Point Buy vs. Die Rolling Ability Scores

[Greybar]

Elder-Basilisk

Point buy also allows some interesting options that I want to try out next time I run a game. I'm thinking of something like allowing higher point buys at the cost of +1 or +2 ECL (for the young and inexperienced but very gifted type characters), allowing +ecl races at no ECL if they live with lower point buy, and possibly even allowing characters to start with extra levels of NPC classes at the cost of lower stats

This is a direction I've been thinking along as well. This is essentially the same as the methods advanced in Savage Species. After all, many races and templates essentially advance the attributes. Consider the huge arguments over the half-ogre there.

Perhaps that's another thead for the House Rules forum.

John

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Elder-Basilisk


This is a direction I've been thinking along as well. This is essentially the same as the methods advanced in Savage Species. After all, many races and templates essentially advance the attributes. Consider the huge arguments over the half-ogre there.

Perhaps that's another thead for the House Rules forum.

John

I think the problem comes is that to be worth a ECL, those would have to be honkin huge boosts in stats. The afore mentioned 1/2 ogre gets massive stat boosts as just one of its many +1ecl benefits. The drow at +2ecl gets lots of stat benies, huge darkvision, SR, natural spells, and all the standard elf +0 ecl benies.

Now as an ECL boost without ECL creatures I think you can get by with less of a stat boost needed to make it worth while. but in comparson to ECl creatures many of which already have huge stat boost in addition to other ECL benies it can get wierd.

 

[Skaros]

That's odd. Sunday we made up new characters using dice to roll up attributes and I decided on a monk before I rolled a single die. I don't think that any class needs better scores then any other, so it didn't matter what I rolled.

But I think people put too much emphasis on attributes and their importance. I'm much more concerned about balance of magical items and class abilities then attributes personally.

That last one is an excellent point. I hope people heed it.

I recently switched our group from 4d6 drop lowest, roll 7 times, reroll ones to 32 point buy.

My group is adult enough not to mind bringing in new characters and backup characters under 32 point buy, instead of the high scores they were used to, so I made the switch.

Now that most of the characters in the group are 32 point buy (only 2 original surviving members left), I've noticed that there is a lot more differentiation between the classes chosen.

Having high stats all around tends to diminish the difference between the classes and races, allowing everyone to have fairly high HP, AC, to hit bonus, damage bonus, etc.

I also don't agree with the notion that some classes "need" higher stats than others. If you think a class "needs" higher stats to be viable, then you have an issue with the balance of the class, not the stat generation method, imo.

-Skaros

 

[Coredump]

Diaglo,

I would be very interested to hear how you figured out the 12.28 average. I have a strong math background, but only took one stat class.

I assume it would be easy to use the same technique to figure out 5d6 drop 2.



How would it affect the 12.28 average if you rolled 7 times, and only kept the top 6??


thx.

RE

 

[cptg1481]

Woaaa?

With even less interest in math than my education in its use, some of this stuff makes my head hurt.


I have to say that my stand is against the point buy system. I simply don't like it. It is flawed in that it assumes that all adventurers are born (created) with the same amount of potential.

Not to quibble with our American pride, but all men are not created equal. I wish that were the case but it is not. I'll never play linebacker for the Bears, what's more I don't even get to be smarter for not having that physical ability.

I understand that there are those who are of the opinion that all of the characters in a game should have roughly the same stats (modified to best suit a players profession) for the sake of game balance. Believe me I understand this point, however, I don't think that its necessary.

We all have particular strengths and weaknesses just as our characters should. I'd like to think that I'm above the "hey John's character high stats and mine doesn't" routine. I like to work through a character's weaknesses that's part of the fun of the game for me.

While I have been around long enough to undersatnd that in some groups the point-buy system is not only a viable option but is absolutely necessary to reduce player friction and envy.

I am running a campaign now in which the character creation rules were roll, point-buy, choose them whatever you want as long as its not silly or over the top. I think that my players are mature enough to be fair to each other.

On the up-side this lets everyone have exactly the character they want with the stats they envisioned. Therefore they are more comited to the game as a whole.

On the down side like someone mentioned earlier, I have had to up the anty on the level of encounters the group faces to make the game more fun. I mean my group likes fighter types and I think that the lowest strength stat is an 18 and that is on the human. I just have to remember to bump up the AC and HP of every monster or baddie lest they get eaten alive by the high strength bonuses to damage and to-hit rolls. I have bumped it up to about +3 in the begining and as they ascend the ladder of success it'll eventually even out. They are a level 10 party now and I give them EL12 encounters. It seems balanced but I'm sure that I'll have to lower this latter.

 

[Halfabee]

I have to agree with dash and dcollins - the "old-fashioned" rolling of characters breathes some life into the game. It creates the "inequities" that help to make the game more interesting and fun; it helps to give characters . . . ah . . . character. The whole point of the game is to enjoy the role-playing, and the more personality characters have, the more fun the players have.

