|
I've always prefered rolling a chracter. I find it more realistic. The way I usually do it is I choose the race, roll the dice, choose the alingment THEN choose a class based on my characters strengths and weaknesses.
Am I the only one?
Nope, you're not. I don't use point buy, partly because I've always done rolls and its become a force-of-habit, and partly because it (usually) produces slightly more average stats. I tend to RP my stats, or try to anyway, and it plays havoc with my brain to try and RP someone with a Wisdom of 6...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like rolling. Even though point buy gets me better stats, rolling gets me odd stats to work with. I wouldn't consider playing a smart fighter unless i had an extraneous 13 or so lying around.
|
From the amount of people who post impossible stats scores here, I can see why "rolling" is popular.Impossible as in ...
"I rolled 4d6 drop lowest 6 times and came up with a 35, 28, 36..." ?
Or do you mean to say
'From the amount of people who post here and play with lenient GMs who allow them to reroll if the stats aren't that great but don't explain that every time they post rolling (not "rolling") is popular.' ... ?
Here is a true story:
First character I ever created, 2nd ed, everything was done in front of the DM or it did not count, no ifs, ands or buts. Rolled 3d6 for stats to be placed where we saw fit, and we could take 2 points from one stat to put 1 point in another, max 3 times, max 1 per stat increase.18/00 str rolled straight
13 = lowest rolled score (didn't redistribute points at all)
Out of the 8 levels my character achieved, rolled MAX (10) hps for every single level except one (rolled an 8).
That entire campaign, any time I wanted to do something nearly impossible ~ not all that often but happened more than a handful of times ~ (bend heavy steel bars, that sort of thing), he would give me a 1%-3% chance, I don't think I failed once... ever.Am I suggesting you consider this the norm? Absolutely not. I am, however, suggesting that when you put quotations around the word Rolling as if to say we who post high stats on boards are in some way liars or cheats that you look like an arse? Why yes I am.
I have played very strong (high point) characters before, and I have played weak (low point) characters as well, both can be fun and rewarding in their own way... I would even go so far as to say as long as a character can meaningfully contribute on a decent basis, that flaws are more fun than the opposite. I actually loved 2nd ed because pretty much every character built had both obvious strengths and weaknesses, and not-so-obvious flaws/weaknesses that really fleshed out a character during creation... It was much more difficult to...
Yes, I believe every word you typed.
Meh. have everyone roll 1d6+12 6 times. Have fun.
Rolling characters is superior to failure-inherent communist point buy.
I like the variability of rolling. I hate the fact that one player may have superior stats while everyone else sucks. Even with letting those others reroll (some people never roll well).
The current game I GM I used the 2d6+6 method and it helped but did not eliminate this problem.
I think the point buy method is prone to min-maxing. I dislike this. However, I also think the point buy method fixes the inherent inequity of dice rolling stats.
I would like to see some system where point buy is a variable in itself. IE: instead of 20point buy an 16+2d3 point buy. Some variability without being rediculous. Want more variability? Decrease the base number and increase the dice size proportionally.
- Gauss
Am I the only one that prefers the elite array to both of these?
... probably.
I've played in a few "Iron Man" games before, and had a great time.
Iron Man = Roll your stats in order.
i had a DM that had us choose our classes before rolling, and then we rolled in order, strength to Charisma. I choose fighter, rolled below 9 for str and dex. got a 12 for con, and rolled an 18 in wisdom.
I barely managed to live to 2nd level, where a goblin with a lucky crit got me in the back.
Last time I rolled (4d6 drop, arrange), I wound up with 8, 9, 9, 10, 12, 17. Hey, net stat modifier of +1!
And then I deliberately made a blaster elemental sorcerer with those numbers.
Rolling is the general system at my game table. We have adopted rolling in order with the option for minor changes to it. Lets characters come out a little organically while not forcing you into one specific type. Point buy is nice because you can plan on what you want to be, but I like rolling much more.
Specifically pertaining to Pathfinder, I am right there with you actually - the fairness of point buy, the not quite perfectness of rolling, and faster than both.Am I the only one that prefers the elite array to both of these?
... probably.
Yeah, I find pathfinder's racial mods really bring things up to scratch, as well as making that first 18 a bigger deal rather than par for the course.
|
|
I think the point buy method is prone to min-maxing. I dislike this.
- Gauss
I had a DM once that dealt with this by giving a fixed stat array (25 point buy equivalent) and then allowing us to reassign up to 4 points from the highest three stats. It was still pretty powerful; my fighter was 18 14 14 12 13 10. Couldn't complain at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its kind of funny, but I've had MANY players come to the table with a character they swore they rolled fairly who's stats were just absurdly high... but I've never had any player come to the table ready to play a character who's stats were absurdly low due to rolls.
