25 or 32...what's the REAL "standard" point buy?

[scott-fs]

i don't agree. remember, the opposition has been ramped up too.

a 3e 14 Strength fighter against 3e orcs (for example) is going to do worse than a 2e 18 Strength fighter against 2e orcs.

I disagree. Comparing a 2e Orc to a 3e Orc doesn't appear that the Orc got boosted as much in power as a PC might've. Equipment has changed slightly. In 3e Orcs use a Great Axe which does 1d12. The closest Axe in 2e was the Battle Axe which only did 1d8. In 2e, the Orc used a weapon that presumably did 1d8, of which sword or axe was commonly used. So, either the Long Sword (which did 1d8/1d12), or the Scimitar 1d8 for the Orc in 2e. Players also have access to the 1d12 Great Axe, so the power balance is the same.

With that said, Monsters in 2e didn't have Ability scores, therefore we can only compare stats as follows:

Orc --------- 3e --- 2e
Attack: ----- +3 --- Thac0 19
Armor Class: 14 --- 6
Hit Points: - 1d8 --- 1d8

Attack is about the only place where the Orc improves. He is as easy to hit, and has the same amount of hitpoints. A 3e 18 Strength Fighter has a +4 bonus to hit and damage. A 2e Fighter (presuming we are very generous) give him a strength of 18/00, will only have a +3 bonus to attack, but +6 to damage. Even a more conservative 18/50 strength will only give him a +1 to attack, +3 to damage. The 3e Fighter has access to focus (+1 attack), while a 2e Fighter has access to specialization (+1 to attack, +2 to damage).

Strength Scores and applicable attack bonuses. I decided to include an 18/75 Strength Fighter for comparison sake:

3e-14STR: +2
3e-18STR: +4
2e-18/50: +1
2e-18/75: +2
2e-18/00: +3

Presuming Average Rolls for each fighter is a 10.
3e Fighters:
Str 18: +5+10=AC15
Str 14: +3+10=AC13 (11 or higher to hit Orc)

2e Fighters:
Str 18/50: 19*-10=AC9 (13 or higher to hit Orc)
Str 18/75: 18*-10=AC8 (12 or higher to hit Orc)
Str 18/00: 17*-10=AC7 (11 or higher to hit Orc)

* Remember that the 1st level Fighter's ThacO starts at 20. To streamline combat, we usually subtracted our strength bonus from our Thac0, so that all we had to do was then subtract our roll to determine the AC we hit. That is taken into account.

So, the strongest possible fighter on his average day in 2e will miss the Orc on average, at the same rate as the 3e's 14 strength fighter. The 18 strength 3e fighter is more often going to hit the Orc.

Looking at Constitution, in 2e you didn't get bonus hitpoints until 15 Con.

Con --- 3e -- 2e
12 ---- +1 -- 0
13 ---- +1 -- 0
14 ---- +2 -- 0
15 ---- +2 -- +1
16 ---- +3 -- +2
17 ---- +3 -- +3
18 ---- +4 -- +4

You'd have to have an reasonably high Con to get any benefit. A 12 Con 3e character and a 15 Con 2e character are equivalent. A 14 Con 3e Character and a 16 Con character is also equivalent. A 16 Con 3e character is equivalent to a 17 Con WARRIOR. Only Fighters, Paladins and Rangers benefited by having a Constitution greater than 16.

A 18-Con 1st level Wizard could have the following starting hitpoints:
2e: 4+2=6
3e: 4+4=8

The 3e Wizard could also take the Toughness feat to boost his hitpoints higher.

Then we go to Dexterity. The chart comparing Dex is pretty much the same as for the Constitution comparison.

My final conclusions: You needed high scores to get any benefits in 2e. A 3e character only needs a 12 to get many equivalent benefits that a 2e character would get with a 15-16.

Yes, some monsters got boosted. The Orc did not (atleast to keep up with the 3e Fighter).

 

[scott-fs]

Ok using 4d6 drop low, some more stats -- a breakdown by points.

Left hand column is points score. Right hand column is the percentage change of rolling something *equal to or higher* than the given points score.

points --- %chance
10 --------- 99.3
15 --------- 95.4
20 --------- 83.9
25 --------- 64.2
30 --------- 41.5
35 --------- 22.6
40 --------- 10.3
45 --------- 3.9

i.e. using 4d6 drop lowest a player has a 10.3% chance to roll a set of stats that adds up to 40 or more points.

Would it be possible to figure out the percentage chance a player will roll a certain point total using the following rolling method:

4d6 - Reroll all 1's. Drop lowest die. 7 Sets, dropping lowest set.

This method gave me a Paladin headache of 58 points. The lowest character rolled was 37 points.

By level 3, any attacks which would be challenging to the Paladin, would have devastated most of the other characters.

