Identical stats don't mean identical characters. There's this thing called 'roleplaying'.
|
Even with identical point buy arrays, stats will be different.
Unless Jerry is saying that he has had parties with every character being of the same class and race with the same feat and skill selections.
Racial modifiers and different class priorities will make different stats regardless of the ability score method used.
I use point-buy online when playing online. At a table though, we like to roll, but don't like the disparity in scores it generally creates, so all 6 players roll 4d6 once and drop the lowest die and then use the same array that they generate together.
In previous editions (1e, 2e, 3.x) we used various means of rolling the dice. (Anyone remember 1e's Unearthed Arcana's infamous dice pools?)
Currently, I'm a believer in the point-buy method. As others have mentioned before, it does offer a level playing field to the players, plus it gives the DM a baseline against which to design encounters.
Even with identical point buy arrays, stats will be different.
Unless Jerry is saying that he has had parties with every character being of the same class and race with the same feat and skill selections.
Racial modifiers and different class priorities will make different stats regardless of the ability score method used.
Every fighter has maxed-out strength. Every wizard has maxed-out Int. Every Sorcerer has maxed-out Cha, etc., etc., etc.. And everybody has dump stats.
It's min-maxing every time, so predictable that I might as well create pre-built arrays for each character class, because no one will create anything much different.
Again, that's been my experience. You may have had another. But for me, it just confirms the need for random rolls.
Do your players not roleplay their characters when you use point buy?
When I get point buy I try to take a lot of 14s in dex and con. I usually go for 18 after modification unless I need many different and low point buy stats then may drop down to 16 for main stat.
Are you coming to PaizoCon TS? We can fix that. :)
Sadly I haven't been to any con in a few years, and as a broke college student, it's not likely to happen for a few more. :(
I find the very concept of the need for a "level playing field" abhorrent.
Different strokes, I guess. To me, this makes no more sense than "I find the very concept of the need for a level floor abhorrent."
Do your players not roleplay their characters when you use point buy?I have great roleplayers. But in my opinion, the system already encourages min-maxing, roll-playing and munchkinism. Point-buy just exacerbates the problem.
When I DM, I want to see characters, not builds. Everything I can do to eliminate the "what's the best build for a <insert class here>" kind of thinking, I will do.
Besides, as I have stated before, my players with one exception don't like point-buy. The only one who does approaches every game with an "it's me-against-all-the-other-players" attitude.
From my perspective, D&D is a game about collective imagination, not a competition between characters. I find the very concept of the need for a "level playing field" abhorrent.
To me, point buy has nothing to do with a level playing field. It has to do with playing the character you want.
If you roll 18/10/10/10/10/10, you probably won't make a very effective monk. You can be a decent wizard, fighter or cleric though... but if you really wanted to try monk, you're kinda SOL.
Point buy means a player can design the character they want to play, instead of hoping.
If they want to be challenged, playing something unexpected, I can assign them their class/race/stat focus, either my choice, through some questions or with a random table made on the spot.
I like the level playing field as well, but my primary concern is roleplaying the character that I want.
|
We had all sorts of problems with rolling nobody could agree on how to do it. Do you rearrange the stats? Do you rearrange a single stat? Do you re-roll certain low numbers? By the end so many fail safes were built in it was point buy in all but name anyway. If we wanted to be "old school" about it, nobody got to play the class they wanted. So character creation was always a wasted session just arguing over methods and getting it done. Out of the interest of making character creation as fast as possible we switched to point buy with some reluctance. Have not looked back since.
Maybe my group is an anomaly. Since switching to point buy there has been such a De-emphasis on ability scores as definition of a character. For instance its been years since I heard from one player to another either, "Cha 8? You are so ugly hahahaha" or "Int 8 man you are retarded you better act like it!" My group actually role plays their characters and let their personalities develop as the campaign goes on. Quite refreshing to be honest but I guess I'm just lucky since time after time I'm told its not possible using the point buy system.
I use point buy when I run, but my 2 GMs use die rolling.
I never have a problem with rolling when it comes to playing the character I want to play because I always have at least two or three concepts bouncing around my head. Personally, when I'm DMing, I'm willing to make a particularly interesting concept viable by adjusting one or two of the rolls at most (preferably the middle rolls, not the rolls on either end), preferring to use traits to represent background and training that allowed the character to overcome their weaknesses. I don't have anything against point buy, and can make it work as well as rolling, but to me, it's just not as interesting.
|
|
Rules are necessary for the game to work. If there was a way to create characters with detailed creation rules purely through description of character concept, the system would be perfect (as far as character creation goes).
