3d10 xp, for realism

[Kae'Yoss]

D&D will never be completely fair to everyone, as the classes are too diverse and disparate in ability and specializations. Besides, rolling dice is fun.

That doesn't mean we can't strive to make it as fair as possible.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I don't think random XP in starting PCs adds anything - the gap between 0 and 1000 XP in game-play terms is very narrow anyway, an adventuring PC can easily earn that in a few days of adventuring. A level 1 0 XP PC doesn't have to be '16 years old & never did nuthin', I'm quite happy for a Ftr-1 PC to be a 38-year-old veteran mercenary if that's what the player wants. Presumably he recently crossed some kind of threshold that turned him from a mere Warrior into a true Fighter & can now earn XP and progress rapidly in power.

My feelings exactly. I got into an argument with a former DM once who refused to allow me to play a middle-aged man who had lost his family and suddenly dedicated his life to paladinhood as a result. We were starting at level 1, and he refused to accept that my character could be 38 and level 1. :\

I like to give PCs unique magic items and such, but when it comes to stats and such, I want equality. Namely because while I can live with being the high man on the totem pole, I'm petty enough to be bothered for an entire campaign if I'm stuck with seriously weaker stats. So I don't expect others to have to deal with that either.

 

[S'mon]

My feelings exactly. I got into an argument with a former DM once who refused to allow me to play a middle-aged man who had lost his family and suddenly dedicated his life to paladinhood as a result. We were starting at level 1, and he refused to accept that my character could be 38 and level 1. :\

*tcch* :\ Were there no level-1 38-year-old NPCs in his game world? Some people give automatic XP-by-age so all 38-year-olds are 4th level or somesuch, which isn't core & I think raises many problems of its own. Unlike core, IMC only 50% of the population are 1st-level, so the 'average' level is 2nd and experienced NPCs are 3rd+, but you can still be 1st level at any age. I'd also use the approach of the 1e Lankhmar book that NPCs can lose levels if they don't train frequently to maintain skills, so you could be a 38-year-old Exp-4 who went into a deep depression when his family died and came out of it a Pal-1...

 

[iwatt]

(fanning the flames)

meh....I think balance is overated....


Seriously, I personally get anoyed by all this "absolute balance" waving. Even if I control all randomness in random creation, and use only PC classes set up for ABSOLUTE BALANCE (TM), I still will have unbalance in the form of different player capabilities. Able players with crappy stats will still outshine crappy players with uber-stats. And since I refuse to pre-select my players using a standarized test, I doubt I'll ever get Balanced players.

Back on topic, I usually start at third level anyways, so I wouldn't use random xp. I might use something similar (less spread though) so that casters may use their craft feats though.

 

[Zappo]

Im curious, when you guys say you don't have your players roll random hp, do you just give them avg plus con, or what?

Maximum for the first HD, half maximum for the rest (plus CON modifier, of course). I am aware that half maximum is .5 below average, but I think that the added certainty is worth it when compared to standard rolling (which is "you roll once, and if it comes up a 1 for the third level in a row, too bad", as opposed to "you roll once, and then reroll if it is a 1, and then reroll if you still don't like it, and...").

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Maximum for the first HD, half maximum for the rest (plus CON modifier, of course). I am aware that half maximum is .5 below average, but I think that the added certainty is worth it when compared to standard rolling (which is "you roll once, and if it comes up a 1 for the third level in a row, too bad", as opposed to "you roll once, and then reroll if it is a 1, and then reroll if you still don't like it, and...").

That's what they say in the DMG, too.

(fanning the flames)

meh....I think balance is overated....

Seriously, I personally get anoyed by all this "absolute balance" waving.

Yes, you are fanning the flames. Not reading stuff and then speaking nonsense. We don't say we want "absolute balance". We know that we can't have absolute balance. But that still doesn't mean we can't try to make it as fair as possible.

I have seen too many people roll poorly for their stats (especially back in the 2e days when that meant that you couldn't play what you wanted), or others with incredible luck, dominating the game. I've seen characters that dies because they had way too few HP - because they rolled poorly every time. The extreme case was a fighter 3 in 2e - he had 13 hit points.

So I don't want to hinder those "incapable players" by putting them at risk to get poor stats to boot, and eliminate randomness from charakter generation. After all, you'll have enough randomness when you do the actual playing.

 

[iwatt]

Not reading stuff and then speaking nonsense.

Wow, that's a bit harsh.

The point I was trying to make is that whenevre someone proposes any change, a lot of people's first reaction is: "hmmm.... is this balanced?" wereas the question they should be asking (IMO) is "hmmm.... is this rule going to make for more fun in the game?".

In this particular case, I don't see that giving someone random xp is going to add to the enjoyment, so I wouldn't use this propsed change.

