Whats your opinion on the Point Buy System

[Celtavian]

Re

Actually Aragorn also displayed a very high Charisma and a reasonably high dex and strength. Remember, he avoided blows while wearing very light armor and his blows were able to fell an average orc one blow at a time with a longsword.


Launcelot displayed an extraordinary amount of wisdom, he simply had one failing, he loved the king's wife. Even as an untrained boy, King Arthur was wiser than most men.

I would say low level better explained King Arthur getting slapped around by other knights, and high stats explained why when he obtained the same level as these knights, he slapped them around quite easily. How am I incorrect?

Did not Launcelot, Aragorn, and King Arthur possess the ability to easily defeat other knights of equal level once they obtained a similar level? Would that not indicate that these three had greater innate abilities than the other knights about them?

I also guarantee that no average person was a knight in the Arthurian's legends. It was no small feat to become a knight period, must less a knight of reknown.

 

[IceBear]

Re: Re

Actually Aragorn also displayed a very high Charisma and a reasonably high dex and strength. Remember, he avoided blows while wearing very light armor and his blows were able to fell an average orc one blow at a time with a longsword.

Actually Aragorn also displayed a very high Charisma and a reasonably high dex and strength. Remember, he avoided blows while wearing very light armor and his blows were able to fell an average orc one blow at a time with a longsword.

Launcelot displayed an extraordinary amount of wisdom, he simply had one failing, he loved the king's wife. Even as an untrained boy, King Arthur was wiser than most men.

I would say low level better explained King Arthur getting slapped around by other knights, and high stats explained why when he obtained the same level as these knights, he slapped them around quite easily. How am I incorrect?

Did not Launcelot, Aragorn, and King Arthur possess the ability to easily defeat other knights of equal level once they obtained a similar level? Would that not indicate that these three had greater innate abilities than the other knights about them?

I also guarantee that no average person was a knight in the Arthurian's legends. It was no small feat to become a knight period, must less a knight of reknown.

"Avoiding" being hit in light armor can be attributed to lots of hitpoints. Remember, hitpoints don't only mean cuts and stabs, but also fatigue, luck and skill.

Where you see high Charisma, I see a high Diplomacy skill.

Both of these could be gained with moderate ability scores and high levels.

Orcs don't have a lot of hitpoints to begin with, and just as with Aragorn, not every time he hit did he have to land a blow.

Lancelot might have been wise, or his might have had a lot of ranks in his wisdom based skills.

Yes, they were all PCs while the other knights of similar level were NPCs. My PCs, generated without unusually high stats (for PCs) typically defeat NPCs of similar level.

We really should belabour this. You have your perspective and we have ours. As long as you and your group have fun, that's great (I personally don't understand how they don't eventually get bored, but that's what you feel about us, so it's even). Just don't try to convince us that we need to do things your way

IceBear

 

[Celebrim]

Well, I also have my opinion. Aragorn's high attributes are best explained by the fact that he belongs to a +ECL race (Numenorian). His ability to whack orcs with a single blow is to some extent high strength, but it also might have something to do with a pretty significant magic sword that he is carrying around, and converted to a high level character in a D20 system there is no reason to suppose that he doesn't have something like 'power attack' or 'weapon specialization'. His charisma is high, but it isn't extraordinarily high - and he knows it. He continually belabours that he doesn't look the part of a King, and he worries about peoples initial reaction to him. His charisma certainly isn't high enough that he can overcome the stigma of being a ranger in Bree. His most incredible feats of Charisma could be attributed to good rolls, or as Ice Bear points out good Diplomacy skills. At times he does magical feats of Charisma, such as commanding the loyalty of the undead in the paths of the Dead, but this is again the result of a Template/Advantage 'Heir of the Numenorian Kings' - not the result of Epic charisma.

So, how many ways are there to do this. As many as thier are DM's.

 

[FatGnome]

I would like to add my comments to the discussion here after reading through this thread. I am new here at least to posting (I have been lurking for weeks now)

As for the discussion about high level characters (which is what I see Aragorn, Drizzt ... as) That type of character is used in one style of campaign. If you want to play caliber of characters then that is what you need to play. Up the number of points for your party. Then again if you want to play as a common guy saving the world you have to use a different difficulty level but make the points of interest in the story make the character have good rolls at crucial points. This is my idea of what makes a great campaign.

Now as for whether I like PB. I love it actually but I also like to roll. The group I am in does our rolling like this. 4d6 rolled take sum of highest 3 numbers and do this 6 times for your characters stats. Now we get to re-roll anything less than an 8. I personally view 6 as the low end human so starting at 8 is about what a slightly below 50% person would be. So getting a 12 in something is doing well. Our GM also looks at our stats and says whether they are what he likes or not. If not we re-roll. This usually happens when we have an average score of less than 11 or 12. Otherwise he might take our lowest stat and ask us if we would rather take what he rolls for that stat. I have had this backfire on me when I had an 11 and got a 9 from it. I still loved the character just had to play it with 2 less in a stat. I personally would like a 28 or 30 point buy being as that was you can have one good stat and above average in the rest.

