Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Character Creation: Point Buy or Roll of the Die?

[sjmiller]

My problem with the generation of abilities in a random order is that you end up with players choosing a character class based on the abilities rather than on what they want to play.

I find this to be quite interesting. I've been gaming for over thirty years now, and only recently have I seen the phenomenon of "character idea first, character creation second" in D&D character creation. For me, and for a great many people I know who game, the process has always been that you create your attributes first and then see where they take you. Sure, I have known people who gravitate to several different character types no matter what they role, but the rolling of attributes and assigning them has more often then not sparked the imagination. Fantastic characters spring forth and become great story elements in gaming.

I am not saying either method is better, though I have my preference. In my mind at least, coming in focused on creating one and only one character type for a game is a bit limiting. Now, if we are talking game systems like GURPS or Hero System, that is something else. The creation process there is different.

 

[Nimloth]

My problem with the generation of abilities in a random order is that you end up with players choosing a character class based on the abilities rather than on what they want to play. ....

You have some good points and if you want to do idea before generation, then any organic method really isn't for you. The whole point behind an organic method of character creation IS that you have limited control over your characters stats. And yes, if you have a really bad "roll", +6 is not going to help. Notice, I specified a "modest roll", so on anything from 8-12, +6 makes for a playable character and that should cover most cases.

I used to prefer point buy, but it's generic cookie-cutterness now leaves a stale taste in my mouth. Rolling, only if you force me. Stat array is ok, but I like more variety.

The nice thing about gaming, there really isn't a "right way". Do whatever character generation method you and your group can agree on.

Good gaming.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

For my next campaign, I'm considering this:

1. Designate one ability as Primary, two as Secondary, and three as Tertiary.

2. Roll Primary ability: 2d4 + 10 = range 12-18, Ave 15

3. Roll two Secondary abilities: 2d6 + 6 = range 8-18, Ave 13

4. Roll three Tertiary abilities: 1d8 + 1d6 + 4 = range 6-18, Ave 11-13

5. If the sum of all modifiers is 0 or lower, or if highest score is 13 or lower… you may discard all rolls and return to step 2.

6. Assign each set of scores within their individual categories.


I'm hoping this captures organic rolling while still maintaining a degree of viability for a player's Character Class preference.

 

[Scott DeWar]

I am of the school of not liking a 'cookie cutter ' attribut game, but at the same time, I see the need to try and keep it fair. I am not sure who posted this, but the method of asigning every ones rolls highest to lowes 1-6 the averageing all the 1's then 2's ... that gives a unilateral eveness and yet a sense of randomness.

i play in one of Mowgli's games and I had fun with his attribut system.

 

[theedj]

Did you guys ever consider dumping (# of players)x18 d6's into a pit and just letting your players fight over them?

 

[sjmiller]

Did you guys ever consider dumping (# of players)x18 d6's into a pit and just letting your players fight over them?

I am not sure if I have 162 d6 to use for such an experiment. And where would I roll them? Not only that, but I have cats and breakables in my house, and I think the women in my group would fight dirty.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I vastly prefer point buy. A DM that only allows rolling for stats actually causes me to pause and consider not joining the game, I hate rolling so much. One small, singular event should never burden you for so long or to so great a magnitude as poor rolling can. I've been in some games with pretty bad disparities. One game, my rolls were worth something like 12-15 point buy and I made a Warlock just because of the available classes, it was the least stat-reliant. Another player made a Rogue with his amazing rolls that I calculated to be worth something like 42 point buy. He was literally better than me at every single thing I tried to specialize in, on top of half a dozen other things.

[sblock]Even though I usually liked the DM for other systems, his way of running D&D was just too cruel for my tastes, had to leave. It was a dystopian kind of world, so I guess he thought being harsh on everything was fitting. It wasn't just the power disparity, either. My character was the only good character in a party of very, very evil PCs (not my choice, he told us what kind of alignment we had to play when we blindly picked our character backrounds he had written up). He continously punished my character or made her good intentions only make things worse whenever I tried to actually RP her as being...good. I felt like she was a D&D personification of Justine (the Marquis de Sade character), and I just didn't feel like playing that sort of thing.[/sblock]

That said, I dislike PF's point buy system greatly. Being able to nuke your scores to salvage bonus points, even if mechanically it's not much different than just starting all stats at 8, just gives this min-maxing feel I can't stand.

