(Discussion) Character Points Change Issue

[Uriel]

Should we change the character Starting points from 30 to 33.
An odd number would allow for stat advencement at 4th level, as well as
give more leeway in individualization.

 

[CCamfield]

I think asking players if they want more stat points is like asking kids if they want candy and ice cream.

That said, I did vote yes. I admit to a tendency to try to build characters who are fairly good at a lot, and despite my reluctance I ended up having to short my guy a bit on Wis and Cha. I'd be happy if I could make him a bit more keen-eyed.

 

[Otakkun]

Well, more points mean more customization. 3 more points allow you to increasea secons tat to 15 and raise a 12 to 13 for some feats, which is quite useful.

Still, I would've preferred a rule that just granted more skill points. That's something that everyone would be better with more.

 

[Creamsteak]

You should have provided more options in this poll.

 

[orsal]

Well, more points mean more customization. 3 more points allow you to increasea secons tat to 15 and raise a 12 to 13 for some feats, which is quite useful.

That same reasoning would support raising the count from 33 to 36, and then to 39. Will it ever stop?

Still, I would've preferred a rule that just granted more skill points. That's something that everyone would be better with more.

That would require changing a standard formula. The less we have to change from the SRD, the less confusing.

 

[Uriel]

You should have provided more options in this poll.

Which other options do you want? I have never posted a poll before.
Can I edit it? Seems a bit late now, however.
I really didint want 20 people saying ' abstain'.
yes and no, as I am a pretty straightforward guy.
Now, if by more options, you meant something like...

1) No increase
2)Increase to 31 points
3)increase to 32 points
4)increase to 33 points

I see where that might have been favorable to many, but it would have bogged down the issue further. Besides, there is the better part of a week to go,so all can be heard in/regarding their concerns. This isn't LAW, it's a poll on how folks feel about a points increase.

 

[Uriel]

That same reasoning would support raising the count from 33 to 36, and then to 39. Will it ever stop?

The reason that I put forth the idea of an increase wasbecause I think 33 makes for a better rounded character than 30, not so as to make the reqs for all sorts of feats etc...

I would oppose an increase beyond 33, personally.

Off to work...

 

[Otakkun]

That same reasoning would support raising the count from 33 to 36, and then to 39. Will it ever stop?

Wwll, it has to stop somewhere otherwise ECLS will mean even less than now

That would require changing a standard formula. The less we have to change from the SRD, the less confusing.

Ah, but I think it would be worth the effort. Keep points at 30, all characters get one extra skill point per level (4 at 1st level).

 

[Thomas Hobbes]

I seem to recall someone once rolled 4d6, dropping the lowest, some rediculous number of times and ended up with an average of 13.333, repeating. This isn't the best way to do it, but the math of statistics in reference to "4d6 drop the lowest" hurts my brain.

For those playing at home, 13.3333 (etc.) minus the 8 point you get as base at point buy is 5.3333 (etc.), which, multiplied by 6 stats, is 32. So, if you believe me about the guy elsewhere on this messageboard somewhere (and believe him about the average), that's the closest point buy to the standard 4d6 drop the lowest method.

Which is all a long way of saying "no." Mostly as a matter of simplicity- changing now would be a pain. The differences between 30, 32, and 33 are minimal enough to not bother, and you get a slight boost in power from being able to decide which score goes where. I think these are solid arguments for keeping things the way they are.

 

[orsal]

I seem to recall someone once rolled 4d6, dropping the lowest, some rediculous number of times and ended up with an average of 13.333, repeating. This isn't the best way to do it, but the math of statistics in reference to "4d6 drop the lowest" hurts my brain.

For those playing at home, 13.3333 (etc.) minus the 8 point you get as base at point buy is 5.3333 (etc.), which, multiplied by 6 stats, is 32. So, if you believe me about the guy elsewhere on this messageboard somewhere (and believe him about the average), that's the closest point buy to the standard 4d6 drop the lowest method.

Which is all a long way of saying "no." Mostly as a matter of simplicity- changing now would be a pain. The differences between 30, 32, and 33 are minimal enough to not bother, and you get a slight boost in power from being able to decide which score goes where. I think these are solid arguments for keeping things the way they are.

I set up a spreadsheet a little while ago to compute it, and I found that the average ability score with 4d6 minus lowest is 12.24. I didn't do it randomly; I had the spreadsheet do all 1296 possible rolls of 1296. So I should have gotten the exact answer. The person you're quoting was either misremembering, or had a fluke. (If you roll enough dice, and "a ridiculous number of times" should be enough, it is almost certain that you will get a good approximation to the correct average.)

But the average *points* per character isn't 4.24*6=25.4, it's somewhat higher. If I recall, I used the same spreadsheet to calculate it as 29 point something or other. I don't recall how I treated scores below 8 for that conversion; I think I just called them all zero points. You'd get a slightly lower average if you counted them negative.

The reason you can't just plug the average ability score into the point buy formula to get the average number of points is that the conversion is non-linear. Think of it this way: the average of 16 and 8 is 12, but the average of 10 points and 0 points is 5 points, corresponding to a score of 13. If you average a bunch of ability scores you get a lower average than if you average a the corresponding point counts.

That said, I completely agree with your last paragraph. The difference isn't big enough to get excited about, and therefore I think it best not to fiddle with it. (However, it looks like we're losing that one.)