You played a character with a focus on replacing three (possibly two, depending on time) ability scores with the ability scores of other creatures. Of course your natural ability scores would be of little importance. ...which was my whole point. Ability scores are a relatively minor factor in determining character power. Many means of rendering a character's base ability scores irrelevant exist once you get to, say, seventh level...and before that, just about any stroke of bad luck has the potential to kill a character. What you're actually arguing is that people will be shameless munchkins and ignore roleplaying unless... rolling dice somehow forces them not to? Okay, that isn't perfectly accurate, but I'm happy with it because it conveys the general idea. Nope; I'm arguing that it takes a pretty darned good roleplayer to say "By golly, I don't care that I have to drastically reduce my fighter's effectiveness in order to have a high Intelligence; I want to play a smart fighter." As for the "penalizing", give them a few more points than they need. So the system works, as long as you change the system. Gotcha. Let's say that we give everyone 500 in every ability score. Everyone gets +245 to everything. While this exaggerates the effect that ability scores have, it can still demonstrate my point since my point has nothing to do with magnitude. If it does come down to magnitude, rather than simple presence, I will use numbers that don't warp the game. Uhm...actually, your point has a lot to do with magnitude. Do you seriously not recognize that? You're selecting ludicrously high values that make the dice roll irrelevant (save for rolls of 1 or 20.) Realistically speaking, that doesn't happen. Moreover, you're assuming that everyone has equal stats in everything, which totally ignores the problem MAD characters face: they have to spread their points out, whereas other character can focus them in fewer stats. Nobody hits Monks because they get two ability scores to AC. ...except that, in a point buy system, the fighter (who has less MAD) sinks many more points into Strength, and can thus still hit. Paladins never fail a save because they get two ability scores to saving throws. ...except that, in a point buy system, the magic-user has juiced most of those points into Intelligence, and so his save DCs are much higher. Paladins get a guaranteed hit when they Smite because Smite adds their Charisma modifier to their attack roll. ...but only because you picked a value so artificially high that it completely negates any armor, protective devices, or spells the target might have. In the meantime, the fighter (who as we already know sank a lot of those points into his Strength) has a much higher attack bonus, and has it as many times per day as he wants. Have I demonstrated an advantage? Not in a point buy system, no. You've demonstrated that, in a situation where the MAD character has no stat over 14, and the SAD character ALSO has no stat over 14, THEN the MAD character has an advantage. You may be oversimplifying the matter a bit. I've seen people react to wildly differing ability scores and I've seen people react to wildly different classes. There is a definite difference in the response. I'm not sure the problem is power so much as differing ability scores. I am. I've seen people sulk because they had lower ability scores, and I've seen them sulk because their character wasn't as well-designed, or because another class had abilities that rendered their character superfluous in a given situation. The sulks looked pretty much the same. Most often, it was the same people doing the sulking, in fact.
BoringInfoGuy 07-04-07, 02:25 AM	Paladins never fail a save because they get two ability scores to saving throws. Paladins get a guaranteed hit when they Smite because Smite adds their Charisma modifier to their attack roll. Have I demonstrated an advantage? Hah. Never fail a save? Never miss a smite? Even with a great charisma modifier, there is no guarantee of either. And with the very limited number of smites that a paladin gets, missing HURTS. Work with actual PB systems, and it works more like this. You put more points into Cha to power Divine Grace (bonus to saves), Lay on Hands (limited - but versatile - healing), Smite attack (bonus to attack roll), Turn Undead, and any Cha based skills you want. Then you find that you have less points to put into Con, Dex, and Wisdom. So you could have the same or better saves if you put the extra points into the three stats - due to the Divine grace bonus - but you are losing out on the extra HP from Con, AC and range attacks from Dex (not to forget Ride Skill), and bonus spells, spell save DC, and Sense Motive checks from Wis. And that's less points to put into Str, meaning that all the non smite attacks have less chance to hit and do less damage. And while you might have wanted that Cha bonus for Diplomacy, you may not have the skill points to buy it. Or you could put less points into Cha, and put the difference into Str, Con, ect, but leave yourself with most of the special paladin abilities nerfed. Smites that have only a slightly better chance to hit, a slightly better chance to make a save, and a very small handful of HP you can heal. But at that point, you've gotten a fighter who's traded out his bonus feats for some low powered abilities. On the plus side, Detect Evil, Aura of Good, Aura of Courage and the Special Mount abilities aren't tied to any ability scores. Well, the mount works better with enough Int to put skill ranks into Ride, and Dex to use the skill, but it's not technically required. Does rolling fix this? Honestly, no. You either wait for a set of amazingly good rolls with a DM who's ideas of a paladin matches your own, or you take the rolls you get, and make the same hard choices.
navar100 07-04-07, 03:32 AM	Hah. Never fail a save? Never miss a smite? Even with a great charisma modifier, there is no guarantee of either. And with the very limited number of smites that a paladin gets, missing HURTS. Work with actual PB systems, and it works more like this. You put more points into Cha to power Divine Grace (bonus to saves), Lay on Hands (limited - but versatile - healing), Smite attack (bonus to attack roll), Turn Undead, and any Cha based skills you want. Then you find that you have less points to put into Con, Dex, and Wisdom. So you could have the same or better saves if you put the extra points into the three stats - due to the Divine grace bonus - but you are losing out on the extra HP from Con, AC and range attacks from Dex (not to forget Ride Skill), and bonus spells, spell save DC, and Sense Motive checks from Wis. And that's less points to put into Str, meaning that all the non smite attacks have less chance to hit and do less damage. And while you might have wanted that Cha bonus for Diplomacy, you may not have the skill points to buy it. Or you could put less points into Cha, and put the difference into Str, Con, ect, but leave yourself with most of the special paladin abilities nerfed. Smites that have only a slightly better chance to hit, a slightly better chance to make a save, and a very small handful of HP you can heal. But at that point, you've gotten a fighter who's traded out his bonus feats for some low powered abilities. On the plus side, Detect Evil, Aura of Good, Aura of Courage and the Special Mount abilities aren't tied to any ability scores. Well, the mount works better with enough Int to put skill ranks into Ride, and Dex to use the skill, but it's not technically required. Does rolling fix this? Honestly, no. You either wait for a set of amazingly good rolls with a DM who's ideas of a paladin matches your own, or you take the rolls you get, and make the same hard choices. Rolling 4d6 drop lowest does make it easier to get a "decent" paladin, but of course no guarantee. However, the possibility is a greater change the "normal" point buy. Point buy can allow for a "decent" paladin, but it requires a higher value than "normal" defined as 25-28, where the DM gets accused of being a "monty hall" by some people. I think 32 points can do it, but I'm not sure you can have an 18 without suffering an 8 somewhere. I'd suggest Intelligence, play a human to make up the skill point, then put all your skill points into Diplomacy and Ride. The x4 you get at 1st level can cover a few incidentals like Knowledge Religion maybe. Still you can get a couple of 16s which isn't bad or maybe a 17 to let level 4 and level 8 cover annoying odd numbers or get rid of a 9 to make it 10. The "Elite" array does not a "decent" paladin make.
EvilIdiot 07-04-07, 04:18 AM	Idiot (y'know, it's a bit hard to keep the tone civil when you have to start by calling someone "Idiot" because that's their name...) :P actually english spokesmen call me Evil, while people in my country use Idiot, since words are swapped, and it's quite funny to read post having "No,Idiot!" "I don't think so,Idiot!" and even "Good catch, Idiot" :tie: anyway, anything I said about simulation and probability is here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12901282&postcount=292) where I define which points I have defined as "low" well. here are some simulations: sim1 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8988425#post8988425) sim2 (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-758484) sim I reported in my first post (http://sullivan.pgh.pa.us/~ksulliva/ralph/dnd-stats.html) the only way you can make the claim of "more low stats" is if you define "low stat" as below 15 and "high stat" as 15 and above. I referred to 12 and 13 scores, but you're absolutely right:it depends on how you look at the pdf
Steely_Dan 07-04-07, 04:33 AM	...or exercise his DM's power of discretion to make a few tweaks to the stats See, that's another thing I don't like about rolling/random stats – I don't want or feel that the DM is obliged or expected to do that. "Aw, sorry, Hal, we'll just bump up your Con by another 2 points, and maybe add another point to Int…" What's the point of rolling if you don't stick with the exact results of the super fun rolling?
Steely_Dan 07-04-07, 04:44 AM	Ability scores are a relatively minor factor in determining character power. Not in my/our experience. In the current Planescape campaign I'm running I foolishly let the players roll 5d6 drop the lowest two (never again). Well, one player rolled the equivalent of a 67-point buy. So after about 3 months or so we all decide it would only be fair to bring the other character's stats up to a 67-point buy equivalent. I can tell you, we are definitely having a blast, but we are all quite aware of how these monstrous scores are affecting EL's and CR's etc. And it is not just at low levels, the party is now ECL 12, and their ability scores are still having a big impact on play.
Dherki 07-04-07, 05:07 AM	Personally, I disagree. I think rolling is markedly unfair. But I don't make a habit of railing against rolling because I don't necessarily agree that "fair"ness is something that is always strictly necessary. The method is "fair". The result, however, might not be.
Ack 07-04-07, 06:46 AM	Okay ... I've crunched some numbers and gotten some results. Basically, I'm about halfway there. What I have so far: The total number of all possible combinations of stats, from straight 3s to straight 18s: 54,264 The total number of those combinations which are 'playable' by PHB standards: 25,204 And the absolute lowest stat average for a 'playable' character is 10.333. I'm still working on finding the average stat after mods (I think my RAM is going, and my spreadsheet is hurting because of it). So far, assuming all numbers have equal chance of coming up (which I know they don't) the average is 12.33. I will continue to work on it.
wrecan 07-04-07, 09:24 AM	That operates under the assumption that LA is a viable mechanic in general. That aside, I think it is relatively easy to show that it is not a viable mechanic for this purpose. LA's value fluctuates between levels. At low levels, LA is less significant than at high levels. The value of ability scores also fluctuate between levels. At low levels, ability scores are more significant than at high levels. A system under which a character pays the least when it gains the most and pays the most when it gains the least is not a good system. If you were to change LA to be fluid, rather than static, and not take away the entirety of a hitdie but rather select benefits, then I could see the system working. I agree that LA isn't a perfect fix, but it is easily improved by allowing the player to buy off the LA with less XP that it costs to actually raise the level. Also, given the siding XP scale, characters with XP penalties tend never to be that much farther behind the others. In practice, I believe this would balance out
Tytalus 07-04-07, 11:33 AM	What I have so far: The total number of all possible combinations of stats, from straight 3s to straight 18s: 54,264 How do you figure that? If you have 16 different attribute values, and 6 stats for them, then you have exactly 16^6 = 16,777,216 different characters. This is the "total number of all possible combinations of stats". The total number of those combinations which are 'playable' by PHB standards: 25,204 Again, how do you get this number? Roughly 13% of all rolled characters are not viable and qualify for a reroll (number obtained through simulations; using your numbers almost every second characters needs to be rerolled at least once). It should be about ~14,6 million. And the absolute lowest stat average for a 'playable' character is 10.333. How is this number useful for the discussion at hand? And the minimal acceptable character (14,10,10,10,10,8) has already been posted. I'm still working on finding the average stat after mods (I think my RAM is going, and my spreadsheet is hurting because of it). So far, assuming all numbers have equal chance of coming up (which I know they don't) the average is 12.33. The average of a single 4D6-DL roll is 12.24. It is, however, entirely useless for determining the PB value of an entire 4D6-DL character (as mentioned numerous times).
Caelic 07-04-07, 11:38 AM	How do you figure that? If you have 16 different attribute values, and 6 stats for them, then you have exactly 16^6 = 16,777,216 different characters. This is the "total number of all possible combinations of stats". Surely more, because you can achieve those 16 values in a myriad of ways. 4,3,2 is a different result than 3,3,3; the number of permutations jumps still more when you factor in the fourth die. Simply saying there are 16 values fails to take into account the fact that certain of those values are much more likely than others. Thus, we have many more possible dice results that yield 12,12,12,12,12,12 than 18,18,18,18,18,18.
Caelic 07-04-07, 11:55 AM	Not in my/our experience. In the current Planescape campaign I'm running I foolishly let the players roll 5d6 drop the lowest two (never again). Well, one player rolled the equivalent of a 67-point buy. So after about 3 months or so we all decide it would only be fair to bring the other character's stats up to a 67-point buy equivalent. I can tell you, we are definitely having a blast, but we are all quite aware of how these monstrous scores are affecting EL's and CR's etc. And it is not just at low levels, the party is now ECL 12, and their ability scores are still having a big impact on play. I'm curious as to howso, exactly. Presumably, the spellcasters started with a base of 18 in their spellcasting stat. That shouldn't be overwhelming; it means, in general, that save DCs will be a point higher than usual (assuming that most pure spellcasters shoot for a 16 or thereabouts in a typical PB campaign, which seems to be about the norm in my experience.) That shouldn't be overwhelming. Presumably, too, the fighters are looking at...let's say 18's across the board in Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. This means, at level 12, they're likely to have a 1 or 2 point advantage in attack bonus and damage and 12 to 24 more hit points; advantageous, certainly, but not overwhelming at a level where attack bonuses can be up around around 20--in some cases, significantly higher--and damage done can (depending on how over-the-top the campaign is) range into the hundreds. 3 extra points of damage with that two-handed sword doesn't seem like all that much when the wizard tosses a 24d6 Disintegrate. The Dexterity will probably be a significant advantage; the characters likely have mithril armor at this point to allow them to take advantage of a higher Dex. Let's say a 3 point AC bonus. Of course, they're at the level where enemy attack bonuses typically shoot ahead of AC and it's constantly a struggle to keep your AC high enough; a 3 point AC bonus hardly means they won't get hit. Perhaps those secondary attacks will miss more often; perhaps the enemies won't power attack for quite so much. What other benefits? Everyone will have a few more skills they can use well. Typically, though, that has more impact out of combat. Few skills would really merit an increase in CR, and chances are if a character is going to max one of those out, he would've done so without the extra points. Everyone's Spot, Listen, and Will saves will be a few points higher. Nice, and in certain encounters that Will save may be the difference between life and death, but that's going to be the exception rather than the rule. Ultimately, I'm not seeing the massive effect on gameplay...particularly not at a level where a character can raise his Strength to 31, his Dex to 16, his Con to 29, and add 14 to his natural armor bonus with a single spell. Or add 6 to all his saves for 24 hours, also with a single spell. It's not that high stats aren't an advantage; it's that there are so many routes to ludicrous power at mid to high level that they pale in comparison.
