Doing it the hard way?

[Elf Witch]

I have not done the 3D6 in order in years. Though I would be willing to give it a try in a short game.

I did have a DM who made us do a 15 point buy and to put it bluntly it sucked badly. If you chose to play a character that only needs one stat to be decent say like a fighter or a wizard you can pull it off. You have to choose wisely and accept that your saves will most likely be +0.

But if you want to play a class that needs more than one stat to really do its job it becomes very hard.

It gets really bad if the DM throws things at the party that the party with its lower stats can't handle. For one thing most of the PCs didn't have pluses to their con which means lower hit points.

It was not just hard it was often frustrating and I think we all were a little relived when the TPK finally put us out of our misery.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not me. I don't see the appeal in playing someone whose just plain gimped. I mean, flaws are actually fun, don't get me wrong, but sucking at basically everything isn't even remotely fun (to me). In earlier editions, your stats didn't really matter unless they were extremely high or extremely low, but third edition isn't those earlier editions.

Don't get me wrong; I can see the other side, why someone would want control of their character stats or assurances of a certain level of competence.

However, I don't think a 3d6 character is "gimped at everything". First, you still might roll well. Beyond that, what happens depends very much on the style of the game. At worst case, your character has poor ability scores, but that only matters for campaigns where you are actually making a lot of high-stakes dice rolls. A DM might create challenges that are more achievable to match the character's lack of ability. Or the DM might focus on more a rp-heavy style and roll fewer dice. Or maybe the DM stays with the style he'd use for strong characters, and you accept that things will be difficult.

Again, for my part, I usually use an allocation system far more generous than standard point buy, and I enjoy the wish fulfillment aspect and the greater tactical element associated with having that level of control in character creation. But every now and then I change it up with a dice roll, because I think that has merits too.

 

[CroBob]

Don't get me wrong; I can see the other side, why someone would want control of their character stats or assurances of a certain level of competence.

However, I don't think a 3d6 character is "gimped at everything". First, you still might roll well. Beyond that, what happens depends very much on the style of the game. At worst case, your character has poor ability scores, but that only matters for campaigns where you are actually making a lot of high-stakes dice rolls. A DM might create challenges that are more achievable to match the character's lack of ability. Or the DM might focus on more a rp-heavy style and roll fewer dice. Or maybe the DM stays with the style he'd use for strong characters, and you accept that things will be difficult.

I'm flying with the 15 point buy scenerio, where your character is essentially guaranteed to suck. Organic 3d6 could be alright. But still, altering the difficulty seems like fake difficulty (or easiness, as it were) to me. If your stats are lower, so the DM reduces DCs and uses lower CR enemies... why not just use regular methods for stats and not make things easier? If you want to, go ahead, but it doesn't seem like the feel would be any different except your saves are going to necessarily be bad, even against lower CR enemies, and you won't qualify for the fun feats. Granted, how saves work in 3.5 is bad anyway, since they increase slower than DCs do.

Anyway, altering difficulty is the only real "fix" you mentioned, but that also essentially negates the lowered character ability. Everything else it doesn't really matter how you get the stats you do. Role-play heavy will have the same number of necessary rolls for whatever, and you can do it with 2 point or 99 to get your stats. It doesn't matter. The DCs will either be adjusted to your characters' abilities, or they will not be.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The DCs will either be adjusted to your characters' abilities, or they will not be.

That's really a deeper philosophical issue. Some people do pretty much determine how hard challenges are going to be based on the characters' abilities. Almost everyone does at least a little bit of that, and some people do a lot. It's legislated into D&D in general, and particularly in 4e.

It can result in a different style of game, where the big-number PCs are dragonslayers and the small-number PCs fight goblins, or you can just have the big ones face really tough goblins. Sometimes it can be worth playing around with character power to see what happens, but it certainly can become pointless.

 

[CroBob]

That's really a deeper philosophical issue. Some people do pretty much determine how hard challenges are going to be based on the characters' abilities. Almost everyone does at least a little bit of that, and some people do a lot. It's legislated into D&D in general, and particularly in 4e.

It can result in a different style of game, where the big-number PCs are dragonslayers and the small-number PCs fight goblins, or you can just have the big ones face really tough goblins. Sometimes it can be worth playing around with character power to see what happens, but it certainly can become pointless.

My point was more about it being either a needless change (if the game will still be balanced against what the PCs are capable of), or fun due to it's difficulty (if you find things being overly difficult fun and the challenge is not adjusted to the characters' abilities). It could also just be fun with math, which, okay, but it's still pointless in adding that extra step, unless you enjoy that step.

 

[GhostBear]

You have to choose wisely and accept that your saves will most likely be +0.

I think this is a problem with the game system (or player perception). A save modifier of +0 shouldn't be considered such a severe hindrance. +0 should be considered the norm, anything above should be (and is even called) a bonus. Something extra.

Oh no, I have *gasp* normal saving throws? What will the world come to next?!

I'd be interested to know if the 3.5 engine was developed with the idea that players would have, on average, a +2 bonus on each of their saving throws from stats, or if it was built with "average" being truly average and expected.

From my experience with 2nd Ed., it seems that the rules were indeed built around the idea that most character stats will be more or less average.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm actually planning to do this in a rather old school-y campaign I'm planning on DMing... whenever I can interest some of my regular players to give it a try.

