Rolling for stats. Need some advice

[Dandu]

Two CR 1/2 orcs are not something a level 2 fighter "should be able to take on his own." That's an EL 1 encounter, considered "challenging" for a party of four 1st-level adventurers. Adding one level to the fighter doesn't even remotely compensate for the presence of three other characters. The way I play the game, I would expect a 2nd-level fighter to lose that fight four out of five times; that you expect him to win speaks volumes as to the differences in our playstyles.

I The implications of that statement, if true, bother me.
Let's say that a 2nd level fighter should not be expected to win against a CR 1 encounter. A 1st level druid can choose a CR 1 riding dog as his animal companion; if you are saying that a level 2 fighter should be expected to lose against a simple hound 4/5th of the time, then he is supposed to be markedly inferior to a class feature.

Something has to be very, very wrong here.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The issue point buy addresses is starting out on a level playing field, not being equal and/or identical. Big difference. BIG difference.

I know that and you know that. Not everyone else does. FAR too many people believe that point buy is the magic bullet that will stop people complaining about why someone else is having more fun that they are. And the field is only level before you start buying. After buying scores and choosing class, race and filling in other details it looks like the Andes met the Himalayas.

No one said they wanted that to change. People just don't like being dropped with completely unplyable stats, or stats that make the concept you WANTED to play (and since noncasters are more stat-dependent, let's face it, in all likelihood if this happens, you're being deprived of playing what was an UNDERPOWERED character to begin with) impossible.

And point buy doesn't necessarily solve that either. As you say a spellcasting class can easily get by quite nicely without uber stats whereas MAD classes need every point they can beg, borrow or steal and point buy will only let them have so much.

This I totally agree with. I just hate when I'm forced into rolling cause the DM or a majority of other players want to. Then you're having to deal with the consequences of randomness without ever wanting to reap the potential benefits in the first place.

Players who find themselves in that situation need to immediately get the DM to set minimal standards for rerolls and maybe even additional accommodation of certain character types and concepts. Players and DM's alike need to be fully aware of what a given method of stat generation will and won't do for them. If they want to gamble they might LOSE, and one size does not fit all.

Or the player's playing a very MAD class/combo that needs basically every score to be positive. Admittedly, few characters will need ALL stats, but in my love of monk and roguelike multiclassed frankensteins, I've created a fair number of "needs a moderate score in all stats" characters myself. Thankfully, those were all using point buy.

But the DM doesn't always set the total points allowed to spend in the same place. And as you set a higher total you still get discrepancy between MAD characters who are finally becoming able to function with some comfort and non-MAD characters who are able to push the envelope with those high totals.

 

[Dandu]

But the DM doesn't always set the total points allowed to spend in the same place. And as you set a higher total you still get discrepancy between MAD characters who are finally becoming able to function with some comfort and non-MAD characters who are able to push the envelope with those high totals.

I find that the increase in power of a Monk from 28 PB to 32 PB is greater than what, say, a Sorcerer experiences when undergoing the same change.

Of course, that could just be me.

 

[kitcik]

Set this out at the beginning:

- whoever wants to roll, can roll.
- whoever wants point buy will then receive a point buy equivalent to the point buy that would be needed to get the stats of whoever rolled the best
- if no one wants to roll, it is a 32 point buy.

I think you will end up with a 32 point buy.

 

[Greenfield]

I know I'm late to the party, and I may have missed some of what's said. Sorry if I end up retracing someone else's logic.

I've done systems where point buy equals a solid average of adventurer class characters (which usually means head-and-shoulders better than non adventurer types.) And players hated them.

They detested the idea that "half the folks out there are 'better' than me." Ignoring that it also means that half are worse off.

A roll of 4D6 drop one averages to 12.25 (give or take a few decimal places.)

3 D6 flat averages 10.5

Point buy can give a number of different "averages". Paradoxically, the more high numbers you buy, the lower your average, since the cost of the higher numbers doesn't advance linearly.

At the same time, getting a higher average but ending up with mediocre stats is far from satisfying. Personally I like my characters to have a weakness or two that they have to cover for. It gives them personality.

The big advantage of point buy is that you can fine tune your numbers, landing starting stats on an even number when you want, or setting up for your next stat bump in advance.

Six stats, rolled 4d6 drop lowest, will average around 73.5 (12.25+- x 6)

Six stats, rolled 3 D6 flat, will average 63.

The difference is about 10.5, almost exactly the average of a 3D6 roll. Coincidence? I think not! (Okay, maybe...)

So consider this dice system: Roll 3D6 for every stat, straight across. Now roll a 7th time and treat these as option points, to be distributed among the other stats as you choose (max 18, of course, before racial mods).

The average is almost exactly the same as if the players had rolled 4D6 dropping the lowest, but it gives them the choice of whether to bolster a low roll or boost a high one. And if someone ends up with sucky numbers across the board, re-roll the lot as the system already allows.

