ability roll cheating

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Nope. The standard 3-out-of-4 d6 roll averages 12.24. Since your proposed scale is linear, you can convert that average directly: 6x4.24=25.4. Rather less than your form of point buy.

That's statistically invalid for several reasons.

1. 4d6-L allows you to throw out "unviable" characters and reroll
2. 25 as an average does not account for the increased weighting of scores higher than 14
3. You've made [likely subconsciously] a large assumption on how ability scores below 8 are scored

As was done on the rules forum some time back, a true average point buy for a 4d6-L character is closer to 28 or 30 points (which one, exactly, I can't recall).

EDIT: Oops. Ignore that.

What I meant to say is that 25 vs. 28 point buy is pretty similar when there's no increasing cost - so I disagree with orsal's first point. Also, 18s are still expensive - they're just no longer ridiculously so. In a non-increasing scheme, they take up ~1/3 of your available points (10 out of 28 available). In an increasing scheme, they take up almost 60% of your available points (16 out of 28 available).

 

[sniffles]

After skimming through this thread, I am once again reminded of how much I like the group I game with. If I showed up with a new PC with the ability scores in question, my GM and fellow players would say, "You must have had good dice mojo," in a friendly, appreciative tone. Then we'd all pick up our dice and start to play.

 

[orsal]

That's statistically invalid for several reasons.

1. 4d6-L allows you to throw out "unviable" characters and reroll
2. 25 as an average does not account for the increased weighting of scores higher than 14
3. You've made [likely subconsciously] a large assumption on how ability scores below 8 are scored

As was done on the rules forum some time back, a true average point buy for a 4d6-L character is closer to 28 or 30 points (which one, exactly, I can't recall).

EDIT: Oops. Ignore that.

I assume the "Oops" is that you reread the thread and realized we were talking about a linear point buy. FYI, according to the standard formula 4d6 on average comes out to about 29 points by the standard (nonlinear) formula. That doesn't count the "reroll the whole character if (certain guideline)" rule, which raises the average slightly, because I found it too complicated to calculate exactly how much.

What I meant to say is that 25 vs. 28 point buy is pretty similar when there's no increasing cost - so I disagree with orsal's first point. Also, 18s are still expensive - they're just no longer ridiculously so. In a non-increasing scheme, they take up ~1/3 of your available points (10 out of 28 available). In an increasing scheme, they take up almost 60% of your available points (16 out of 28 available).

It's a small difference, but there's no denying that 28>25. All I was getting at was that ARandomGod's sense of the average power level of the 4d6 method was off.

As far as 18s being expensive: in general, raising an attribute from (high number) to (high number)+1 gives you more power than rasing an attribute from (moderate) to (moderate)+1. That's because whatever stat is highest is probably the one that your character is going to use most. For a powergamer (which I'm not), minimaxing is the way to go if you're offered a linear point buy.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I think the group as a whole has to discuss power levels and acceptable concepts as a whole. If the DM wants to play a very low-powered game, and the players want to play a heroic game, there's a problem there, and there needs to be some movement on one end. And I don't feel that it's necessarily the players that should change. So, I feel the group needs to determine the chargen method together.

My experience is that it doesn't quite work that way, though it depends on how easy it is for a given DM to acquire players, or for players to find a good DM. Anyway, IME the DM generally decides what kind of game to run, what setting to use, what races & PrC's to allow, and what method will be used to roll up characters. If players have in mind a completely different kind of game than the DM then obviously discussion is needed but it's still largely the DM's decision on what kind of campaign he's going to run. After all if, as DM, I don't want to run Epic level games I'm NOT going to run epic level games no matter how much the players may want to. While compromise is possible it is still largely the DM's decision about the macro-game environment of setting, races, classes, etc. just as it's the DM's decision that counts most regarding interpretation of rules, spell effects, etc.

What adjudication? The group decide to use 3/4d6, with no rerolls allowed, and then complain that they don't get the results that they want?
[snip]
If the system is "3/4d6, reroll at the DM's whim", then what happens if everyone rolls a net +1 modifier and someone rolls +7? Does the DM have everyone else reroll, or the one player who rolls really well? If I were the player who rolled +7, I'd be really pissed if the DM tried to insist on that - such stats don't happen often.

THAT is what the DM adjudication is for. It's my experience again that a lot of DM's don't spend any time thinking about or setting formal limits for rerolling. If they do then they too often set them where a player who does just meet the minimums isn't going to be happy, or don't set maximums/an acceptible range of one players low rolls to another players high rolls so even if the minimums might be acceptible an excessive gap in stats between characters will still create unduly irritated players. These are the things that players and DM's need to be aware of and if need be to discuss before anyone picks up dice. If you aren't going to have hard rules about what will be accepted or not in random rolls then you have to have DM adjudication.

Not a chance. I have a preference for point-buy, but if the group decide to go with random rolls, then so be it. I'll not gloat over a player's low rolls, nor will I overrule high rolls. (Caveat: I will witness the rolls.) Once the decision is made, I'll accept it and move on. I have better things to argue about.