Point buy eliminates the need to eyeball them over their character's 'luck', and ensures none of mine are ever subjected to doubt in return.
More than the rolling vs. point-buy schism, I'm totally amazed at what constitutes a "reasonable" set of scores for different people. I consider the Heroic array (15,14,13,12,10,8) to be a good start for a PC, and have happily played those stats without ever feeling gimped. But I talk to people who consider a 15-point buy as "way too low" and feel that something more like a 30-point buy is "reasonable."
This latter attitude no doubt feeds into the urge some people have to cheat at rolling stats, thus pushing others towards point-buy as a means of combatting it.
1. Roll 4d6, drop lowest, six times and arrange as you see fit.
2. If you like those stats, go to step 3. If not, you can choose to take the Heroic array instead, in place of the ones you rolled. You may not re-roll.
3. Apply racial modifiers.
Then there are the people that have to have an 18.
Yeah, I have to have a castle to live in; unlike Jeremy Irons, I just can't afford one yet.
Some of the "need" for high stats might come from the level of optimization being used, vs. the adventures being played. For Pathfinder APs, a 15-point buy with reasonable (common-sense) optimization is probably OK. For Age of Worms with a hard-core DM, you need a much higher level of optimization, and you still might all die; high starting stats might give you a needed edge.
Another problem comes from the fact that Pathfinder makes no allowance for MAD vs. SAD characters. Realistically, a wizard can always get a LOT more out of any point-buy system than a monk, for example. I like rolling because then the wizard doesn't automatically get his 20 Intelligence, which he'll purchase no matter what point-buy system you use.
|
I prefer rolls myself because of the aforementioned randomness of it all can lead to some interesting quirks of character. One example we have right now is a Sorc in one of my games has low Wis and Str which has allowed him to do some of the more reckless things and be totally justified in character which helps to make encounters more interesting when he instigates.
In ours the rules usually go roll 4d6, drop lowest number and add the rest if your character has no score over 13 or a net modifier (all mods added together)under +1 you get to reroll all your rolls. Now if they have like 2 horrendous rolls and still meet the requirements above I as GM will offer to roll one for you but you have to take it no matter what the roll is (the aforementioned sorc had this happen as two of his rolls were a 5 & 7).
An interesting one to pull would be a "split the pot" concept where everyone rolls all their numbers, pick one to keep, and then put the rest into a neutral pile for the PC's to divide up amongst themselves. Now this would only work with certain groups of players but could help alleviate the idea of one player rolling really hot and one player rolling absolute crap as everyone now has to coordinate what they need with everyone else so they all break even.
I really enjoyed the Amber Diceless system, in which the players used to have to bid for their scores. If two people wanted a good Strength, the number of points the best score cost could skyrocket quickly. If no one cared about a stat, you could get a great score fairly cheaply.
This wouldn't work for Pathfinder, but if you haven't tried it, it's worth looking at.
|
Three pages in, and no one's mentioned the dice pool method, which is quickly becoming my favorite means of generating player stats. It keeps the fun of randomly rolled stats, while giving the player the chance to "bend the odds" towards the stats they desire.
I've seen some really interesting characters come out of this method, which is right at the beginning of the core rulebook. Super-intelligent and dashing paladin fencers. Savage and wise druid. Mystic Theurges stronger then any fighter in the party.
If you haven't use this method before, I strongly recommend the dice pool.
Prior to 3.0 (and the lack of need for a battlemat): random rolls.
Post 3.0 (and the need for a battlemat): point buy.
Once a battlemat comes into play you've basically got a miniatures game. Nothing wrong with that and different groups will bring different roleplaying levels and expectations to the group but you've moved from randomly picking a dungeon corridor to take and gone to set piece encounters.
I can roleplay the hell out of FFG's Descent but it's still a boardgame.
In 1st edition I played a fighter who didn't have a bonus in a single stat and it worked out fine. If your strength wasn't 18/xx your bonus was minimal anyways. Try that in a PFS event and learn how much verbal abuse you can take.
Random rolling is for "let's hurry up and get going" while point buy is "squeeze every drop of water out of all stones you can find". Neither way is badwrongfun but certain games lean strongly towards favoring a certain direction.
When I do point buy though I also remove the randomness of rolling for hit points. PB on stats but random HP makes little sense to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You may want to rethink your wording. You cast insults at at point buy and then add an addendum of 'not badwrongfun' as if to make your stance somehow reasonable.
By the way, you might want to check the bonuses stats gave you in 1st edition. It worked wildly differently from how stats work now. It's not comparable.