Caelic 07-04-07, 11:59 AM	:P actually english spokesmen call me Evil, while people in my country use Idiot, since words are swapped, and it's quite funny to read post having "No,Idiot!" "I don't think so,Idiot!" and even "Good catch, Idiot" :tie: Well, that depends on the English spokesman. I certainly fit into that category, but I tend towards the British convention of not using first names with casual acquaintances. Having looked at your initial sim, I confess; I'm baffled by the conclusions you draw. How, precisely, do you interpret that data to show that low rolls are more likely than high rolls?
Steely_Dan 07-04-07, 12:04 PM	3 extra points of damage with that two-handed sword doesn't seem like all that much when the wizard tosses a 24d6 Disintegrate. Ultimately, I'm not seeing the massive effect on gameplay...particularly not at a level where a character can raise his Strength to 31, his Dex to 16, his Con to 29, and add 14 to his natural armor bonus with a single spell. Or add 6 to all his saves for 24 hours, also with a single spell. I'm not saying that high ability scores break the game or anything, but comparing anything to the ridiculous, antiquated, overpowered, Gygaxian magic/spell system is an exercise in futility, as Mia would say.
Ack 07-04-07, 12:19 PM	How do you figure that? If you have 16 different attribute values, and 6 stats for them, then you have exactly 16^6 = 16,777,216 different characters. This is the "total number of all possible combinations of stats". Yes it is - if you are willing to sit through many repetitions of the same stat array arranged in a different fashion. 18,16,14,14,13,12 is the same as 12,13,14,14,16,18, after all. The player rearranges the array after he gets the rolls. I've already mentioned that this not taking into account the frequency of any rolls. There are 54,264 unrepeated arrays available for use with 4d6DTL. Again, how do you get this number? Roughly 13% of all rolled characters are not viable and qualify for a reroll (number obtained through simulations; using your numbers almost every second characters needs to be rerolled at least once). It should be about ~14,6 million. Given the above numbers of arrays, I simply filtered out those that were not acceptable. The remainder came to a total of 25,204 unrepeated arrays that were acceptable for use. (If you bring up exactly the same array in a different arrangement, that's repeating it. In order to allow my spreadsheet to do it at all, I had to cancel all repeats). How is this number useful for the discussion at hand? And the minimal acceptable character (14,10,10,10,10,8) has already been posted. It's a figure I came up with independently, using the spreadsheet. I found it mildly interesting. The average of a single 4D6-DL roll is 12.24. It is, however, entirely useless for determining the PB value of an entire 4D6-DL character (as mentioned numerous times). The average of 4d6DTL when not dumping any rolls is 12.24. With my spreadsheet, even not allowing for the fact that some numbers come up more often than others, the average (after dumping unacceptable rolls) has crept up to 12.33. I will be working on it further after my RAM gets looked at. Maybe then I can pull the big numbers. Having to wait five minutes for the sheet to average a column of fifty thousand numbers is a little irritating. Oh, and one other set of numbers I got out of it - The total possible number of die rolls that are needed to figure all combinations, arrangements and permutations in all possible stat arrays: 23,681,392,272,525,000 The number of die rolls that go into figuring the same for acceptable stat arrays: 75,148,073,792 Note that the last two figures are unverified, but the data seemed to back them up.
Tytalus 07-04-07, 12:38 PM	Surely more, because you can achieve those 16 values in a myriad of ways. 4,3,2 is a different result than 3,3,3; Please read the post. He is talking about arranging the attribute values (not individual die rolls). There are 16 distinct attribute values (3 to 18), and 6 stats. Ergo 16^6 ways to create characters (this includes permutations). Yes it is - if you are willing to sit through many repetitions of the same stat array arranged in a different fashion. 18,16,14,14,13,12 is the same as 12,13,14,14,16,18, after all. Not if you are a sorcerer; the second one is much more useful. ;) Either way, you said "the total number of all possible combinations of stats", which seems to includes permutations. The player rearranges the array after he gets the rolls. I've already mentioned that this not taking into account the frequency of any rolls. There are 54,264 unrepeated arrays available for use with 4d6DTL. I fail to see how this result is relevant to the discussion at hand. If you are ignoring permutations, this number is useless for calculating probabilities or expected values. Oh, and one other set of numbers I got out of it - The total possible number of die rolls that are needed to figure all combinations, arrangements and permutations in all possible stat arrays: 23,681,392,272,525,000 That's not the case. The number of possible die rolls is 6^24 (rolling a total of 24 D6s), or 4,738,381,338,321,616,896
Caelic 07-04-07, 12:41 PM	Please read the post. He is talking about arranging the attribute values (not individual die rolls). There are 16 distinct attribute values (3 to 18), and 6 stats. Ergo 16^6 ways to create characters (this includes permutations). I read the post, and I understand that, but it doesn't include the possible permutations for each stat. Individual die rolls need to be factored in when attempting to calculate all of the possible results of rolling the dice, or the end product will be meaningless when it comes to calculating probabilities--which was the purpose of the whole exercise. I fail to see how this result is relevant to the discussion at hand. If you are ignoring permutations, this number is useless for calculating probabilities or expected values. Y'see? We're in agreement.
Ack 07-04-07, 12:46 PM	As I said, I'm still working on that. I have all the numbers I need, I just need the RAM to be able to combine them the way I want. So what I have posted up above isn't my final result, it's what I have so far.
Tytalus 07-04-07, 12:52 PM	I read the post, and I understand that, but it doesn't include the possible permutations for each stat. Individual die rolls need to be factored in when attempting to calculate all of the possible results of rolling the dice, or the end product will be meaningless when it comes to calculating probabilities--which was the purpose of the whole exercise. I realize that; in fact, I've pointed out actual the number of permutations quite a bit before (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12953896&postcount=510). In this post I was merely pointing out a problem I percieved in Ack's math, regardless of his reasoning. Y'see? We're in agreement. Heh, that's nice :)
EvilIdiot 07-04-07, 01:07 PM	Having looked at your initial sim, I confess; I'm baffled by the conclusions you draw. How, precisely, do you interpret that data to show that low rolls are more likely than high rolls? It is reported in my first post, as I said: Pr(score<=13) is greater than Pr(score>13), and other things, which are explained clearly in my first post, repeating here would be a waste of space, please use my link. In that context I consider score<=13 being low, so I can draw the conclusion that MAD classes aren't helped that much by rolling, since they require more scores above 13; of low scores, 11,12 and 13 are the most likely results though. Ps: I never thought about my nickname as a complete one :D , "I'm Idiot, Evil Idiot."
maharai23 07-04-07, 01:08 PM	See, that's another thing I don't like about rolling/random stats – I don't want or feel that the DM is obliged or expected to do that. "Aw, sorry, Hal, we'll just bump up your Con by another 2 points, and maybe add another point to Int…" What's the point of rolling if you don't stick with the exact results of the super fun rolling? What's the point of playing if you don't stick with the exact rules? Simple. The game was built with a safeguard to ensure balance. That safeguard is the DM. The DM gets 100% authority to bend, break, or disregard any rule, to maintain balance and fun. When a system is unbalanced, like both PB and rolling are, sometimes it's needed for the DM to step in and balance the issue.... Even if not everything is done 100% "by the book".
EvilIdiot 07-04-07, 01:18 PM	What's the point of playing if you don't stick with the exact rules? Simple. The game was built with a safeguard to ensure balance. That safeguard is the DM. The DM gets 100% authority to bend, break, or disregard any rule, to maintain balance and fun. Stats balance is hard to calculate, means aren't enough, so I'd say that ,in this case, DM's fiat would be troublesome to apply When a system is unbalanced, like both PB and rolling are, sometimes it's needed for the DM to step in and balance the issue.... Even if not everything is done 100% "by the book". How is PB unbalanced between players who use the same base?
Caelic 07-04-07, 01:39 PM	It is reported in my first post, as I said: Pr(score<=13) is greater than Pr(score>13), and other things, which are explained clearly in my first post, repeating here would be a waste of space, please use my link. Unwarranted conclusion based on the data provided in your link. The chart that presents the probability of individual stats makes no allowance for the "reroll" mechanism. It calculates the probability of rolling a 3 without taking into account the fact that the set of stats that includes that 3 will most likely be discarded and rerolled. Consequently, the probabilities presented, while perhaps correct for individual die rolls of 4d6DL, are not correct when generating a character by the default method. As such, no valid conclusions may be drawn from them concerning the chances of winding up with a low stat when employing that method. How is PB unbalanced between players who use the same base? As has been pointed out numerous times, the game is inherently unbalanced. Certain classes are simply more powerful than others. A full spellcaster is more powerful than a fighter. "Balancing" one aspect of an unbalanced system frequently exacerbates imbalances in other parts. In this case, it exacerbates and solidifies the class disparity, since someone playing a less-powerful class doesn't even have the chance of making up some of the gap with high stats. Essentially, you're settling for a world where Class A will always overshadow Class B, because you don't want to risk Class A overshadowing Class B by a bit more due to high stats in exchange for the possibility that Class B might actually close the gap due to high stats. (And, yes, I know people have said, "You can't bring in the magic system or class differences! To that I say: poppycock. They're part of the same system, and must be taken into account when discussing "balance.")
EvilIdiot 07-04-07, 02:37 PM	To create an ability score...roll 4d6. Disregard the lowest die roll and total the three highest ones This is the default method, but we both referred to rerolling, again it's difficult to keep track of every term used here, but that's not the point; rerolling helps reducing the gap between stats,lowering variance as well, so points near mean have their chace increased. According to that sim. mean of 4d6DL is 12,25 with a standard dev. of 2,85, a result quite similar, if not identical, to other ones; we have: - Pr(score<8)=5,7% -Pr(8<=score<=13)=58,8% -Pr(13<score<=18)=35,5% this means that rerolling increases mean and decreases variance; stats' range is shortened, but the really low values of both scores and frequency doesn't make that big change, in short rerolling avoids 3 and 4, but they where already rare. Gap between highest chances is 23,3%, impossible to reduce by simple rolling. Again, the conclusion I draw is not "ZMGD! rolling makes Hell's gate open!", I simply state you have more chances of getting low scores than high ones, in the way I said before. about balance: classes are unbalanced independently from system generation, isn't it? give me a uber-stat monk and I kill him with my uber-stat druid... the balance pbers refer to is the certainity that having uberstatted pc together with uglystatted pc is up to players, and unlike to happen( please look at what has been said before,this is just a sunto), so a balance between players,they're differnt types of balance of course
Caelic 07-04-07, 02:56 PM	You're seeing the trees and missing the forest. Yes, that's the method for generating a single stat. You're forgetting that there's another step once all the stats are generated--a step which amounts to "If they're crappy, throw them out and start over." That significantly skews the distribution towards higher scores. about balance: classes are unbalanced independently from system generation, isn't it? give me a uber-stat monk and I kill him with my uber-stat druid... ...so attempting to achieve "balance" by simply tinkering with stats is futile, at best, and harmful at worst. Removing any chance of the monk having higher stats guarantees that the druid will be dominant. the balance pbers refer to is the certainity that having uberstatted pc together with uglystatted pc is up to players, and unlike to happen( please look at what has been said before,this is just a sunto), so a balance between players,they're differnt types of balance of course Okay, I have to admit it...and I truly don't mean this offensively, because I know English is not your native language...but I haven't the slightest clue of what you're trying to say here.
Ack 07-04-07, 03:17 PM	the balance pbers refer to is the certainity that having uberstatted pc together with uglystatted pc is up to players, and unlike to happen( please look at what has been said before,this is just a sunto), so a balance between players,they're differnt types of balance of courseOkay, I have to admit it...and I truly don't mean this offensively, because I know English is not your native language...but I haven't the slightest clue of what you're trying to say here. "The balance that those who prefer Point-Buy refer to is the certainty that having PCs with really high numbers (uberstatted) together with PCs with really low numbers (uglystatted) [though not low enough for the roll to be thrown out] is up to the players, and unlikely to happen with point buy. "Please look at what has been said before; this is just a summary. "So it's a balance between players. There are different kinds of balance, of course [such as the (non-existent) balance between classes]." That what you mean, EvilIdiot?
