Yes I always felt like in random stats you are giving a character, while with non-random stats you can make a character.
I feel like the latter allows for better role-playing while the former allows for better world immersion.
Yes, I agree. There is virtue in both choice and not-choice in this matter, which is why I like to strike a balance between the two.
Yes, I agree. There is virtue in both choice and not-choice in this matter, which is why I like to strike a balance between the two.Yes I always felt like in random stats you are giving a character, while with non-random stats you can make a character.
I feel like the latter allows for better role-playing while the former allows for better world immersion.
I disagree. In a team game like PF the virtues of world immersion gained by struggling against the fate handed to you is shattered once you realize that this is a game, and that if you don't keep killing off your level 1 character until you get a good one, then you are letting your team down.
Being a team player, which is essential for combat, goes against roleplaying when random stats exist in any capacity.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Or hihg str, con, and cha but an int of 13? You pretty much end up a failure of a wizard...
I once played in a game where a player made an 18 Str, 12 Int wizard who "went to wizard school on a football scholarship." The character was hilarious fun. Optimized ? Heck no. Fun? You bet.
I think some of the issue is that some (many?) point buy players always buy nearly the same set of stats, and never consider going outside their comfort zone to try something novel like a strong wizard. Of course the issue with forcing novelty is that you don't want a player who is unhappy with their character either. Remember the point is for everyone to have fun.
I disagree. In a team game like PF the virtues of world immersion gained by struggling against the fate handed to you is shattered once you realize that this is a game, and that if you don't keep killing off your level 1 character until you get a good one, then you are letting your team down.
What on earth are you talking about? Pathfinder is not a game that you can...you know, win. Not even Brawndo can make you win at Pathfinder. The idea of letting your team down by being less than optimized is rubbish. You sound like you're describing League of Legends, not a roleplaying game.
I didn't notice anyone pick up on this but surely the point we can make is that, really, a good or bad player is beyond the help of changing their stats generation? I personally disagree with your statement given elsewhere that there is influence by the decision. Well, OK, I agree - to a point. I honestly would say the social environment (i.e. who the other players are away from the table to each other) is the biggest factor.
Let alone the point of - who plays any characters remotely similar twice (at least, within, say, a 3 year span)? That sounds dull. Accountancy level dull.Now, to throw in two very old cents; I personally advocate point buy entirely to let players plan. It hurts to watch someone get excited for a character concept then see it sink because they rolled 18, 18, 18, 18, 7, 7, 7; when what they wanted was closer to 16, 14, 14, 14, 10, 8. The former there is more powerful in many cases, but missing a key link to look to the second as an ideal - that 4th OK stat.
I disagree. In a team game like PF the virtues of world immersion gained by struggling against the fate handed to you is shattered once you realize that this is a game, and that if you don't keep killing off your level 1 character until you get a good one, then you are letting your team down.What on earth are you talking about? Pathfinder is not a game that you can...you know, win. Not even Brawndo can make you win at Pathfinder. The idea of letting your team down by being less than optimized is rubbish. You sound like you're describing League of Legends, not a roleplaying game.
You can't win PF, but you can lose. Party wipes, everyone dies, the end.
Pathfinder is also a game. When you cause game logic to conflict with roleplaying logic that causes issues. Which is exactly what random stats do. From a game perspective you are encouraged to keep killing off characters until you get one that does roll high.
True story....
And actually having a weak character DOES detract from the game... it sucks when you have to constantly go and save your weak party member... and it sucks worse when you die BECAUSE of him...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm 100% point buy. I don't even roll hit points; you get max at first level, then average-round-up every level after that.
I would probably beg for a 20 point buy, and if I didn't get it, probably go with option 1 and play a SAD class like wizard.
BTW, if stats are what makes a a character 'not an individual', then you must have had some seriously crappy RPers in your history. Two characters who are *identical* mechanically can play out very differently in terms of personality and behavior.
And let us not forget that good system mastery is not inherently indicative of poor roleplaying, or vice-versa. The two are completely independent.
So, two questions now:
- What method do you typically use to generate stats in your games?
The method we currently use, take cards (12 or 18 cards, adding up to whatever power level the DM wants).
1- randomly divide cards between 6 stats, in order2- add up each stat
3- add 1 to a stat and 4 (max 18)to another stat
3.5(optional) switch any 2 stats
4- adjust for race
The 1 is to make an odd stat even.
