Whats your opinion on the Point Buy System
- Thread starter Esiminar
- Start date
Re
Yes, I would love players that could play characters of differing power levels and enjoy the game, but it doesn't work that way, so I just gave everyone equal starting points.
In fantasy literature, only one maybe two characters would have the highest point total, most of the others would have anywhere from above average to average stats, and a few might have below average stats.
I know very few players that would play such a campaign no matter how fun it was or I would do it more often.
You're right with your calculations. I wanted my players to have stats like Sir Launcelot, Aragorn, King Arthur or other iconic heroes in literature. That was my goal, and the stat points reflected that.
Yes, I would love players that could play characters of differing power levels and enjoy the game, but it doesn't work that way, so I just gave everyone equal starting points.
In fantasy literature, only one maybe two characters would have the highest point total, most of the others would have anywhere from above average to average stats, and a few might have below average stats.
I know very few players that would play such a campaign no matter how fun it was or I would do it more often.
You're right with your calculations. I wanted my players to have stats like Sir Launcelot, Aragorn, King Arthur or other iconic heroes in literature. That was my goal, and the stat points reflected that.
Re
Kae Yoss,
Point buy was easier. It was an online game. I usually let my players roll stats using a method that guarantees very good stats. Nearly as good as D18-1, but not quite that good.
Some people like to play Conan, Sir Launcelot or Aragorn, others like to play somewhere in between and some like to play really gritty.
I already stated that I like epic heroic without magic. If your stats are raised by magic, then you really aren't in the mold of the great heroes of literature whether you read greek philosophy, Arthurian legends, Lord of the Rings or Conan books.
I get what I want by letting the players build characters with high stats. Then I run the game accordingly and create villains the equal of the heroes. What good is an high-statted hero unless he has equally high-statted villains to take on?
That is how I maintain game balance. I have had the easiest time doing so with 3rd edition DnD because monster templates are so easy to modify.
Kae Yoss,
Point buy was easier. It was an online game. I usually let my players roll stats using a method that guarantees very good stats. Nearly as good as D18-1, but not quite that good.
Some people like to play Conan, Sir Launcelot or Aragorn, others like to play somewhere in between and some like to play really gritty.
I already stated that I like epic heroic without magic. If your stats are raised by magic, then you really aren't in the mold of the great heroes of literature whether you read greek philosophy, Arthurian legends, Lord of the Rings or Conan books.
I get what I want by letting the players build characters with high stats. Then I run the game accordingly and create villains the equal of the heroes. What good is an high-statted hero unless he has equally high-statted villains to take on?
That is how I maintain game balance. I have had the easiest time doing so with 3rd edition DnD because monster templates are so easy to modify.
I like point buy and I do not feel it leads to 'generic' characters.
As for point buy level, that should be very campaign specific. A 25 point buy campaign is going to be a lot lower power than a 30 point buy.
In 3e, you no longer need attributes of 16 or better. You get bonuses at 12 in any attribute, rather than the old system where bonuses didn't tend to kick in until 16 and even then they would be less.
As for spellcasters needing a starting 15 in an attribute, that isn't quite true. You can figure that someplace in there the spellcaster got an item that pumped their ability score. The classes that have their abilities spread out more can also gain more by wearing multiple items that pump different ability scores.
As for point buy level, that should be very campaign specific. A 25 point buy campaign is going to be a lot lower power than a 30 point buy.
In 3e, you no longer need attributes of 16 or better. You get bonuses at 12 in any attribute, rather than the old system where bonuses didn't tend to kick in until 16 and even then they would be less.
As for spellcasters needing a starting 15 in an attribute, that isn't quite true. You can figure that someplace in there the spellcaster got an item that pumped their ability score. The classes that have their abilities spread out more can also gain more by wearing multiple items that pump different ability scores.
Re
The stats usually looked differently than that.
Most warrior types chose 18 on Str, Dex and Con, most mage types chose 18 on Int, Wis, and Dex. Most Priests type Chose 18 on Wisdom and Charisma, then varied the other stats about as you have them listed. Rogues Chose 18 on Int, Wis, Dex and then fairly high Con.
Usually they didn't divide the stats the way you have them listed.
I wanted them to have at least 3 18's with a few other high stats. It was in line with the published stats for Launcelot, Conan and other such heroes at the time.