Anyhow, I do understand were people come from when they look for character creation without random factors included when they refer to been able to opt for a class. I also remember the terror days of 2e when if you wanted to play a paladin you had to hope for a 17 to dump in Charisma . But I believe this is solved by 3E's less restrictive aproach to class access.

But the other typical complaint referring to playing a low stat character with other high stat characters around has never been an issue in my games. Maybe It's the way we play, but the fighter's in my games don't care too much wether they can cause more damage than the other fighter. But just to be clear, I do use a lot of house rules that diminish the problems you and others have mentioned.

low hps: Change hit die to one lower and add 2. for example, change from d8 to d6+2. Sometimes I just use the rule that they can reroll if a 1 shows up. They can also reroll once per level by spending an action point.

Random Abilities: I have my players roll their abilities as many times as they want. Some people can't play without an initial 18 . If they had to reroll too many times to find an ability set they liked, I might modify some of the numbers (i.e change a 12 to a 10).

Personally, the few times I've played with point buy characters, I end up with cooky-cut versions. I LIKE randomness in my characters. Others don't. Whatever floats your boat is fine by me though.

 

[Darkness]

We were starting at level 1, and he refused to accept that my character could be 38 and level 1. :\

Suggestion: "I was energy drained and didn't get a restoration in time so it's permanent now." (Or a similar situation.)

Wow, that's a bit harsh.

Yeah. Let's be nice. Also, don't misrepresent others' positions, please ("absolute balance").

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Wow, that's a bit harsh.

Yes, it was quite harsh. I thought it appropriate to your statements, which way far out, too. Stuff like "absolute balance" and accusing people that they want to balance everything perfectly, at the cost of everything else. Saying things like that might provoke less-than-congenial reactions.

The point I was trying to make is that whenevre someone proposes any change, a lot of people's first reaction is: "hmmm.... is this balanced?" wereas the question they should be asking (IMO) is "hmmm.... is this rule going to make for more fun in the game?".

Balance is objective, fun is subjective.
I think about thinks both in regard to fun and balance at the same time, and have thought about it when I post. But the question about fun seems to be answered, at least as far as he is concerned. He things that would be great fun, or else he wouldn't try it. He might be interested about whether other people would like that, too, but this won't help him, except to sate his curiousity. But he might also like to know whether this seems feasable, and then others' opinions will be useful to him

In this particular case, I don't see that giving someone random xp is going to add to the enjoyment, so I wouldn't use this propsed change.

The case is moot for me, for I don't even allow randomness into those parts of character creation where the standard rules do use it. Even more randomness is right out then.

Anyhow, I do understand were people come from when they look for character creation without random factors included when they refer to been able to opt for a class.

It's not just for min-maxing. It's also about playing that charakter you want to. Want to play a character that's smart, agile and alluring? Too bad, you only had two rolls that were above-average, the rest was average so you don't get a reroll. I won't even start that I wanted that character to be rather weak, which won't work, because I did roll "too good"

I also remember the terror days of 2e when if you wanted to play a paladin you had to hope for a 17 to dump in Charisma . But I believe this is solved by 3E's less restrictive aproach to class access.

The only thing that's solved is that you can play the class you want. It may very well still not be the character you envisoned (and then there's the thing about feats and their prereqisites)

low hps: Change hit die to one lower and add 2. for example, change from d8 to d6+2. Sometimes I just use the rule that they can reroll if a 1 shows up. They can also reroll once per level by spending an action point.

This will reduce the risk, but not totally eliminate it.

Random Abilities: I have my players roll their abilities as many times as they want. Some people can't play without an initial 18 . If they had to reroll too many times to find an ability set they liked, I might modify some of the numbers (i.e change a 12 to a 10).

You let them reroll as often as they want?

"No, you cannot use point buy, you have to roll"
(rolls) "Damn, those stats are rubbish, can I reroll?"
"You can reroll as often as you like!"
"Ah yes? What about this: Let's just assume that I sit down now and reroll. If the values are those I wrote down on this here piece of paper, I keep them, otherwise I reroll again. Follow me?"
"Yes"
"So can we just screw that rerolling and I just use these rolls?"
"......uhm, Okay"
"Thanks for letting me use point buy"

Personally, the few times I've played with point buy characters, I end up with cooky-cut versions. I LIKE randomness in my characters. Others don't. Whatever floats your boat is fine by me though.

I have to take that apart. The whatever floats your boat part is fine.

The part where you imply that pb charakters are min-maxed things, not so. But maybe you really meant that you only encountered this, not that it is so in all or even most cases. In that case I must tell you that you played with power gamers. I see your "whatever floats your boat" and raise by "It's not guns that kill people".

 

[Henry]

I rather liked the idea that one poster used once: His old grizzled veteran had been away from war for years, and his lower level was the result of his being rusty at his battle-skills! After going back to campaigning for a few months (and gaining levels), he was back to his old fighting trim.