The 4 can make a moderate stat good (or a poor stat moderate), if you really want to play a specific class/concept.
OR
Online I give stat arrays of about 20 point buy value.
So, two questions now:
- How would you like to play in a game that uses the above method of stat generation?
Probably. I like the 8 minimum, that helps ensure no one is completely hosed by rolling.
Here are some previous threads to look at;
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2na5r?PCs-using-different-ability-score-generat ion#30
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nj6v?How-do-you-roll-stats-for-new-characters# 8
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pj2l?Character-Generation-Methods#19
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pr5y?Suggestions-for-alternative-attribute-gen eration#10
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qaqa?roll-or-points-buy-which-is-better#38
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r46q&page=2?Imbalance-Via-Rolls#73
3X3 grid.
Int Wis Cha
Str X X X
Dex X X X
Con X X X
Roll in order from left to right. 4d6, drop lowest, re-roll 1s. After you fill the grid, you may choose your score out of that ability's row or column. Once a number has been chosen, it cannot be chosen again.
I don't recall seeing this method before. Looks interesting.
In my games, stats are rolled. Used to be 4d6, drop lowest reroll 1 and 2. Now I'm trying out 3d6, drop lowest reroll 1, +6. In the event someone doesn't like what they rolled, I offer an array as an option, 18 16 15 14 13 11. Always arrange as liked.
I don't like point buy, but if someone were truly reliant on it for making a character, I would allow them to do so, with a 35 point pool, with no points given for buying down. (Maybe 40 if everybody else is rolling well)
I want to have exceptional characters, those with the potential to be legendary heroes, in my games.
On the matter of hit points, I use modified rolls as well. D6 is 3+1d3, D8 is 4+1d4, D10 is 6+1d4, and D12 is 8+1d4. I like characters to have a higher average.
Interesting methods, especially Valandil Ancalime's card draw one.
My experience harkens back to 1e, with 3d6 and make what you can out of the character.
One of the more memorable campaigns in which I participated was one where the DM pre-created all characters on a 3x5 card. Each time you started a new character he'd roll off to see how many cards he'd discard to the bottom of the deck. 1d6 later, and he'd take the new top card and hand it to you. He used the 3d6 in order method, but sometimes also added unique abilities or items to the character. This resulted in some very interesting characters: a barbarian who could smell magic, but was superstitious of it, a wizard who started with a scroll with several spells, etcetera. Common characters were the fighters, thieves, clerics & wizards (all human). Certain classes and races were rare - luck of the draw to get a half-elf. We did run through a lot of low level characters as the campaign was deadly.
In the current campaign, we've got a lot of older players & so we're all pretty comfortable with the various 2e dice methods. The GM for our pathfinder campaign has us roll 4d6, drop lowest, then arrange. And he'll review and reroll if he sees a character imbalance of too many low stats. Ultimately we get higher point value characters, but it's more about playing the character we want to rather than the stats determining what we have to play.
I wouldn't have a problem with straight point buy, but haven't run in a pathfinder group that used it.
Hey Secret Fire, I like your method and I'd play in a game like that.
I have been experimenting with something called the dice point method. For this system each player gets four dice points to distribute among their abilities. They can apply no more than three points to any single ability. Afterward they roll for each ability according to the number of points they spent on it: 3 points = 18, 2 points = 1d4+14, 1 point = 1d4+1d6+8, 0 points = 1d4+1d6+1d8.
Yours is very similar to this method; something of an averaged dice point. At any rate they both achieve the same goals. They allow enough control for players to get the scores they need but also maintain enough randomness to avoid predictable ability score arrays given many players’ natural inclination to optimize. Plus they completely remove the ability to dump scores—something I really like.
Many of the hybrid methods people propose are accused of being overly complex but when you think about it, the point buy method is not very simple itself.
As for the disparity between characters that rolling methods create, I'm not buying that that is a problem. Usually the arguments are rather hyperbolic ones that ignore the real way people play the game.
I prefer point buy, but I'm okay with rolled stats if they aren't too brutal (3d6 straight down is tyranny, man).
As a GM (which I pretty much always am) I use a 25 point buy and only allow one dump to 8. This makes characters that are about as optimized as a 20 point buy without restrictions without them having to gimp their non-essential stats.
