How high can I boost an int roll of 3 with that method?
To 15, just like with normal point buy. It will cost you 14 points to do it though.
How high can I boost an int roll of 3 with that method?
This really isn't an appropriate analogy. All the numbers in a normalized array can and will vary. You're not generating PCs with the same height, age, and sibling count every time.A given PC who is 5'6" and has exactly one sibling of the opposite sex, two years older or younger, is not boring. Ten such PCs in a row are boring.
By the same token, you can use different normalization methods or parameters.This is why it's fun to sometimes use different stat rolling methods, e.g. 3d6 in order is fun sometimes.
This is a very surprising question coming from you. For at least one of the normalization methods we're talking about here (the card method), the sum of the array is the quantity that is conserved. 3 + 18, 10 + 11, and 15 + 6 are all possible (depending on the deck). I had assumed that when you were talking about "playing in the same section of attribute space", it was this sort of conservation that you were objecting to. But now you seem to be saying that you don't think same-sum arrays are similar. So I honestly don't know what you mean by a "section of attribute space".Edit: besides, why do you care about the sum of the attribute arrays? 3 + 18 has the same sum as 10 + 11 and 15 + 6, but they play out very differently.
As I alluded before, if there is some sort of divide here, stat normalizers would naturally side with stat randomizers rather than point-buyers -- whatever that side is. They're both in the same boat of being given an 8 and not being able to modify it. If, as you allege, that situation tends to encourage better "playing their scores", then they're both going to do that. And if it incentivizes excuse-making, they're both going to do that.At any rate, my anecdotal observation from these forums is that the loudest defenders of "Int 8 isn't really very stupid" always seem to be point-buy advocates and/or stat normalizers.
I just hate that every Fighter or Barbarian ends up stronger than an Ogre and every Wizard is an Einstein.
To 15, just like with normal point buy. It will cost you 14 points to do it though.
I like this! Simple, elegant, doesn't need any special rules, and definitely makes a different party than what usually comes out of character creation.The character creation method I want to use in my next campaign:
(1) Choose a race.
(2) Choose a background.
(3) Roll ability scores in order (4d6 drop the lowest).
(4) Choose a class.
This really isn't an appropriate analogy. All the numbers in a normalized array can and will vary. You're not generating PCs with the same height, age, and sibling count every time.
This is a very surprising question coming from you. For at least one of the normalization methods we're talking about here (the card method), the sum of the array is the quantity that is conserved. 3 + 18, 10 + 11, and 15 + 6 are all possible (depending on the deck). I had assumed that when you were talking about "playing in the same section of attribute space", it was this sort of conservation that you were objecting to. But now you seem to be saying that you don't think same-sum arrays are similar. So I honestly don't know what you mean by a "section of attribute space".
Here are some card-generated arrays. Are they in the same section of attribute space? If so, why? If not, why not?
[10, 12, 11, 14, 14, 13]
[13, 13, 12, 11, 14, 11]
[14, 14, 9, 9, 16, 12]
[9, 18, 13, 14, 10, 10]
[10, 13, 10, 13, 15, 13]
[8, 10, 16, 14, 11, 15]
[3, 15, 11, 15, 14, 16]
As I alluded before, if there is some sort of divide here, stat normalizers would naturally side with stat randomizers rather than point-buyers -- whatever that side is. They're both in the same boat of being given an 8 and not being able to modify it. If, as you allege, that situation tends to encourage better "playing their scores", then they're both going to do that. And if it incentivizes excuse-making, they're both going to do that.
So I am suspicious, to say the least, of the validity of your anecdotal observation. Have you considered the possibility that you just find it more memorable when the people you don't like do the thing you don't like? Like a teenager convinced that all reckless drivers are old people, or an old person convinced that all reckless drivers are teenagers, when in reality of course there are plenty of reckless drivers of all ages.
I'm pretty sure I'm remembering that right. It stood out last time I browsed the RC because I thought you were able to reduce any ability. I might have to reread to refresh my memory though.I remember something like that from the Red Box. I don't think it had a special case for Charisma though.
I actually think your method will cause weaker characters in general than standard point buy or most rolling methods.