 

[d4]

I disagree. Comparing a 2e Orc to a 3e Orc doesn't appear that the Orc got boosted as much in power as a PC might've. Equipment has changed slightly.

you made some good points that i'll have to think about. i do realize that 3e PCs are generally significantly more powerful than their 2e equivalents.

but look at the other side as well: the 3e orc has a better chance of hitting the fighter than the 2e orc (assuming the fighter has generally the same AC) -- THACO 19 vs attack bonus +3.

the orc is also doing more damage (even removing the 3e orc's greataxe and giving him a battleaxe) -- 1d8 vs 1d8+3. and with criticals thrown in, the 3e orc's actual average damage is even higher.

 

[stephenh]

Would it be possible to figure out the percentage chance a player will roll a certain point total using the following rolling method:

4d6 - Reroll all 1's. Drop lowest die. 7 Sets, dropping lowest set.

This method gave me a Paladin headache of 58 points. The lowest character rolled was 37 points.

By level 3, any attacks which would be challenging to the Paladin, would have devastated most of the other characters.

Sure -- see the table below which contains the breakdown for a variety of different methods (method E is yours I believe).

For methods A to E (described below) this table gives the percentage chance of rolling equal to, or higher than the given points value.


Points --- A ---------- B ---------- C ---------- D ----------- E
10 ------- 85.8 ------- 99.3 ------- 99.8 ------- 99.99 ------- 99.99
15 ------- 60.8 ------- 95.5 ------- 98.6 ------- 99.85 ------- 99.98
20 ------- 33.8 ------- 83.9 ------- 93.2 ------- 98.5 -------- 99.7
25 ------- 15.2 ------- 64.2 ------- 80.0 ------- 92.5 -------- 97.8
30 ------- 5.60 ------- 41.5 ------- 59.6 ------- 78.3 -------- 90.4
35 ------- 1.70 ------- 22.6 ------- 37.6 ------- 56.9 -------- 74.6
40 ------- 0.50 ------- 10.3 ------- 19.9 ------- 34.7 -------- 52.7
45 ------- 0.10 ------- 3.90 ------- 8.90 ------- 20.4 -------- 31.3
50 ------- 0.02 ------- 1.30 ------- 3.30 ------- 7.40 -------- 15.4
55 ------- tiny ------- 0.30 ------- 1.10 ------- 2.50 -------- 6.3


A = 3d6
B = 4d6 drop lowest
C = 4d6 drop lowest 7 times, keep best 6
D = 4d6 drop lowest, reroll all 1s
E = 4d6 drop lowest 7 times, keep best 6, reroll all 1s

Damn! that table was a pain to line up...

 

[Creamsteak]

For formatting tables, use the

 brackets. That way the thing keeps it's spacing.

I've written up a computer program to test all possibilities.

It uses the following regulations:

1) Only accepts ability score arrays with at least one 15 or better
2) Only accepts ability score arrays with a cumulative ability modifier of +1
3) Only compares ability scores with all abilities of 8 or better

My total average point value came out to be 31.2318036784978 out of 16598080 valid possibilities when taking 1/72nd of all possible rolls of dice.

I'll be taking another comparison using a linear negatives table (so 7 is -1 point, and 6 is -2 down to 3 is -5) using the same 1/72nd portion of all possible dice next.

Tell me if there are any problems with my method besides 1/72nd accuracy and the all of 8 or better qualifier.

 

[Creamsteak]

OK, I was wrong to think I was using 1/72nd of all possibilities. I'm actually using severely less than 1%. I'm going to have to port the program over to a faster computer or find a more efficient way to deal with so many numbers.

 

[bolie]

I've generally allowed 35-40 points in point buy, but then I like high-powered games. When others DM, we've used as low as 25. I wouldn't want to go any lower than that.

Bolie IV

 

[Ace]

Like Eric I do the number pick thing IMC-- I have had far more abusive characters with rolling than with pick --YMMV but there hasn't been a problem from the players or interestingly from any of the DM when I tell them about it either

I think the rolling leads to more abuse because it becomes something of a game to "beat the dice" or "play what you rolled"

With player pick the players get more choice-- always a good thing in book

If I felt the need for a point system I use either 32-36 or 30 + 1d6 or 1d8 or something

 

[stephenh]

OK, I was wrong to think I was using 1/72nd of all possibilities. I'm actually using severely less than 1%. I'm going to have to port the program over to a faster computer or find a more efficient way to deal with so many numbers.

I don't think a faster computer will help much -- I think there are actually about 4.7e18 combinations in total. Given that my (2.7 Ghz) machine takes about 5-10 seconds to calculate 1 million random sets of stats, to calculate all possible combinations would take roughly about half a million years...... you might be able to drop this down a bit by removing redundant combinations, but its still going to be one hell of a long time.

Anyway using 1 million random stat sets and rerolling if the stats don't meed your given minimum conditions I get an average of 33.2 points.

 

[d4]

Anyway using 1 million random stat sets and rerolling if the stats don't meed your given minimum conditions I get an average of 33.2 points.

wow, that's a bit higher than i thought it would be...

i'll have to offer 33-point buy for my next campaign, instead of my usual 32.