If a player wants to have a barbarian with high charisma, at most tables it's a non-issue, even in point buy. Sure, you won't be as good as an optimized barbarian, but the difference is fairly minimal so long as you don't make your barbarian's charisma, like, 16 or something. I think 13-14 is a good number for a character interested in buffing a non-primary stat, especially with a more generous point buy.
BTW, if stats are what makes a a character 'not an individual', then you must have had some seriously crappy RPers in your history. Two characters who are *identical* mechanically can play out very differently in terms of personality and behavior.
Eh, I've gamed with so many people over the years, the group as a whole is bound to be about average.
While it is true that mechanically identical characters can be played quite differently, it is not true that mechanically identical characters can represent every possible archetype. The stats, particularly the mental stats, set the framework in which we roleplay. Your classic WIS/CHA dump PF Wizard is meaningfully restricted in the types of character he can represent within the bounds of good roleplaying. Want to play the wise old mage? Sorry, you've got a 8 WIS and CHA. You're the wise old mage's alcoholic a*$$*#@ brother.
I know you're smart enough to grasp this point, Zhayne. Stat-line optimization results in less diversity among the player characters. Good roleplayers will always be good, but the average players get dragged into the gutter by cookie-cutter "build"-style character creation.
And let us not forget that good system mastery is not inherently indicative of poor roleplaying, or vice-versa. The two are completely independent.
This point is not at issue. Here, we agree.
As for the disparity between characters that rolling methods create, I'm not buying that that is a problem. Usually the arguments are rather hyperbolic ones that ignore the real way people play the game.
I've never observed it to be a problem. So long as everybody gets to be good at his primary job, secondary stats aren't going to unbalance the party in any profound way.
I don't find my system, or yours, any more complex than standard PF point-buy. Yours is an interesting variation on the theme, and I agree with you, stat-dumping (or rather, consistent dumping of the same stats) is probably the single most aggravating part of point-buy for me.
-------------------------------------------------------
I should probably add to this discussion that my world features a few small changes to the class/stat/feat system which make basically all stats useful to all characters. For those who are interested, the changes are:
- no classes with WIS as a primary stat (ie. no Clerics or Druids - not to open a huge can of worms, but the D&D Cleric is not a part of any actual mythology, and Druid is simply a broken class)
Stats:
- PCs receive a bonus feat every [8 - WIS modifier] levels (eg. WIS 16 = +3; 8 - 3 = 5; WIS 16 = 1 bonus feat/5 levels)
Feats:
- Arcane Armor Training: benefits same as Core
- prereq: STR 13, CL 3rd
- grants Light Armor proficiency
- does not require a swift action
- Arcane Armor Mastery: benefits same as Core
- prereq: Arcane Armor Training, STR 15, CL 5th
- grants Medium Armor proficiency
- does not require a swift action
- Force of Personality: Will saves become CHA-based [new]
- prereq: none
*I should add that wearing armor is more important in my system due to changes in the crit mechanics (armor reduces the severity of crits taken), and the armor feats are actually quite attractive to the arcane casters who can take them*
With just those few changes, every PC can gain some mechanical benefit from every good stat that he rolls.
I swear by Point Array, generally using 16 14 14 12 10 8, but them 13 STAT feat requirements are so common I'm thinking about switching to:
1) 16 14 14 13 10 7 (Total +6)
2) 16 14 13 12 12 8 (Total +7)
Which seems more appealing to you? I like 2 since it gives you generally more to everything and you can use the second 12 to balance out a -2 attribute racial.
Plz gimme your 2cents.
|
I started with 1st ed. You rolled your stats first (using whatever method), looked at what you rolled, then chose what race/class to play based on the possibilities that those rolls gave you.
Today, with point-buy, we are expected to choose our class first, then choose a race that gives a bonus to our class's primary stat, then buy max for primary stats and dump the rest to 8 or 7. This means that there is a 'correct' array for each concept, and with a greater preponderance of playable races comes a greater predictability of which class an unknown member of a particular race is likely to be.
I hate this. I've always hated the idea that you can look at a PC and know which class it is. I hated it in 1st ed where the reason for it was the armour/weapon choices: heavy armour but blunt weapon? Cleric. Leather armour? Thief. Pointy hat with stars on it? Give me a break!
