Point Buy Negative Values

[S'mon]

Linear is 'in the spirit' if you're comparing the _value_ of a rolled character to a PB PC and want to see which is better, but don't _allow_ PB to trade off lower than 8 for the reasons mentioned.

 

[S'mon]

There are DMs who let players choose between 4d6-drop-lowest and PB.

Yeah, I do this. I also have PB PCs interacting with rolled PCs. I've settled on 3/4d6 as equalling 28 PB.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Random rolling definitely beats 25 PB. A theoretical totally average best 3/4d6 rolled PC would have 3 12s & 3 13s, or 27 PB. Since in actuality they'll likely have stats of 15+ the true result of random rolling is more like 30-32 pts, albeit not as optimised as a 32 PB character. For this reason I agree with Living Greyhawk's approach of using 28 PB, it gives PCs about as effective as the typical result of a 3/4d6 roll.

This takes us to an interesting point; why is the default rule for ability generation 4d6d while CRs are based on characters with 25pt default array? The playtesters seem to be implying that the two are equivalent?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I do not think players should be rewarded for lowering stats below 8.

Once you get much below that, the character goes beyond "having a weakness" to being crippled in broad, significant fashion-- typically a fashion that the player believes they can simply avoid in-game.

With racial modifiers, a core race character can have a score as low as 6. In my opinion, this should be considered the very bare minimum of a plausibly playable character.

 

[Thanee]

Well, one might suspect, that this hasn't been thought through enough.

Of course you need to put the PB amount below the average of the dice rolls, because of the better control, but PB 25 just is too far below. Also experience shows clearly, that PB 28 is more like it.

Bye
Thanee

 

[ThirdWizard]

I do not think players should be rewarded for lowering stats below 8.

Once you get much below that, the character goes beyond "having a weakness" to being crippled in broad, significant fashion-- typically a fashion that the player believes they can simply avoid in-game.

With racial modifiers, a core race character can have a score as low as 6. In my opinion, this should be considered the very bare minimum of a plausibly playable character.

Personally, I'm willing to let a player cripple themself to get a measily +1 or +2 to their PB (which at best gives them a 16 in something that would have been a 15, and forces them to drop a stat to a 4 base). Every stat is important, and my players know that there are no throw away stats in my games. So far, no takers, but hey, if they really really want.

 

[GimbleRaulnor]

I never give points for lowered stats either. But then, they usually get some 30-35 points to spend. They haven't complained yet

 

[haiiro]

Why not just scrap the "base of 8" point buy approach, and use a different base number (such as 3)?

 

[Thanee]

You might want to read CGs other topic to actually understand, what this here is all about.

(Above I put a link to a post of mine in that topic.)

Bye
Thanee

 

[pbd]

Personally, I think that character generation should be skewed towards generating above average characters. Why no let the player play a "hero", someone who is above average in most abilities? There is little not let a player use, say, 40 - 45 pb or 4d6 drop 7 rolls, or even let them reroll if they think the charatcer stinks (personally I prefer rolling methods, because of the randomness; the whole point buy thing rubs me wrong for some reason)

Having high stat characters is not going to break the game, it will be more fun for the player (especially at lower levels) and a good DM can still challenge players and make the game interesting.

This is a game and the pont is for the DM to make it fun for the players, whilst having a good time themselves. Overly limiting characters doesn't serve a neessary purpose.

pbd