Stats, PC's and the effect on a Campaign

[Hackenslash]

Not deliberately tring to create Super Characters....Honest !!!!

To Conaill - From experience with my group, they like having at least one "18". So, I am just tring to make it possible for a character to get one "18" at least, so that they feel that the character has reached a certain pinacle of development and has a defining characteristic earlier on, leaving them to explore other avenues of development. Plus it gives the character a hero like status immediately and hence encourages them to tressure this "special" character. I have never used a point system before in my other campaigns and have left it soley to chance and that has generated argurements and frustration in other characters being luckier with rolls than others, but if the point system is not geared to at least creating one "18" then characters may feel that they could do better if they had rolled the dice and took their chances. It's a fine line that I am playing with, I realise that but I am just tring to be fair to the characters. Maybe I will lower the points by a couple to say 36 or 35 and do a few more practice characters but I think it should be ok. Plus, I will tweak the campaign encounters according to how strong the PC's are at 1st level. Cheers for all the advice and suggestions.

 

[Hackenslash]

Good Point Harold....but !!!!

To Harold : I quite like that idea, as everybody has the same stats and no one gets left behind due to poor dice rolling but does it not get stagnant with everybody being almost identical in statistics ? I might go for something like that in my next campaign with another group, but would make the extra points a random 1d4 to add a little spice to the process. What do you think ?

 

[Conaill]

Re: Not deliberately tring to create Super Characters....Honest !!!!

From experience with my group, they like having at least one "18". So, I am just tring to make it possible for a character to get one "18" at least, so that they feel that the character has reached a certain pinacle of development and has a defining characteristic earlier on, leaving them to explore other avenues of development. Plus it gives the character a hero like status immediately and hence encourages them to tressure this "special" character.

Sounds like you have a bunch of players who are still stuck in a 2e mindset. Why they think that it's "better" to play a game where everyone has an 18 than one where everyone has a 16 is beyond me, but if it keeps your players happy...

What sort of dice rolls were you using before this? 5d6-drop2? 4d6 reroll 1s and 2s?

If the main goal is psychological, here's a dice method your players may like: 4d6-drop-lowest, generate 2 (or more) sets and pick the best. It turns out that rolling an extra set of stats actually has less effect on the point total than rolling 5d6 or rerolling 1's. But players tend to like it because it *feels* like it's a lot more powerful.

Plus, I will tweak the campaign encounters according to how strong the PC's are at 1st level.

If you increase the CR of their encounters, just make sure you don't give them XP as ifthey're only first level, because then they'll probably progress a lot faster than what's considered standard. That's why I'm suggesting to assign them an ECL +1. Whether you tell them that you're using that ECL to calculate encounter CR and XP is up to you...

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Not deliberately tring to create Super Characters....Honest !!!!

Maybe I will lower the points by a couple to say 36 or 35 and do a few more practice characters but I think it should be ok. Plus, I will tweak the campaign encounters according to how strong the PC's are at 1st level. Cheers for all the advice and suggestions.

IME (I did the same thing and started my campaign at 36 point buy because I wanted to get the kind of stats I was used to in 2e), 36 points is still equivalent to +1 ECL. And, although you can tweak the campaign encounters according to the PCs' strength, doing so will probably make for a more deadly and less forgiving campaign than a lower point buy would. The reason for this is that, like ECL races, high stat characters tend to have significantly more offense than is normal for their level but only slightly more defense. So, tweaking encounters to deal with the PCs' offense gives the bad guys a much higher offense (if you use higher CR creatures) or many more hacks at them (if you just increase hit points or use more creatures). Either way, it's probably fine when the dice favor the PCs or are average, but if luck abandons the PCs, heads will roll much more quickly than they would in a non-toned up campaign.

 

[Harold as a Verb]

Re: Good Point Harold....but !!!!

To Harold : I quite like that idea, as everybody has the same stats and no one gets left behind due to poor dice rolling but does it not get stagnant with everybody being almost identical in statistics ? I might go for something like that in my next campaign with another group, but would make the extra points a random 1d4 to add a little spice to the process. What do you think ?

We haven't found a lack of diversity or spice a problem, although I guess some groups might. And if you are someone who really loves the random factor, then I doubt our humble system is very appropriate. As a group though, we really like our way ... it's one of the few fortunate things have a complete consensus about.