Now it's the race that does that.
Even worse, every wizard having 7 or 8 Str. Every fighter having 7 or 8 Cha. In point-buy, there is no point in having 9 or 10 when those extra points could be boosting Str/Dex/Con. So there are 7s and 8s all over the place, and the statistically most common results of 9, 10, 11 are hardly seen.
I also hate the idea that all people are created equal. It ruins suspension of disbelief for me. If the players all use the same array, this beggars belief that six strangers are exactly equally blessed.
I like the OP's system. Why? Imagine a wizards college. We can say that, because you require high Int to pass the exams to get in, that high Int will be common or even mandatory. But the other stats should have no restriction. If we were to read a novel about such a school (Hogwarts?), I can't believe that every single student will have the same point buy, the same low Str/Cha, the same fairly good Dex/Con. There would be some that were naturally strong but chose wizard instead of fighter because of preference or family tradition, plenty of nerds but some ladies' men, some clumsy, some agile, some sickly some tough; the whole spectrum of non-Int abilities, just like any actual smart college. Do we imagine that every single MIT student has 8 Str because 12 wouldn't be optimised? Yet point-buy allows you to do something that rolling doesn't: you can take points off your low stats to increase your high stats. So you do, and that leads to cookie-cutter PCs. I hate it.
The cool thing about the OP's system is that I can guarantee getting a competent wizard and still be pleasantly surprised with what I get, and this is a much more realistic result than choosing to make Str 7 or 8 every time. If I randomly roll a 17 for Str when I chose 16s for Int/Con, then I suddenly have some cool possibilities that never can exist with point-buy, both for characterisation and for mechanical choices.
I've played plenty of superhero RPGs in my time. Some let you choose powers (mainly point-buy), others make you roll for random powers. The constructed ones are predictable, but the advantage of random powers is that it throws up surprising and delightful combinations that you would never have thought of otherwise, leading to memorable heroes.
I make my players roll when I'm GMing. I have them use 4d6, drop lowest, roll up 2 sets, take the set you prefer.
|
Even worse, every wizard having 7 or 8 Str. Every fighter having 7 or 8 Cha. In point-buy, there is no point in having 9 or 10 when those extra points could be boosting Str/Dex/Con. So there are 7s and 8s all over the place, and the statistically most common results of 9, 10, 11 are hardly seen.
Not my experience with point buy. I've seen the 7's and 8's just as much as the 9's or 10's.
I swear by Point Array, generally using 16 14 14 12 10 8, but them 13 STAT feat requirements are so common I'm thinking about switching to:
1) 16 14 14 13 10 7 (Total +6)
2) 16 14 13 12 12 8 (Total +7)
Which seems more appealing to you? I like 2 since it gives you generally more to everything and you can use the second 12 to balance out a -2 attribute racial.
Plz gimme your 2cents.
Like Malachi, I find that handing the exact same array to all of the PCs feels quite artificial. If forced to choose, I would probably go with the first array.
|
|
Even worse, every wizard having 7 or 8 Str. Every fighter having 7 or 8 Cha. In point-buy, there is no point in having 9 or 10 when those extra points could be boosting Str/Dex/Con. So there are 7s and 8s all over the place, and the statistically most common results of 9, 10, 11 are hardly seen.Not my experience with point buy. I've seen the 7's and 8's just as much as the 9's or 10's.
My first PFS character, and incidentally my very first point-buy character in 35 years of playing the D&D family of games, is a paladin called Malachi Silverclaw. Trying to get my head around point-buy, and trying to make a paladin with a greatsword, I chose 17 16 13 12 7 7, put my human +2 on the 16 to make it Str 18 (for the +6 damage with 2H weapons), put the 17 on Cha to be 18 at 4th, put the 13 and 12 on Dex/Con, and the 7s on Int/Wis. Then I had to work out what a character with those stats would be like.
I didn't like having such low mental stats, but lowering my primary stats just for an average but still comparatively useless stat would be dumb.
For my second, and so far last, PFS PC, I chose 18 18 8 7 7 7. Made a halfling Dawnflower Dervish with modified stats of Str 5 Dex 20 Con 8 Int 7 Wis 7 Cha 20. Then I had to work out what she must be like.
I didn't want low stats, but I wanted high stats more than I wanted to avoid having low stats. The game rewards this, and point-buy enables this!