And for those who decry point buy for allowing a caster to start with an 18, my issue with PF is what it does to other characters. They made a 14 cost 5 points now, and "normal" point buy is only 15. High fantasy is 20. So if you're making a monk, rogue, or other MAD class and simply want 4 scores of 14 (not unreasonable to me, then again I'm mostly used to high powered ~32 point-buy games), you suddenly need to nuke your other two scores, just to afford that with the standard. High Fantasy just barely lets you squeeze it in. Compare to 3.5, where normal point buy is 25 points. 4 scores of 14 costs 24 points, fitting into that system with a point ot spare. With the high powered 32, you can even raise the other 2 scores to 10 and/or get one or two 16's in the high scores.

If I use PF, I'm tempted to just use 3.5 point buy. Maybe since all PF races generally net a +2 ability score increase, I'll reduce the point buy a certain amount. Four points (32 point buy becomes 28 point buy, for example) sounds about right.

I wouldn't.

Since I'm allowing either point-buy or use standard arrays, anyone wishing to roll for stats in the hope of getting something better than with the method everyone else uses will have to suck it up if it doesn't work out.

Actually, this happened once in my campaign. It didn't take long for the player to decide he'd rather let the character commit suicide and use point-buy for the replacement pc (who, alas, had to start one level lower).

I have the same sentiments. I'd rather everyone use point buy, but just as I hate tyrannical DMs that force me to roll, I wouldn't want to force a rolling lover to use point buy. I just don't understand why some people, including close friends I otherwise generally understand the psyches of, insist that rolling is "more fun." It's a set of rolls that takes like 15 seconds, and then never happens again. Anyway...I follow a similar policy. I'll offer a massive, freaking awesome point buy, like 32, to encourage people to just use that. If you still want to roll, you can do 4d6 drop the lowest as normal. If your scores come out terrible (ah, karma!) I'll let you use point buy instead of accepting them. But your point buy will be significantly lower (for 32 PB games, probably ~20-22). If anyone thinks that's mean spirited, it's purely for balance. If you knew you could fall back on point buy if you rolling awful, and it wouldn't be at a much lower value, everyone would just try their hand at the dice first. Nothing to lose.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

The system that made my players happiest was a 40 point point buy (gasp). I use the DMG system and the points are based on the oWoD 7/5/3 split which 40 points is mathematically equivalent to. Then I allow them after they have set their stats to roll 3d6 straight down the line taking the die roll if its better than what they bought.

 

[Set]

Point buy. I prefer 20 (using the Pathfinder numbers). 15 gets a little tight and 25 is a little too generous for me. I just about never take attributes below 10, and even if I'm playing a gnome or something, I buy strength back up to 10. At the other end, I see a lot of 'builds' that start out with 18 to 20 in their prime attribute, and I'm more likely to put a 14-17 there, depending on the class (a SAD class gets the 17, a MAD class gets 14 in a couple).

I loathe dice-rolling for stats. Back in 1st edition, I would occasionally roll so badly that my character couldn't qualify for *any* class, lacking the 9 Str needed for Fighter, the 9 Dex needed for Thief, etc. Even in 3rd edition, I would roll a 'mulligan' (a character with a net negative in stat modifiers) often enough that we made special rules for me. In V&V, I'd be the fool who rolled a 1 and had one super-power after buying off his Physical Disability weakness, while the dude across the table from me had seven super-powers, two of which came with 1d6 other powers...

Call of Cthulhu? "I want to play a weedy researcher, like the protagonist from just about every Lovecraft story ever!" Rolls dice. "Okay, you have a higher strength than anyone else in the party, and a lower intellect than anyone else in the party, and it's possible, with these numbers, that you are illiterate. Charles Dexter Ward, you're not. You're the sort of person who Lovecraft would introduce as the inbred fish-mutant who eats the protagonist..."

 

[Smeelbo]

Roll one array for all characters

What we've done in the PathFinder campaign I am playing is that we rolled one array using 2D6+6, and everyone built their character out of the same resulting array.

Completely fair.
Smeelbo