And if someone decides that they'll take that 8 in order to get that 18, it' their choice, and nobody is "forcing" them to do anything.

It's a little bit of both worlds. The potential for high numbers exists, right along with the risk of low ones, but there's still a measure of control all the way.

(Note, the 4D6 system doesn't really average 12.25, it's actually slightly lower. They'll average a fraction of a point lower with this system, but the difference is so small that it hardly matters.)

 

[Dandu]

At the same time, getting a higher average but ending up with mediocre stats is far from satisfying. Personally I like my characters to have a weakness or two that they have to cover for. It gives them personality.

Hm. Here it is again.

I've been thinking about the idea that mechanical weakness (a low stat, a flaw from UA, etc) gives more character. If the weakness (say, a lack of muscles) is on the sheet but not roleplayed, it effectively does not exist for the PC and does not add to his character; physical frailty will never be the defining aspect of the great mage Mastilin Rajere* if he never wangsts about it constantly. Likewise, even if a flaw is not on the sheet (hubris) if one roleplays it consistently, then it becomes a vital part of the PC's personality.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't really find having a mechanical weakness to be inherently conducive to roleplaying. And my apologies if I've misread what others are saying.


*Any resemblance to other characters, fictional or real, is purely coincidental.

 

[Dandu]

Two CR 1/2 orcs are not something a level 2 fighter "should be able to take on his own." That's an EL 1 encounter, considered "challenging" for a party of four 1st-level adventurers. Adding one level to the fighter doesn't even remotely compensate for the presence of three other characters. The way I play the game, I would expect a 2nd-level fighter to lose that fight four out of five times; that you expect him to win speaks volumes as to the differences in our playstyles.

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but does this not mean that a level 2 fighter is supposed to lose to his level 1 self 4/5ths of the time?

Something is very, very, very wrong if that is what you mean.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but does this not mean that a level 2 fighter is supposed to lose to his level 1 self 4/5ths of the time?

Something is very, very, very wrong if that is what you mean.

This is an effect of how WotC screwed up the Encounter Level and Challenge Rating rules, not with what stats any character rolls ever. It might also have something to do with a math issue, since two standard orcs become a CR 2 encounter or something, per the DMG rules on adding more monsters to an encounter. I seem to recall a part where doubling the numbers adds 2 to the CR of an encounter.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I find that the increase in power of a Monk from 28 PB to 32 PB is greater than what, say, a Sorcerer experiences when undergoing the same change.

Of course, that could just be me.

It's not you, since Monks in general are very Multi Attribute Dependent, while Sorcerers are Single Attribute Dependent only really needing charisma. The change is most noted since more powerful classes have class features that tend to overshadow stat gains. The reverse is true where weaker characters tend to rely more on stats because their features are weak.

I say "tend to" since casters need at least a 19 in one stat to cast 9th level spells. Statistics and such always have outliers or oddball notes.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I The implications of that statement, if true, bother me.
Let's say that a 2nd level fighter should not be expected to win against a CR 1 encounter. A 1st level druid can choose a CR 1 riding dog as his animal companion; if you are saying that a level 2 fighter should be expected to lose against a simple hound 4/5th of the time, then he is supposed to be markedly inferior to a class feature.

Something has to be very, very wrong here.

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but does this not mean that a level 2 fighter is supposed to lose to his level 1 self 4/5ths of the time?

Something is very, very, very wrong if that is what you mean.

We're getting very far afield here, but let me make a few points.

(1) I'm not saying that any EL 1 encounter should be a losing situation for a solo 2nd-level fighter. As most of us know quite well, the CR/EL system is...well, let's just say "flawed."

(2) The riding dog actually is a pretty deadly (or more accurately, swingy) opponent, largely due to its ability to trip. It is absolutely capable of taking out an unlucky 2nd-level fighter. What's wrong here (IMO) is giving 1st-level druids access to CR 1 animal companions.

(3) No, a 2nd-level fighter should not lose to his 1st-level self four-fifths of the time. As I hinted at earlier, there is a huge difference between facing a single opponent and multiple opponents. One of the reasons I expect a 2nd-level fighter to lose to two CR 1/2 orcs is that two opponents means two attack rolls against the fighter each round, while he can only target 50% of his enemies in return, as well as the possibilities for the orcs to synergize through flanking, grappling, etc. Another reason is that orcs are relatively hard hitters for their CR; one lucky hit may be all it takes to drop the fighter. This is not the case for all EL 1 encounters (which brings us back to point #1).

(4) I will say, however, that a 2nd-level fighter can easily lose to a 1st-level fighter, for some of the same reasons that the orcs present a significant threat. The 1st-level fighter can be a "hard hitter," too, and because his attack bonus is likely only 1 worse than the 2nd-level fighter, his chance of hitting is almost the same -- which is essentially the same point I made about fighters with 14 Strength: they aren't that much worse than fighters with 16 or 18 Strength.