If I rolled stats, then I could and would have put my two best scores in Dex and Cha, but I wouldn't have been able to reduce my other stats to make those two even higher.
Behaviour evolves to take advantage of whatever the conditions are. If you devise conditions that reward min-maxing to this degree, it shouldn't surprise that people min-max to this degree!
But the results of all this point-buy are far less satisfactory to me than rolling, both in terms of min-maxing at the expense of role-play, and in the sense of a realistic distribution of stats within a person and within a group as a whole compared to the broader population.
|
|
Behaviour evolves to take advantage of whatever the conditions are. If you devise conditions that reward min-maxing to this degree, it shouldn't surprise that people min-max to this degree!
Of my 16 PFS characters, the lowest scores are two 8's and a 9, IIRC. Edit: Three 8's, my apologies.
One of those 8's is on my Seeker, who bumped it to a 10 with a headband.
|
|
Behaviour evolves to take advantage of whatever the conditions are. If you devise conditions that reward min-maxing to this degree, it shouldn't surprise that people min-max to this degree!Of my 16 PFS characters, the lowest scores are two 8's and a 9, IIRC. Edit: Three 8's, my apologies.
One of those 8's is on my Seeker, who bumped it to a 10 with a headband.
Take those 8s and make them 7s and increase your high stats, and spend that wasted 4000gp on something that will help you. Your characters will be better at what they choose to do, and you'll be trying just as hard to avoid their weaknesses as you always did before.
I'm not talking about personal taste, I'm talking about evolutionary pressures on PFS characters. Simply put, those characters will be more fit to survive after this change than they were before.
If you think that this attitude is distasteful, then choose a stat generation method that doesn't give the player the ability to do this. Like....rolling. : )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For my part, I don't mind seeing lowish stats. I do mind seeing the same ones, on the same classes, again and again.
The problem with point buy is that it draws the players into a race to the lowest (or highest?) common denominator. If some players start min-maxing, sooner or later (nearly) everybody thinks that they must, and eventually you end up with deeply misguided but perfectly rational arguments from intelligent people claiming that if you don't min-max you're "letting the party down" (see MRH's last two posts in this thread).
A little bit of randomness can go a long way towards humanizing the PCs, and making the game feel less "gamey".
|
|
Take those 8s and make them 7s and increase your high stats, and spend that wasted 4000gp on something that will help you. Your characters will be better at what they choose to do, and you'll be trying just as hard to avoid their weaknesses as you always did before.
Said characters have made it to 14th, 8th, 4th, and 3rd level so far. Only the 14th level character has died.
I'm not talking about personal taste, I'm talking about evolutionary pressures on PFS characters. Simply put, those characters will be more fit to survive after this change than they were before.
It's funny to think about it this way, but in evolutionary terms, optimized PF parties built on point buy typically resemble highly specialized colonies of insects much more than groups of actual people.
I, for one, welcome our insect overlords.
|
|
Take those 8s and make them 7s and increase your high stats, and spend that wasted 4000gp on something that will help you. Your characters will be better at what they choose to do, and you'll be trying just as hard to avoid their weaknesses as you always did before.Said characters have made it to 14th, 8th, 4th, and 3rd level so far. Only the 14th level character has died.
With respect, the observations you make in your response in no way affects the truth of my statement.
For a Str-based fighter, for example, 18 Str is better than 16 Str (all else being equal), so the fact that a 16 Str fighter survived to 14th level is not a valid counter to the assertion that 18 Str would've been better.
What I find makes even less sense than people running around with weaknesses are PCs running that are all around better at EVERYTHING that the average guy (i.e. "average" NPC stats)...
|
|
For a Str-based fighter, for example, 18 Str is better than 16 Str (all else being equal), so the fact that a 16 Str fighter survived to 14th level is not a valid counter to the assertion that 18 Str would've been better.
For a given definition of better. How much better is subjective. It would not have been enough to prevent said death, and so no matter how much better it was it would have helped nothing.
What I find makes even less sense than people running around with weaknesses are PCs running that are all around better at EVERYTHING that the average guy (i.e. "average" NPC stats)...
But the point is that those weaknesses are placed in the same abilities time and time again.