This doesn't happen as often when we roll.
Like I said, I would prefer if people were willing to play roles, but most player's are concerned with equality in terms of overall power.
Look at the arguments that occur on this board over game balance. All the time people are concerned about balance either in terms of combat power or equal usefulness to a group. I don't often here people concern themselves with the role of their character.
Even though I try to concoct very interesting stories, my players are still very concerned about their abilities in comparison to each other. I find it is best to try to balance my desire for a good story with their desire to all be equally powerful heroes by allowing them all the same chance for good heroic stats.
It may seem a little insane, but play around with the points and see how you could construct an literary archetype character with those amount of points.
Say Aragorn for instance.
Probably has stats somewhere around the following
S: 14 (6)
D: 14 (6)
C: 18 (16)
I: 16 (10)
W: 18 (16)
Ch: 17 (13)
Then you would modify for race and level and have your literary archetype hero.
The stats usually looked differently than that.
Most warrior types chose 18 on Str, Dex and Con, most mage types chose 18 on Int, Wis, and Dex. Most Priests type Chose 18 on Wisdom and Charisma, then varied the other stats about as you have them listed. Rogues Chose 18 on Int, Wis, Dex and then fairly high Con.
Usually they didn't divide the stats the way you have them listed.
I wanted them to have at least 3 18's with a few other high stats. It was in line with the published stats for Launcelot, Conan and other such heroes at the time.
This doesn't happen as often when we roll.
Like I said, I would prefer if people were willing to play roles, but most player's are concerned with equality in terms of overall power.
Look at the arguments that occur on this board over game balance. All the time people are concerned about balance either in terms of combat power or equal usefulness to a group. I don't often here people concern themselves with the role of their character.
Even though I try to concoct very interesting stories, my players are still very concerned about their abilities in comparison to each other. I find it is best to try to balance my desire for a good story with their desire to all be equally powerful heroes by allowing them all the same chance for good heroic stats.
It may seem a little insane, but play around with the points and see how you could construct an literary archetype character with those amount of points.
Say Aragorn for instance.
Probably has stats somewhere around the following
S: 14 (6)
D: 14 (6)
C: 18 (16)
I: 16 (10)
W: 18 (16)
Ch: 17 (13)
Then you would modify for race and level and have your literary archetype hero.
Celebrim
Legend
Well, I in general agree that 68 points is a little extreme (If you want heroic characters what would be wrong with 60? Say 18-18-16-16-12-10?) My experience is the people most satisfied with 68 points (or the equivalent stats) are highly egocentric people who always demand to be the center of attention. That said, I have been in an excellect campaign (1st edition) where the stats for my char were 19-17-17-17-15-10 due to the DM's prefered generation method (similar to method V) so I do understand that you can run a heroic campaign. But I also know that it does sorta break down for me if you don't have any weaknesses (at least my str was 10, the lowest attribute in the party).
SimonMoon5
First Post
The main thing that I dislike about the point buy system is that Charisma is still considered "useless" unless you're a paladin, cleric, or sorcerer... so I've seen large groups of ugly (or shy or whatever) PCs. For example, the dwarf with a 6 charisma (8 base, then -2 for racial).
My characters end up being the party spokesmen just because I've got a "high" charisma of 12 in one game and 10 in another. But there's one problem: my 12 charisma character is a cleric/rogue who likes to spend a lot of time hiding and sneaking around, so the group of negative-CHA-modifier PCs ends up having to try to talk to people, with rather pathetic results.
My characters end up being the party spokesmen just because I've got a "high" charisma of 12 in one game and 10 in another. But there's one problem: my 12 charisma character is a cleric/rogue who likes to spend a lot of time hiding and sneaking around, so the group of negative-CHA-modifier PCs ends up having to try to talk to people, with rather pathetic results.
I would have to agree with the majority opinion that 68 points is high even for me - who likes high stats. At that point, they are so much more powerful than was intended by the designers that a party of said characters is probably on the order of 2 or 3 levels higher according to their EL. In other words, you would have to increase the EL of their foes by ~3 to give them the same challenge a standard party would have (and not give them higher XP).
I really like Ravener's method of 3d6 base + 9d6 distributed according to taste before rolling. I completely agree that that would increase the variablitily of PBS but at the same time still allow players to have general trends in their characters. Moreover, it balances very well towards PCs with classes that are more stat dependent or have the need for multiple good stats.
