Stat Method vs. How long you've played

[Elder-Basilisk]

The fundamental problem I see with point-buy is the way it promotes cookie-cutter characters, and all but obliterates the use of any class combination which involves more than one good stat. When I see "point-buy <whatever>", I don't even need to think very hard to know what I'm looking at, statwise. It doesn't exactly foster a sense of attachment to one's character when you know that it takes no effort to produce another one exactly like it.

That has not been my experience at all. Mechanically well-constructed characters will inevitably be somewhat similar whether point buy or rolling is used. Quick check: you roll str 7, dex 13, con 15, int 17, wis 9, cha 10; what class do you play? If you picked wizard, you get the cookie. Now, you roll a high strength and charisma with a decent wisdom. Naturally, you gravitate towards paladin. Etc. I haven't seen this phenomenon differ too much between point buy and die rolling char-gen games. The difference is whether the player gets the stats first and then chooses the class or chooses the class first and then chooses the stats. If that's what you mean by cookie cutter, then you're right but it's true of both stat-gen methods.

If you mean that similar characters have similar stats, that's also true regardless of the char-gen method. For instance, you're a stealthy arcane archer--what are your stats likely to be? Str=average to decent, Dex=good, Con=poor to decent, Int=usually decent, occasionally average, wis=average to poor, Charisma=average to poor (occasionally decent if a sorceror based Arcane Archer). You're an elf or half elf. You're probably a fighter/ranger/wizard but might have rogue levels or sorceror levels instead of ranger or wizard and might even eschew fighter levels altogether. There's a remote possibilty that you have barbarian and bard levels but it's not likely. If your stats were different, odds are you'd be a different character. If your classes were different, odds are you wouldn't be a stealthy arcane archer. Again, there will always be a certain degree of similarity between similar characters no matter what the char-gen method. That's why they're similar.

I've seen all sorts of characters created through point buy (due to the complexity of 3e systems, "X point buy Class Y/Z" is not remotely sufficient to "know" the character. Even if people could agree on what maximum optimization for any particular concept is (and they can't), there are so many concepts (archer fighter vs tank fighter vs trip fighter vs reach fighter and conjurer vs evoker and melee cleric vs spellcasting cleric vs skillful cleric, etc) that there will always be many different varieties of members of each class at each point buy value. And people don't optimize their characters for the same thing. And people don't always optimize their characters to the same degree either).

The assertion that class combinations requiring multiple good stats are not present in point buy environments, however, is truly absurd. The characters my main Living Greyhawk (a fairly typical point buy environment in my experience) character has played with most often are (in order):

Bbn/Ftr/Rgr/Rog/Temple Raider/Holy Liberator (str, and dex primarily although the character would benefit from more wis and cha)
Cleric (Str, Wis, Cha (although the character could use more con))
Paladin (Str, Con, Wis, Cha)
Rgr/Wiz/Arcane Archer/Deepwood Sniper (Str, Dex, Int)
Clr (Wis, Con (the char could use more cha)
Rog/Bard (Dex, Int, Cha)
Clr (archer--dex, wis, str)
Wiz (Int)
Monk (Str, Dex, Con, Wis)
Wiz (Int)
Ranger (archer--dex, wis, str)
Bbn/Rog (str, dex, con, int)
Rog (Dex)
Clr (Str, Con, Wis)
Ftr/Clr (Str, dex, con, wis)
Wiz (Dex, Int)

There are 11 base classes. Out of these characters (all of those, my character has travelled with for 4+ adventures) three are core classes that require multiple ability scores (Pal, Mnk, Brd). Another 2 are multiclassed characters who need multiple ability scores. Out of sixteen characters, that's almost as good as one would do simply assigning equal numbers of each core class. (And, let's face it, of the core classes, Paladins and Bards will both be underrepresented in typical gaming experiences because Paladins are a more specific role-playing concept than most character classes and bards have a reputation for underpowered uselessness).

It's a very "send in the clones" feel when the work involved in generating a new character to replace a deceased one involves simply erasing the name off your character sheet.

I've never seen that happen except a couple of times when characters were killed in the first few minutes of a gaming session and in the first round of the first combat of the characters' existence. (Bad luck in one case, lvl 1 character vs. Ettin in the other). If you get a bunch of clones, that's a problem with your group and not with your char-gen method.

 

[hrafnagud]

In the beginning, there was 3d6.

My first gaming experience, like so many others here, was with original D&D in the early eighties. O how we delighted in the Unearthed Arcana and its many options for stat rolling! The stats just kept going up and up until they no longer resembled a 3d6 curve. Those were the days when I had a strong mental image of my character long before ever putting pencil to paper. If the stats failed to live up to the concept, the bones were rolled again.

After nearly 20 years of gaming, I no longer take this approach. I've played all the achetypes and had my munchkinfest. I am not concerned with fairness and balance anymore, nor with superhuman attributes. The concept of heroes being above average now strikes me as fairly childish. I am, however, concerned with creating and playing a plausible individual consistantly. Plausible individuals have stats averaging 10.5 (allowing for minor deviation) which aren't always placed exactly the way they'd want them to be.

Short answer: I roll em. 3d6, in order, and then leave them alone.

 

[Steverooo]

I have seen too many players roll 18-18-17-14-14-9
and the next guy in line roll 13-13-12-9-9-6

And the problem is?