I have had the exact opposite experience from you and I can explain it thus:
I have played games in which people rolled their stats. They roleplayed less because they couldn't make the characters they wanted to play and made throwaway characters. One even died from falling overboard in the first scene because his character was so far from anything he enjoyed. He quit the game.
In games where people chose their stats, they roleplayed more. In fact, now if anyone asked them to roll their stats they'd probably look at you were insane. Most of them aren't optimisers and make some make extremely underwhelming characters. They choose concept first and then use the available mechanics to build that. Rolling does not permit this approach. Even so, if they made fine-tuned characters I do not think it would diminish their roleplaying.
Nevertheless, I can understand why some people enjoy rolling. It provides a totally different experience. While it's one I cannot stand myself, I'm not going to say they are better or worse roleplayers based on the set of stats they use.
I really enjoyed the Amber Diceless system, in which the players used to have to bid for their scores. If two people wanted a good Strength, the number of points the best score cost could skyrocket quickly. If no one cared about a stat, you could get a great score fairly cheaply.
This wouldn't work for Pathfinder, but if you haven't tried it, it's worth looking at.
As far as I understand, that system is designed to cleverly manipulate the players into hating each other right from chargen. It's a very backstabbing setting and system.
You may want to rethink your wording. You cast insults at at point buy and then add an addendum of 'not badwrongfun' as if to make your stance somehow reasonable.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
As I use PB myself, part of me is curious as to what you saw in my post that made you think of it as an attack. But an equally strong part of me doesn't really care; especially if you're just looking for an arguement.
In any case, I guess I've had the good fortune to have never played with someone where roleplaying skills were determined by what they did/didn't roll.
I'm not looking for an argument. I was simply perplexed by yours.
|
I just started a L1 campaign for the group for weeks when someone cannot make it.
I had them roll 4d6, reroll 1s and 2s.
Then they pick the class most favorable, given the scores.
Rolling for characters is not dead.
Also, every few months I run a 1e. I just use OSRIC since the pages are less yellow than my AD&D collection.
For those games its straight 3d6 in order. Pick class based on stats.
Those games are usually 1-shot though, so overall its fun to just make characters for 10 minutes then start playing.
Otherwise, its Pathfinder RPG weekly and monthly for me. I use the pathfinder hero array (the highest one). Players pick classes as desired.
Over the past 3 decades, I've used all kinds of generation methods... its really a matter of taste, or sometimes just sheer interest in variety.
Hope that helps.
Incidentally, most of my rolled characters had far higher stats than my point buy characters ever had. Except for one rolled character that had the absolute minimum.
If you want rolling and parity, you could make a table of equivalent point buys and have players roll one or more times on the table for their array.
I hate rolling stats, if only because my dice are trolls. Ever since purchasing them, whenever I pick up 4d6 and roll them I always get middling numbers. My average set looks like this;
13, 14, 14, 13, 15, 14
I hate it. I refuse to roll with other people's dice because they aren't mine, I don't want my dice to find out I've been cheating on them. The last time that happened I botched a Willpower roll in Mage: The Awakening and ended up a Marauder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer rolling myself. In a game where the classes are not balanced I've never considered the "fairness" of equal stats / points as being of overriding importance. And I like the idea of playing the hand you're dealt.
In my campaign players roll 4d6 drop the lowest, place stats (which allows some charachter design without endless point placement angst), choose character class, roll social background (based on class -- homebrew), then choose skills, feats, and roll hit points (first HD gets half or better or re-roll). That's been the norm for the last couple of decades. It seems to work and I haven't had any complaints.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at Mornaura's stats.
Those have been rolled (standard method) by the GM of the PBP I'm playing her in (with +2 Int from being a human).
Calculate how many points these stats would be worth.
Ah, you know what, I'll make it quick: 70 points. Seventy. Points.
That's three and a half times the amount of points for high fantasy point buy.
Now, in our PBP, it's okay because everyone got similarily extreme stats, but in other circumstances?
Imagine one character like this and another whose rolled scores total at about 15 points worth in the same group... God forbid even thinking about PVP.
I really don't understand how anyone can support such a method, that leads to blatant imbalance between different characters in a group, right from the beginning, just because someone happens to roll great and someone happens not to.
For me, the conclusion is clear: this character is the only and last one I'll ever play with the default stat rolling generation method.
That said... YMMV, and if you totally dig it, go for it. But spare me.
---
Btw. If you want to have a random element to your character generation, there are different methods that are random yet completely fair (in terms of: everybody gets ability scores worth the same amount of build points). Need examples?
