Stat Method vs. How long you've played

[Tsyr]

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.

Not really... Sometimes you get in the same general ballpark, but a lot of times you don't.

- 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 have a thing. I contend that that thing is exactly like another thing. But this is only true if I modify my thing to be exactly like the other thing.

Somehow that doesn't work for me.

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.

Nope. I've tried this on three non-consecutive occasions out of curiosity.

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

See, I see Point Buy as inheriently unfair to people playing a Paladin or Monk. With dice rolls, you get lucky, a paladin or monk is good. With point buy (Particularly the ultra-low ones some people favor), Paladins and Monks just really get kicked in the beanbag.

and less time endlessly rolling dice, hoping for a "good" score.

You allow that? I would boot a player who tried to endlessly roll dice for a good score. You get the one set of dice rolls, re-roll ones, and a total re-roll if, and only if, your scores end up with a total negative modifier when added up.

Bingo. No more endlessly re-rolling dice.

 

[Berandor]

Henry: No problem!
(And the next part, close to the final one, will come out as usual, next Tuesday. Afterwards - if I really manage to get it done in one installment - there'll be the epilogue to come and a web enhancement detailing game stats for major protagonists. But I'm glad you like it! ETA: You do like it, don't you? Do you even read it? Arghh, low self-esteem hitting again! )

Berandor's patented (and stolen, naturally) Card System:
Take 18+2 cards:
1x Ace (counts as 1, the other count as their normal value)
1x 2
3x 3
4x 4
4x 5
4x 6
1x Joker (see below)
---
+ 1x Ace, 1x 2

Shuffle the 18 cards and deal them in pairs of three. Add the values together. The joker card doubles the higher value of the other two cards (So Ace, 4, Joker would be 9, and 2, 6 Joker would be 14).
You get six scores ranging from 5 to 18 with a total sum of 74-78 points.
Now, you may add the remaining two cards to one or two scores of your choosing (you can put the Ace on one score, and the 2 on another, or the same one). You may not have a score above 18 before racial modifiers.
So you'll have six scores with a total sum of 77-81 points.

I have seen this system used in variations before, and I made several tests until I found the general sum of scores I'd be comfortable with the PCs to have. I added the Joker card to have some variation, and added the bonus cards to have some personalization (for the character concept you always wanted to play).
You either get one or two VERY good scores and some mediocre ones, or you'll get a decent average here, which I like. My PCs should be powerful, but not Conanesque, and I wanted everyone to have at least a 16, or preferably an 18 in his top ability, even if he had to put the three bonus points into it.

I like the system because while you can adjust the power level of the characters, you can't assure to have even stats, or start to see not only similar, but downright equal character builds. Nobody outshines the other characters simply becuase he rolled too well and the others had bad luck, and it's still a random process. Best of both wurlds!

Berandor

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

4d6 drop the lowest dice, repeat five more times. That's they only way I've ever done it. Some PC's have better stats than others. I don't see a problem.

 

[Berandor]

4d6 drop the lowest dice, repeat five more times. That's they only way I've ever done it. Some PC's have better stats than others. I don't see a problem.

Well, at the moment, we have characters in a longer-running campaign where two players really got lucky, and two didn't. Even though they're the same level, they totally outshine the other characters in combat or any other group ability. And I mean totally, where minimum damage (for example) tops maximum damage of the others.
We don't have a group that minds too much, but it's tough nonetheless.

Berandor

 

[Seonaid]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, so if this has already been said, I'll just second it.

I've basically been playing since 3.0 and I prefer rolling as long as I have the freedom to choose which roll goes to which stat (and as long as crib deaths aren't Rule 0'ed out by the GM). Most of the games I play in now, the GM had point-buy, and I *always* rolled up the stats, arranged them the way I like them, and then added/subtracted to meet the points I was alloted. I plan on doing that any time point-buy is the system.

Edit: Actually, I think this is just a deficiency on my part. I don't like having to pick what numbers to put in what stats, for some reason it's difficult for me to do, and the randomness of the rolls makes it easier for me to get stats I like.

 

[National Acrobat]

Dice..that's what it's about

I've been playing/DMing since 1979, and rolling dice is part of the game, especially the character creation process. When 3.0 came out, I saw no reason to change. Part of the fun of the game is creating a character based on what you roll on the dice. It's part of the game.

Let the dice fall where they may, and be creative!