If you play by the rules, as written, then player 2 gets an automatic reroll, as their total "bonus" for stats is zero or less (-1), and their highest 13.

I fail to see a problem.

 

[RedShirtNo5]

Is the following method point buy or roll dice?

Take a deck of cards, and remove twenty-four cards: four aces, four 2s, four 3s, four 4s, four 5s and four 6s. Shuffle the twenty-four cards and deal into six stacks of four. Turn over each stack in stat order, take best three out of four. Swap any two stats.

-RedShirt

 

[Steverooo]

Quick check: you roll str 7, dex 13, con 15, int 17, wis 9, cha 10; what class do you play? If you picked wizard, you get the cookie. Now, you roll a high strength and charisma with a decent wisdom. Naturally, you gravitate towards paladin. Etc.

No cookies, here...

In the first case, I see a really lousy Rogue, who will never make a good PC. In the second case, I see a charismatic Ranger who will be good with animals. (I hope he has a decent DEX!)

A lot of people seem to make the mistake that you seem to be making... that all characters are equal. I can play a Wizzer (even "win" a tournament module playing one), but frankly, I hate "getting stuck with the Wizard". The class doesn't interest me (in the least, even at epic levels), and I do not enjoy playing it. It stretches my suspension of disbelief past the breaking point. It is no fun, for me. Since 3e is a game, why play it at all, if it's no fun?

Some people may enjoy playing each and every combination of race and class, but I have tried a great many, and (where choices are available) always find myself gravitating to a particular type. The Wizzer will never be it, nor can it be "bent" that way.

Given the choice between playing the Wizard and not playing, I'd just as soon not play. Given the choice between the Paladin and nothing, I'd probably play the Paladin, but would feel "put upon", because it's not what I want to play!

I'm sure some will be shocked to "hear" this, but I assure you, I'm not alone in this. I have a friend who, without fail, always rolls up a Fighter, and another who, if given the choice, will play nothing but a Ranger or Ranger/Rogue... I remember one time when a bunch of us got together for a 1e game, and we all had fighter-types ready to go... Not a Rogue or spellslinger in the entire party!

Oh, I'm sure some people will say that "That's not roleplaying!", or some such hogwash, but the point (to me) is; it's a game, and it's supposed to be fun. If it isn't fun for you, then there's no point in doing it. If shapeshifting Druids or skillless characters turn you off, then you shouldn't have to "suffer" through playing one.

Play what's fun for you, and if the stats don't fit, then junk the stats, and start over. 4D6 or Stat-buy, work something out with the GM... And if you can't, find a new GM!

 

[Ranes]

I started playing 1st ed AD&D in '78. I also avoided 2e almost entirely. I rolled back in '78 and I like to roll now. I don't have a problem with point buy, if a DM wants to use it.

But I like rolling.

And there's nothing OD&D about red box/blue book editions of Basic D&D.

 

[Berandor]

Damn. No "Other", so I jumped right to the end of the thread without reading the posts, as I usually do

I've played since 2e, and we neither roll nor buy points, but we use a card deck. So we have a fixed sum (like point buy) and random scores (like rolling).

Berandor

 

[Henry]

I've played since 2e, and we neither roll nor buy points, but we use a card deck. So we have a fixed sum (like point buy) and random scores (like rolling).

Berandor,

Would you terribly mind sharing your playing card method? I am curious.

Secondly, When's the next "Second Coming" coming over at Monte's place?



In my group, we roll the dice, and the DM's might fiddle with the scores in case of gross injustices; Our lately favored method seems to be 4d6 (drop lowest die) 7 times, and take the best 6 scores. This seems to put us about a point higher on average (scores around 13 to 14 rather than 12 to 13), and has worked for us for about four campaigns now.

We prefer point buy, but we wouldn't have a walk-out if the DM said to use point-buy; it's just that psychologically, it doesn't "feel" like D&D unless you roll up your character. I would go so far as to consider it a "sacred cow" to me, to have rolling dice be the default method.

 

[Tsyr]

Normally, we roll.

Lately, I've been trying an interesting experiment. This wouldn't work with a new group, or a group of die-hard munchkins, but it works great with my group.

Ready for it?

I just let people pick their stats.

Yup. Just like that. They want 16 12 10 8 18 14? They can have it. They want 10 12 11 18 15 11? They can have that too.

I retain veto power... I would allow 18 18 18 18 18 18 18, for example, or even 18 18 18 3 3 3 (Wow, that character would suck...)... But as long as it's within the realm of possible, I let them have they think fits their character concept.

I have not had any problems yet, and I've been using it for about two months now.

 

[Altalazar]

I think that rolling, unless it is something along the lines of roll 3d6, in order, and take what you get, usually ends up with something very close to or exactly like a point buy - only it takes a lot of die rolling, shifting around, rerolls, and even DM fiddling before you get to what is exactly the same result. I bet all you dice rollers, if you translate your final stats into "points" you'll find out that they all end up the same - or that where they don't, things are too lopsided and the DM may intervene.

(To the person who said they like low stats on occasion - that is simple to do - just give points back for taking a stat down below 8. )

So either, way, it often ends up the same.
Which is why I prefer point-buy - no muss, no fuss, instantly balanced, instantly fair to all players, and it lets players focus more on creating character and backgrounds and less time endlessly rolling dice, hoping for a "good" score.