Rules aren't necessary for the game to work, they're necessary for fair arbitration when two players disagree on an outcome. I started gaming via free-form play-by-e-mail posts, where the only rule was 'the moderator resolves disputes'. Yes, my first RPG experience was entirely DM fiat.
You could literally sit around the table roleplaying in character with no dice or paper or rules and have the DM judge what happens by fiat.
All of my campaigns use 15-pt buy. (I also enforce the penalties of dump-statting & use the slow-XP track.)
For a while I held out on randomly rolling for NPCs, but the slight variation wasn't worth the extra time involved.
While I like the idea of rolled stats, the reality is that I want the players to be able to play the character that they want vs. being saddled with a stats that preclude them from doing so. Point-buy allows them to assess the pros, cons, and trade-offs -- they get to choose rather than feeling like they're stuck with what the dice gave them.
Between feats, traits, racial adjustments, etc., stats are still varied and roleplaying cements that even further. However, for those who want to just rely on roleplaying for distinction, well, more power to you. Some of the most interesting characters I've seen have been the result of working towards a particular build (note: I'm not talking about dump-stats here).
IMO, you need a blend of mechanics and role-playing to formulate the character. One without the other results in a hollow character, in my estimation.
I'm a huge fan of 3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars. It's basically Starship Troopers, without the IP license. There are two skills, Fighting and Non-Fighting. I played with a GM who rewrote the rifleman's creed, but replaced rifle with d10(the only die you use in the game). He made all the players recite it together before play began.
I have played D&D/PF since 1975 and have used point buy since it became an option. I DM mostly and have found that the so called "randomness" of other methods only meant that a player would roll until he was happy with the results. If you insisted they roll them in front of you they would kill off their own characters to get better ones. Point buy not only eliminates that, but forces people to make choices---and start a character concept from the beginning. That's my 2cp.
|
|
Sorry. Ranting. Let me go get something to wipe the foam off my mouth.
No, I agree completely. I used to have a group that ran from 1PM to 1AM or beyond. Now my group does noon to 6PM. I had to drop a game because they were having trouble managing only 3 hours of gameplay. The DM wanted less game time because it was conflicting with his time with his spouse.
*sigh*
If you prefer the player craft a character concept initially, and then make the rules fit that concept - I think the point buy is the way to go.
The only problem with this is that you can end up with concepts with no real weaknesses or any reason to be working in the group. This means that when it comes time to actually make the character and put the party together, you end up with a disappointed player because their concept didn't actually work because the rules had no reasonable way of allowing it while still having a functional character and/or a party of misfits that have very little reason to trust each other or even tolerate each other.
These aren't problems exclusive to point buy, but they are a lot more common because using point buy has a tendency to divorce the initial concept from the rules, often making it harder to match the rules to it later on because the concept is simply completely unrealistic for the ruleset being used, whereas rolling reminds people that the two pieces are inherently tied together. Also, when rolling, the level of interaction between the player, the DM, and the other players tends to be higher, reducing the level of conflict around character creation and party formation significantly.
My biggest problem with the "point buy lets me play the character I want to play" argument is that it really doesn't. The rule set as a whole still determines what concepts are feasible or not; using point buy just removes one of the more minor obstacles.
The other issue I have with point buy is that it tend to encourage the "but the rules say I can do it" crowd a lot more than rolling does, making them a lot likely to challenge rulings made later on when the game actually starts. The rolling crowd learns to deal with it and move on with a lot less fuss.
|
I have played D&D/PF since 1975 and have used point buy since it became an option. I DM mostly and have found that the so called "randomness" of other methods only meant that a player would roll until he was happy with the results. If you insisted they roll them in front of you they would kill off their own characters to get better ones. Point buy not only eliminates that, but forces people to make choices---and start a character concept from the beginning. That's my 2cp.
This has been my experience as well. With point buy, you can craft a character concept and play that style. Point buy allows a lot more freedom in designing and playing a character concept. I have seen a lot more variety in character concepts since we went to point buy. I have no desire to go back.
Edit: Far and away the most powerful that did not need anybody else was done through rolling (3x18, 16, 15, and 10). The character was a one person army. In point buy, you are pretty limited in stats (ala 15 or even 20 point buy).
I prefer rolling.
Point-buy has its advantages, to be sure -- but of the main ones, two in particular that are constantly repeated, I've actually found not to be true:
1. "Point-buy is more fair." On the contrary -- point-buy heavily favores SAD classes, IMHO. A smart wizard will max Int, keep a decent Dex and Con, and dump everything else as low as possible to keep pumping Int. A monk will have a VERY hard time allocating enough points to get even halfway to the super-stats he needs in Str, Dex, Con, and Wis just to be competitive. If the stat needs for the various classes were more evenly-distrubuted, then point-buy would indeed be MUCH more fair for everyone. But until they are, it isn't.