Method A:
1. Create multiple arrays costing the same amount of build points.
2. Roll a dX (where X is the number of arrays you created), take the matching array.
3. Optional: randomly determine which attribute gets which score (d6 for the first score, d5 for the second etc).
Method B:
1. Choose a point buy value, then roll 24 + that many d6 (So 20 point buy -> 44d6).
2. You start with -4 points in every attribute, then add 1 point to Str for every 1 you roll, add 1 point to Con for every 2 you roll, 1 point to Dex for every 3 you roll ... ...
3. If you end up with more than 17 points in one attribute, reroll any points in excess until you don't exceed 17 anymore.
4. If you end up with an amount of points that doesn't have a corresponding ability score (-3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16), either shuffle those around freely (only allowing to result in a +-1 ability score), or reroll them until everything's fine.
5. Optional: Either allow shuffling the scores around or don't.
I use point buy if everyone already has character ideas the want to play otherwise I have everyone roll 4d6 drop the lowest ONCE. The result is the stat array everyone uses. I usually have 5 to 6 people in my game so it fits perfectly. And if a char dies, the new char uses the same array..
So, if you happen to roll crap once, all your characters you ever get to play in your group suck? oO
@Natan: Understood. So, everyone creates his character with standard 4d6, with the potential resulting imbalance (in relation to the other players' characters).
And whatever you do, you have to cope with your scores until the end of the campaign, and every character you make for the remainder of the campaign is as imbalanced (+/-) as the last one.
---
Regarding random fair generation methods: how about those compromises that have been posted in... a somewhat corresponding thread?
Has anyone ever tried using 1 roll for an entire group? The GM rolls 4d6 drop lowest 6 times, and everyone uses the same array of stats that generates? Might be an interesting experiment...
That is the standard for our group lately. We generally have 6 players so each rolls 4d6 and drops the low once, with everyone using the same array. Been working well for the past couple of years. Sometimes the group is pretty average, other time...well, my RotRL group stomped through the campaign with 17, 16, 15, 14, 11, 11.
No, but I've seen a similar character generation method called "The Big Bang". The GM rolls 18d6, and each player assigns 3 to each of his stats.
It's effectively point-buy, where the number of points is randomly generated. It's as fair as point buy because everyone uses the same dice rolls, and it's still got the "adrenaline moment" of rolling stats.
Ah, yeah, that message did not reach my brain, sorry.
I somehow managed to fail my perception check and skipped just the three important sentences (maybe I should get some sleep)...
So, you're doing it the same way as Ringtail, okay.
It's multiple times better than the standard method.
I could live with that, then. Could. As in, if I had no other choice. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
whenever I pick up 4d6 and roll them I always get middling numbers. My average set looks like this;
13, 14, 14, 13, 15, 14
I hate it.
Matter of expectation. To me, those look like AWESOME stats. You have no weaknesses, and can play any class you want, and do it well. You've got a net +10 in modifiers, which blows the elite array out of the water. If those stats are "middling" to you and you "hate" them, then I can see that my earlier assertion -- that expectation feeds strongly into the point-buy vs. rolling debate -- had some merit.
Roll 4d6
Assign according to points until you run out of points...
I usually use 4d6 drop lowest, 10 times, distribute as you like. Often ends up with pretty balanced characters in my experience.
Our current campaign, though, we decided to try out Point Buy, since we were having a new player join in.
I've played in a few "Iron Man" games before, and had a great time.
Iron Man = Roll your stats in order.
The last time I played that way, I ended up with a Fighter with the following stats:
STR: 9
DEX: 11
CON: 5
INT: 7
WIS: 6
CHA: 3
And he was a dwarf, so he ended up with CON 7 and CHA 1.
He failed pretty much every single roll he tried, so the party focus became more about protecting him than caring about the actual plot.
It was great, tough fun.
Matter of expectation. To me, those look like AWESOME stats. You have no weaknesses, and can play any class you want, and do it well. You've got a net +10 in modifiers, which blows the elite array out of the water. If those stats are "middling" to you and you "hate" them, then I can see that my earlier assertion -- that expectation feeds strongly into the point-buy vs. rolling debate -- had some merit.whenever I pick up 4d6 and roll them I always get middling numbers. My average set looks like this;
13, 14, 14, 13, 15, 14
I hate it.
Digression: I remember that in one thread someone was claiming that point buy encourages dump stats, so for a lark I rolled up three sets of stats:
13, 11, 14, 12, 7, 15
12, 12, 15, 13, 14, 5
11, 13, 14, 8, 15, 10
Voila! Instant proof that rolling encourages dump stats. ;-)
Digression: I remember that in one thread someone was claiming that point buy encourages dump stats
Not I -- that argument never made any sense to me. My only gripe about point-buy is that it's "fair" only in terms of total points, but unfair when you consider the MAD vs. SAD of the various classes. Point-buy with variable numbers of points based on your starting class would seem more "fair" to me.