As should we all. Unfortunately it seldom works out that way.

I generally take the view that, under a random roll scheme, the concept has to follow the stat rolls, and not the other way around. It strikes me that there are very few concepts that are so dependent on a particular number of 'good' stats that they can't work with whatever's rolled (with modification to the concept as required). Likewise, there are very few concepts that cannot be fit around a 'bad' stat or two. And those concepts really aren't suited to a random-roll scheme. If you must have a particular combination, you should really be using point-buy.

Although I would simply counter-argue that there should never be a need for a particular combination of stats as there are no classes that HAVE those requirements anymore.

Part of the thing about players needing particular stats to make a given concept work is the idea that all given concepts are equally valid, but that just isn't the case. It's also incorrect to think that a concept can or ever should be a fixed, immutable idea - that once a characer concept is made that nothing is allowed to alter it at any point. The unfolding events of a campaign are undoubtedly going to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate the character concept you start out with and that's as it should be. Characters SHOULD adapt to reflect the events of a game rather than expect the events of a game to constantly conform to and facilitate their original concept. A player must be as flexible in running his character as a DM should be in running the campaign where the actions of the PC's will alter otherwise preconceived notions.

In the event that I'm DMing for a group that's going with random rolls, we'll have discussed the two main pitfalls of random rolls: you might be stuck with one or two bad stats, perhaps even really bad stats, and one PC may be significantly better or worse than the others. Before the decision is taken, the group will have been asked if they're okay with that. Only if the answer is 'yes' will random-roll be used. Under those circumstances, I honestly don't believe it's unreasonable for the DM to deny a reroll to the player who rolled a 5. He agreed to the risk, and got unlucky.

That's all I'm saying - a DM needs to be sure players understand things before they get started, players need to understand that if they choose to GAMBLE on high scores that they WANT but don't NEED any more than any other player NEEDS high scores, then there is the possibility they'll "lose" - and therefore shouldn't expect to get anything more than an average spread of results or less than the agreed minimums. Additionally, they have no right to complain or feel cheated if someone else DOES get much better results than they. Again, your OWN happiness with your character should not rely on the possibility that someone else might be happier with their character than you are with yours.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

We usually have the "rule" of "roll until your happy". Yes, that may incur uber-powerful characters, but as long as you're having fun, why get upset? We're all friends in our group. We do have one guy with uber-powerful characters due to the build of them, not necessarily the stats.

He overpowered the party with a samauri. And a fighter/barbarian mix that also did uber amounts of damage.

 

[ARandomGod]

Especially for minimaxers -- 18s come pretty cheap with a linear point buy scale.

Sure. Or for people who want that 18 in (primary stat) and still want to have all 10's... or want to have that 18 and yet also get a high charisma for purely roll playing reasons, without overly sacrificing from secondary stats. (I've done this before, I wanted a leader type, I wanted him to have a Cha of 14, he was just a fighter, with no Cha based abilities or feats).

Nope. The standard 3-out-of-4 d6 roll averages 12.24. Since your proposed scale is linear, you can convert that average directly: 6x4.24=25.4. Rather less than your form of point buy.

Possibly so. But somehow people still prefer the point buy when it's not a punishing one. They get what they *want*, guaranteed. And noone has to worry about relative party balance, because everyone has the same total amount of points.

Conversely, if one player rolls net +1, and everyone else is at +4, what happens if the reroll gives that player a +9?

So, I'm sorry, but I'll not adjudicate random rolls. The group will develop a system, and use it as written.

Here you're touching on my actual preferred method, which is a MOD buy instead of a point buy. But for some reason a number of people have a hard time understanding the concept.

A linear point buy of 25 is the same thing as 'normal' point buy of 25, with the exception that you can buy a high stat without lowering your total modifier points. So I can put more of my modifier +'s in one score... that just makes the wizards and single stat based characters more well rounded. AND it allows concepts where someone isn't sacrificing his one chance at an 18 by having all his other stats at least ten (can't do that in a 25 point buy or less system using the "We Hate Hero's" point buy method).

You can't get higher than a +8 total modifier using either system,

The 4d6 drop the lowest comes pretty close to a 32 'punish the hero's' point buy (actually 31.(something), I believe., when you take into account dropping characters that don't meet the minimum listed in that section of the DMG).

I agree that raising an attribute from a 16 to an 18 generally gives you more power than raising it from 12 to 14, and that's why it costs more in that point buy version. But it's "generally" gives you more power, and that 'generally' is mainly for certain mono-focused classes, ones that are going to get an 18 anyway! Punishing them for doing so by making them have fewer points to spend on intelligence or strength or charisma is what, IMO, makes them static, dull, min/maxxed. They're going to get that max anyhow, trust me, they are. ^_^

For a powergamer (which I'm not), minimaxing is the way to go if you're offered a linear point buy.