EvilIdiot 07-04-07, 03:28 PM	You're seeing the trees and missing the forest. Yes, that's the method for generating a single stat. You're forgetting that there's another step once all the stats are generated--a step which amounts to "If they're crappy, throw them out and start over." That significantly skews the distribution towards higher scores. Ok, but if you read my first post you will note I've already taken in account that; what does "crappy" means anyway? Keep in mind that I consider (score<=13) as low, but 10,11,12 have the higher chances, so I'm not considering just 7,8,9 ; the scores ,after 6 4d6, are not likely to be "crappy" enough to require a complete reroll ...so attempting to achieve "balance" by simply tinkering with stats is futile, at best, and harmful at worst. Removing any chance of the monk having higher stats guarantees that the druid will be dominant. Higher bases?I'm not considering the fact that having those chances on a single roll doesn't mean a real advantage, especially considering my statistic, which is being discussed of course Okay, I have to admit it...and I truly don't mean this offensively, because I know English is not your native language...but I haven't the slightest clue of what you're trying to say here. Sorry, I was in a hurry; What PB-ers refers to as balance is the certainity that people won't have uber-stats chars (almost all 18s and 16s) and horrible-stats (lots of 8 and 12s) chars together with the same group; as already pointed out, that's not enough to guarantee actual balance between players during game.
Caelic 07-04-07, 04:53 PM	Ok, but if you read my first post you will note I've already taken in account that; what does "crappy" means anyway? Keep in mind that I consider (score<=13) as low, but 10,11,12 have the higher chances, so I'm not considering just 7,8,9 ; the scores ,after 6 4d6, are not likely to be "crappy" enough to require a complete rerol Actually, scores consisting of nothing but 10, 11, and 12 would be rerolled. The system mandates that at least one "high score" (as per your definition) be included in the set. I still see nothing in the data you present that confirms your thesis. Higher bases?I'm not considering the fact that having those chances on a single roll doesn't mean a real advantage, especially considering my statistic, which is being discussed of course "The system works if you just change the system" isn't a very good defense. If you need to jack up the point totals in order to provide "balance," that's a weakness. Of course, the Druid still has the advantage, because then he can sink those points into his Wisdom, shortchange his Strength and Dexterity, and still enjoy the benefits of a high Strength and Dexterity via Wildshape. If you provide X extra points, the monk tries to divide them up among Strength, Dexterity, Constituition, and Wisdom; the Druid simply pumps them into Wisdom. Advantage: Druid. Attempting to balance one part of the system unbalances other parts. What PB-ers refers to as balance is the certainity that people won't have uber-stats chars (almost all 18s and 16s) and horrible-stats (lots of 8 and 12s) chars together with the same group; as already pointed out, that's not enough to guarantee actual balance between players during game. ...and may result in characters being less balanced than they otherwise would have been (say, if the fighter had rolled well and the druid had rolled comparatively badly.) Note: I didn't say "will." I said "may."
EvilIdiot 07-04-07, 05:37 PM	Actually, scores consisting of nothing but 10, 11, and 12 would be rerolled. The system mandates that at least one "high score" (as per your definition) be included in the set. I still see nothing in the data you present that confirms your thesis. :bored: please read my first post, where I explain how I draw my conclusion; it's a matter of pdf: I get a binomial out of Pr(score<=13) and etc... If I expressed myself badly and/or you find an error on that post, please quote. "The system works if you just change the system" isn't a very good defense. If you need to jack up the point totals in order to provide "balance," that's a weakness. Point buy by itself uses a base, the one you choose for your campaign/player is up to you; A coffe-machine can give you coffee,espresso, mocaccino, anything, the system doesn't change, tastes do. Of course, the Druid still has the advantage, because then he can sink those points into his Wisdom, shortchange his Strength and Dexterity, and still enjoy the benefits of a high Strength and Dexterity via Wildshape. If you provide X extra points, the monk tries to divide them up among Strength, Dexterity, Constituition, and Wisdom; the Druid simply pumps them into Wisdom. Unfortunately rolling isn't intellinget: a mediocre rolling balancing a druid can gimp even a poor monk; you're saying that penalizing SAD classes, or giving bonuses to MAD ones, balances game during actual play, but that's not the kind of balance PB gives you, i.e. the one we (the PBers) are talking about. ...and may result in characters being less balanced than they otherwise would have been (say, if the fighter had rolled well and the druid had rolled comparatively badly.) Note: I didn't say "will." I said "may." You're presuming that a specific type of rolling will be used by a specific class,fine,but no one here denied high rolls helps MAD classes. Anyway,didn't you say rolling before creating the character was the norm?
Caelic 07-04-07, 05:50 PM	Unfortunately rolling isn't intellinget: a mediocre rolling balancing a druid can gimp even a poor monk; you're saying that penalizing SAD classes, or giving bonuses to MAD ones, balances game during actual play, but that's not the kind of balance PB gives you, i.e. the one we (the PBers) are talking about. I'm aware of that; I'm making the point that the type of balance you're talking about isn't balance at all, doesn't lead to balance in actual play, and isn't particularly useful--ergo, is not a particular merit. You're presuming that a specific type of rolling will be used by a specific class,fine,but no one here denied high rolls helps MAD classes. Nope; I'm presuming that, given dice-rolling, the potential gains outweigh the potential drawbacks. If the monk rolls poorly and is overshadowed by the druid...well, he was going to be overshadowed significantly anyway; the added gap from stats really isn't all that much more. If he rolls well and the Druid rolls poorly, then at least there's some closing of the gap. Anyway,didn't you say rolling before creating the character was the norm? Nope.
EvilIdiot 07-04-07, 06:09 PM	I'm aware of that; I'm making the point that the type of balance you're talking about isn't balance at all, doesn't lead to balance in actual play, and isn't particularly useful--ergo, is not a particular merit. balance within stat is not enough for balance, unbalance within stats is likely to be enough for unbalance, isn't it? Nope. Hm, true, I was wrong Nope; I'm presuming that, given dice-rolling, the potential gains outweigh the potential drawbacks. If the monk rolls poorly and is overshadowed by the druid...well, he was going to be overshadowed significantly anyway; the added gap from stats really isn't all that much more. If he rolls well and the Druid rolls poorly, then at least there's some closing of the gap. May I remember you the analogy with lotto? what about the content of my first post?
Caelic 07-04-07, 06:14 PM	balance within stat is not enough for balance, unbalance within stats is likely to be enough for unbalance, isn't it? Irrelevant. Unbalance already exists. Disparate stats does nothing to change that condition. May I remember you the analogy with lotto? I recall it. I still don't think it was a particularly good one, and I don't consider it really relevant. what about the content of my first post? To be honest, I really don't want to go hunting for it through the entire thread.
EvilIdiot 07-04-07, 06:32 PM	Irrelevant. Unbalance already exists. Disparate stats does nothing to change that condition. as you said, it could increase the gap between players and classes, and if balance is within stats, it affects at low levels as well as at higher ones, as someone here already said. I recall it. I still don't think it was a particularly good one, and I don't consider it really relevant. You say there's a chance of getting balance, thus rolling as an advantage; you're saying there's a chance of winning at lotto. To be honest, I really don't want to go hunting for it through the entire thread. Err..I linked it at least twice in the most recent posts of mine...click here (http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php%3Fp%3D12901282%26postcount% 3D292)
Caelic 07-04-07, 07:12 PM	I see nothing there you haven't repeated since, and, again, I see no solid support for the premise that rolling will generate more low scores than high ones. I see nothing in your first post that accounts for the skew provided by discarding "stillborn" characters. I suspect that, realistically, you're looking at a situation where scores lower than 14 are more probable than scores higher than 14. I'd hardly call that "low stats." Clearly, others have different standards. I admit I was baffled to find this assertion: Variety is not inherently realistic if PHB says our characters are heroes whose abilities are above normal, and how many “varying”-chars would you like to play? Err...I think variety is perfectly realistic. "Heroes" does not mean "clones." As to your question, the answer is "All of them." I don't play cookie-cutter characters. I find it interesting that, on the one hand, you have certain PB advocates insisting that rollers are obsessed with high stats; on the other, you have others insisting that roleplayers wouldn't want to play stat arrays I consider perfectly fine and playable. Give me "a 14 and lots of twelves"...which is about the minimum PB guarantees, and the array you hold up as an example of bad in your first post...and I'll do just fine, thanks. I won't be overshadowed by characters with higher stats, and I won't be useless to the party.
Vaelan 07-04-07, 11:53 PM	...which was my whole point. Ability scores are a relatively minor factor in determining character power. If you want to make that point, you might not want to use a character that focuses on replacing their ability scores with higher ability scores. It makes the argument seem a bit more genuine. Nope; I'm arguing that it takes a pretty darned good roleplayer to say "By golly, I don't care that I have to drastically reduce my fighter's effectiveness in order to have a high Intelligence; I want to play a smart fighter." How "smart" is "smart"? 13 Intelligence is rather common among Fighters... So the system works, as long as you change the system. Gotcha. This is D&D. That's practically a given. Uhm...actually, your point has a lot to do with magnitude. Do you seriously not recognize that? You're selecting ludicrously high values that make the dice roll irrelevant (save for rolls of 1 or 20.) Realistically speaking, that doesn't happen. It has nothing to do with magnitude because my point is not that the advantage is as big as those particular circumstances make it but merely that it exists. It is a demonstration of the actual point, which nobody has responded to. Moreover, you're assuming that everyone has equal stats in everything, which totally ignores the problem MAD characters face: they have to spread their points out, whereas other character can focus them in fewer stats. Only to a certain extent. Can't go above 18, as per the standard rules. ...except that, in a point buy system, the fighter (who has less MAD) sinks many more points into Strength, and can thus still hit. ...except that, in a point buy system, the magic-user has juiced most of those points into Intelligence, and so his save DCs are much higher. What, exactly, did I say that led you to believe that I was discussing the point-buy system? Arbitrarily assigning a given number to all ability scores is very clearly not point-buy. Not in a point buy system, no. I am speaking simply of the class features, not of the class features plus whatever Caelic wants to add. :) I'm going to go ahead and assume that once you're disabused of the notion that this particular part of the argument has anything to do with point-buy that you can acknowledge the advantage. I am. I've seen people sulk because they had lower ability scores, and I've seen them sulk because their character wasn't as well-designed, or because another class had abilities that rendered their character superfluous in a given situation. The sulks looked pretty much the same. Most often, it was the same people doing the sulking, in fact. I've found that most class-based sulking is reduced because all characters have weaknesses that allow other characters a chance in the spotlight. BoringInfoGuy, wait for my statement to be completed before going off assuming that I'm a complete moron, okay? There will be plenty of time after I'm done, I promise.
Vaelan 07-05-07, 12:00 AM	I'm going to state the argument without the exaggerated examples made purely to show each particular part of the argument to be true, since triple-digit bonuses from ability scores tend to distract people. I would actually like some feedback on this since there is actually a question at the end. MAD characters have more potential to gain from higher ability scores than SAD characters. Since this is true, a campaign in which characters are given higher ability scores will favor MAD characters more than a campaign in which characters are given lower ability scores. Since higher ability scores favor MAD characters, giving MAD characters more points or a more generous rolling system isn't needed as you can just use a high point-buy total for everyone and it will still end up bridging the gap, as well as ability scores are able to, anyway. The ridiculous example plays into the overall point. It shows the reason behind the question and supports the premise behind the idea. The question is: is it necessary to give MAD characters more points or a better rolling scheme? Is it possible to choose a high point-buy or generous rolling method to favor MAD characters or is it better to give differing point-buy values and rolling methods to MAD characters because giving everyone the ability scores required to favor MAD characters sufficiently warps the game into something more similar than the ridiculous example that I posted?
Caelic 07-05-07, 12:26 AM	If you want to make that point, you might not want to use a character that focuses on replacing their ability scores with higher ability scores. It makes the argument seem a bit more genuine. Certainly. Which character would you like to use? The Wizard who can cast Polymorph? The Fighter who receives it because his party wizard is smart enough to recognize the value of teamwork? The Rogue who can cast it via Use Magic Device? The Cleric, of course, is out of luck...unless he has the Magic domain. Or access to the Draconomicon and Draconic Polymorph. Or Shapechange, at higher levels. Or Anyspell. Otherwise, he has to be content with merely boosting his Strength by 20 or so with spells like Divine Power and Righteous Might. My heart bleeds for the guy, doesn't yours? My point, of course, is that just about any character has or can have access to tactics which render his basic stats a moot point. The DM could, of course, disallow such tactics; that's the purview of individual campaigns, though, and not really germane to a discussion of the system as a whole and whether it works or doesn't work. In the default system, statistics...particularly physical statistics...become almost irrelevant after a certain point. What, exactly, did I say that led you to believe that I was discussing the point-buy system? Arbitrarily assigning a given number to all ability scores is very clearly not point-buy. Uhm...given that the entire topic of the thread is point buy versus rolling, and you seem to be a fairly bright person, I sort of took it as a given that your post had at least something to do with that. I hope I wasn't mistaken in my assessment of you? Now, on to the specifics of your argument, and the holes therein: MAD characters have more potential to gain from higher ability scores than SAD characters. Extremely questionable. They stand to gain from more different ability scores, yes. It does not follow, however, that they have more potential to gain from higher ability scores than SAD characters. If what the SAD character gains from his one ability score is more potent than what the MAD character gains from several, then the premise is false. The 20th level Paladin, in going from an 18 Charisma to a 19 Charisma, gains a point to his save modifiers and a point on his smites. The 20th level Sorceror, in going from an 18 Charisma to a 19 Charisma, gains the ability to cast ninth level spells. Which character has gained more? Since this is true, a campaign in which characters are given higher ability scores will favor MAD characters more than a campaign in which characters are given lower ability scores. As the premise has not been shown to be true, conclusions which follow from it are likewise questionable. This one particularly so; it has already been observed that a SAD character will be able to concentrate those points, and thus, his single attribute will typically be higher than any of the MAD character's attributes. Again, it comes down to a question of the relative benefits he reaps from that one attribute. Yes, the Monk gets Wisdom and Dexterity to Armor Class; the Deepwarden/Fist of the Forest gets Constitution to Armor Class twice. While the Monk is splitting his points between Wisdom and Dexterity...and presumably Constitution, since he'd like some hit points, too, please...the Deepwarden/FotF is sinking all of those points into Constitution. Who comes out on top? Even in a campaign in which the MAD character gets to place stats in all of his attributes which are equal to the stats in a SAD character's single attribute (I'm hard pressed to imagine the generation method, short of "Give yourself all 18's") the question again comes down to what he gets from those multiple attributes, as opposed to what the SAD character gets from his one. Since higher ability scores favor MAD characters, giving MAD characters more points or a more generous rolling system isn't needed as you can just use a high point-buy total for everyone and it will still end up bridging the gap, as well as ability scores are able to, anyway. Again, it does not follow. The SAD character, if well-designed, will gain significantly more benefit from his one prime attribute than the MAD character will gain from any of his. Given an equal point-buy, that attribute will be higher than any of the MAD character's, making the discrepancy even larger.
