[/snarky mode on] New Character Closeup

[Numion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: [/snarky mode on] New Character Closeup

Word.

Count again though, pretty sure that added up to 36 ( I counted twice myself).

Wasn't it 5th level dude? Did you count the ability rise from 4th level?

 

[just__al]

I give my players 3 methods to create characters....

1) 3d6 8 times take any 6.
2) Floating reroll 4d6
3) 28 point buy

you can pick any method and if you don't like the results you may pick another, but you have to stick with it.

Most people tried floating reroll and then either kept the scores or went with point buy if they got bad rolls.

One player went with floating reroll and then his lowest stat was still to high for the concept he had (Dumb Paladin who didn't know he was a paladin) I let him set his int score instead...

 

[Pielorinho]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [/snarky mode on] New Character Closeup

Wasn't it 5th level dude? Did you count the ability rise from 4th level?

I just counted and got 36 myself. Figure the 4th-level point went into Str (could be con, but the math is the same either way)

Str15 -> 8 points
Dex14 -> 6 points
Con16 -> 10 points
Int10 -> 2 points
Wis12 -> 4 points
Cha14 -> 6 points

That totals 36 points.
Daniel

 

[Psion]

Exactly. My first real 3e character was generated with 4d6 drop the lowest, and I got: 18, 16, 16, 16, 14, 8. Obviously, those are *really* good stats, and that character was likewise *really* good compared to many other characters in the party, one of whom didn't even get one 16 or better (compared to my three 16s and one 18).

My only problem with this line of thinking is that it's throwing out the baby in the bathwater. Okay, so you don't want massive disparity in characters. Does that mean all characters are cut from the exact same bolt of cloth? Yeesh... seems rather stale to me.

What I do is impose minimums and maximums on the stat sets, and have, in the past, both made characters lower stats and given them rerolls because they weren't good enough.

 

[Barastrondo]

When I've messed with point-buy, I tend to allow higher ranges (35 points or so), as kind of a counter-balance for not giving out as much magic items as is assumed as book-standard. I don't have a formula of "X more points on point buy equals Y% reduction in treasure," but it seems to work out fine; the beefier characters are able to hold their own against tough critters without the usual array of buffing spells and stat-boosting items. I'm curious if I'm the only one here who's tried something like this.

Otherwise, I prefer dice. Sometimes they give you ideas that weren't part of your original concept.

 

[coyote6]

The other GM in my group rolled stats, and gave us a half-dozen sets of ability scores to choose from. I did something similar; I let everybody roll, and anybody could use the scores rolled by others. Since they all arranged 'em differently (and had different priorities), they didn't come out cookie cutter, and the people that think they roll bad weren't penalized.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I usually play with 45 or 52 point buys. As far as I am concerned, with the statistics for most NPCs posted in D&D books (even outside of the FRCS), 25 point buy is not nearly the norm for adventuring parties, and I don't think that the PCs should be routinely outshined by NPCs of the same level.

 

[Derulbaskul]

I do everything by point buy:

PCs: 42 points
Classed monsters/NPCs: 25 points (ie, generic)
Significant NPCs: 32 points (ie, named)
Major NPCs: 36 points (ie, named and major plot role)

Cheers
D

 

[Ravellion]

I might create a table of 100 sets of stats rolled with 4d6 drop lowest. The players can then roll a d100, and use the matching set. of course, all the really high and really low ones will be taken out by me beforehand.

I think I'll stick with organic chracters though (4d6 in order, one reroll, one swap).

Rav

 

[Quasqueton]

My last two campaigns used 28 point buy, but I don't think I'll use that method again. It was just a bit too dull in retrospect.

This argument cracks me up. I've heard it before, but it still gives me a chuckle.

If you buy 16, 15, 14, 10, 10, 8 = dull campaign?

If you roll 16, 15, 14, 10, 10, 8 = exciting campaign?

I might create a table of 100 sets of stats rolled with 4d6 drop lowest. The players can then roll a d100, and use the matching set. of course, all the really high and really low ones will be taken out by me beforehand.

I just took this idea and started a list of 28 point-buy stats. I figured if someone really wanted to roll randomly for their stats, I'd let them roll the d100 for a random stat that still equalled 28 points. After the first two dozen different sets of stats, I got tired of writing them all out.

Maybe I'll finish the list later.


For an experiment, I rolled up 10 sets of stats using the standard 4d6 drop lowest method to compare to point buy.

Here is what I got, with the point buy total to compare:

• 16, 13, 11, 10, 7, 7 = 18 points
  
  17, 16, 14, 14, 12, 11 = 42 points
  
  16, 14, 14, 13, 12, 11 = 34 points
  
  15, 14, 12, 10, 9, 9 = 22 points
  
  15, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10 = 30 points
  
  16, 15, 14, 12, 11, 10 = 33 points
  
  18, 16, 14, 13, 13, 12 = 46 points
  
  15, 15, 14, 14, 11, 7 = 30 points
  
  15, 15, 14, 13, 12, 8 = 31 points
  
  14, 12, 11, 11, 10, 8 = 18 points

Average score rolled = 12.6

Average points for buy= 30.4

Interesting?

Quasqueton