I have always used 4d6 assigned after rolling, reroll all 1's. The averages work out to be more around 14 or so (from experience, not from calculations). Moreover, I still find that low stats are possible - they are just not as low as would be detrimental to the character (typically nothing below a 6) . I have developed this system not because of my players, but rather me as a DM. I tend to vigorously challenge my PCs beyond what most would be considered balanced simply because I am such a hard-ass. If they are going to survive, they really do need to be a cut above the rest. (Of course, I grant them proportional experience and treasure, so in my games, those who do survive tend to advance much more quickly and proportionally increase in power.)
I must say though Ravener, your system has very much intrigued me and I think the next game I DM (which will be City of the Spider Queen - starting with drow characters from Menzobarrenzon, rather than your traditional heroes), I may adopt it.
I really like Ravener's method of 3d6 base + 9d6 distributed according to taste before rolling. I completely agree that that would increase the variablitily of PBS but at the same time still allow players to have general trends in their characters. Moreover, it balances very well towards PCs with classes that are more stat dependent or have the need for multiple good stats.
I have always used 4d6 assigned after rolling, reroll all 1's. The averages work out to be more around 14 or so (from experience, not from calculations). Moreover, I still find that low stats are possible - they are just not as low as would be detrimental to the character (typically nothing below a 6) . I have developed this system not because of my players, but rather me as a DM. I tend to vigorously challenge my PCs beyond what most would be considered balanced simply because I am such a hard-ass. If they are going to survive, they really do need to be a cut above the rest. (Of course, I grant them proportional experience and treasure, so in my games, those who do survive tend to advance much more quickly and proportionally increase in power.)
I must say though Ravener, your system has very much intrigued me and I think the next game I DM (which will be City of the Spider Queen - starting with drow characters from Menzobarrenzon, rather than your traditional heroes), I may adopt it.
nikolai
First Post
Quasi-point buy system
I was thinking of a quasi-point buy system a while back. The aim is to try and keep the pro that Celebrim mentioned - that it's fair and balanced - while trying to take the edge off the cons of min/maxing, cookie-cutter PCs and character cloning.
I'm not going to pretend it doesn't need work, but the basic idea might be worth thinking about. It's the same as standard point buy, you start on 8, have the same point-to-stat table, but...
For a 25 point buy system you get 25 dice. You can decide for each point (ahead of time) whether the die is a d2, d3, d4 or d6. You also decide (again ahead of time) for each point which stat is represented by each number (e.g. 1 is Dex, 2 is Con, 3 is Cha). You throw the die and the point is assigned to that stat. You do the same for each point until they're spent.
Then you have a list of stats & the points spent in each of them. You look it up in the chart and get the stats you've rolled.
Problems are: 1) points are wasted if they're between ability scores and 2) it can be risky to go for higher stats. This could be offset by uping the points, but you also need to be careful not to throw balance off. It also takes more time that normal point buy. I think the idea needs a lot of test character creation before I'd want to unleash it on any group though.
Thoughts?
nikolai.
I was thinking of a quasi-point buy system a while back. The aim is to try and keep the pro that Celebrim mentioned - that it's fair and balanced - while trying to take the edge off the cons of min/maxing, cookie-cutter PCs and character cloning.
I'm not going to pretend it doesn't need work, but the basic idea might be worth thinking about. It's the same as standard point buy, you start on 8, have the same point-to-stat table, but...
For a 25 point buy system you get 25 dice. You can decide for each point (ahead of time) whether the die is a d2, d3, d4 or d6. You also decide (again ahead of time) for each point which stat is represented by each number (e.g. 1 is Dex, 2 is Con, 3 is Cha). You throw the die and the point is assigned to that stat. You do the same for each point until they're spent.
Then you have a list of stats & the points spent in each of them. You look it up in the chart and get the stats you've rolled.
Problems are: 1) points are wasted if they're between ability scores and 2) it can be risky to go for higher stats. This could be offset by uping the points, but you also need to be careful not to throw balance off. It also takes more time that normal point buy. I think the idea needs a lot of test character creation before I'd want to unleash it on any group though.
Thoughts?
nikolai.
Similar Threads
- Guest 7037866
- *Dungeons & Dragons
