Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pax" data-source="post: 679734" data-attributes="member: 6875">Even with only a Moderate power level (40 points), you can afford, with no disadvantages, an 18, four 12's, and a single 10.  That's 76 total for the 6 attributes, giving an average of 12.667 ... just shy of what (4-1)d6 gives you.OTOH, the fellow who wanted a very-well-rounded characetr could have three 14s, three 13s, and 1 point of advantages (say, +10% starting funds). No offense, but that is childish.  The system above is about balance.  At moderate or higher, you are guaranteed, without poenalty, to be abe to get one or more scores at 18.  So the "savant/prodigy in one area" schick is easily done, without lowering a single attribute.At present, in a 25 point buy, to get an 18 (cost 16), you basically have to have one nine (a -1 modifier) and several 10s ... driving your average -well- below the (4-1)d6 system.You'd only be "forced" into taking stats of the listed averages, if you the player insisted on spreading the points out as evenly as possible.  I think you didn't look to closely at the numbers; the "Mid-Power" level gives you 40 points, an 18 costs you 32 points.  10's cost you 0 point each.Frankly, I modelled it after the GURPS system; sans any other modifiers form points, everyone is equal.  "Normal NPCs" are 0-point characters.Unless everyone has a set, specific number of merits and of flaws, then a point-build system is pretty much a requirement.And nonscalar attribute buys merely encourage two-dimensional characters.  Often an 18 is fine by me; always an 18 is not.  Without scalar pricing, there are two problems:One, you won't hardly ever see a wizard with less than a 17 intelligence at level 1.Two, multiple-attribute classes are unfairly hindered.  If you hand out, say, enough points on a non-scalar "just divide them evenly" system to give everyone an average of 13.5 (same as with (4-1)d6), that's 81 points.  The fighter takes STR 18, DEX 18, CON 18, INT 10, WIS 10, CHA 7 ... my, that's ever so non-2D, isn't it?  Yet, there's no real reason not to take just that.With the Mid-Power (same rough average of 13.5 if spread evenly), getting those three 18's means the other three stats suffer GREATLY: STR 18, DEX 18, CON 18, INT 7, WIS 9, CHA 3 ... and even that was min/maxxing like the worst munckin (with CHA as a clear dump stat).  That, or you have to take non-attribute diadvantages to make up the points.  Min/max furhter with a half orc, and get STR 20, DEX 18, CON 18, INT 5, WIS 9, CHA 1.  Bleargh, I say.Meanwhile, teh guy who wants to play a monk decides 16's are fine for him, and gets: STR 14, DEX 15, CON 14, INT 12, WIS 14, CHA 11.  Not stellar, but certainly workable for a Monk character (+2 to hit and damage, +2 (at level 4 +3) initiative, +4 AC between DEX and WIS, +1 skill point per level).  This one can be left human, or frankly, go almost any direction.  Even half-orc himself, for STR 16, DEX 15, CON 14, INT 10, WIS 14, CHA 9.Increasing-curve cost schemes don't straight-jacket you at all.  Only your own insistance on "getting the uttr, absolute most per build point nomatter the cost in playability and fun" ... or "defying the spirit of the system in an effort to break it soly for the sake of breaking it" do.Note to Celebrim:Send me what you have, 'll look it over, see if I can merge the two in terms of basic precepts.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  I'm not above a collaboration on a mechanics issue (though I'm jealously overprotective of -setting- issues, heh!).[edit] -- er, PM me with yoru email addie or whatnot. [/edit]</blockquote>

Verification