What is the standard ability score set? Are most games playing too high?

[wayne62682]

The whole "With 25 point buy you can't go outside your field of expertise" thing is another reason why I think that they're lying about 25/Elite Array being the baseline. Either they WANT you to stick to one role (which kind of makes sense, I suppose, being as it fosters teamwork), or they want you to actually be able to use those myriad of other feats without sucking at your primary role (Although that's another can of worms in itself). It can't be both.

How they remotely consider it "balanced" when, if you have an idea for a warrior-type who uses Combat Expertise instead of the cookie-cutter Power Attack/Cleave combo, you need to pretty much be terrible at melee combat in order to do it (by virtue of having to sacrifice points that could be used for STR/CON, arguably the best stats for a melee combatant, to ensure you have a high enough Intelligence score) is beyond me. It really seems like they were split between focusing on roles like the "old days" or making it so your roles could overlap, and like everything else they tried to do were pessimistic instead of optimistic (i.e. "Let's limit this more than we should, just in case giving more is too much, instead of making it good enough just in case the reverse wouldn't be enough")

The designers evidently DO consider it balanced if the Fighter just hits things with a sword and can't do anything else, the Rogue finds traps but can't fight in combat worth a damn, the Wizard can cast but a strong wind can blow him down, and the Cleric just stands in the back and heals. But that goes against the whole paradigm of what 3.x was supposed to accomplish, namely breaking the "old-school" archetypal roles and allowing for more freedom.

 

[MerricB]

How they remotely consider it "balanced" when, if you have an idea for a warrior-type who uses Combat Expertise instead of the cookie-cutter Power Attack/Cleave combo, you need to pretty much be terrible at melee combat in order to do it (by virtue of having to sacrifice points that could be used for STR/CON, arguably the best stats for a melee combatant, to ensure you have a high enough Intelligence score) is beyond me. It really seems like they were split between focusing on roles like the "old days" or making it so your roles could overlap, and like everything else they tried to do were pessimistic instead of optimistic (i.e. "Let's limit this more than we should, just in case giving more is too much, instead of making it good enough just in case the reverse wouldn't be enough")

Str 15, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8. At low levels, you've sacrificed only a couple of hit points. At high levels, a Amulet of Health will work wonders.

Combat Expertise can be incredibly effective in the right hands, I note.

Cheers!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Old-school style, the players functioned as units in a team and not as competitors. (i.e., no PC was kicking sand in any other PC's face.) Personally, I really like a variation in abilities and seeing how the player party supports itself and fills in its weakness (its "bench strength", as it were).

Being Mr. Weakling or Mr. Man-of-Steel in the party is fun for all of 2 or 3 sessions. After that, it is just a drag on everyone's enjoyment.

Anything that represents a challenge to Mr. Man-of-Steel will vaporize Mr. Weakling instantly. Foes that are appropriate for Mr. Weakling just bore Mr. Man-of-Steel.

What is a DM to do? This is not fun for Mr. Weakling. This is not fun for Mr. Man-of-Steel. This is not fun for the DM because it is a pain-in-the-arse.

I guess the DM could just let Mr. Weakling die, but that is effectively an admission that in party disparities can never work long term.

You can get around this to some extent with specialization. But in the Good Old Days, a few good stats could easily mean Mr. Man-of-Steel is 10% to 100% better at EVERYTHING.

3e gives you more options, but the problem still exists. Either the DM has to bend over backwards, or somebody has to rewrite their PC, or certain aspects of game play must be allowed to suck.

 

[molonel]

Old-school style, the players functioned as units in a team and not as competitors. (i.e., no PC was kicking sand in any other PC's face.)

As an Old Skool player, I'm coughing and muttering salty commentary under my breath right now.

The farther away from those Old Skool days we get, the more mythical they become.

Personally, I really like a variation in abilities and seeing how the player party supports itself and fills in its weakness (its "bench strength", as it were).

Still happens.

For example: A few months ago I played a short Star Frontiers game. One player rolled up an extremely weak and slow healer and diplomat-type. A second had a tough warrior. The second offered to carry all the gear for the first, including the medical kit, and they wound up attached at the hip, healing and helping and defending for each other more than normal. To me that was fresh and wouldn't have happened if everyone could point-buy stats to taste and avoid all penalties.