Tytalus 07-05-07, 01:06 AM	MAD characters have more potential to gain from higher ability scores than SAD characters. Extremely questionable. They stand to gain from more different ability scores, yes. It does not follow, however, that they have more potential to gain from higher ability scores than SAD characters. If what the SAD character gains from his one ability score is more potent than what the MAD character gains from several, then the premise is false. The 20th level Paladin, in going from an 18 Charisma to a 19 Charisma, gains a point to his save modifiers and a point on his smites. The 20th level Sorceror, in going from an 18 Charisma to a 19 Charisma, gains the ability to cast ninth level spells. Which character has gained more? Ugh, what a disappointingly bad example. First, the paladin gets nothing from the increase, and any self-respecting sorcerer would have had a 19 CHA way before level 20. SAD characters gain power faster as they gain more points to distribute / high rolls - to a point. As soon as the single attribute is maxed, there are diminishing returns. Sure, CON and DEX are also useful for a sorcerer, but not nearly as much as CHA. After that, the returns are even smaller: INT is ok (but the skill list isn't too hot anyway), WIS is not really necessary (strong will save), and STR is the typical sorcerer dump stat. For a MAD character, there's no such drop off in value: since many/all attributes are essential, every extra point is useful. For PB only: I believe that's one of the points made several times over in this thread: low PB is good for SAD characters (in comparison to MAD ones), while high PB can be more fully utilized by MAD characters. Note that this doesn't even need to talk about which classes are better/worse.
Caelic 07-05-07, 01:28 AM	Ugh, what a disappointingly bad example. First, the paladin gets nothing from the increase, and any self-respecting sorcerer would have had a 19 CHA way before level 20. Should've said "18 to a 20." You're right about that; I'm posting on not much sleep. And, yes, many spellcasters will hit a 19 in their prime stat before level 20. Of course, in a strict point-buy, they may not hit it until just before they need it. So let's call it a level 18 Sorceror and a level 18 Paladin. And, heck, let's jack those stats higher. Let's say...from a 27 Charisma to a 28 Charisma, which nicely dovetails with what a very high-level character could reasonably be expected to have if he started with a high score in that stat and made it a priority. The Paladin...again...gets a +1 to his saves and smite. The Sorceror gets...another ninth level spell per day. Which is a bigger gain in power? I'm still gonna go with the poor old SAD-sack Sorceror. SAD characters gain power faster as they gain more points to distribute / high rolls - to a point. As soon as the single attribute is maxed, there are diminishing returns. Sure, CON and DEX are also useful for a sorcerer, but not nearly as much as CHA. After that, the returns are even smaller: INT is ok (but the skill list isn't too hot anyway), WIS is not really necessary (strong will save), and STR is the typical sorcerer dump stat. ...but, of course, it's much more likely that the SAD character will max out his prime stat. That's the advantage of SAD characters. Whatever abilities he gets from that stat, he will get to enjoy their fullest benefit. For a MAD character, there's no such drop off in value: since many/all attributes are essential, every extra point is useful. ...and typically, there aren't enough points to go around; thus, some of those nifty-keen abilities, if not all of them, are going to be less effective than they might otherwise have been. I believe that's one of the points made several times over in this thread: low PB is good for SAD characters (in comparison to MAD ones), while high PB can be more fully utilized by MAD characters. Note that this doesn't even need to talk about which classes are better/worse. I think it'd have to be a pretty extremely high PB in order to benefit, say, a Monk more than a Druid, or a Paladin more than a Wizard.
Ace_of_time 07-05-07, 02:03 AM	Ok here is what I'll do. I'll roll each way 100 times and then average them out. Once on the table and once online at wizards dice roller and post each one whenn I'm done.:)
EvilIdiot 07-05-07, 03:23 AM	I suspect that, realistically, you're looking at a situation where scores lower than 14 are more probable than scores higher than 14. I'd hardly call that "low stats." Clearly, others have different standards. ...Give me "a 14 and lots of twelves"...which is about the minimum PB guarantees, and the array you hold up as an example of bad in your first post...and I'll do just fine, thanks. I won't be overshadowed by characters with higher stats, and I won't be useless to the party. I have said that at least twice recently, and I have said I never meant rolling as "the most sucking method", what I kept saying?Low rolls have more chances than high ones,period. I know 13 isn't bad, but you have still 9,8,10,11 and 12; having lots of those scores doesn't make me scream:"ZMGD!Rolling does help you having high scores" . 14 with a lot of 12 is just one of the possible outcomes, see "about fairness" below and "about rerolling", always in my first post The part you're referring to is about mad classes: someone here has repeated this to death, mad classes are harder to play, from a mechanical point of view, 'cos, guess what, they depend on multiple scores. Rolling gives you the opportunity to get very high scores ,helpful for your mad characters,but, statistically speaking, the opportunity to get very low/mediocre scores is higher, see D&D Statistics, you will find that P(score>=12)<P(score<12). So the statement:"rolling helps having high stats/Mad classes" is flawed. or this: About fairness: it can be either negative , you have the same chances of having bad results, or positive, you have the same chances of having good results. Randomness is negative because while it's true you have the same opportunity to get the same scores as your fellow, you don't have the certainty of that. Considering numbers,the chance of having 2 player with good rolls and 2 with mediocre ones is (proportional to) p^2q^2 where p=P(score<=13) and q=1-p and, since p>50%, it is > than vice versa, so you have more chances at being weak than balanced, compared to your fellows. PB is neutrally fair, because it doesn't give you a higher chance of getting good results than the contrary, you decide. do you find anything wrong here? Then the assertion about variety:it just says that variety, among players, is not always realistic, and I was clearly referring to unbalanced parties; a weak-ling and a super-stat character have little to do together Then I continued, here is the part you missed:and how many “varying”-chars would you like to play? Even with rolling you need something to balance the system, ie rerolling, since that kind of random-related variety has its own problems, and you can't find a quick way to keep variety inside a reasonable range,you can set just an inferior and inaccurate limit. I was answering to those who said rolling made variety possible , thanks to randomness, in short if you really like variety, what's the point of rerolling?sure, you doesn't like all the variety a flat rolling gives you. I find it interesting that, on the one hand, you have certain PB advocates insisting that rollers are obsessed with high stats; I stated that rollers have false hopes, in fact on the other, you have others insisting that roleplayers wouldn't want to play stat arrays I consider perfectly fine and playable. I can't understand which post/statement you're referring to, could you explain ,please? @ace of time:please, use a spread-sheet! you're sacrificing yourself just for the eternal conflict between rolling and point buy!What would master yoda say?:eek:
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 04:11 AM	Unbalance already exists. Disparate stats does nothing to change that condition. As I said before, not in my experience. Unbalance of course already exists in the game (spells etc), but disparate stats amongst a party do affect overall balance. If you run a slightly lower magic campaign, without every character dripping with magic items like a Christmas tree and half the party hurling many of the ridiculous, overpowered spells around, you will really see how high ability scores can affect balance. But I still see it even when ridiculous magic is slathered everywhere...
LCD2YOU 07-05-07, 07:59 AM	As I said before, not in my experience.Good, then you have players with equal skills. Unfortunately, I have not been so lucky as to play in such a homogeneous group.Unbalance of course already exists in the game (spells etc), but disparate stats amongst a party do affect overall balance.I am of the opinion that many characters can be more than useful with low points as long as the points are put into the proper place. SAD style classes are that way. Give a Wizard an 18 Int, 14 Dex, Con and Wis of 10, and the other two both 8s, for 26 points you have a great character. For 25 points, drop Wis or Dex by 1 and they are still good. For a straight up fighter at 26/25 points, Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14/13, Wis 10, Cha 8 is also great. Now go to a 26/25 point Paladin. What stats do they drop to get Wis and Cha up to 12, 13 or 14 each? Str? They are a main melee type, right? Dex? Yeah, heavy armor is great but don't they need to get to a level and a wealth to afford the stuff? Con? Probably the best one to drop to a 10. But then there's that melee thing again. Int? So nearly Homer Simpsonesque Paladins are ok? Or is it ok for the player to metagame their way out?If you run a slightly lower magic campaign, without every character dripping with magic items like a Christmas tree and half the hurling party hurling many of the ridiculous, overpowered spells around, you will really see how high ability scores can affect balance. But I still see it even when ridiculous magic is slathered everywhere...I'd say that each game and character class must be looked at carefully to see if the game is really over matched. Of course if one character looks like this 14, 12, 12, 10, 10, 8 while most look like this 16, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10 and one is like this 18, 17, 16, 16, 14, 14 then it's a no brainer.
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 08:52 AM	Now go to a 26/25 point Paladin. What stats do they drop to get Wis and Cha up to 12, 13 or 14 each? Str? They are a main melee type, right? Dex? Yeah, heavy armor is great but don't they need to get to a level and a wealth to afford the stuff? Con? Probably the best one to drop to a 10. But then there's that melee thing again. Int? So nearly Homer Simpsonesque Paladins are ok? Or is it ok for the player to metagame their way out Come on, come out and say it – you hate the paladin! I'm just kidding, but really, every time a point buy vs. rolling thread comes up, you beat the paladin horse to death to get across your disdain of low point buys and MAD classes. You admitted that an Elite Array monk can be fine, so it is just the paladin that's the problem – I agree.
Caelic 07-05-07, 10:24 AM	I have said that at least twice recently, and I have said I never meant rolling as "the most sucking method", what I kept saying?Low rolls have more chances than high ones,period. ...if you define "low" generously enough. If, on the other hand, we define "low" as, say, "any stat without a bonus," that changes things. I know 13 isn't bad, but you have still 9,8,10,11 and 12; having lots of those scores doesn't make me scream:"ZMGD!Rolling does help you having high scores" . No; having lots of those scores probably makes you calmly say, "Stillborn character; reroll, please." 14 with a lot of 12 is just one of the possible outcomes, see "about fairness" below and "about rerolling", always in my first post Sure, but it's the one you mentioned, and so I referenced it. So the statement:"rolling helps having high stats/Mad classes" is flawed. Well, that's not precisely the statement anyone has made, to my knowledge; it's a pretty severe oversimplification, and as such, a straw man. The statement "Rolling has the potential to benefit MAD characters" is not flawed. The statement, "Rolling has the potential to return higher stats than the party norm" is not flawed. The statement "Rolling has an infinitely higher chance than PB to return higher stats than the party norm" is not flawed, come to that. do you find anything wrong here? A number of things. I find your characterization of "positive or negative fairness" to be somewhat bizarre, since a random chance of positive outcomes presupposes a corresponding chance for negative outcomes--even if said outcome is merely the lack of a positive outcome. I find your declaration that randomly rolling is "negative" a bit subjective and biased, for several reasons: 1. As I have demonstrated, the system is skewed towards the higher end of the bell curve, not the lower; only by your own definition of "low" can you claim that it's skewed towards "low results." An impartial and unbiased examination concludes that it's biased towards high results--ie, anything above the median--and thus, by your definition, should be characterized as "positive fairness," if anything. 2. At most, it should be argued to be neutral fairness, because the chance for positive or negative outcomes exists. These chances are not equal, no. The chance for an extremely positive result is, again, infinitely higher than the chance for an extremely negative result. The odds of rolling all 18's are very slim, but the odds of rolling all 3's, given the system, are nil. Then the assertion about variety:it just says that variety, among players, is not always realistic, and I was clearly referring to unbalanced parties; a weak-ling and a super-stat character have little to do together Given players who are uncreative or unresourceful, no. It's quite possible to play characters of massively different power levels in the same group, though; indeed, certain games are based around the assumption that you will. I suggest checking out Ars Magica, or perhaps Buffy the Vampire Slayer if that's more your cup of tea. I was answering to those who said rolling made variety possible , thanks to randomness, ...but, again, I don't think anyone actually said that. "Random rolling makes variety possible" would be a pretty silly statement to make, since variety is obviously possible with PB. It's just that PB tends to penalize variety. I know that I said random rolling makes for more variety, and that's true; at least, nothing has been offered to disprove it. in short if you really like variety, what's the point of rerolling?sure, you doesn't like all the variety a flat rolling gives you. Sure I do. I guess you missed the part where I mentioned the fact that I played 3d6-no-rerolls-play-them-as-they-lay for years, and am still quite willing to do so. I stated that rollers have false hopes, in fact ...which is untrue. None of a roller's hopes are false unless his grasp on reality is tenuous. He hopes that he may roll well, and he may. He fears that he may roll badly, and he may. His hopes may be unrealistic, as in the case of the roller who honestly thinks he has a good chance of rolling straight 18's, but they're not false. I can't understand which post/statement you're referring to, could you explain ,please? Well, I cited one in the post to which you were responding; your very first post, where you hold up 14-12-12-12-12-12 as a set of stats nobody would want to play. Those look like fine stats to me, and I'd cheerfully play them. Ack posited a similar set of stats and suggested that they're stats "No roleplayer would want to play." Again, maybe it's simply a matter of different experiences leading to different perspectives; I spent a lot of years gaming in an environment in which a character's potential was defined by the player's creativity and resourcefulness, and high stats were a rarity and a bonus.