2. "Everyone cheats at dice rolling, so everyone always has awesome stats." I've no doubt this is true if you play with 13-year-olds. With more mature people, I generally don't have that problem. Houstonderek, for example, is perfectly happy to play the stats he rolls -- even mostly abysmally low ones like he rolled for his character Fiachra.
|
|
1. "Point-buy is more fair." On the contrary -- point-buy heavily favores SAD classes, IMHO. A smart wizard will max Int, keep a decent Dex and Con, and dump everything else as low as possible to keep pumping Int. A monk will have a VERY hard time allocating enough points to get even halfway to the super-stats he needs in Str, Dex, Con, and Wis just to be competitive. If the stat needs for the various classes were more evenly-distrubuted, then point-buy would indeed be MUCH more fair for everyone. But until they are, it isn't.
This is not due to point-buy. This has everything to do with SAD vs MAD.
In a party of all SAD characters, point-buy is fair. In a party of SAD and MAD characters, it is unfair.
I like playing characters with a wide range of stats, especially those who are a bit of a challenge to run:
low-strength or low-dexterity fighters;
clerics with a wisdom just high enough to cast 1st or 2nd level spells;
a thief who is the monk class with stealth and disable device skills;
a bard with a negative charisma modifier, who's an expert on the subject of cheese but little else;
a wizard who used to be a high-level caster, but he's so old he's forgotten all spells above 2nd level....
Real characters. Not "builds", though my descriptions will probably make people accuse me of that.
Let me ensure that I'm not misunderstanding your chargen MO: You roll stats, arrange them, and then pick an extremely atypical class for your stat arrangement.
If this is right, I feel obligated to point out that you can do the exact same thing with point buy. Maybe buying stats isn't as fun for you as rolling, but there's nothing about point buying that precludes or even discourages the atypical builds that you like. In fact I had one player who did this repeatedly. :)
Carry on.
This is not due to point-buy. This has everything to do with SAD vs MAD.
If the stat needs for the various classes were more evenly-distrubuted, then point-buy would indeed be MUCH more fair for everyone. But until they are, it isn't.
See, we're agreeing, in part. But, honestly, I've never seen a 4-person+ party in which there were no MAD characters, or no SAD characters. That said, because of the unfair stats needs built into the game, a "fair" system for stats heavily favors the SAD guys.
When I roll for stats, sometimes the wizard has to make due with a 14 Int. If I use point-buy, he always gets that 18.
|
I use arrays. Array generation changes from game to game though. For my Skull & Shackles game we played a game of Cheat using dice to generate the array.
Usually the array is 16, 15, 13, 11, 10 & 8.
Since race can buff some stats it tends to work out find whether a character is SAD, MAD or RAD (Really Awesome Dude).
Sorry, on the phone while shopping and Cyz pulled me away.
Where we disagree is when you try to say that is a negative against point buy when it's really a negative against class design. Point-buy IS a level field, but class design is the jagged divot ruining everything. :)
Which is why, while I personally prefer rolling, the precise method of determining stats rarely bothers me one way or another. It's just too small of a piece in the larger picture of how my character is created and developed for me to focus too much on it.
I like playing characters with a wide range of stats, especially those who are a bit of a challenge to run:
low-strength or low-dexterity fighters;
clerics with a wisdom just high enough to cast 1st or 2nd level spells;
a thief who is the monk class with stealth and disable device skills;
a bard with a negative charisma modifier, who's an expert on the subject of cheese but little else;
a wizard who used to be a high-level caster, but he's so old he's forgotten all spells above 2nd level....
Real characters. Not "builds", though my descriptions will probably make people accuse me of that.
These are not characters. These are jokes.
The player characters risk their lives on a daily basis and would it be realistic for them to drag along a cheesemaker with little to no valid ability to help and give that cheesemaker an equal share of their earnings?
At best, you have described several NPC hirelings with odd quirks.
You're not helping your case. Go read this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My "case" is simply that your response to what I posted has nothing to do with my characters. The characters worked well in the campaigns they were written in, and your conception of them was based on insufficient information.
While this is true, your characters are useless on the standard assumptions of how the game is played on these boards. If you fail to provide context, those characters are going to be assumed to be jokes or intended for games where you don't actually fight anything other than goblins... even at high levels. You posted them and suggested they were valid character concepts, it is not Umbral Reaver's job to provide the necessary context, it is your job.
IMO, those are not good D&D characters. Those would work well in a FATE, Burning Wheel, PDQ, etc... a lot of other games where the basic assumptions about task resolution and character challenges are different from D&D.
A lot of my games end up spending a lot of time around 10th level. In a challenging CR fight, each of those characters would be dead weight.
