New Character Stats - "Stat Point Bank" Query

[kenobi65]

Does anyone do a point buy system where all stats start at 3? Or does this lead to to many characters with 3's and 18's?

The RPGA's Living Death campaign (a Gothic horror campaign, which uses a 3.5 adaptation of the old 2E Masque of the Red Death rules) uses this system:

- You get 72 points to divide up among your six ability scores. Note that these points are *not* the same as those used in 3E / 3.5 "Point Buy" -- a 10 costs 10 points, an 18 costs 18 points, etc.
- Ability scores at character creation can range from 3 to 18.
- At creation, you can't have two scores with the same number, except for 10 and 11. For example, if you buy a 14 Dex, you can't buy a 14 in another ability.

Under this system, I've seen a PC with a 5 Strength, and another one with a 3 Charisma. Though, it should be noted that Living Death is strong in skill use, role-playing, and problem-solving, and not always terribly combat-oriented. So, using the mental abilities for "dump stats" doesn't always yield a character that'll thrive in the campaign.

 

[ragboy]

There's also the d20 Modern/Star Wars (I believe) method of stat distribution that works out to a 26-point buy system:


15 = 8
14 = 6
13 = 5
12 = 4
10 = 2
9 = 1


I use this one most often. I like it because new characters don't start out with crazy-high stats, and the stats they care about they increase when they make it to 4th level... Or they bump the 9 up to avoid the penalty. I've found (probably cause a ruckus) that stats don't matter that much either way, if the DM is paying attention. Difficulties can be increased for those players that must powergame (if it's annoying) and balanced with the story (less combat more interaction) for those that don't boost their stats for combat/action bonuses.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

There's also the d20 Modern/Star Wars (I believe) method of stat distribution that works out to a 26-point buy system:


15 = 8
14 = 6
13 = 5
12 = 4
10 = 2
9 = 1

That is from no official WotC book AFAIK. Probably a houserule. And the points are always flexible...

I use this one most often. I like it because new characters don't start out with crazy-high stats,

Why not? If the pay the price for it?

Difficulties can be increased for those players that must powergame (if it's annoying)

I have to disagree. If you don't want people to min/max their characters, just tell them so. Don't screw them up behind their back. Saying: "You're very strong (and paid the price for your streangth by being not as agile or tough as you could have been), so for you, the DC to lift the same stone block is higher. Just come clear with people when you don't like what they do, and let them defend themselves instead of secretly cheating them out of their achievements

and balanced with the story (less combat more interaction) for those that don't boost their stats for combat/action bonuses.

I rather think that you sould tell them before what kind of campaign you're going to give them - more combats or more social stuff - so they can plan their characters accordingly. The player of a fighter (which is almost always very combat-focused, due to the lack of abilities for out-of-combat interactions. There's no need for powergaming to do this) is going to be just as pissed when he learns that the whole campaign will be social intrigue as will be the player of the diplomat who finds out that you play an all-out dungeon crawl.

It is not powergaming or min/maxing when people create characters that fit into the campaign. It's just the desire to have a character who won't be completely useless.

 

[old school 1E]

No, IMO it's actually better that way. This way, if you want, you can give them a weakness (or rather might have to give them a weakness if you want really good primary stats).

You bring up a very good point. I can see how a DM would want lower level characters to have "faults" or weaknesses that, over time, are corrected. Since the character gains the opportunity to raise a stat every so many levels and/or has the opportunity to acquire magic items, it makes sense that they should have some area(s) in which they are deficient.

I'll stop this line of thought here to avoid a "but arent PC's above average versus people around them in the DM world?" debate tangent

Another interesting variant I can think of is start everyone at 10 give less of a point buy, but be allowed to add points by taking penalties (i.e. +1 point to your buy total for every point below 10 down to, say, 7, then 2 points to 5, etc) or some equivalent method.

Heh, maybe i'm overanalyzing this and I should just make up a friggin character and have it approved by the DM

 

[kenobi65]

Another interesting variant I can think of is start everyone at 10 give less of a point buy, but be allowed to add points by taking penalties (i.e. +1 point to your buy total for every point below 10 down to, say, 7, then 2 points to 5, etc) or some equivalent method.

And that actually brings up an issue that some people seem to have with Point Buy. Under the RAW, you simply can't "buy" a score less than 8 (racial adjustments can bring a score lower, but there's no way to buy a 6, or whatever). Some folks would like to be able to make the kind of trade-off you mention above -- really dump an ability score in order to have more points to put against the ability scores you feel are important. Point Buy allows you to have a character with some slightly-below-average scores, but nothing substantially below average.

Personally, I don't have this issue, and, IMO, it'd open up the Point Buy method to even more power-gaming, but YMMV.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I've actually seen people dropping one of their stats below 8, but it was always done in order to give the character a real weakness.

 

[houser2112]

I have to disagree. If you don't want people to min/max their characters, just tell them so. Don't screw them up behind their back. Saying: "You're very strong (and paid the price for your streangth by being not as agile or tough as you could have been), so for you, the DC to lift the same stone block is higher. Just come clear with people when you don't like what they do, and let them defend themselves instead of secretly cheating them out of their achievements

The point of making your character strong is so Strength-based tasks are easier. If you're just going to slide the scale around because a character is particularly strong, why should that player bother to boost his Strength? Are you also going to give the enemies more hp because this PC is going to deal more melee damage?