Fighter, Rogue, Blaster, Healer . . . Balanced?

[Dozen]

BTW, a lot of pen and paper rpg players loathe using the term "toon" or "avatar" to describe your player character. Too much infusion of CRPG terminology into "real" (in their minds) rpgs. Just FYI, in case you weren't aware.

I wasn't. Will keep in mind. Thanks.

You seem to be arguing that choosing a different array than the optimal is a Bad Choice ("from Chaotic Stupid to downright suicidal"). Yet, in my campaign, which is high-lethality and high-combat, pcs with rolled stats manage to triumph even when they don't match up with the 'best choice array'.

So stat generation is a playstyle choice, not one of right and wrong.

You are completely right. What I don't understand is why are you telling me this when I essentially said the same thing, though I have a guess.

What you (apparently) misunderstood is that I'm dubbing unconventional stat arrays stupid because they are bad choices. I do not. I'm calling them stupid because of Occam's Razor. One one hand, we have:

1. An aspirer improving their abilities based on their preferences and born talents, who then may
2. Succeed with their training and live the so called 'American Dream'(IIRC what that is an euphemism for), in our case through adventuring.

And on the other, we have:

1. An aspirer who trained willy-nilly, chose the wrong line of training, is just plain bad at what they want to do, or didn't even want to become what they turned out to be, who
2. Either can't see the futility of achieving their goal, or don't care, and
3. Also ignore everyone or everything who suggests to cut the crap out and try something else, in quite a lot of cases monsters and suffering included, but
4. Still live long enough to achieve their goals just as a well rounded person would.


Now, I'm not saying it cannot happen. This is fiction, this kind of stuff happens all the time, and it makes a good story. Sometimes the PCs are forced into the fray. Sometimes they answer a call or keep a promise. But they don't know they are in a story. So on the off chance they are given a choice, why would your character put up with that torture when it's optional? When they could just walk away without consequence? Simple. It's because your character is either dumb, or doesn't have any sense of self-preservation whatsoever. Gods forbid, it could be both. Might as well dump their Int and Wis into oblivion to keep them realistic.

I'm a live example of the same. Case in point: if I was any wise, I wouldn't spend all this time arguing with a stranger over a game on the internet or brag about how bad I am at something just for the giggles. I'm smart enough to realize I likely won't get any good out of it, but I couldn't care less. And If I haven't deliberately thought about this, I would never have noticed. Frankly, I'm an idiot. ¯\_(-.-)_/¯

This line of discussion started when you asked JRRN why he dislikes point buy. You asked, he answered.

O-kaaaay... And your reason for telling me this is? The only one I can think of is that you assume I channel hostility towards him with harsh words. In that case, you assume right, and I will apologize for it if it proves to have been for naught and admit defeat if my argument turns out to be false. Until then, it's fair game.

 

[JamesonCourage]

1. An aspirer who trained willy-nilly, chose the wrong line of training, is just plain bad at what they want to do, or didn't even want to become what they turned out to be

Is this the rolled character? Because, I'd point out that most people that roll for stats (like my group) tend to roll stats, then pick class. So, you're still relatively good at your role most of the time. Sure, I have a 16 Str, but I have a 16 Int, and I went Wizard, not Fighter. I'm still going to be a good Wizard, but I also happen to be strong, too. And that unexpected variety is nice.

I think your premise for rolled stats is wrong. But that's as it applies to my group, which has a bottom threshold on rolling. For people that say "play what you roll, not matter how low", it might prove more true. Or, I guess, for people that roll for class, too. As always, play what you like

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm calling them stupid because of Occam's Razor

I don't know what your post has to do with lex parsimoniae, but I can say that you're not accurately describing the other hand IMXP.

You don't roll up a wizard that happens to have crappy stats, you roll up some stats, and see what they go well with. So on the other hand, you have:

1. A person who has certain in-born talents and weaknesses, who
2. Chooses to aspire in a certain direction based on those talents and weaknesses

 

[Hussar]

Is this the rolled character? Because, I'd point out that most people that roll for stats (like my group) tend to roll stats, then pick class. So, you're still relatively good at your role most of the time. Sure, I have a 16 Str, but I have a 16 Int, and I went Wizard, not Fighter. I'm still going to be a good Wizard, but I also happen to be strong, too. And that unexpected variety is nice.

I think your premise for rolled stats is wrong. But that's as it applies to my group, which has a bottom threshold on rolling. For people that say "play what you roll, not matter how low", it might prove more true. Or, I guess, for people that roll for class, too. As always, play what you like

Really? Granted, I haven't done 3d6 in order in a very long time, but, 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste means that I pick my class first.