Of course most heroes have some attribute that is much higher than the average population. I have not looked at the stats for the heroes from Drizzt books but I can see that he has a high dex at least and a good int. But from reading the books most of the other things I see are from magic items (I mean lets face it Guenivar(sp?) kicks some serious butt), and lots of ranks from his high level in multiple classes.

What if you were playing say the following concept: Knight trained from birth to fight and uphold the family honor on the field of battle.

This training would bring up his levels not his natural ability score. Remember the rule about raising a stat every four levels? enough said by me and others on this matter.

I say if your characters are getting to have 58 points for their characters then all the baddies get that many too so really you aren't doing anything other than doing more damage and having more damage done to you. Unless you like to wade through tons of little wimps that have no chance.

I was also having an idea while reading this and making your character level adjusted if you want to have higher points you can level adjust so 28 points would be about standard 34 or so would be a +1 level modifier 40 would be a +2 ... duno but I would have to work with the number a little to actually figure it out but what do you think about that idea?

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I haven't noticed not one of you have attempted to create a set of stats for any of the given archetypes with 32 points.

I aslo fail to see how high skill alone shows aptitude. You seem to be implying that Aragorn and the other didn't have an aptitude (Aka high stat) in the first place coupled with great skill.

I don't argue that their skill levels in diplomacy and other things were high. They also had an innate presence that is attributable to charisma or other such abilities.

Aragorn could not do magical feats of Charisma. He simply had a kingly presence as had been stated many times by Tolkien during the book. He often hid his kingly presence and only let it be known when he wished. It was nothing more than high charisma coupled with such skill as initimidate, diplomacy or bluff.

Paint me some 32 point stats, so I can see how these figures would look with such a low point total.

 

[Celtavian]

re

This training would bring up his levels not his natural ability score. Remember the rule about raising a stat every four levels? enough said by me and others on this matter.

I would look at this more as base training: learning initial weapon proficiencies, armor, feats.

The thing is that a knight training a child from birth as a knight would also concentrate on building up their natural attributes: strength, dexterity, constitution.

This person would employ a program similar to what some parents do when they are grooming their children for excellence in some physical and mental endeavor. They work to build their childs base attribute as well as apply skill.

If you were training them from birth, they would most likely have greater base attributes because they were more finely honed than other people raised in an average environment.

 

[IceBear]

Re: Re

I haven't noticed not one of you have attempted to create a set of stats for any of the given archetypes with 32 points.

I aslo fail to see how high skill alone shows aptitude. You seem to be implying that Aragorn and the other didn't have an aptitude (Aka high stat) in the first place coupled with great skill.

I don't argue that their skill levels in diplomacy and other things were high. They also had an innate presence that is attributable to charisma or other such abilities.

Aragorn could not do magical feats of Charisma. He simply had a kingly presence as had been stated many times by Tolkien during the book. He often hid his kingly presence and only let it be known when he wished. It was nothing more than high charisma coupled with such skill as initimidate, diplomacy or bluff.

Paint me some 32 point stats, so I can see how these figures would look with such a low point total.

I'm not going to build a 32-point buy Aragorn mainly because I don't have time to spend on it and I have no idea what LEVEL he was (Also, here's the kicker, me wasn't built with any ruleset other than what the author wanted). It's also not really worth my time for two reasons:

1) the people I play with feel the same as me (BTW - I USUALLY roll for stats).

2) No matter what *I* build, I now (by this time) that you'll disagree with it. It's the nature of message board arguments, and it's why I think we've reached the point where we both should let it drop - I won't convince you and you won't convince me. I care more for game balance than having super heroic PCs (I feel that PCs - no matter what stats - are already heroic enough)

Show me an example of something that was "innate" and not a skill. Also, please remember, they were the focus of the story (much like the PCs are the focus of their stories).

Why couldn't Aragorn have had a Charisma of 12, and 10 Ranks of intimidate, diplomacy or bluff, instead of a Charisma 18 and 7 Ranks of intimidate, diplomacy or bluff. They're identical and I would describe them as such.

Seriously, we are arguing about our perspectives of fictional characters, who weren't built as ruleset, to justify a 32-point buy level. My group has no problem using 4d6-1 or 28 point buy so that's what we use. If yours like whatever method you use, go for it. It's a game - use whatever method makes your group happy.

IceBear

 

[Celebrim]

Celtavian: I could go into great detail of what I think Aragorn is best represented by, but it would just be an opinion. It would be the opinion of a person who reads Tolkeins unpublished collections, has read the Similrillion 6 times, and has read the LotR 17 times, but it is just an opinion. You should read some of my answers in the Conversions forum regarding converting ME characters to D20.