Depends on the campaign, yet I usually go with the following -
Each player has a choice between a 20 point buy;
or an array of 15, 15, 14, 14, 11, 10 (technically a suboptimal 25 PB)
This allows a little more wiggle room for those that like multiple attribute dependent classes, or multiclassing.
|
|
For a Str-based fighter, for example, 18 Str is better than 16 Str (all else being equal), so the fact that a 16 Str fighter survived to 14th level is not a valid counter to the assertion that 18 Str would've been better.For a given definition of better. How much better is subjective. It would not have been enough to prevent said death, and so no matter how much better it was it would have helped nothing.
Tell me how otherwise identical Str-based fighters would be better with 16 than with 18 Str. Give whatever definition of 'better' you like, since your definition will be up for debate too.
|
|
Depends on the campaign, yet I usually go with the following -
Each player has a choice between a 20 point buy;
or an array of 15, 15, 14, 14, 11, 10 (technically a suboptimal 25 PB)This allows a little more wiggle room for those that like multiple attribute dependent classes, or multiclassing.
See, back in the days when rolling stats was the only option, you looked at what you rolled and could make an informed choice about whether this character had good enough stats to multi-class effectively, or be a MAD class.
What I find makes even less sense than people running around with weaknesses are PCs running that are all around better at EVERYTHING that the average guy (i.e. "average" NPC stats)...But the point is that those weaknesses are placed in the same abilities time and time again.
But they make sense to.
What sense is there in a Wizard with high str? When you have unlimited accress to things like mage hand, you are probably of lower strength...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I find makes even less sense than people running around with weaknesses are PCs running that are all around better at EVERYTHING that the average guy (i.e. "average" NPC stats)...But the point is that those weaknesses are placed in the same abilities time and time again.But they make sense to.
What sense is there in a Wizard with high str? When you have unlimited accress to things like mage hand, you are probably of lower strength...
Life is not a zero sum game. If you are intelligent, your muscles don't shrink to make life fair for everyone else. Yet point-buy makes character creation work in that absurd way.
As I said before, not every MIT student is a weakling, and of thousands of students there, some will have 18 Str. People are what they are, not what makes an optimised mathematician.
4d6, drop the lowest, arrange to taste.
I've never done the math to work out what level of point buy that would be closest to.
Depends on the campaign, yet I usually go with the following -
Each player has a choice between a 20 point buy;
or an array of 15, 15, 14, 14, 11, 10 (technically a suboptimal 25 PB)This allows a little more wiggle room for those that like multiple attribute dependent classes, or multiclassing.
I've often thought about going this route too since this all really comes down to a simple matter of personal preference. Some people don't mind playing characters with their numbers in all the right places, and some don't mind adapting their characters to a unique set of numbers.
However, I would want to reward taking a risk so I think I would adjust and rank the methods according to their payout and level of risk.
The first method with the lowest risk would be point buy set at 15 points. This is for standard fantasy.
The next would be the riskier standard 4d6 method with the rerolling rules (the rules that were not imported into Pathfinder because they were not in the document being imported from). This averages to about a 20 point buy equivalent.
Or a hybrid method like the dice point method that includes higher risk straight rolling in order set at 4 points. This averages to about a 25 point buy.
|
@Malachi: And do I want to play Muscles McWizardson? Maybe sometimes, but only when I choose to, not when a completely random mechanic that I have no control over says so.
I won't say you're wrong, but that no amount of your proselytizing is going to convince anyone that your way is superior, if they don't think so already.
What I find makes even less sense than people running around with weaknesses are PCs running that are all around better at EVERYTHING that the average guy (i.e. "average" NPC stats)...But the point is that those weaknesses are placed in the same abilities time and time again.But they make sense to.
What sense is there in a Wizard with high str? When you have unlimited accress to things like mage hand, you are probably of lower strength...
As Malachi pointed out, they don't actually make sense.
|
|
@Malachi: And do I want to play Muscles McWizardson? Maybe sometimes, but only when I choose to, not when a completely random mechanic that I have no control over says so.
I won't say you're wrong, but that no amount of your proselytizing is going to convince anyone that your way is superior, if they don't think so already.
Both ways, point-buy and rolling, have advantages and disadvantages regarding personal taste, and it seems there is a roughly even and sharp divide between supporters of each.
I get that. I get that some people can't stand having to make sense of a random (or, more usually, partially random and partially chosen) array. Others can't stand the cookie-cutter results of the evolutionary pressure of total control over each single point.