Caelic 07-05-07, 10:33 AM	If you run a slightly lower magic campaign, without every character dripping with magic items like a Christmas tree and half the hurling party hurling many of the ridiculous, overpowered spells around, you will really see how high ability scores can affect balance. It takes a lot more than "running a slightly lower magic campaign," which I have done (and in fact do.) Remove all of the potential sources for rendering starting stat differences almost irrelevant, and you're playing something so variant as to barely be recognizable as D&D anymore. You'll note that, in my examples, the characters were hardly "dripping with magic items." Some of them referenced a single magic item. Add the default array of magic items presupposed by the system, and the stat gap is further narrowed. Nor did I reference "many of the ridiculous, overpowered spells." Polymorph could certainly be considered to fall into that category, yes...but how many spells do you want to yank from the game? Every Polymorph-referencing spell, of course, for starters; the Druid's Wildshape ability; a good many of the Druid's spells (hey, some of his spells still allow him to assume the animal subtype, which means he can still have Animal Growth cast on him.) The "Bite Of" series. Divine Power. Righteous Might. The list goes on and on. Sure, you can yank all the "broken" stuff from D&D in a vain attempt to make it "balanced." That's a little like trying to take an eggbeater and turn it into a wheel. Me, I'd prefer to just use the eggbeater as an eggbeater, and go seek a wheel elsewhere. This is also an excellent illustration of a principle I've brought up several times: attempt to "balance" one aspect of an unbalanced system, and the result is likely to be greater imbalance elsewhere. "Balance" the magic system by removing the spells that allow characters to transcend their stats, and you actively exacerbate the advantage of higher starting stats. But I still see it even when ridiculous magic is slathered everywhere... Translation: "In the game as designed and written."
BoringInfoGuy 07-05-07, 10:36 AM	BoringInfoGuy, wait for my statement to be completed before going off assuming that I'm a complete moron, okay? There will be plenty of time after I'm done, I promise. Wait until your statement is completed? Since my post was written several hours after yours, why would I think it wasn't? Now, the main problem I have with your 500 point stats example is that it's far too huge to fit into the system. Hmm, not the best phrasing. Perhaps this way. You are aware of Quantum Mechanics right? It describes how physics works on the very small scale. It describes and predicts how things works to a very high degree in experiments, to the limits of the uncertainty principle. But when you switch to a larger scale, you can no longer use Quantum Mechanics. You instead have to use General Relativity, a classic theory that doesn't take the uncertainty principle into account, but does handle the effects of gravity. General Relativity is a well proven theory, but it does not work on the small scale that Quantum Mechanics does. My point? In real life, you simply can't change the scale and expect the same rules to work. In D&D, by giving every character such weighty scores, the game system collapses. Any conclusions you make from this condition are, in my opinion, moot.
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 10:41 AM	Translation: "In the game as designed and written." That I agree with.
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 10:44 AM	Sure, you can yank all the "broken" stuff from D&D in a vain attempt to make it "balanced." That's a little like trying to take an eggbeater and turn it into a wheel. Me, I'd prefer to just use the eggbeater as an eggbeater, and go seek a wheel elsewhere. My brother did that with 4 egg beaters once for a miniature model car – worked out pretty good.
Caelic 07-05-07, 10:51 AM	My brother did that with 4 egg beaters once for a miniature model car – worked out pretty good. Bet'cha it would've been a smoother ride if he'd just used wheels, though. There's sometimes a certain satisfaction to be had from an inspired jury-rig. Most of the time, though, I find that it just makes more sense to use a set of rules suited to the type of game you want to run. If I want totally balanced characters, I'll use a good point-buy engine. If I want a flavorful, balanced magic system that nicely juggles spontaneous and ritualistic magic, I'll go with Ars Magica. If I want "Kick in the doors, kill the monsters, take their stuff, have a good time, and don't question the premises of the universe too much," I'll go with D&D.
Vaelan 07-05-07, 10:56 AM	Certainly. Which character would you like to use? Like I said before, I'd go with one that doesn't replace your ability scores. So I guess the Cleric with several Strength-increasing spells! My point, of course, is that just about any character has or can have access to tactics which render his basic stats a moot point. Fair enough, but it would be more convincing were you to use an example that didn't rely on replacing your ability scores with higher ones when you're saying that ability scores don't matter. It does not follow, however, that they have more potential to gain from higher ability scores than SAD characters. I clearly didn't word my point well. MAD characters stand to gain more from having a greater number of high ability scores. But you already skipped ahead to this part, so... Even in a campaign in which the MAD character gets to place stats in all of his attributes which are equal to the stats in a SAD character's single attribute ... the question again comes down to what he gets from those multiple attributes, as opposed to what the SAD character gets from his one. I'm not expecting any generation method to make class choice completely irrelevant. This is a response to the argument that point-buy disadvantages MAD characters by depriving them of a chance to roll stupidly high scores, which is based upon the assumption that MAD characters need higher scores, as opposed to high scores, which I'm not sure is true. A more generous rolling method or higher point-buy value gives an advantage to MAD characters. It may not be as large of an advantage as those granted by class abilities, but it is still a relative advantage. (I'm hard pressed to imagine the generation method, short of "Give yourself all 18's") A rolling scheme with a highly dominant mode or any point-buy above about... 48?
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 11:06 AM	There's sometimes a certain satisfaction to be had from an inspired jury-rig. Most of the time, though, I find that it just makes more sense to use a set of rules suited to the type of game you want to run. But the current edition of the game is the culmination of years of house-rules and jury-rigging.
LCD2YOU 07-05-07, 11:10 AM	Like I said before, I'd go with one that doesn't replace your ability scores. So I guess the Cleric with several Strength-increasing spells!And at 1st to 2nd level, you'd be doing what? Also with 4 encounters being the preferred number per day, what does your cleric do for the other 3 each day? What if your DM plays his bad guys with cunning and hit 'n run raids are the norm?snipSo we are back to the main issues. PB does not make things right and rolling has its issues. All of the issues can be handled by mature DMs and players. Personally, I think that Ack's idea of an array that all characters get and the players of MAD classes have a choice of that array or another higher point value, but the highest score is lower, array does make it more "fair" if that is what you're going for. Still what Caelen said and I agree with is that even if you found a magical way to get all the characters equal, that all magic effects are measured and a "duel" between any character class is always a statistical dead heat, the game would still be unbalanced. Players and DMs all come in differing skills, imaginations, ideas and more to the table. That by itself makes the whole notion of "fairness" a pipe dream.
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 11:14 AM	Players and DMs all come in differing skills, imaginations, ideas and more to the table. That by itself makes the whole notion of "fairness" a pipe dream. Nice – I think that about wraps her up.
Caelic 07-05-07, 12:05 PM	Like I said before, I'd go with one that doesn't replace your ability scores. So I guess the Cleric with several Strength-increasing spells! Groovy. So the Fighter, who rolled really really well for Strength, proceeded to get it as high as he possibly could... and the Cleric (who didn't roll very well for Strength) casually surpasses him with the use of two spells. The point stands: that fighter's "big advantage" from rolling well on stats just evaporated. Fair enough, but it would be more convincing were you to use an example that didn't rely on replacing your ability scores with higher ones when you're saying that ability scores don't matter. ...as I just did. But I think you're missing the point: ability scores don't matter because you can replace them. Or augment them, or otherwise manipulate them. And you can do so easily. MAD characters stand to gain more from having a greater number of high ability scores. But you already skipped ahead to this part, so... Again, not necessarily. If the sum of advantages a SAD character gains from having high scores exceeds the sum of advantages a MAD character gains from having high scores, it doesn't matter how many more of those scores are benefitting the MAD character. Extreme example: I have a character who gets to add every single stat to his saving throws. I have a second character who only gets one special benefit: he can cast Miracle once per day for every point of Wisdom bonus he has. The first character benefits from more different stats. His benefits are clearly useful, but the second character is simply more powerful. His one benefit outweighs all of the benefits the MAD character gets. This is a response to the argument that point-buy disadvantages MAD characters by depriving them of a chance to roll stupidly high scores, which is based upon the assumption that MAD characters need higher scores, as opposed to high scores, which I'm not sure is true. The argument is that, unless the point buy is very generous, a MAD character won't have high ability scores. Most point buy schemes are designed to allow a character to have one or two high scores. A MAD character who needs more than one or two stats therefore won't have high scores in all of those stats. A more generous rolling method or higher point-buy value gives an advantage to MAD characters. It's certainly advantageous to them compared to a lower point-buy. I'm not at all sure that it gives them a relative advantage against SAD characters, but it definitely makes them more viable. A rolling scheme with a highly dominant mode or any point-buy above about... 48? At that point, you might as well just say "Write down whatever stats you want" and have done with it.
Caelic 07-05-07, 12:06 PM	But the current edition of the game is the culmination of years of house-rules and jury-rigging. ...and look how smoothly and harmoniously it runs!
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 12:09 PM	...and look how smoothly and harmoniously it runs! So one more couldn't hurt! Anyway, all of this is moot as I am already using the copy of 7th edition I picked up in Japan – smaller, faster and cheaper.
Caelic 07-05-07, 12:10 PM	So one more couldn't hurt! "Okay, Mister Camel. I'm gonna add one more thing to your load. But don't worry, it's just a piece of straw. You're carrying so much already, you won't even FEEL it!"
EvilIdiot 07-05-07, 02:01 PM	...if you define "low" generously enough. If, on the other hand, we define "low" as, say, "any stat without a bonus," that changes things. No; having lots of those scores probably makes you calmly say, "Stillborn character; reroll, please." Well, that's not precisely the statement anyone has made, to my knowledge; it's a pretty severe oversimplification, and as such, a straw man. The statement "Rolling has the potential to benefit MAD characters" is not flawed. The statement, "Rolling has the potential to return higher stats than the party norm" is not flawed. The statement "Rolling has an infinitely higher chance than PB to return higher stats than the party norm" is not flawed, come to that. 1)Rerolling after having got 6 scores is mentioned neither in DMG nor PHB 1.1)conditions for rerolling are not well-stated:{sum of modifier} is not enough to define balance in groups 2)I will show you how I draw my conclusion more extensively then PART1:rolling's bell characteristic. We have three parts: - left tail: 8<=score<=11; probability=32,60% -central bell: 12<=score<=14; probability=38,50%; mean and mode are found within this range. -right tail:15<=score<=18; probability=23,20% I chopped the bell curve into these three pieces by figuring out what is the central bell. In bell curves you have mean and mode quite close to each other ,the central bell, the values around 13 have the highest chances. Depending on how you divide bell curves ,things change, if I just divide the bell into 2 disjointed subsets I can get a deceiving result, since I'm considering the highest results within each subset. The point rollers make is that you have chances to get high results, right? The point I'm trying to make is that you have actually more chances to get lower ones, in short we're both considering the tails. Now suppose I redefine ranges: say that right-tail is 14<=score<=18; well, it's still tricky: 14 is around the modal value, anyway let's see what I get:probability=35,50%, so higher scores have a slightly better chance than low ones, but left tail is penalised(it has 4 values, while right has got 5). Now I correct the ranges, trying to be more impartial, left-tail is 8<=score<=12,probability goes to 45,70%, now low scores have higher chances. Now let's consider another configuration: - left tail: 8<=score<=10; probability=21,20% -central bell: 11<=score<=14; probability=49,90%; mean and mode are found within this range. -right tail:15<=score<=18; probability=23,20% It seems higher scores have a few higher chances, but left tail covers 3 values, while right one covers 4,one of which is close to modal value. I change right-tail to 16<=score<=18; probability=13,20% This final result is quite important: the chance of getting a score >=16 is just about 60% of getting a value between 10 and 8. Previous configurations are still important,though. Uh, I've already taken in account possible rerolling: I didn't consider values below 8 to belong to the curve, 7 is still possible, and I said something in previous post..bla...bla bla, anyway rerolling, which affects variance more than mean, can't cover a difference of 10%. PART2: low VS high. Generously, we take points above 13 as being high, below as being low. Why I'm being generous? 13 is the modal value, using two subsets makes the one who get it 'win', and it doesn't penalise other subset too much. So Pr(13<=score<=18)=48,80%,Pr(8<=score<=12)=45,50%, not that difference; what happens if I move 13? So Pr(14<=score<=18)=35,50%,Pr(8<=score<=13)=58,50%. What does this mean? High values have less chances than low ones even “by themselves”, considering high values alone, ie without considering modal value, the scores who make Pr(8<=score<=12) that big are essentially below 13 . 2. At most, it should be argued to be neutral fairness, because the chance for positive or negative outcomes exists. These chances are not equal, no. The chance for an extremely positive result is, again, infinitely higher than the chance for an extremely negative result. The odds of rolling all 18's are very slim, but the odds of rolling all 3's, given the system, are nil. This is true even for 4d6DL(Pr(3)=0,1%, Pr(18)=1,6%), and I highlight I didn't considered value below 8 to adjust the absence of rerolling, but still the calculus I made confirm my theory, unless I'm wrong naturally. Given players who are uncreative or unresourceful, no. It's quite possible to play characters of massively different power levels in the same group, though; indeed, certain games are based around the assumption that you will. I suggest checking out Ars Magica, or perhaps Buffy the Vampire Slayer if that's more your cup of tea. No,thanks, I prefer D&D. are you saying people who find their character being useless/too weak because of their poorly rolled stats(provided they didn't require a reroll/DM used standard method) are bad players? And, more importantly, that their complains are irrelevant or not justified? I know that I said random rolling makes for more variety, and that's true; at least, nothing has been offered to disprove it. Sure, so what? Sure I do. I guess you missed the part where I mentioned the fact that I played 3d6-no-rerolls-play-them-as-they-lay for years, and am still quite willing to do so. I meant “you” as impersonal, a flaw of my English,sorry. The meaning was: if someone needs to use rerolling, bringing variety as a virtue of rolling, he's partially contradicting himself, and with too controlled rolling variety is quite reduced. Anyway you keep missing the part where I explain I don't support the statement:”Rolling deserves hell”, I support the statement:”PB has mathematical advantages over rolling”, I have already explained this means just a few things, as saying “balanced coins have 50% of giving head after being flipped” doesn't mean tossing 100 times a coin will give me 50 heads... ...which is untrue. None of a roller's hopes are false unless his grasp on reality is tenuous. He hopes that he may roll well, and he may. He fears that he may roll badly, and he may. The point some rollers make is: I don't like PB since rolling allows me to roll higher stats/help my MAD char. If what I say, rolling poorly more likely than rolling highly, is true they're supporting lotto against PB; there's nothing wrong with lotto/rolling as I already have stated, but this feature has little sense against PB. Well, I cited one in the post to which you were responding; your very first post, where you hold up 14-12-12-12-12-12 as a set of stats nobody would want to play. Those look like fine stats to me, and I'd cheerfully play them. Ack posited a similar set of stats and suggested that they're stats "No roleplayer would want to play." I was talking only from a mechanical pov, considering the condition someone put for rerolling: a character full of 12 is as much playable as one whose sum of modifiers is below 5 ,provided his scores are almost 8,10 and 12,, and a character whose sum is 7 ,arranged as 14 and 12s. Why? Classes require you to have 1 or 2 high stats , others can be mediocre/low. If your goal is balance between characters, using sum of modifiers is not enough. A character with 16 14 12 12 10 is more effective than one with 14-12s, as is 16 14 10 10 10 than 12 12 12 12 12, same sum of modifiers, different effectiveness.
