Array Comparisons based on Point Buy

[Technik4]

Cookies are a sometimes food. - Cookie Monster (Sesame Street)

::

Technik

 

[Crothian]

I'd say due to the arrangement, the 36 pt array is equal to a 30 point buy, and further that it could be played side-by-side a 25 point buy character without anyone feeling signficantly over/undershadowed. [/bold claim]

Technik

intersting, i started a poll thread on this idea

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I'd say due to the arrangement, the 36 pt array is equal to a 30 point buy, and further that it could be played side-by-side a 25 point buy character without anyone feeling signficantly over/undershadowed. [/bold claim]

I doubt that the 36pt array could be played side by side with the 25pt buy without notice; The lesser bonuses and especially the lack of any penalty would eventually be noticed.

The campaign I'm running allowed the players to roll 4d6dl or 25pt buy & everyone chose to roll. End result is four characters with 20,23,33, & 40 pt buy equivalency. The high to low difference even between the 20 & 40pt buy is noticeable, while in support of your claim the difference between the 23 & 33 is marginal.

Where the noticeability is most pronounced is in sheer number of skills with ranks allocated and the HPs from con modifiers.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Also the real test of such a claim is the players reactions, give them the choice and see.

I for one am hopelessly biased towards 25pt buy to give a neutral opinion.

 

[arscott]

You are claiming that every hero in d&d should begin with at least 1 below-average score?

Yes, in fact, I am.

It's a basic tenet of fiction that heroes must be flawed in some way. The Heroic flaw shows up in everything that D&D is based on, from ancient tales of King Arthur or Heracles, to more recent tales by Tolkein or Howard, or Even Hickman or Rowling.

People who are good at everything are Uninteresting. Giving them something they're bad at, (and something that will actually be relevant to the challenges at hand.) is a way of humanizing them. Making them believable and relatable. And it's a concept that works at least as well with role-playing games as it does with more traditional and static forms of entertainment

 

[Technik4]

It's a basic tenet of fiction that heroes must be flawed in some way.

That sounds more like your basic opinion of heroes in fiction (which you are certainly entitled to!). Of course, to imply that simply because you are above average in 6 measurable ways that you are somehow 'flawless' is silly. The bulk of the character is not defined by his stats, the stats are merely the perimeter of a lens through which we view the character.

Pyschological flaws aside, there are still a lot of ways a high-stat character can be flawed. And there are many heroic low-stat characters that overcome their weaknesses to achieve greatness. Its not really a mutually exclusive thing.

Technik

 

[Glyfair]

It's a basic tenet of fiction that heroes must be flawed in some way.

Of course, a large number of heroes are flawed in character flaws rather than ability flaws.

 

[Crothian]

It's a basic tenet of fiction that heroes must be flawed in some way.

Not just fiction, look to Greek Mythology, I think they were the first people to really have heroes that had some serious flaws.