Which, funnily enough, almost always results in a PC with higher than 28 point buy stats. I mean, how often did you see a 16 strength fighter in a group that rolled its stats? Sure, there might be that one or two, but, almost universally, it was an 18 in the prime stat.

It wasn't until we started using point buy that I finally saw PC's that weren't superhumanly statted.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Really?

Yes?

Granted, I haven't done 3d6 in order in a very long time, but, 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste means that I pick my class first.

Well, my group doesn't assign stats, so maybe that's a big part of where I'm coming from. We allow one switch, but that's it. I see what you mean.

Which, funnily enough, almost always results in a PC with higher than 28 point buy stats. I mean, how often did you see a 16 strength fighter in a group that rolled its stats? Sure, there might be that one or two, but, almost universally, it was an 18 in the prime stat.

This is not my experience from my 3.0/3.5 days at all. It was 16-17 in your main stat. 18s were uncommon, but definitely around.

It wasn't until we started using point buy that I finally saw PC's that weren't superhumanly statted.

I'll admit that most point-buy characters seem a little under where I like to see them. But I'm pretty unforgiving in play, so I like players being a little above "average" with their stats ("average" for the book methods). I also tended to start PCs off at level 2, rather than level 1, because of that.

But I do get what you mean. It's certainly a play style thing. I was just saying what my group experienced, and what we prefer. We certainly prefer rolling stats over point-buy, though, which we don't use (and never have). We're ambivalent on arrays; it's an option that some players hesitantly take. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I used die roll until well into 3.5. Then I realized that a large number of 3.5's issues go away when the PC's aren't god statted. Suddenly when you don't qualify for all those super feats and bonus doodads, the game becomes a lot better balanced. I imagine that most of my balance issues in AD&D were due to die rolled characters with a rather... generous... approach to the die rolling. Again, had we gone with straight 3d6 in order (or maybe 4d6 in order) without any rerolls or adjusting, then many of the issues in 1e and 2e go away as well.

 

[Particle_Man]

Well this thread has been well and truly derailed.

IME, when using rolled stats, class is picked after stats are rolled. The only exception I can think of is when using Method V (IIRC: the one in in Unearthed Arcana) for generating stats in 1st ed AD&D. when one had to specify class.

That said, I did have one DM that required one to roll 4d6 in order after choosing *race* (Again, this was his way of doing it and an explicit house rule. Again, it was 1st ed AD&D, where too be fair, it was quite possible to gain a racial bonus in one stat that meant something and a racial penalty in another stat that meant nothing).

But in 3rd ed? I have never encountered "pick the class first" whether in a point-buy, roll stats in order, or roll stats choose any order.

And IMHO I would assume that my OP question would be orthogonal to whether one uses point-buy or rolled stats. If the classes would be balanced, then I don't see how the method of stat generation would matter to that balance. If the classes would not be balanced, then I don't see how the method of stat generation would matter to that lack of balance.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Well if you wanted to play 3.5 and be balanced, I heard Trailblazer is a good pick.

 

[Particle_Man]

I mean, on could have a 96 point buy or a 100d6 drop the lowest 97 dice stat roll, and get all 18s either way, right?

[Sorry it was taking too long to edit so I am trying this instead]

 

[CroBob]

But in 3rd ed? I have never encountered "pick the class first" whether in a point-buy, roll stats in order, or roll stats choose any order.

That's silly. Rolled, in order, sure, it's kind of difficult to pick a class until you know what you can do. Casters can't even cast if their primary isn't high enough, so choosing class first would be silly.

However, when you choose where your stats go, or pick the value of those stats directly, you have to have at least some idea what kind of class you want to play. Nobody puts their highest stat in Intelligence without already understanding they're going to be playing a class that, at the very least, gets some sort of bonus for it. Unless they have a close second that they place in what will be their primary. I mean, sure, you could play a character that's not optimized, but because stats are so closely related to what you can do as certain classes, choosing where your stats are essentially is choosing what class you're going to play. Assuming you understand how the rules work, of course.

People who understand the rules tend not to place their highest stat in Dex and their second in Charisma, third in Str, and then place the rest, and when they're done, say "I suppose I could be a rogue". No, they know, in advance, that they're placing stats towards a decent rogue. Even if they haven't settled on rogue, they already know they're probably going to be at least rogue-like. Or potentially Sorcerer or Bard type. The point is, even if you haven't settled what you will, in fact, play, you have at least a good idea what's happening class-wise, or else you'd be placing your stats differently.