Caelic 07-05-07, 03:32 PM	1)Rerolling after having got 6 scores is mentioned neither in DMG nor PHB No? REROLLING If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and roll all six scores again. Your scores are considered too low if the sum of your modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if your highest score is 13 or lower. (PHB 8) That surely seems like a mention of rerolling to me. 1.1)conditions for rerolling are not well-stated:{sum of modifier} is not enough to define balance in groups Nor is any other scheme concerning statistics. Point buy does not "define balance." At best, it creates the illusion of balance. 2)I will show you how I draw my conclusion more extensively then The point rollers make is that you have chances to get high results, right? The point I'm trying to make is that you have actually more chances to get lower ones, in short we're both considering the tails. Believe it or not, despite being an English teacher, I actually know how to run a chi square or an ANOVA. I still see nothing in your calculations that accounts for the fact that for any given set of statistics: 1. You are guaranteed at least one 14. 2. You are guaranteed that the sum of bonuses for the scores will be at least 6. You have more chance to get a low-to-average score than to get a very high one, yes. As the system is set up, though, it's extremely, extremely unlikely that you will have more low scores than mid-to-high scores. Now suppose I redefine ranges: say that right-tail is 14<=score<=18; well, it's still tricky: 14 is around the modal value, anyway let's see what I get:probability=35,50%, so higher scores have a slightly better chance than low ones, but left tail is penalised(it has 4 values, while right has got 5). Now I correct the ranges, trying to be more impartial, left-tail is 8<=score<=12,probability goes to 45,70%, now low scores have higher chances. Still no compensation for the skew to the right, at least insofar as I can see. Uh, I've already taken in account possible rerolling: I didn't consider values below 8 to belong to the curve, 7 is still possible, and I said something in previous post..bla...bla bla, anyway rerolling, which affects variance more than mean, can't cover a difference of 10%. Sounds mightily like a rule-of-thumb guesstimate on your part, rather than solid math. Can you show me the math whereby you allow for the fact that, for instance, a set with 3 stats below 10 is impossible? That a set with 5 stats below 12 is impossible? That any set with no score above 13 is impossible? This is true even for 4d6DL(Pr(3)=0,1%, Pr(18)=1,6%), and I highlight I didn't considered value below 8 to adjust the absence of rerolling, but still the calculus I made confirm my theory, unless I'm wrong naturally. Unless you have some solid math behind that decision to disregard stats of 7 or below and consider that to accurately compensate for the reroll mechanism, this reminds me a lot of the old cartoon where one of the steps in the equation reads "Then a miracle occurs..." are you saying people who find their character being useless/too weak because of their poorly rolled stats(provided they didn't require a reroll/DM used standard method) are bad players? That's what's known as a loaded question. Okay, I'll bite. To some extent, yes. I won't say that they're "bad players." I will say that, since it's possible to build a fully competitive character using the stat arrays people keep holding up as "weak," a player who cannot or will not build such a character is lacking in skill, vision, or motivation. And, more importantly, that their complains are irrelevant or not justified? It's hard for me to find someone calling a character "worthless" or "useless" justified when I know I could have taken those same stats and made a competitive character. The meaning was: if someone needs to use rerolling, bringing variety as a virtue of rolling, he's partially contradicting himself, and with too controlled rolling variety is quite reduced. ...but still infinitely higher than with PB, inasmuch as the chances of getting a stat array outside the range of the PB are positive, rather than nil. Anyway you keep missing the part where I explain I don't support the statement:”Rolling deserves hell”, I support the statement:”PB has mathematical advantages over rolling”, Nope. I haven't missed it at all; I simply dismiss most of the "mathematical advantages" you posit as having any particular relevance, on the grounds that your conclusions are based on incomplete (and therefore flawed) math. I have already explained this means just a few things, as saying “balanced coins have 50% of giving head after being flipped” doesn't mean tossing 100 times a coin will give me 50 heads... Uhm...you might want to use a phrase other than "giving head" here. It has a specific connotation in English that really isn't what you were shooting for, methinks. The point some rollers make is: I don't like PB since rolling allows me to roll higher stats/help my MAD char. ...and this is the other reason I take your claims with a large grain of salt; you keep misstating the positions of others, and thereby responding to straw men. You keep phrasing your strawman "pro-roller's" argument as if he favored rolling only because he expected it to produce many high scores. I honestly do not believe you can find a single person in this thread for whom that is an accurate summation of their position. If what I say, rolling poorly more likely than rolling highly, is true they're supporting lotto against PB; there's nothing wrong with lotto/rolling as I already have stated, but this feature has little sense against PB. Sure it does; as I have pointed out, over and over again, PB has a nonexistent chance of returning an aggregate stat value outside of its predefined range. Therefore, if I desire the possibility of an aggregate stat value outside of that predefined range, any system which provides a positive chance of attaining such, however small that chance may be, is superior to PB. Why? Classes require you to have 1 or 2 high stats , others can be mediocre/low. If your goal is balance between characters, using sum of modifiers is not enough. A character with 16 14 12 12 10 is more effective than one with 14-12s, as is 16 14 10 10 10 than 12 12 12 12 12, same sum of modifiers, different effectiveness. If your goal is balance between characters, PB is certainly not enough. If your goal is balance between characters, you shouldn't be playing D&D. Your comments here only further illustrate that PB does not guarantee "balance between characters" even in the area of stats; a player who, for whatever reason, feels obligated to go with 14 12 12 12 12 12 is, by your own words, less effective than the player who chooses to go with 16 14 12 12 10. The fact that they both had the choice of where to spend their points is an irrelevant distractor; once those points are spent, one character will be more effective than the other.
BoringInfoGuy 07-05-07, 06:12 PM	1. You are guaranteed at least one 14. 2. You are guaranteed that the sum of bonuses for the scores will be at least 6. Just want to point out that while your first point is true, the second is not. The guaranteed sum of the bonuses for the scores will be at least 1. If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and roll all six scores again. Your scores are considered too low if the sum of your modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if your highest score is 13 or lower. Sounds mightily like a rule-of-thumb guesstimate on your part, rather than solid math. Can you show me the math whereby you allow for the fact that, for instance, a set with 3 stats below 10 is impossible? That a set with 5 stats below 12 is impossible? That any set with no score above 13 is impossible? A rolled set of 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 is perfectly legal. You have the minimum score from the 14, and the sum of the total modifiers is 1, the minimum modifier needed.
Ack 07-05-07, 06:52 PM	4d6 DTL has an average, when rolled straight, of 12.24. If we take this along the most even lines, this comes out as roughly 12,12,12,12,13,12. This is an unacceptable stat array by the PHB. Quite a few minor variations on that array are also unacceptable - despite being an average set of rolls from 4d6 DTL. In fact, a set of all 13s is above average for that dice roll setup, and it's still unacceptable. In short, there are three basic sets of rolls for 4d6 DTL. 1) There are those that are below average. These are almost exclusively unacceptable by PHB rules. 2) There are those that are above average. These are almost exclusively acceptable by PHB rules. 3) There are those that are in the average range. Most of these are unacceptable by PHB rules. Given that set 1) and set 2) are of equal size, then unacceptable stat arrays outnumber acceptable stat arrays. So why do people have trouble understanding that 4d6 DTL returns less 'acceptable' stat arrays than 'stillborn' ones?
Mock26 07-05-07, 07:09 PM	4d6 DTL has an average, when rolled straight, of 12.24. If we take this along the most even lines, this comes out as roughly 12,12,12,12,13,12. This is an unacceptable stat array by the PHB. But it is only unacceptable if you assume it is a perfectly average set of rolls. Quite a few minor variations on that array are also unacceptable - despite being an average set of rolls from 4d6 DTL. In fact, a set of all 13s is above average for that dice roll setup, and it's still unacceptable. And that is why the people who created the game allow for rerolls if you get an unacceptable set of stats.
Tytalus 07-05-07, 08:10 PM	In short, there are three basic sets of rolls for 4d6 DTL. 1) There are those that are below average. These are almost exclusively unacceptable by PHB rules. 2) There are those that are above average. These are almost exclusively acceptable by PHB rules. 3) There are those that are in the average range. Most of these are unacceptable by PHB rules. Given that set 1) and set 2) are of equal size, then unacceptable stat arrays outnumber acceptable stat arrays. This is the same skewed math that makes people believe (erroneously) that to determine the PB equivalent of a 4D6-DL rolled character, you can just compute the average of a single 4D6-DL roll, calculate its PB value and multiply by 6. 4D6-DL is not a symmetric distribution. Therefore, you can't use the average of a single roll to determine anything about a set of rolls. If you run a simulation, you will see that only about 13% of all rolled characters actually qualify for a reroll.
Ack 07-06-07, 03:47 AM	This is the same skewed math that makes people believe (erroneously) that to determine the PB equivalent of a 4D6-DL rolled character, you can just compute the average of a single 4D6-DL roll, calculate its PB value and multiply by 6. 4D6-DL is not a symmetric distribution. Therefore, you can't use the average of a single roll to determine anything about a set of rolls. If you run a simulation, you will see that only about 13% of all rolled characters actually qualify for a reroll. How is it skewed? You can claim that it's skewed till the cows come home, but the facts are as follows: 1) 4d6 drop-the-lowest has an average rolled value of 12.24. 2) Multiple dice rolls tend to cluster toward the average. 3) The majority of stat arrays that average around the 12.24 mark are unacceptable via the PHB. Therefore, more stat arrays rolled on 4d6DTL will be unacceptable, and require re-rolls, than otherwise. Show how that is skewed.
Steely_Dan 07-06-07, 04:17 AM	"Okay, Mister Camel. I'm gonna add one more thing to your load. But don't worry, it's just a piece of straw. You're carrying so much already, you won't even FEEL it!" Do really believe that lifting multi-class restrictions or what have you would break the Frankenstein's Monster of a game that D&D has become?
Mock26 07-06-07, 04:36 AM	....the Frankenstein's Monster of a game that D&D has become? Bring back 2nd Edition!
Steely_Dan 07-06-07, 06:11 AM	Bring back 2nd Edition! Noooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Player's Option *shudders* But I do miss the Complete Forest Gnome Cook Handbook.
Tytalus 07-06-07, 08:20 AM	Therefore, more stat arrays rolled on 4d6DTL will be unacceptable, and require re-rolls, than otherwise. That's simply not the case. Consider what actually happens to the individual conditions when you move from single roll to entire character. E.g., the condition that "characters without a single attribute above 13" are not viable: For one 4D6-DL roll the chance to get a number less than 14 is 64.5%. For a whole character, the chance not to have a single attribute of 14 or more decreases dramatically: 7.2%. Your averages approach doesn't account for that at all. In fact, your approach gives the same numbers regardless of how many rolls there are. If you don't understand the underlying math, why don't you try a simulation?
