EyeontheMountain
First Post
4E can dictate whichever they want, or nothing at all, and people will do what they want, same as in 3.5 and in all previous editions.
D&D 4E Should Ability Scores in 4E Be Randomly Determined?
- Thread starter Roman
- Start date
FireLance
Legend
Some scattered thoughts about point buy vs random ability score generation.
Randomness does have some advantages. It allows for the creation of memorable characters with atypical strengths and weaknesses. However, in my view, the two main problems associated with randomness are: limiting player control over the characters and hence, the ability to effectively create certain (not unreasonable) types of characters, and PC disparity (one or more characters are significantly more or less powerful than the others). The latter becomes worse when it results in niche grabbing, e.g. a spellcaster with high Strength regularly stealing the spotlight from the fighters in combat.
Point buy character generation methods are almost the exact opposite: they give the players greater control over their characters and help mitigate PC disparity, but may result in standard, "cookie cutter" characters.
Some character generation systems try to find a balance between PC disparity and randomness, e.g. the system in an issue of Dragon where all characters were built using the same point buy, but cards were used to determine how the points were distributed. This way, you get characters of roughly the same level of ability, but the advantage of atypical strengths and weaknesses is retained.
I think that PCs should remain at roughly the same, but not necessarily identical, levels of ability. There is a fudge factor that ties in quite neatly with 4e's apparent emphasis on roles. As long as each PC is good at different things, or at least, is good at what he is supposed to be good at, there can be some disparity in their underlying ability scores.
I'm starting to think that my ideal ability score generation system would have both fixed and random elements. First, you set your safety net with a point buy system or (even simpler) by distributing the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) among your ability scores. Then, you add a random element by rolling 4d6 drop lowest or (less generously) 3d6 in order, and you take the better of your point buy or your randomly generated ability score. This way, you'll always have a character with good abilities where you want them, but there's also the chance of getting a high score where you normally would not have put one.
Now, while this method works for me, I think it would be too complicated to put into the PH. In particular, new players may find it rather confusing. In fact, I'm starting to wonder whether the sacred cow of ability score generation being the first step in creating a character should make it to 4e. Maybe I'll start another thread on this.
Randomness does have some advantages. It allows for the creation of memorable characters with atypical strengths and weaknesses. However, in my view, the two main problems associated with randomness are: limiting player control over the characters and hence, the ability to effectively create certain (not unreasonable) types of characters, and PC disparity (one or more characters are significantly more or less powerful than the others). The latter becomes worse when it results in niche grabbing, e.g. a spellcaster with high Strength regularly stealing the spotlight from the fighters in combat.
Point buy character generation methods are almost the exact opposite: they give the players greater control over their characters and help mitigate PC disparity, but may result in standard, "cookie cutter" characters.
Some character generation systems try to find a balance between PC disparity and randomness, e.g. the system in an issue of Dragon where all characters were built using the same point buy, but cards were used to determine how the points were distributed. This way, you get characters of roughly the same level of ability, but the advantage of atypical strengths and weaknesses is retained.
I think that PCs should remain at roughly the same, but not necessarily identical, levels of ability. There is a fudge factor that ties in quite neatly with 4e's apparent emphasis on roles. As long as each PC is good at different things, or at least, is good at what he is supposed to be good at, there can be some disparity in their underlying ability scores.
I'm starting to think that my ideal ability score generation system would have both fixed and random elements. First, you set your safety net with a point buy system or (even simpler) by distributing the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) among your ability scores. Then, you add a random element by rolling 4d6 drop lowest or (less generously) 3d6 in order, and you take the better of your point buy or your randomly generated ability score. This way, you'll always have a character with good abilities where you want them, but there's also the chance of getting a high score where you normally would not have put one.
Now, while this method works for me, I think it would be too complicated to put into the PH. In particular, new players may find it rather confusing. In fact, I'm starting to wonder whether the sacred cow of ability score generation being the first step in creating a character should make it to 4e. Maybe I'll start another thread on this.
delericho
Legend
GreatLemur said:
Frankly, a player who "doesn't bother" to keep track of his feats' prerequisites and apply the appropriate penalties is cheating, just as is the player who "doesn't bother" to track encumberance in a campaign that uses the same.
Now, the DM may be okay with that; it is absolutely his prerogative. However, the I'm not sure one can argue that the rules don't make a distinction between odd and even attributes simply because some players cheat.