On the one hand, point-buy is seen as totally fair, despite the fact that it is clearly better for SAD classes rather than MAD classes, but results in totally unrealistic identically gifted people. On the other, random rolls result in more realistic groups of people, but might be unfair if some roll better than others.
So, where is the happy medium? I can't see point-buy providing that, but the vast majority of 'random' rolling for PCs is actually only partly random/partly chosen, possible re-rolls of low stats, minimum scores, various combinations of choosing which 'random' method to use (like the one in the OP). 'Random' rolling does a much better job (in practice) of achieving that happy medium than point-buy ever can.
@Malachi Silverclaw
From an optimization perspective, I view dump stating as dumb stating. I can see having maybe one 8 for a really MAD concept. For the rest though, a fighter with 7 cha is embracing the class's problems instead of trying to address them. I rarely buy over 16 before race mods for any class. It's just not worth the penalties. The only exception would be sorcerers and wizards, since they are fullcasters and unlike divine casters have trouble being dangerous in melee.
Also, 10 is the most common stat across all my character builds.
I know you're smart enough to grasp this point, Zhayne. Stat-line optimization results in less diversity among the player characters. Good roleplayers will always be good, but the average players get dragged into the gutter by cookie-cutter "build"-style character creation.
I see where you're coming from, but I still vehemently disagree with it.
|
|
As Malachi pointed out, they don't actually make sense.What I find makes even less sense than people running around with weaknesses are PCs running that are all around better at EVERYTHING that the average guy (i.e. "average" NPC stats)...But the point is that those weaknesses are placed in the same abilities time and time again.But they make sense to.
What sense is there in a Wizard with high str? When you have unlimited accress to things like mage hand, you are probably of lower strength...
Exactly! People don't 'make sense'; people are not optimised! The ability array represents the natural aptitude in each area, and training to be different is a tiny fraction of that. In PF, one point per four levels.
Children don't decide what job they want to be when they grow up, then decide how strong or how smart or how charismatic they need to be to be optimal in their job. A kid who wants to play footbal doesn't hit himself over the head with a baseball bat to deliberately lower his intelligence on the grounds that it'll mean he can therefore be stronger!
Point-buy is that ridiculous concept in action!
I work in a casino. Dex and Int are most usefull, but there is a wide range of ability there. Str is useless, but does that mean there are no dealers who go weight training? Not a bit of it.
I want characters who are good at what they do, but it is absurd to believe that that have to be bad at everything else in order to be competent in their chosen field. Point-buy creates that absurd situation.
|
|
@Malachi Silverclaw
From an optimization perspective, I view dump stating as dumb stating. I can see having maybe one 8 for a really MAD concept. For the rest though, a fighter with 7 cha is embracing the class's problems instead of trying to address them. I rarely buy over 16 before race mods for any class. It's just not worth the penalties. The only exception would be sorcerers and wizards, since they are fullcasters and unlike divine casters have trouble being dangerous in melee.
Also, 10 is the most common stat across all my character builds.
I think you are wrong. I don't think that a Str-based fighter would be better in his role with 16 Str and 13 Cha than if he had 18 Str and 7 Cha.
I think you are wrong. I don't think that a Str-based fighter would be better in his role with 16 Str and 13 Cha than if he had 18 Str and 7 Cha.@Malachi Silverclaw
From an optimization perspective, I view dump stating as dumb stating. I can see having maybe one 8 for a really MAD concept. For the rest though, a fighter with 7 cha is embracing the class's problems instead of trying to address them. I rarely buy over 16 before race mods for any class. It's just not worth the penalties. The only exception would be sorcerers and wizards, since they are fullcasters and unlike divine casters have trouble being dangerous in melee.
Also, 10 is the most common stat across all my character builds.
Before race mods I would take
16 14 14 10 10 10over
17 14 14 10 11 7
Everyday
You don't need 13 cha to not have 7.
|
|
Tell me how otherwise identical Str-based fighters would be better with 16 than with 18 Str.Better at making checks with his non-Str stat.
All his other stats are identical!
Yet even if they weren't, he will use his Str far, far, far more often than his dump stat. That's what he's for, to apply his Str to the enemy as often as he can, while minimising exposure of his weaknesses.