EvilIdiot 07-06-07, 08:49 AM	Ok ,about 4d6dl with reroll. I was really confident in my analysis ,but I have to admit it was based on a simulation (none of those I've linked) me and my fellows ran years ago at school; either I recalled that wrongly or had an overflow in pseudorandom numbers generator we used. I was sure of their results, but, after running a new simulation, with C standard library's rand(),here are the results: 3 0,01 4 0,06 5 0,19 6 0,53 7 1,16 8 2,19 9 3,81 10 6,05 11 8,55 12 11,34 13 13,56 14 14,86 15 14,28 16 12,02 17 7,85 18 3,55 mean=13,43, mode=14, var=6; sample=100,000,000 so my analysis (in my first post) works only with 4d6dl; With 4d6dl-rl the probability of getting values between 16 and 18 is the almost the same of getting values below 10, so low scores have not higher chances than high, it's the opposite. No? That surely seems like a mention of rerolling to me. thanks :D I wasn't able to find it myself when I checked, but it is different from those conditions some people put for rerolling Nor is any other scheme concerning statistics. Point buy does not "define balance." At best, it creates the illusion of balance. I have already told you what "balance" PBers refer to ,and I agreed it wasn't enough to guarantee actual balance in game, haven't I? If your goal is balance between characters, PB is certainly not enough. I said that myself PB does not guarantee "balance between characters" even in the area of stats; a player who, for whatever reason, feels obligated to go with 14 12 12 12 12 12 is, by your own words, less effective than the player who chooses to go with 16 14 12 12 10. Players decide,though. Sure it does; as I have pointed out, over and over again, PB has a nonexistent chance of returning an aggregate stat value outside of its predefined range. I have pointed out, over and over, that you're right, but you're still missing the point, with 4d6DL you're playing lotto. You keep phrasing your strawman "pro-roller's" argument as if he favored rolling only because he expected it to produce many high scores. Never said only, never, neither rollers did; anyway: I like the challenge of knowing that my character might have a severe weakness and I'll have to think on my feet to find ways to overcome it. I like the possibility that my character might have a very strong stat that's not directly related to his profession or critical to him, and that I don't have to drastically reduce his effectiveness in other areas to make that happen. Now, yes higher stats always make for better SAD classes than they would for a MAD class, but players don't always want to powergame to the nth degree, some of them actually prefer to make characters and roleplay. A person that rolls a high set while everyone else rolls decent sets could always make the super powerful SAD character, and that would be fine. If he's being a jerk about it, then he's just as immature as those who whine about his stats being better (both of which would be a ticket out of my games, I dealt with that enough in high school when I only had handful of people to game with), or he could always opt for a MAD class which, with his higher set, will most likely be around the same effectiveness. Point Buy doesn't allow for this chance. Now, yes both systems arn't kind to MAD classes, but Rolling does allow for a MAD class to be played on equal footing with a SAD class. Second at Evil, you continue to claim that rolling does not help with a chance at getting multiple high stats, and of course claim you've proven this. The claim from the rollers was never that you have a superior chance of ALWAYS rolling high stats. It was that it gives you a better chance of getting higher stats than PB does. Admittedly, random stats aren't much better, but if you do happen to roll high stats it gives you the option to play a more diverse character, whereas Point Buy forces you to be somewhat single-minded and follow a more narrow path I'd like to make my apologyzes to those people I've quoted their old posts, I don't mean to say they're "wrong", I know there are some PBers who say:"Ah, you like rolling 'cos you're an evil powergamer who wants uberstats", that's not my point, as I have stated many times. If your goal is balance between characters, PB is certainly not enough. Balance is rerolling's goal, I believe, and that was the point. If your goal is balance between characters, PB is certainly not enough. Again that advice, no thanks.
Tytalus 07-06-07, 09:50 AM	mean=13,43, mode=14, var=6; sample=100,000,000 There seems to be a mistake. The mean is 12.24. See here (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-758484), or here (http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://sullivan.pgh.pa.us/~ksulliva/ralph/dnd-stats.html), for example.
Leilond 07-06-07, 10:58 AM	I think one is talking about 4d6 reroll and the other about 4d6 drop lowest
Leilond 07-06-07, 11:02 AM	A person that rolls a high set while everyone else rolls decent sets could always make the super powerful SAD character, and that would be fine. If he's being a jerk about it, then he's just as immature as those who whine about his stats being better (both of which would be a ticket out of my games, I dealt with that enough in high school when I only had handful of people to game with), or he could always opt for a MAD class which, with his higher set, will most likely be around the same effectiveness. Point Buy doesn't allow for this chance. Now, yes both systems arn't kind to MAD classes, but Rolling does allow for a MAD class to be played on equal footing with a SAD class. Never had any problem to play very effective MAD characters with 28 point buy... pharaps the problem is that YOU are not able to play them without 18 to all stats Admittedly, random stats aren't much better, but if you do happen to roll high stats it gives you the option to play a more diverse character, whereas Point Buy forces you to be somewhat single-minded and follow a more narrow path I really don't understand why you say that PB make you play "single-minded", like stats are related with the character concept at all Stats are there only for game mechanics, and you can access and play every character with a 28 (32 if you like strong) PB If you're not able it is a your problem, not a PB problem, because we can I'm not saying rolling is BAD. I'm saying tha it isn't better than PB. It is only a matter of personal preference But the fact that usually, the players that "like" rolling always blame when they roll not super, make me think
Caelic 07-06-07, 11:51 AM	Never had any problem to play very effective MAD characters with 28 point buy... pharaps the problem is that YOU are not able to play them without 18 to all stats ...which probably means that you're a fairly skilled player. Congratulations! Which also means that you no doubt recognize that classes like Paladin and Monk, while cool, tend to lag behind other classes in terms of power already--certainly behind classes like Druid and Wizard. No? So what to do with a relatively new player who would like to play those classes, but lacks your skill? What to do when the need to juggle many important stats (while someone else in the party just sinks most of his points into Wisdom and says "I'm a Druid") results in a character who is okay at everything, but not great at anything? What happens when he gets frustrated at watching the Druid or the Wizard consistently do one thing very well, and says, "Heck with this, Monk is no fun, I'm gonna play something else from now on?" Therein lies my concern. I didn't say you can't play a Monk on a 28 PB; I said that PB, especially low PB, discourages such play. And, frankly, Monks need all the encouragement they can get. I really don't understand why you say that PB make you play "single-minded", like stats are related with the character concept at all Well, they should be, at least to some extent. If you want to play a clever, resourceful character who constantly solves riddles and puzzles, you really shouldn't make Intelligence a dump stat. If you have a 5 Charisma, you shouldn't constantly jump up into a position of leadership and play diplomat (unless you're shooting for comic relief.) Your stats shouldn't necessarily define your concept, but your concept should take your stats into account. Whether that's accomplished by creating a concept and then buying stats to match, or by rolling stats and then working them into a concept, is a matter of personal taste.
J_Vhad 07-06-07, 12:00 PM	Never had any problem to play very effective MAD characters with 28 point buy... pharaps the problem is that YOU are not able to play them without 18 to all stats I'm just going to be nice and assume the problem here is that you havn't read through the entire thread. Which is understandable since it's 20 pages long now, but if you're going to argue a point it is at least required to show proof of you point. Most of the point buy supporters have even realized that a MAD character is not as effective in PB as a SAD character. They just blame it on a problem of the classes rather than the generation method. It is a problem with the class system, but the generation system must take that into account. The point crash was trying to make is as follows. The rolling system doesn't take away this problem and is flawed, but, the PB system compounds the problem by cutting a chance of evenes into no chance of eveness. Again if you wish to disagree, provide reasoning proof. I can wag my finger and say the something to the effect of "You're wrong" as well, but without anything supporting it the point would be rather...pointless. I really don't understand why you say that PB make you play "single-minded", like stats are related with the character concept at all Stats are there only for game mechanics, and you can access and play every character with a 28 (32 if you like strong) PB If you're not able it is a your problem, not a PB problem, because we can I'm not saying rolling is BAD. I'm saying tha it isn't better than PB. It is only a matter of personal preference But the fact that usually, the players that "like" rolling always blame when they roll not super, make me think Stats are related directly to the character concept. If you have a charisma of 4 and are the everyone loves me party person, then you are not playing a character with a charisma of 4. If you are playing a fighter with an intelligence of 8 and solving advanced calculus problems, then you are not playing the fighter with an 8 intelligence. I believe what you are trying to say is, "Well if PB doesn't work for you then just metagame like crazy," but some of us don't like that route. We like to actually play the characters on our sheets, and no, PB does not allow for as many character concepts (without extreme metagaming of course) as rolling does. Again, see rest of the thread for details. I'm not really sure what you were trying to say in the last bit, was it that rollers always whine about rolling bad? If so then I again urge you to read the rest of the thread before posting, and you'll see that horse has been beaten to death about 18 times, please don't try to raise it again. Immaturity is not a problem of the system is a problem of players. I have met just as many people unwilling to play low point buys as I have unwilling to take a low set of scores. They don't play in my games. The original point was that point buy is not any more fair than rolling, and infact is less so if any of you players ever desire to play MAD classes. The very foundation that it's "fairness" is built upon breaks down the moment classes are chosen unless they are all SAD classes. This is unfair to players, because it penalizes people wishing to play MAD classes and unique character concepts. "Oh but you can play the inspiring general with a Charisma of 8." (that would be an example of your suggestion) Yes, because Leadership works so well with a Charisma of 8 right? and so many people will actually listen to you. The problem with PB is that the MAD classes only tend to be even in effectiveness when most if not all their stats are at the same level as a SAD classes main stat. Even if they are even, or ahead, in character generation this still causes them to fall behind fast as magic items are handed out in the game and ability points are awarded for levels, because they have to spread out resources so much. It's just basic logic that they are less effective. Add in them starting with lower scores and it really should be a no brainer. That said, if you're want supposed fairness, isn't the elite array fairer than PB? Everyone actually starts out with the same scores +/- racials.
Mock26 07-06-07, 01:28 PM	Noooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Player's Option *shudders* But I do miss the Complete Forest Gnome Cook Handbook. The various Options books weren't that bad. But, they were optional. I think it funny that quite a bit of info from the Options books were incorporated into 3rd edition! As for the various Handbooks, they are no better nor no worse than all the various splatbooks that are now being put out. I definitely think that there are a lot of flaws in 2nd edition, but I think that 2nd edition with fair and intelligent DM is just as good if not better than playing 3e with just an average DM. And, TSR didn't put out 2nd edition and then almost immediately turn around and put out 2.5ed edition! /derailing
Mock26 07-06-07, 01:39 PM	Never mind, accidental double post.
EvilIdiot 07-06-07, 01:42 PM	There seems to be a mistake. The mean is 12.24. It's quite hard to keep track of what method everyone write about. In my first post I considered 4d6DL, in last one I considered 4d6- reroll lowest-drop lowest
Ack 07-06-07, 06:43 PM	It appears that I owe some apologies, to Tytalus in particular. I'm still not able to see how it works, but when I ran a spreadsheet with ten thousand stat arrays randomly generating every time I refreshed the sheet, I did indeed get an "acceptable" quotient that ran very close to 87% of the total number of arrays. Using the same set of arrays, I also did a very simple brute-force calculation. I found the stat average for each array, and then averaged them across the entire number of viable arrays. I refreshed the sheet fifteen times, and found the average stat each time. Then I averaged those numbers. My end result, which I believe to be very close to the actual 'average' stat you will get by rolling 4d6 DTL and rejecting PHB-'unacceptable' arrays: 12.5 (Well, actually, it comes to 12.503 or so, but 12.5 is close enough :P). Whew.
Tytalus 07-06-07, 06:43 PM	It's quite hard to keep track of what method everyone write about. In my first post I considered 4d6DL, in last one I considered 4d6- reroll lowest-drop lowest Ah, I see. I was thrown off by this statement after the actual numbers: so my analysis works only with 4d6dl;
navar100 07-07-07, 04:33 AM	The various Options books weren't that bad. But, they were optional. I think it funny that quite a bit of info from the Options books were incorporated into 3rd edition! As for the various Handbooks, they are no better nor no worse than all the various splatbooks that are now being put out. I definitely think that there are a lot of flaws in 2nd edition, but I think that 2nd edition with fair and intelligent DM is just as good if not better than playing 3e with just an average DM. And, TSR didn't put out 2nd edition and then almost immediately turn around and put out 2.5ed edition! /derailing (minor derail) The worst offender is the feat Persistent Spell. :D Actually, the original Player's Option version wasn't so bad. It was a 5th level spell called Persistancy. You cast some spell with a duration then cast Persistancy. For the next 24 hours you get to use that spell but up to its normal duration only. You can choose when you no longer use it then use it again if you still had duration left. Example: You are a 9th level caster who casts Foo which has a duration of 1 round per level. Thus, Foo lasts 9 rounds. You cast Persistancy on it and elect not to activate Foo. You do not benefit from Foo in any way. 2 hours later, during which time you do not benefit from Foo, you are in an encounter and want to activate Foo. You do so. After three rounds, you no longer want to use Foo. You stop benefiting from Foo. You only have 6 rounds left of Foo at your disposal. 5 hours later, during which time you do not benefit from Foo, you are in another encounter. You activate Foo. It's a tough encounter and keep Foo through out. Since you only have 6 rounds left, you only benefit from Foo for 6 rounds. It ends at round 7. 30 minutes later, during which time you do not benefit from Foo, you are in another encounter. You have no more Foo duration left. You cannot activate Foo. You do not benefit from Foo. I think this version would make for a nice Feat. It can go back to a +4 level cost and need not be limited to personal or fixed range spells. 7th level clerics could not abuse DMM Persistent Divine Power because they'd only have 7 rounds worth of it for the entire day. If they activate it, using a swift action, yet do something besides attacking, such as casting a spell, that round is used up and counts against the duration. The Feat balances against Quicken Spell in the sense that Quicken can be used on instantaneous duration spells, for which this feat cannot, and Quicken does not have a prerequisite for which Extend Spell can still be a prerequisite for this version of Persistent Spell.