I counter that for the powergamer that you're talking about, min/maxing is the way to go even if you're offered the traditional point buy, and further that the traditional point buy goes a long way to enforce the min/maxing that you seem to disapprove of... in that it makes it more difficult to get that 18 and still have decent non-primary scores. You don't have to be a 'powergamer' to want your wizard to have an Int of 18. In fact, I believe that in general feats and spells and items and monsters and modules are based around the assumption that wizards will start with an 18 int. (And sorc's with 18 charisma. Wisdom based casters it's not so very important.) That affects your save DC for any spells with a save DC, you know. And arcane casters are all about save DC.

In fact, you HAVE to have an intelligence (or related spellcasting stat) of at LEAST 16 to start with if you're planning a character that will span 20 levels. Otherwise you won't be able to cast 9th level spells without artificial help (and that is an important concept to some people). Well, if your Int is 15 you can cast them at level 20... which pretty much doesn't count because that's game over.


I find that as a character it allows me to be more well rounded (and not just when playing a caster!), and as a GM it allows me to flesh out my adventures more. I don't have to take into account that characters *will* have glaring weaknesses... Anyone who still has an 8 in a stat did it because they wanted to. Sure it makes life easier on min/maxxers. But it makes it easier on everyone. And, to top it off, it's easy to explain!

 

[MonsterMash]

Originally Posted by amethal
To put it another way, I'm not willing to be flexible in my character concept. If I want to play an archer cleric, I'm not willing to play a useless archer or a useless cleric, or a barbarian because that would make best use of what I've rolled.

Then if your group ever choses to use dice rolls, stand up and walk out on that group. But frankly, for a cleric archer all you really needs a is a 15 for wisdom and a 14 for dexterity. That should be easy enough with rolling, and if not then do the best you can. Its not always about the stats.

Usually I go - roll dice 4d6L then if player is not happy then point buy can be used, so if they've got a specific concept (other than total munchkinism) then they can fit stats to the concept, but to be honest I don't see why an archer cleric is that hard to do with a normal set of die rolls? After all best scores into Wis and Dex, then Cha, and other stats are less important (as an archer I guess the Cleric wouldn't be doing much close fighting so Str and Con are less important, good Int is always nice for a Cleric with skill points, but not essential).

 

[MonsterMash]

3d6 rolled in order
str
int
wis
con
dex
cha

Nice to see the stats in their proper order again!

 

[orsal]

Possibly so. But somehow people still prefer the point buy when it's not a punishing one. They get what they *want*, guaranteed. And noone has to worry about relative party balance, because everyone has the same total amount of points.

Doesn't that just further my point? That this particular point buy scheme is on average more powerful than this particular random scheme, contra your earlier comment?

You can't get higher than a +8 total modifier using either system,

+6 with 25 PB -- to get +8 you need 28 points. (Start with -6 if all attributes are 8, then each +1 costs at least 2 points.)

The 4d6 drop the lowest comes pretty close to a 32 'punish the hero's' point buy

The nonlinear scale doesn't punish heroes, unless your definition of a hero is one with heavily unbalanced stats. It does favour well-balanced characters with multiple good stats but no great stats, as opposed to those with few great stats and other mediocre stats.

I agree that raising an attribute from a 16 to an 18 generally gives you more power than raising it from 12 to 14, and that's why it costs more in that point buy version. But it's "generally" gives you more power, and that 'generally' is mainly for certain mono-focused classes, ones that are going to get an 18 anyway! Punishing them for doing so by making them have fewer points to spend on intelligence or strength or charisma is what, IMO, makes them static, dull, min/maxxed. They're going to get that max anyhow, trust me, they are. ^_^

My experience is that with standard point buy, most players pick 16 for their primary attribute. The feeling seems to be mostly that the 2-point cost is worth it for the prime attribute, but not so many like the 3-point cost. In other words, extreme minimaxing isn't worth it, but neither is extreme flatness.

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

In games I run, stats are rolled in front of me.

In my Cthulhu game, a new player was joining and asked if I wanted me to wait until we met to roll the stats (we had already worked on the basic character concept). I said no, but that if the stats were too high I'd just knock them down a bit. Fortunately, that wasn't necessary.

I like rolling with a witness, just to see the incredible rolls (on both ends of the spectrum)I had a friend joining the Eberron game I play in. He rolled several sets of scores, but none of them were "legal" characters by the PHB rules (total stat mods < 1, no single score at 14+, etc). He then switched dice and actually rolled two 18's and two 17's for the character (or maybe it was three 18's and one 17; it was 4d6 drop low method). If I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't have believed it.

It's going to be tough to change your player's problem PC, because you already let him play the PC. I'm sort of amazed that you had this problem with him before, but didn't check his character carefully this time. The time for the "cheating" talk was before the game started. You can still have the talk now, but it sort of looks bad since you already "approved" the character.

If you don't want a direct confrontation, you can (1) drain stats in game (but other PCs may get hurt with that method), or (2) put them in situations where his uber-stats don't help (as a Goliath, maybe he needs to negotiate something with another Goliath tribe--or even a human city).

If you do decide for a direct confrontation (and I actually think this is the best route), talk to him in private. There's no need to embarass him in front of the group....unless you think public humiliation is the only remedy.