Gothic_Demon
First Post
I voted yes with a simple proviso: Put both a point buy and a dice roll method into the PHB, (although I prefer to see the dice roll as default since my players prefer it), and allow the DM to pick per game.
delericho
Legend
The problem I have seen with point buy systems is as follows:
Using 25 (or 28) point buy, players simply won't consider certain character archetypes (notably any class with MAD, such as the Monk). Additionally, when constructing characters of other classes, they'll first identify the dump stats (Cha and Int for a Fighter, Cha and Str for a Wizard, etc) and assign 8's to these stats. The remaining points are then assigned to the remaining stats as efficiently as possible. It got to the point that the players might as well not have been there - had they told me their intended race and class I could have assigned the points for them with a greater than 95% level of accuracy. The bottom line is: characters become clones of one another very quickly, available options are reduced, and the game suffers.
To combat this, I tried briefly upping the point buy total to 32. I didn't want to go any higher than this because the game is balanced at about 25 points, and to play at a more powerful level I would prefer to just play at a higher level. The outcome was not the more rounded characters I had hoped for. Instead, the extra points were pumped into the same stats as the players had been emphasising before, leading to Fighters who were just as dumb and uncharismatic, but much stronger. So, no gain there, except that a player might very occasionally opt for a Monk (or would have, if Monks didn't suck, but that's another matter).
I have tried various semi-random character generator options. One, for example, used a deck of playing cards with only the Aces through Sixes present. Players dealt six hands of four cards, discarded the lowest card from each hand, and used that as their 'roll'. That didn't work terribly well - typically characters would end up with one really low stat, or a totally mediocre set of stats.
For my last campaign, therefore, I just used the standard 4d6 roll, and found that the characters generated were roughly equivalent to 31 point buy, but rather more organic than the simple point buy would have generated. It is, of course, entirely possible that I just ended up with a lucky set of rolls.
And yet, the characters generated by point buy are undoubtedly balanced (subject to the ability of the players to assign points 'well', of course). So, as I said in my first post in this thread, I don't know what the right answer is. Perhaps there simply is no attribute generation scheme that I will find entirely satisfactory.
Using 25 (or 28) point buy, players simply won't consider certain character archetypes (notably any class with MAD, such as the Monk). Additionally, when constructing characters of other classes, they'll first identify the dump stats (Cha and Int for a Fighter, Cha and Str for a Wizard, etc) and assign 8's to these stats. The remaining points are then assigned to the remaining stats as efficiently as possible. It got to the point that the players might as well not have been there - had they told me their intended race and class I could have assigned the points for them with a greater than 95% level of accuracy. The bottom line is: characters become clones of one another very quickly, available options are reduced, and the game suffers.
To combat this, I tried briefly upping the point buy total to 32. I didn't want to go any higher than this because the game is balanced at about 25 points, and to play at a more powerful level I would prefer to just play at a higher level. The outcome was not the more rounded characters I had hoped for. Instead, the extra points were pumped into the same stats as the players had been emphasising before, leading to Fighters who were just as dumb and uncharismatic, but much stronger. So, no gain there, except that a player might very occasionally opt for a Monk (or would have, if Monks didn't suck, but that's another matter).
I have tried various semi-random character generator options. One, for example, used a deck of playing cards with only the Aces through Sixes present. Players dealt six hands of four cards, discarded the lowest card from each hand, and used that as their 'roll'. That didn't work terribly well - typically characters would end up with one really low stat, or a totally mediocre set of stats.
For my last campaign, therefore, I just used the standard 4d6 roll, and found that the characters generated were roughly equivalent to 31 point buy, but rather more organic than the simple point buy would have generated. It is, of course, entirely possible that I just ended up with a lucky set of rolls.
And yet, the characters generated by point buy are undoubtedly balanced (subject to the ability of the players to assign points 'well', of course). So, as I said in my first post in this thread, I don't know what the right answer is. Perhaps there simply is no attribute generation scheme that I will find entirely satisfactory.
ThirdWizard said:
Winner.
Simia Saturnalia
First Post
I voted yes, but that's just because rolling up a new character is more interesting than balancing a new character's point costs. But ultimately, I don't really care; we'll do what we want at the table anyway.
Hunter In Darkness
First Post
i must say if it is done this way without the dice variant in the PHB then i would never use this book ever . i do not use or like point buy i dont mind it as a variant rule for those that want it but the cookie cutter stats i have seen while balanced seem to be missing a flair and it just doesnt feel the same to me . and i have used a char with and 8 on str or con or int just as i have an 18. takeing away that bit of random fun that little oh lets see what i have and what i can do with it magic makes the game less to me. and so for the ones that like such "fairness and balance" fine but it must stay in the PHB not hidden away.
Similar Threads