Tolkiens world is singularly unsuitable to D20. Forget Aragorn for a second, what were Elronds stats? It is more than reasonable to suggest that Elrond had 17 or 18 better in every attribute. Does this mean that Elrond was a 80 PB character? Not one bit. What it means is that Elf is a +<Large Number> ECL race. Unlike D20 Elves, Tolkien made no attempt to balance elves with humans in any sort of way. Even an 'average' elf is going to have in every attribute abilities exceeding all but the most unusual of mortals. Just as a guess, Str: +2, Dex +6, Con +8, Int +4, Wis +4, Chr +6, and that is just the bonuses to attributes. Note particularly that in a Tolkein Elf, high constitution, stamina, ability to resist disease and hardship, and ability to withstand wounds is thier biggest advantage. An average Elven warrior is then something like 13, 17, 19, 14, 14, 16 at 1st level. Elrond as a 32 PB, 16th level fighter/healer/loremaster (or higher level character), has no problem exceeding mortal man in every field. Elrond just as a 32 PB character has stats like 17, 21, 23, 20, 18, 18 - even before we take into account that he has access to a great ring. That blows anything you might reasonably conceive for Aragorn out of the water, but it does so mainly because Numenorean is not so nearly a potent +ECL race as 'Noldor'.

Also for the record, there is no such thing as 'Half-Elven' in Tolkein's world. Elrond's title 'Half-Elven' is just that, a name given to him to honor his parentage. But Elrond is _fully_ Elven.

So you want a 32 PB Aragorn? Ok, I'd guess Numenorean was Str: +2, Dex: +2, Con: +4, Int: +2, Chr: +2 or there abouts. That gives me Aragorn at 1st level as 16, 16, 18, 16, 14, 14. As a 16th level character (and I don't want to guess at class, because the D&D classes, especially Ranger, are very unsuited to describing him), we have Aragorn as 17, 16, 20, 17, 14, 14 - which suits me just fine. But Aragorns ECL is going to have to take into account two very large advantages: his race, and his inheritance.

And if I bump up Aragorn and Elrond to a 40-45 point characters, then they get even more high end - but I personally don't feel I have to.

For example, Aragorn defeats Sauron in a contest of wills. Does this mean that Aragorns wisdom is as high or higher than Saurons? Hardly. What it means is that Aragorn gets a +10 (or other large) kingly bonus to controlling the Palantir and other relics of the Kingdom of Gondor, because they are his by divine right.

The point is we disagree on interpretation of the text (and probably texts in general), and we are always going to. We also disagree on whether the same authorship tools employed in fantasy novels are exactly the same as those that should be used to write fantasy. That isn't going to change. I've told you what I think of running games in which everyone is as advantaged as a character like Aragorn or Merlin or Rand Al'Thor or Paul Atredies or whatever, and I've told you that I don't think characters like that need to have 4 18's to describe them. You seem to not believe me. I've told you that I don't think 4 18's is as heroic as one, especially if it means the villians have to get more 'literary' (to use your term) to compensate.

There are people out there who think I'm being absolutely munchkin for asserting that Aragorn's level could possibly be in the teens. I've seen people describe Aragorn as a 9th level character with a roughly 32 PB.

 

[evilbob]

Just for the record:

I really like Pax's idea about using a Point Buy system that also includes things other than just ability points, like skill points and feats and things. It would be hard to balance, however, since some things (like starting wealth) are so temporary and one ability point is worth so much more. It gets easier with the system Pax suggested, since the numbers are higher, but I think it would be interesting to see it used with the more "standard" PB system. Another interesting idea would be using this system in reverse: could you give up starting skill points or feats to boost your ability scores?

I also like what buzz said about taking several standardized dice rolls and using them. It seems like a better "point buy" than the "standard" way, because it cancels out the racial effects someone brought up earlier. It also helps negate the other major problems brought up so far, which are "cookie cutter" characters (since you're dealing with rolls and not flat numbers, I'm sure there would be more variation), and the whole "very little variety in stats" thing. I haven't crunched any numbers to see if the specific rolls buzz suggested are, on average, more or less fair than 4d6 - 1, but I like it in principle.

 

[ScyldSceafing]

I dig it!

The main thing I like about the point-buy is that it can eliminate that first-session "let's all sit here and roll up characters" thing that ends up being a real drag for new people. With a point buy I can tell them to imagine a character they'd like to play, and then show them how to imagine that character's attributes, and help them stat it out.

With my experienced players, I tend to handle character creation by email, since actual honest-to-goodness time at the table is at such a premium for working people with families, as I am and they tend to be. Point buy makes that easier, too. When we get together they want to hear me doing weird voices and the music of impact-hardened plastic hitting the tabletop.