Point buy vs. rolling

[Oni]

Here is what I did last time when I had everybody roll up stats for the game I'm starting (I don't feel bad experimenting since everyone knows this isnt' going to be a terrible long lived game).


4d6 drop lowest
arrange to taste
if you have no stat above 14 add +2 to one stat.
trade points on a two for one basis i.e. lower 14 to 12 to raise 17 to 18.


seem to put everyone in pretty much the same range while still having some randomness and allowed for more customization without too much min/maxing.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

I decided to try a few test rolls and here is my preliminary thoughts.

It winds up being point buy with two twists.

A) You hope you don't roll good scores in more than one throw away stat. If you can avoid this, you really just end up with a fairly normal point buy, with maybe a few points spent where a true min/maxer would not.

B) If you roll really well, you get more points.

I don't think either of these things are bad.

You said that 8 or less = 0 points. If I roll a 7, how many points must I spend to go to 8? 8 = 0 points, 7 = 0 points, 0-0=0, so it costs 0 points? So anything less than 8 is automatically increased to 8? Or does 7 = 0 points, but it still costs 1 point to go to 8, so you wind up with a lower point total?

 

[Sodalis]

Ridley: The downside is it really hurts paladins and monks because both are very stat intensive. A low level monk with point buy is nearly unplayable IMNSHO.

I dont think pt buy hurts monks and paladins at all...

with 28 pt buy, you can have:
14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10

with 32 pt buy, you get
15,15,14,12,12,10
or 16,14,14,12,12,10

of which, you can put the highest on dex, wis, and con.

that would make agreat monk. and at lvl 4,8, you can bump the 15s up to 16s, or in the second case bump the 14 to a 16...

Having three good stats and two decent ones and a fair one. I dont think that would hurt anyone...

and if you choose your race carefully, you get racial bonus which can help out a lot also. And then there is magic items. sionce a monk does not have to buy weapons, they can buy a lot of magic items, bracers, amulets, belts...

edit: at low levels, since you dont have to buy weapons, you can buy potions of bull str and cats grace. That should give you playable stats...

 

[kenjib]

You said that 8 or less = 0 points. If I roll a 7, how many points must I spend to go to 8? 8 = 0 points, 7 = 0 points, 0-0=0, so it costs 0 points? So anything less than 8 is automatically increased to 8? Or does 7 = 0 points, but it still costs 1 point to go to 8, so you wind up with a lower point total?

Yeah, I intentionally left that in so there is still a penalty for rolling low. Rolling a score below 8 is a bad thing. If you get a 7 you get no points to compensate but you still have to spend 1 point to raise it to 8. I mentioned in my addendum that raising scores below 8 is done on a one-for-one basis. Sorry - it's spread out over two posts now.

Do you think that is good or bad? I think it leaves intact an important part of the fun of die rolling - if you roll really good it's a good thing - if you roll really poorly it's a bad thing. That's what makes the gamble of rolling fun, no? The difference is that now you have some recourse to soften the blow a bit when you do roll poorly.

 

[Sundaram]

The thrill

of the roll and the agony of anything less than 10!

We always use 4D6 dropping lowest die and re-rolling ones.

Works for us and IMO I would rather go for it all and loose than have to be tied down to the points.

=)

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

I think it is both good and bad.

Sorry, no clear opinion.

Point buy is about equity, but random is simply part of the game.

I think your version is a good compromise, so far.

 

[Davelozzi]

Rather than a hybrid system, in my current campaign, we used an either/or system. Originally we rolled up using a set of home rules based off the 4-14 scale used in Alternity, although we later converted to 3e.

At any rate, in 3e terms, it would've been something like this:

Player chooses point selection or dice rolling. Once made, there is no going back.

Player chooses point selection (one for one from total available pool, not scaled like point buy). It would take some work to figure out what the total would be like on a 3-18 scale, but it was roughly a few points lower than the average total you would end up with choosing option 2 below. Basically this was a safety choice. You could always get a decently workable character without worrying about bad rolls.

Or player chooses to roll, allowing for the possibility of an exceptional or below average character. Player rolls two sets of six scores (4d6, drop lowest). No mixing between the two sets is allowed. Then the player chooses which set to keep and assignes to the six abilities as desired.

No matter which method I use, I always stipulate that the final results are subject to DM's approval.

Eight players rolled up characters, and every one of them chose to roll. Most of the characters ended up with point totals slightly above what they would have had with point selection. One player ended up with a two low scores (5 and 6 I believe). He wanted to play a dwarven figher anyway and didn't mind having low Int & Wis since he had good rolls for his physical abilities and decent charisma.

Kenjib, I'm intrigued by your system but I think it would need more testing. I have found that it takes many, many sample rolls to really get a good sense of how a system works out.

Psion, I agree with you that the S&P system was easy to abuse. However, the problem was not simply point buy, the main problem was the subability scores. It was too easy to pump one subability and leave the other hanging. Some examples:

If you didn't plan on focusing on missile weapons, it was a no brainer to pump up the defensive side (balance?) of Dex and leave yourself with a low Aim.

Likewise, almost everyone would pump up the side of Str that affected your damage adjustment and be content with a lower carrying capacity.

 

[Number47]

I'll post my own method, just for comparison sake.

Roll stats with 3d6, keep them in order. Swap any one stat with one other, so you can play the class you want. You now have your first-level stats. Pretty weak, huh? It gets better, though.

Leveling up

• Every level, if you have a score that give a penalty, add one to your lowest score
• Every level, add one to any one score, as long as that score is currently no higher than six above your lowest score
• Add one point to any score at fourth level, as per the book

So, once you get to about sixth-seventh level, the scores get to be pretty good. At higher levels, the start getting awesome. We like this because it makes first level characters as afraid as they should be. Just Sunday, I got to roll up a character to play (switching DMs for a while). Nothing rolled higher than an 11 (got a 13 Con for racial adjustment). But that's okay, because if I survive I can improve my character the way I want. I also like the fact that it adds hard choices every level. Although the min-max way would say to never spend discretionary points in low scores, most players get sick of Con, Dex or Int penalties pretty quick.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I hate when I come into threads I like late in the discussion.

Point buy rocks. It really shows the first game your run a rolling game and have one guy dice up what would be a 20 point character and another guy dice up what would be a 40 point character.

And incidentally, I prefer 25 points. Just enough for the character to do the cool stuff, but not too many so the player has to make some decisions about the character.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Originally posted by hong

I prefer point buy.

The downside is it really hurts paladins and monks because both are very stat intensive. A low level monk with point buy is nearly unplayable IMNSHO.

You can still use point buy; just bump up the point total to allow viable characters. In this case, you might also want a floor on the lowest possible stat, to avoid excessive minmaxing from characters who aren't so stat-intensive.

Something like 40 points, minimum score of 10 in each stat should be quite balanced IMO.

Hmm. That would probably work insofar as making viable paladins and monks. But 40 points make for some pretty superheroic stats in my book. Examples: 16 14 14 14 14 14 or 18 16 14 12 10 10.