Very much on the 'survival of the fittest' side, we'd be playing lots of one-shot dungeon crawls, with new PCs brought in when and if the old ones die (which I'd make sure to have become a regular occurrence). We'd be starting with 1st level weaklings, who really just happen to have training a notch above the NPCs they're with (core PC classes), but are otherwise exceedingly un-special. Maybe even downright hampered in their potential.

But the overall campaign structure is intended to include hexcrawl exploration elements, and also includes building up and defending a settlement of refugees in a hostile archipelago.

...

In such a hostile game environment, low, random, all-over-the-place ability scores just feel right to me. Especially since the PCs will still be head and shoulders above everybody else (yeah, no magic for sale anywhere, that's right, but there's plenty of stuff lying around in the horrible-monster-infested dungeons!).

Not fully sure about the "unlocking" principle, but all the rest sounds great. If you run such game on EN PbP forums, I'll be happy to join that!

 

[N'raac]

Whether characters are "guaranteed to suck" depends on where one draws the line on "sucks". Clearly, the characters will have mid-level stats. If you plan on taking a spellcaster up to the highest levels, you'll need a 14 or 15 spellcasting stat (15 to cast 9th level spells when they become available at 17th level, or 14 to use 8th level + metamagic for your 9th level slots until you hit L20 - unless you get a stat enhancing item).

That's 6 - 8 of your 15 point buy. With 7 remaining, you can have 3 10's and 2 8's (one can be an 11 or a 9), or 12/10//8/8/8 (again, add one to one of those stats). Drop that big stat to 6 and you can have a 14, or one more 12, or one less 8.

Or you could have a slate of 10's with one 12 (or 13 - for feat qualification), and be pretty much normal, stat-wise.

Racial bonuses become much more relevant, it seems to me, under this model.

What do we set the point buy at for NPC's? Maybe the typical NPC has assumed stats of 8's across the board. Some might get a boost (maybe Bandits get 6 points, so they get a 12 STR and a 10 CON or DEX). It's not just the PC stats, but also the NPC stats, that set the bar for "sucks".

Characters who are pretty much normal, with either one standout ability or pretty much normal across the board, stat wise would be the norm. I agree they probably rely on one big stat, so we're largely back to the old 1e structure where Paladins and Monks are pretty rare, needing great rolls (or, esp. in point buy, picking which abilities they will focus on).

Do characters really NEED 14/14/14/14/10/10 (or 16/14/12/12/10/10, or 18/14/12/10/8/8) to be considered "competent"? When we tried to port characters over from 2e, we quickly stopped looking at the characteristic, and looked instead at the bonuses. You previously had an 18/76 STR and got +2/4? Well, that's an average bonus of +3, so you have a 16 STR in the new model. Used to have DEX 15? A +1 bonus is a stat of 12. That brought a lot of characters in at a reasonable budget, probably above 15 point buy, but not typically at 28 point buy levels unless the character's 2e stats were pretty incredible.

The two keys, to me, will be:

- comparable PC's (dice rolling carries the potential for disparity with good or bad luck), though allowing re-rolls based on not meeting a de minimis total bonus and maximum bonus would take out the lower end;

- challenges set at a reasonable level commensurate with character power.

I agree, though, that a bonus becomes a BONUS under this model, not an expectation. In fact, I might go so far as to re-set the model to make every success roll one higher, and every bonus one higher, so 8 is +0. Happy now? You have no penalties. Save DC's are 11 + Spell Level + attribute modifier, and AC is 11 + bonuses.

Oh, and note that most opponents, if designed with the same point buy, will have lower bonuses to hit, to AC, to saves and to save DC's. Monsters will be tougher, as their numbers will not change. Simple fix? Maybe you have three, rather than four, encounters in a day.

In fact, it seems like this is a possible mitigator for the 15 minute day. You will have less resources to spread over the day, so if you can restrict yourself to one encounter an day, it need not be quite as challenging to make the characters sweat.

Would it be my first choice? No, not really. Would it be guaranteed unplayable? Certainly not. Could it be a great campaign? Sure - especially if players realizing their stats will no longer differentiate the characters focus more on their personalities.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think this is a problem with the game system (or player perception). A save modifier of +0 shouldn't be considered such a severe hindrance. +0 should be considered the norm, anything above should be (and is even called) a bonus. Something extra.

Oh no, I have *gasp* normal saving throws? What will the world come to next?!

I'd be interested to know if the 3.5 engine was developed with the idea that players would have, on average, a +2 bonus on each of their saving throws from stats, or if it was built with "average" being truly average and expected.

From my experience with 2nd Ed., it seems that the rules were indeed built around the idea that most character stats will be more or less average.

3E does not play like 2E stats and saves I have found are more important in 3E than in 2E.

Having as you put it a normal save is not bad unless you also add in low hit points as well. I have played many a game with a +o to a save or even a -1 or -2 to a save. But this was often countered by better hit points or being better at something else.

In the 15 point buy I had a 10 in my dex which meant no bonus to my reflex save but also meant no extra AC either.

I have never found a the game to run well on such a low point buy unless you also lower the CR threats for that group. Playing Age of Worms right now and I know that a party of 15 point buy PCs would be hard pressed to live long enough to get through the first few levels.

The DMs guide does say that a 15 point buy is for low powered games. And that is something the DM has to keep in mind if he wants the game to be fun and challenging instead of just a death slog.