Point buying, on the other hand is akin to making cookie cutter characters (say that fast, three times ). It may work if the only goal is to create a character which does well in combat (it seems that a lot of folks would like to run an LP model to determine what the optimum stats would be for each class, and run with that . . . while following the optimal progression of skill and feats to arrive at the most powerful character in the end). While I admit that I like to have a character develop into a powerful hero-type, the approach I see a lot of today's gamers taking is purely mechanical.

I also don't understand the mentality that all characters must be created equally. I've heard a lot of talk about needing the game to be balanced or "fair." Fair for what? To have a whole party of leaders . . . or followers? Again, randomly generated characters will likely produce an easily identified leader in the party. And it's normal for any party to have a leader, or at least a prominent member who does most of the talking. If this is a problem for players, the DM should explain that people (and characters) are all created differently, and that of course it's likely that someone will have a character that is stronger or or more intelligent than your character.

Anyway - I prefer to roll my character's stats, and develop a personality (with strengths and shortcomings) around them.

~E

 

[Pax]

Theproblem isn't inequality between players.

The problem is repeated, PREDICTABLE inequality between players. When you can count on Bob always having stellar attributes, espwecially compared to everyone else ...

... well, you know what, maybe someone ELSE would like their "turn" in the spotlight, eh?

On top of which, in real life I live the "not everyone is created equal" type of setup. I play games to get AWAY from real life, not to simulate it!

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I hear this criticism bandied about a lot. I still think it's nonsense though. If there is a cookie cutter similarity to point buy characters you see, the problem lies at the conceptual stage not at the distribution of stats.

If every paladin is a single classed front line bruiser with a bastard sword and large shield, they'll all look the same with point buy (and with rolling too). On the other hand, if a player has a nifty concept for a dextrous rogue/ranger/paladin/Consecrated Harrier in one game and wants to play a melee focussed paladin/sorceror in the next and goes for a warhammer and shield focussed fullplate bruiser paladin in the next and a greatsword wielding, mobility (and spring attack) focussed fighter/paladin in the fourth campaign, you'll have four different sets of "optimal" stats to account for the difference in planned abilities and tactics. (And if you start complaining that these are examples of cookie molds because they're stat based remember you're the one complaining about stats being the same--I'm just pointing out there's a reason for them to be different; of course all the characters will be monotonous despite their mechanical dissimilarity if they're all played the same. But what does that prove? Only that the monotony is not a function of mechanics but of concept which is what I said at the beginning. (I do think mechanics ought to mirror the concept though)).

And if players have cookie cutter character concepts (did you one better on the tongue twister ) they'll have cookie cutter characters whether the game is point buy or dice rolling. If players don't have cookie cutter concepts, they'll have different characters. Players are perfectly capable of looking at the die rolling output and deciding which of the optimal cookie molds the set of scores fits into ("Well, I've got one really good score and everything else is lousy--I'll have to be a cleric or a wizard (a gnome wizard with a toad familiar)"). In fact, point buy gives players who want it the freedom to explore character concepts at will rather than depending upon the luck of the draw. (It's hard to play a Forrest Gump cleric if you roll all 14's or to play an Errol Flynn swashbuckler if you roll a 9 for charisma, or to play a Maximus clone if your constitution is too low to take the frequent beatings--thus rolling for stats limits the number of concepts available to any given player at any given time).

In any case, why do cookie cutter stats necessarily equal boring characters? Every 20th level fighter in the world may have a +5 weapon. That doesn't mean they're all the same. I don't think anyone would say that all paladins are the same even if they all got +5 armor of heavy fortification and a Holy Avenger sword. And if having the same items doesn't make Glorfindel into Aragorn, Midnight into Elminster, Artemis Entreri into Drizz't, or Cattie Brie into Legolas, why would having a 16 dex and a 15 wisdom make two elf clerics into copies of each other? If one's a LG cleric of Torm raised by humans and the other is a CN cleric of Shevarash bent on vengeance I'd say there's still a world of difference, wouldn't you?

Point buying, on the other hand is akin to making cookie cutter characters (say that fast, three times ). It may work if the only goal is to create a character which does well in combat (it seems that a lot of folks would like to run an LP model to determine what the optimum stats would be for each class, and run with that . . . while following the optimal progression of skill and feats to arrive at the most powerful character in the end). While I admit that I like to have a character develop into a powerful hero-type, the approach I see a lot of today's gamers taking is purely mechanical.

 

[haiiro]

"I've always allowed 70-point buy for my players. I haven't had a problem with it yet."

Well, as long as you understand that you have increased the ECL of the party by one or two so that the challenges will be more in line...

I assume ArcOfCorinth meant 70 points straight, not on a sliding scale like the methods in the DMG. I used this approach for years with 2e (generally 74-78 points) and never had any problems with it. I've always preferred point buy methods to rolling for stats, and I like it when the PCs have high attributes and a lot of flexibility in assigning them.

For 3e, I prefer the DMG's 32 point buy approach, both as a player and a DM.

 

[Howling Coyote]

I prefer point buy, but unfortunately every time I try to force my players to use it they try to hang me. They hate point buy because they always get lower stats with it. I like it for the same reason. The stats will be more balanced and nobody can complain that others have better stats.