 

[Altalazar]

Not really... Sometimes you get in the same general ballpark, but a lot of times you don't.

I have a thing. I contend that that thing is exactly like another thing. But this is only true if I modify my thing to be exactly like the other thing.

Nope. I've tried this on three non-consecutive occasions out of curiosity.

See, I see Point Buy as inheriently unfair to people playing a Paladin or Monk. With dice rolls, you get lucky, a paladin or monk is good. With point buy (Particularly the ultra-low ones some people favor), Paladins and Monks just really get kicked in the beanbag.

You allow that? I would boot a player who tried to endlessly roll dice for a good score. You get the one set of dice rolls, re-roll ones, and a total re-roll if, and only if, your scores end up with a total negative modifier when added up.

Bingo. No more endlessly re-rolling dice.

Why is it unfair to Paladins and Monks? There is no requirement that you have to have all high stats to play them. They just get huge benefits for good stats.

The first 3E game I did I just left it to dice and one player had such high stats he totally outclassed every other player. Which made it hard to design encounters - something challenging to him would just kill everyone else, something a good challenge for everyone else he could just about kill single-handedly. Another character had crap stats and was totally ineffective and often had no fun in combat because of it.

After that, it was point buy all the way and such problems never turned up again.

And there is not much you can do about endlessly rolling stats - character creation is done solo, so there's no way to know how many rolls there were - with the amount of time and detail put into character backgrounds and creation in my game, there simply isn't time to do that at the table and we'd rather not use up a session time doing it, because we get so little.

That is probably another factor in point-buy's favor - you don't need to get witnesses and sworn testimony to verify rolled stats.

When you play a campaign that may take many years to finish, it somehow seems unfair to have one player start and be stuck with the equivalent of a 22 point character while someone else has a 49 point character, all based on random bits of plastic thrown during character creation. (Which happened in my first 3E campaign).

 

[National Acrobat]

Wow-I have never played in a game or group where the DM let characters be created anywhere but at the table, where everyone works on them. I am the same way as a DM. We roll dice, and the first night of the campaign is always an introductory session where everyone rolls up characters and assembles a group. I am lucky, I have been gaming with the same bunch for roughly 15 years or so, and all dice rolls for character creation are out in the open, where everyone can see them. No one is allowed to create a character at home and show up with it. Part of the reason my group does this, no matter which one of us is DMing, is that they like to be creative, no matter what the rolls are. For us, it is as much about hanging out with the little time that our hectic schedules allow, plus being creative with what is dealt. We tried Point Buy once, and all 8 of us decided we didn't like it. I guess we're an anomaly.

 

[Tsyr]

Agreed... I can't even imagine playing a role-based creation game where the players did the rolls anywhere other than the table.

Further, I would contend that the Paladin and Monk are balanced with the assumption that those bonuses are present, much like the fighter is balanced with the assumption he will have a bonus to strength.

 

[Altalazar]

Agreed... I can't even imagine playing a role-based creation game where the players did the rolls anywhere other than the table.

Further, I would contend that the Paladin and Monk are balanced with the assumption that those bonuses are present, much like the fighter is balanced with the assumption he will have a bonus to strength.

Isn't that a rather limiting, min/max sort of thing to consider? I mean, why should a paladin HAVE to have a ton of high stats? And not only that, but you CAN build quite an impressive Paladin stat-wise with only 32 points. And if that isn't enough, you can always increase the points.

In other words, what you are talking about is not point-buy versus not, but a question of just how many points to give. You can always allow enough points that your paladin and monk will be sufficiently maxed to make your players happy. Besides, what happens if someone WANTS to play a Paladin, and yet rolls crappy. Now the dice have dictated to him that he can't play his character. Now the character background he was thinking up for a week is tossed out the window and he has to think of something else. And now the other player, who also had a character background that fit with the Paladin, is also tossed out the window or has to change due to this. And so on.

Rolls at the table is nice if you have the time to devote a whole session to character creation, but some don't have the luxury of that amount of time. When we get together, we all want to play, not spend four hours making characters and writing up character backgrounds. That can be done away from the table, giving us more precious time for gaming.

(And I admit, it can make for a great group if you do all sit down together and hammer out a party as you create characters - but again, it is a time factor - for one campaign I did the players actually did that - they met and made characters together - I didn't have time to be there and didn't need to be for character creation anyway)