EvilIdiot 07-07-07, 06:05 AM	So what to do with a relatively new player who would like to play those classes, but lacks your skill? How much skilled should he be? The group is either made of all newbies, having high chances of playing all the characters in an "inefficient" way*, or there's at least one experienced player who can give them some advices; there are forums and other players outside group as well. A newbie can put rolls(which he can't decide) wrongly as well as points. If you mean that in a group newbies don't get advices from experienced players ,for whatever reason, I'd say the problem is within the group, not the system. *SAD classes,especially casters are easier to play efficiently,if you choose spells correctly, and, anyway, SAD is always more powerful than MAD, isn't it? What happens when he gets frustrated at watching the Druid or the Wizard consistently do one thing very well, and says, "Heck with this, Monk is no fun, I'm gonna play something else from now on?" Therein lies my concern. I didn't say you can't play a Monk on a 28 PB; I said that PB, especially low PB, discourages such play. And, frankly, Monks need all the encouragement they can get. Even with 4d6-dl-rl you have more chances of getting 1 high roll than 2, as it should be of course. 4d6-dl-rl is skewed toward right, ok, but this is true for both wizards and monks; whenever you have higher chances to get 1 high roll, it is true for all the classes. PB is self-balancing so: 1) you have a really low-powered campaign with lower bases, where MAD is gimped as it is in such a campaign 2) you can increase bases without worrying about uber/unbalancing power
StevenO 07-07-07, 02:35 PM	... Most of the point buy supporters have even realized that a MAD character is not as effective in PB as a SAD character. They just blame it on a problem of the classes rather than the generation method. It is a problem with the class system, but the generation system must take that into account. The point crash was trying to make is as follows. The rolling system doesn't take away this problem and is flawed, but, the PB system compounds the problem by cutting a chance of evenes into no chance of eveness. Again if you wish to disagree, provide reasoning proof. . With point buy a SAD character has to pay more to get that little extra to their "important" stat which is were a MAD character can make up the difference. As has been shown before just boosting a 16 to an 18 uses up as many points as boosting three sub 13 scores up +2 points EACH. That +1 bonus can often be negated with three other +1 to different stats with both costing the same. Rolling systems may not remove the preceived problem of MAD vs SAD and while it can give those MAD characters a better set of stats it can also work the other way and widen the gap. As long as you aren't dealing with low (less than 28 to me) PB it is usually more beneficial to a MAD character who actually want balanced scores as opposed to one very high score. ... The original point was that point buy is not any more fair than rolling, and infact is less so if any of you players ever desire to play MAD classes. The very foundation that it's "fairness" is built upon breaks down the moment classes are chosen unless they are all SAD classes. This is unfair to players, because it penalizes people wishing to play MAD classes and unique character concepts. ... The problem with PB is that the MAD classes only tend to be even in effectiveness when most if not all their stats are at the same level as a SAD classes main stat. Even if they are even, or ahead, in character generation this still causes them to fall behind fast as magic items are handed out in the game and ability points are awarded for levels, because they have to spread out resources so much. It's just basic logic that they are less effective. Add in them starting with lower scores and it really should be a no brainer. That said, if you're want supposed fairness, isn't the elite array fairer than PB? Everyone actually starts out with the same scores +/- racials. MAD classes generally do NOT require the same stat levels in several abilities as a SAD character to be just as effective. Often the benefit of MAD types is that they use several things to aid something that a SAD class only uses once. Using PB a Paladin's 12 in CON, DEX, WIS, and CHA will yield the same save bonus as other classes having a 14 in each save governing ability and advancing only one stat improves all the saves instead of just one. Although you can run into problems with item slots a MAD class can take multiple lesser items and combine them better than a SAD class can use those same items. As for the Elite Array being fairer than PB I certainly don't think so. It is simply how PB 25 would yield the most universally acceptable stat array. If a character wants a single very high score (although 15 is good enough for virtually all purposes) they should have that option but realize that attempting to exploit a high stat leaves them open to attacks defended by other stats. Similiarly, some character may want to get to most from those points which usually means trading that 15 down to a 14 but gaining and additional two points for other stats.
Caelic 07-07-07, 04:27 PM	MAD classes generally do NOT require the same stat levels in several abilities as a SAD character to be just as effective. Often the benefit of MAD types is that they use several things to aid something that a SAD class only uses once. Using PB a Paladin's 12 in CON, DEX, WIS, and CHA will yield the same save bonus as other classes having a 14 in each save governing ability and advancing only one stat improves all the saves instead of just one. ...of course, said Paladin is not going to be as effective at hitting and doing damage as that fighter with the 16 Strength and Constitution. Nor will he be able to take the same degree of punishment. The Monk has a similar problem. By dividing his points between Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, he may wind up with the same AC bonus as someone with a high Dex...but he's not going to be particularly impressive when it comes to dealing or taking punishment.
Caelic 07-07-07, 04:35 PM	How much skilled should he be? The group is either made of all newbies, having high chances of playing all the characters in an "inefficient" way*, or there's at least one experienced player who can give them some advices; Advice is lovely. Advice is not skill. I am not a skilled piano player; I am not going to become a skilled piano player simply because a skilled piano player offers me advice. It'll help some, but it's going to take long practice for me to actually get good at it. In game terms, the skilled piano player and I are sitting down to play a duet. Despite his advice to me, he's still going to blow me away when we both start playing. A newbie can put rolls(which he can't decide) wrongly as well as points. Maybe so, but it's pretty easy to say "Okay, I'm a fighter. My highest two rolls should be Strength and Constitution." Certainly easier than calculating the cost-benefit ratios of investing X points into Strength. Even with 4d6-dl-rl you have more chances of getting 1 high roll than 2, as it should be of course. 4d6-dl-rl is skewed toward right, ok, but this is true for both wizards and monks; whenever you have higher chances to get 1 high roll, it is true for all the classes. But (as I've pointed out many, many times before) your chances of getting multiple high scores are infinitely higher with die rolling than with most forms of point buy. PB is self-balancing so: 1) you have a really low-powered campaign with lower bases, where MAD is gimped as it is in such a campaign 2) you can increase bases without worrying about uber/unbalancing power People keep insisting that PB is self-balancing; what, exactly, does that mean? We've already agreed that it's basically meaningless in terms of game play; a Druid with a 28 point buy is more powerful than a Monk with a 28 point buy. A fighter with a 28 point buy in the hands of a skilled player is more powerful than a fighter with a 28 point buy in the hands of an unskilled player. The only thing point buy does, as far as I can see, is that it quells the jealousy of players who like to compare their stats to those of the other characters.
Ack 07-07-07, 04:53 PM	Point buy also allows two people (one skilled, one unskilled) to sit down side by side and have the skilled person coach the unskilled one as to where to put his points. In simplest option, he can just say, "Okay, put your points where I did." :D
Ack 07-07-07, 04:58 PM	Oh, and in case anyone missed it (it was several posts back) the value I have calculated for the average stat in 4d6 DTL (for acceptable stat arrays only) is 12.503.
StevenO 07-07-07, 05:59 PM	...of course, said Paladin is not going to be as effective at hitting and doing damage as that fighter with the 16 Strength and Constitution. Nor will he be able to take the same degree of punishment. The Monk has a similar problem. By dividing his points between Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, he may wind up with the same AC bonus as someone with a high Dex...but he's not going to be particularly impressive when it comes to dealing or taking punishment. This is definitely going to be true of PB but is a Paladin supposed to be as effective as a fighter? Hit said superior fighter with a WILL save and his fight will be over while the Paladin makes his save and keeps going. If both classes are given the same set of stats to work with (instead of just PB) they can be very similiar in fighting effectiveness but the Paladin gives up much of it versatility with lower stats but with higher stats swings past the fighter's usefulness. As for a Monk needing to spread out points but not ending up with a high damage output that is easily a class problem. If damage output as the only measure of a character the monk certainly has problems but it in other areas that it shines. For Ack's 4d6 drop lowest average of 12.5 that would equal a PB 27 (nothing over 14) to 40 (18,18,15,8x3) although it should definely average on the lower end of that.
Caelic 07-07-07, 06:47 PM	This is definitely going to be true of PB but is a Paladin supposed to be as effective as a fighter? Hit said superior fighter with a WILL save and his fight will be over while the Paladin makes his save and keeps going. ...unless, of course, the fighter takes advantage of his less MAD nature by selecting feats which add value to his high stats...Steadfast Determination, say. That's one major point against the "MAD characters gain more benefits from more stats" argument: it's quite possible to add value to a single stat. A few levels of Swashbuckler allow a character to add Int to damage; a level of Battlesmith adds Wisdom to damage; Steadfast Determination lets a character use his Con modifier for Will saves, while Deepwarden lets him use it for his AC. With appropriate feat selection, he can quite possibly get as many benefits from one stat as the MAD character does from 3. The MAD character could take those same feats, but would benefit from them less, since each of his stats will be lower. If both classes are given the same set of stats to work with (instead of just PB) they can be very similiar in fighting effectiveness but the Paladin gives up much of it versatility with lower stats but with higher stats swings past the fighter's usefulness. I'm not convinced that he "swings past the fighter's usefulness" with higher stats, but he's certainly closer to comparable. As for a Monk needing to spread out points but not ending up with a high damage output that is easily a class problem. If damage output as the only measure of a character the monk certainly has problems but it in other areas that it shines. I must confess to being curious as to where those areas are.
BoringInfoGuy 07-08-07, 01:54 AM	MAD classes generally do NOT require the same stat levels in several abilities as a SAD character to be just as effective. Often the benefit of MAD types is that they use several things to aid something that a SAD class only uses once. Using PB a Paladin's 12 in CON, DEX, WIS, and CHA will yield the same save bonus as other classes having a 14 in each save governing ability and advancing only one stat improves all the saves instead of just one. Although you can run into problems with item slots a MAD class can take multiple lesser items and combine them better than a SAD class can use those same items. I've pointed this out before, but apparently must comment again. Yes, a paladin's charisma score adds to all of his saving throws. However, that does not mean that a paladin needs less Dex, Con, or Wis. Dex, aside from granting a bonus to Reflex saves, also gives helps with ranged attack rolls, AC bonus, initiative, and skills like Ride. Con, aside from granting a bonus to Fortitude saves, also gives the extra HP that is vital for front line combatant like the Paladin. Wisdom, aside from granting a bonus to Willpower saves, also grants the Paladin access to his spells, and helps with skills like sense motive. So. . . A paladin with low Dex is easier to hit at low levels before he can afford better armor. A paladin with low Con can takes fewer hits without being killed. A paladin with low Wis is easy to sneak up on, so can often be attacked before he's ready. Not to mention that he is easily tricked. This is true regardless of the charisma bonus to saving throws. Now, it may appear that a fighter would have the same problems. However by being able to focus most of his points into Str and Con, he can afford to take the extra hits from his low dex and wis, while his higher Str means that he will defeat foes faster. The faster a foe drops the less hits the fighter takes. This is before taking a fighter's bonus feats into account. Look at the simpler example. A paladin also gets to add his Cha mod to his Smite attack roll. A paladin who has a +1 STR mod and a +2 Cha mod may have the same chance to hit as an equal level fighter with a +3 STR mod. For a single attack. Which could still miss. Add in the factor that Smite attacks are often saved for more powerful creatures with higher AC, it's even less likely to hit. The fighter gets the better attack roll each attack. And the better base damage per attack. For the paladin to have a good chance to actually hit with his smite attacks, he needs to have a decent Str score to start with, and a good Cha score on top of it for the Cha bonus to make a difference. +2, +2 is a good minimum. Yes, you can try to smite with lower scores, but what good is a smite that misses it's mark? With a standard 25 PB, that's almost half your resources right there. So your minimum useful score is probably at or above your maximum spending limit. So, yeah, a paladin can get a cloak of charisma, and get a bonus to his saves and smite attacks all in one go. But that does just about nothing to negate him wanting separate items to improve his Str, Dex, Con, Int and Wis. Every attribute is important to the Paladin.
Ace_of_time 07-08-07, 04:30 AM	Ok here is what I'll do. I'll roll each way 100 times and then average them out. Once on the table and once online at wizards dice roller and post each one whenn I'm done.:) Ok I used three different colored dice but they are made out of the same stuff and made the same way. Green/red/blue 366/328/365 total 3.66/3.28/3.65 Average Common rolls 1:13/25/15 2:18/14/21 3:14/14/9 4:13/15/15 5:15/14/13 6:24/16/26 Common scores Number rolled/how many times 3/0 4/3 5/2 6/1 7/8 8/12 9/12 10/14 11/9 12/9 13/7 14/8 15/3 16/6 17/1 18/2 average scores by top number of times rolled 7,8,9,10,11,12 or 8,9,10,11,12,14 I'm sick so will not do online. I'll do 4d6 next.
EvilIdiot 07-08-07, 08:02 AM	Advice is lovely. Advice is not skill. I am not a skilled piano player; I am not going to become a skilled piano player simply because a skilled piano player offers me advice. It'll help some, but it's going to take long practice for me to actually get good at it. Once I learned to play clarinet, but I wasn't that good and I left, however I can play d&d, I believe generating a character is easier than playing piano... In game terms, the skilled piano player and I are sitting down to play a duet. Despite his advice to me, he's still going to blow me away when we both start playing. Especially if he knows what items/spells/feat to take. Maybe so, but it's pretty easy to say "Okay, I'm a fighter. My highest two rolls should be Strength and Constitution." Certainly easier than calculating the cost-benefit ratios of investing X points into Strength. How much easier? But (as I've pointed out many, many times before) your chances of getting multiple high scores are infinitely higher with die rolling than with most forms of point buy. Sure People keep insisting that PB is self-balancing; What I personally mean as 'self-balancing'* is the ability to contain character's "power" (in stats at least)(high stats cost more than low ones) , even after having added a few points to the base. "balance" here is just numerical In short: PB25 doesn't make your character uber-powerful compared to PB22 * I think I'm the one who use that term,I took that from data structure theory (self-balancing trees) We've already agreed that it's basically meaningless in terms of game play "balance in stats" not enough to assure balance in game; "unbalance in stat" probably enough to assure unbalance in game, it isn't meaningless, just not enough.