NB: All this is before racial modifiers, so that adds some variety, and also adds quite a lot to the thoughtful decisions that have do be made about making the character. (It seems that sometimes having a simple, but quite restricted system can make the character creation process more demanding in terms of the few-but-vital decisions that have to be made.) Regardless, we end up with the characters we want to play and enjoy playing (we use the FR setting, btw), and (e.g.) Valettan the Aasimar Bard/Harper Scout really does look very different to T'Karask the Human (Bedine) Barbarian/Sorcerer ( !).

Re: using +1d4 instead; as we don't use weighted buy with the extra points this *might* be too much (although that is campaign dependent). It doesn't strike me as a good thing to have a basic, core level 1 character with a single potential attribute of 21 (15 +4 extra +2 (from race) for example) or more, but YMMV as they say. In a slightly higher-powered campaign I might suggest something along the lines of +2d2 extra points, but any one attribute may only recieve up to an additional 2 points from the pool of extra points (ie, prior to racial modifiers).
(Perhaps?)

I'm just thinking out loud, really.

 

[Conaill]

Re: Good Point Harold....but !!!!

does it not get stagnant with everybody being almost identical in statistics ?

I keep hearing that argument. "Cookie-cutter characters". Fact is, they're only as much cookie-cutter as they play them. If two players play their PCs identical (or one player always plays the same character, no matter what's on the paper), changing some numbers on their character sheet isn't likely to change anything...

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Re: Good Point Harold....but !!!!

I'll second that. I showed up to my first Living Arcanis table with a first level Val (human with divine blood--no feat, a few special abilities) barbarian Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 10. The guy across the table from me was also starting a character--first level human barbarian with nearly the exact same stats (he had a 10 int and a 12 charisma). But the characters? Nothing alike. And I don't think anyone who's played with both of them would think of them as "cookie cutter" despite their similar stats. (They've developed quite differently too and so at 7th level, I imagine my character looks very different from the other one).

For that matter, it might be worth comparing my main Living Greyhawk character with another one.
My character:
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 10
his
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 10

Both first level lawful (one neutral, one good) human fighters with (I believe--I never played with his character) Dodge, Power Attack, and Cleave. Both of them Pholtans too. (I used to live in the area that corresponds to the Theocracy of the Pale in Living Greyhawk). Mechanically, they looked very similar at first level. But nobody would mistake one for the other. And now that they're both 8th to 11th level, mechanically they look nothing alike.

Cookie cutter characters are a problem of creativity and intent; stats have very little to do with it. ("I'm a lawful good human fighter with a 14 strength" is not a character concept; "I'm a peasant farmer's eldest son from a small town who ran out of money and had to get a job guarding a caravan before he could complete his magical studies" or "I'm a loyal citizen of the Theocracy from a long line of soldiers carrying on the family tradition" are character concepts).

I keep hearing that argument. "Cookie-cutter characters". Fact is, they're only as much cookie-cutter as they play them. If two players play their PCs identical (or one player always plays the same character, no matter what's on the paper), changing some numbers on their character sheet isn't likely to change anything...

 

[Hackenslash]

Appreciations and understanding !!!

Hello again all,

Well there certainly seems to be some thought put into all this character creation process by all of you, and thanks for shareing. While I appreciate character concepts, min/maxing and understand game mechanics and the need for balance in game play. I am still just tring to be fair to the players and let them have the opportunity to play the character of their dreams, whilst still maintaining a modicum of balance and avoid statistc overkill. I understand why DM's are wary of the stero typical PC wanting high stats all the time to properly play the concept of the character they have created but, that still does not change the fact that DnD has some mathematical basics and that does not always translate to the PC's idea of what there character should be like. It's all well and good saying that you are this all conquering hero and spells just bounce off you, but if your stats don't relfect this, in even a moderate way, then really you are not gonna be successfull in playing that concept, unless of course it's humorous and an intentional dillusional act on the part of the PC. I think I will stick with my last posted method and just see how it goes. I hope it works, but if it doesn't well I can always re-adjust the system and I am still DM and there are always Death knights and Power Word Kill Spells...hehehehe Peace all

 

[Codragon]

Linear point buy is OK

Not sure if its too late......

Try one-for-one point buy with 76 points. Before racial modifiers, of course.

Players will MIN-MAX no matter what you do. Let them create the characters of their dreams, and all that....

combos possible

18 18 14 10 10 6

16 15 15 10 10 10

17 17 12 10 10 10


Rolling stats is admittedly fun., but is result in differently balanced characters, esp. when people roll very luckily/unluckily. I recommend some form of point-buy at the very least.