And, as several people have already pointed out, the reason it's so "fresh" is because it's a lot of fun. For a short adventure or one-shot.

In the longterm? Well, I don't play RPGs to carry someone else's luggage.

Point buy doesn't prevent weaknesses, either. I don't know why everyone keeps saying that. You either have few strengths, and average everything else, or one - maybe two - strengths and tangible weaknesses.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Point buy doesn't prevent weaknesses, either. I don't know why everyone keeps saying that. You either have few strengths, and average everything else, or one - maybe two - strengths and tangible weaknesses.

True. But with a little foresight and teamwork, you can have strengths that shine out and weaknesses that you can hide behinds your teammates' strengths, at least most of the time.

Using the standard array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, isn't reasonable to call the 15, 14, 13 strengths and the 8 the only weakness? In the long run, I expect the 15 and 13 to become a 16 and 14. In the short run, that 13 yields entry into a Feat chain with a stat prereq, on top of a +1 bonus. Throw in an iota of DM flexibility on magic item creation, and those odd number pay dividends on the cheap with a +1 stat booster.

Having a 16 is within easy reach in a 25 point buy system...eventually. Stats tend to be more valuable in 3e. A 16 and a 14 in 3e is approximately as good as an 18 and a 16 in 1e/2e. I do not think many old school DMs would feel sorry for a PC with 18, 16, 16, 10, 10, 6, even in a high power campaign.

 

[Victim]

Old-school style, the players functioned as units in a team and not as competitors. (i.e., no PC was kicking sand in any other PC's face.) Personally, I really like a variation in abilities and seeing how the player party supports itself and fills in its weakness (its "bench strength", as it were).

For example: A few months ago I played a short Star Frontiers game. One player rolled up an extremely weak and slow healer and diplomat-type. A second had a tough warrior. The second offered to carry all the gear for the first, including the medical kit, and they wound up attached at the hip, healing and helping and defending for each other more than normal. To me that was fresh and wouldn't have happened if everyone could point-buy stats to taste and avoid all penalties.

My experience indicates that group dynamics aren't really related to stat levels. Personality, agenda and circumstances set up how the group works. And players personalities too. The general structure of most characters rewards specialization even if point buy costs don't. I've seen excellent teamwork, stuff carrying, and frequent use of buff spells in high stat games as well as lower ones. And the reverse.

But really, even the group comprised of our worst teamplayers could still work together well sometimes - one person to cast freezing fog and come up with the plan, one person to miracle out Dimensional Lockdown, one idiot to cast Antimagic Field and ruin the plan, one person to bullrush the AMF'd cleric away from the kill zone so we could proceed, and finally the last person to snatch an item and then deliver the death blow. Perfect teamwork.

 

[Vocenoctum]

28 point buy mirrors 'normal' best, using that method. . . though I suspect that 32 point buy might be just as common, if not more so. 25? Forget it. That's subpar, when compared with the standard PHB rolling system.

The advantage with the point buy 25 over the RollEm28, is the ability to select where those points will be. That 28 theoretical build can be quite handicapped by having them spread badly. 5X12 and 1X16 might be 30 points, but it's not going to mean much of anything to that expertise fighter.

Of note, even the "standard array" layout is more restrictive by far than Point Buy, no matter how the points compare.

 

[Jin_Kataki]

I hate point buy. I do 5 six siders take the highest three re roll any 1's no more than 1 stat in the negative. I am generous though.

 

[Ace]

You have just proven to me that heroic does not necessarily equal fun. I have no interest in playing an ineffective - or, perhaps, an undereffective character - for the long term. I do recognize that other people might, but I play D&D to pretend that I'm stronger than I actually am.

Same here. I let players set stats any way they like with a usual statement of -- around a total modifier of +10.

I have experimented with true 20 style stats as mods and 10 point buy as well. It works nicely

 

[Technik4]

I hate point buy. I do 5 six siders take the highest three re roll any 1's no more than 1 stat in the negative. I am generous though.

At that point, why not just say:

"Everyone assign ability points to your character based on your background/what you want to play".

If you have players with restraint, I think it could work fine.