I was just curious as to what point buy amount other DMs out there used for running Dungeon adventures. I just started the Savage Tide and opted for the player to use 36 since they complained abit that they felt 32 was too weak.
Looking the first STAP "There is no honor" I see that alot of the named or boss style encounters are built with about 25 point buy give or take a few points.
The players were wanting 40 points to make character, I was just wondering if other DMs had used that amount of point buy and how things went for them.
Thanks in Advance :-)
I've used a few in my ongoing campaign which is 28 point buy and it seems balanced about right. In an earlier campaign I had 32 point buy and many, many encounters seemed much easier than were planned to be (admittedly, this was 3.0, but that shouldn't make that much of a difference here).
I'm running the SCAP with a 32 point buy, and the characters don't seem to be particularly challenged yet. Next campaign will be 24-28.
Creative Director
|
All of the NPCs in Savage Tide (and in Dungeon, for that matter) are built using the 25 point buy. Exceptions occur, but they are very rare.
If you use only core books or have an inexperienced group of players, a 32 point buy isn't a bad option. If you allow lots of non-core books and your players are old hands at D&D, you should either use standard point buy or buff up the challenges a bit.
For some reason, those few points between 28 and 32 seem to make a HUGE difference in the feel of a party. Either they are fairly good at most things, or they are amazingly good at thier key stats, and this really alters how encounters go.
All it takes is a few extra saves that you might not have made otherwise, and you walk into a major encounter fresh and hardly depleted at all, rather than battered and having used half your hit points or spells. The little things really do add up in this case.
The players were wanting 40 points to make character, I was just wondering if other DMs had used that amount of point buy and how things went for them.
There's no way I'd allow a 40-point build for a PC in my game. Used wisely, that gives starting stats of 17, 17, 14, 12, 10, 10 - way OTT IMHO.
When I build NPC's, I generally work with a 28-point build, it's suficient to give a good stat or two, but not enough to create a monster. There's usually a headache or two as to how to min/max the NPC for what I'm aiming at.
My players were elated when I offered them a 32 point buy for STAP. I usually prefer 25-27 to start. So far the party of three is doing really well and haven't complained about encounters being too tough. 40 points is a travesty. Tell them to go play a video game and quit whinging at you!
My players were elated when I offered them a 32 point buy for STAP. I usually prefer 25-27 to start. So far the party of three is doing really well and haven't complained about encounters being too tough. 40 points is a travesty. Tell them to go play a video game and quit whinging at you!
Yeah, I've found that 32-point buys generate characters that me and my group find to be comically heroic in their stats (though we stick with 28, never going with the default 25).
A 40-point buy would create uber-characters you couldn't even find on Miami CSI.
All of the NPCs in Savage Tide (and in Dungeon, for that matter) are built using the 25 point buy. Exceptions occur, but they are very rare.
If you use only core books or have an inexperienced group of players, a 32 point buy isn't a bad option. If you allow lots of non-core books and your players are old hands at D&D, you should either use standard point buy or buff up the challenges a bit.
James:
No opinion on the 28-point option?
Also, I find your comments interesting -- do you find non-core options to be consistently more powerful than core rules?
Jack
|
The players were wanting 40 points to make character, I was just wondering if other DMs had used that amount of point buy and how things went for them.
40 points?! Wow... I like giving my PCs 16 points, but the baseline stat is 10, rather than 8. That way, we avoid too egregious use of the Cha dump stat. My PCs ran through the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil with 32-point characters without breaking a sweat until I pulled out all the stops and then some; I'll probably never go higher than 30 points again.
|
Creative Director
|
I prefer to use the 32 point buy option, honestly. It makes for tougher characters, but I'm okay with that since it means that PCs last longer. Nothing brings down a carefully-laid campaign like unexpected character deaths.
The 28 point option is meaningless to me. It's not enough points to make tough characters, and it's too many points to make balanced characters. Why not a 27 point option? 31? 29?
ANYway... as for non-core options, yes, they do allow for the creation of more powerful characters. The more books you use, the more you can specialize. There's also been a bit of power creep going on in the books too, which is something that's kind of unavoidable.
Take flight. If you use the core rules only, you can design an adventure for a 1st-4th level party with the assumption that there won't be much flying going on. But delve into the core books and spells like swift fly and updraft start to appear. By a strict numbers viewpoint, these spells might be balanced when weighed against their benchmark spell fly, but they allow lower level parties access to options early. For the adventures in Dungeon, this tends to cause problems since we build the adventures assuming a minimum of non-core rules going on at the PC end of the table. If your group uses more non-core books, as a result, more and more of the challenges in our adventures won't be as challenging.
What's the answer? The complicated one is, of course, to upgrade all the traps and the monsters and the NPCs in a pre-published adventure with new feats and skills and spells and stuff from the newer books. But then it kinda turns into an arms race, and that's not for everyone. It's certainly not to my liking.
Another option is to simply buff up encounters, but when you have one player in your group who has lots of free time and a fat wallet and he's got all the new releases, and then you've got another player who has little money and no time outside of the game itself to optimize his character, suddenly you start seeing balance issues.
There's certainly some excellent stuff in the non-core books. You just have to be careful with what you use, and be aware of the implications.
I prefer to use the 32 point buy option, honestly. It makes for tougher characters, but I'm okay with that since it means that PCs last longer. Nothing brings down a carefully-laid campaign like unexpected character deaths.
The 28 point option is meaningless to me. It's not enough points to make tough characters, and it's too many points to make balanced characters. Why not a 27 point option? 31? 29?
I agree with James here. 25 Points gives the "Elite Array" (8,10,12,13,14,15), with 28 you might get (10,11,12,13,14,15) - just enough be at least average in every stat, but not much more otherwise, so why bother? With 32 points, you can get (10,11,12,13,15,16) - average everywhere at least, and with one or two good stats.
Now, 40 points gets you (10,12,13,14,16,17) - two good or very good stats and three still above average. With some min/maxing, racial adjustments and considering all the stat buffs available through magic, this could get easily over the top.
If I would use point buy, I would use 32 points. It makes for tougher characters while not making them superpowered - they should be heroes, not superheroes.
Stefan
I prefer to use the 32 point buy option, honestly. It makes for tougher characters, but I'm okay with that since it means that PCs last longer. Nothing brings down a carefully-laid campaign like unexpected character deaths.
The 28 point option is meaningless to me. It's not enough points to make tough characters, and it's too many points to make balanced characters. Why not a 27 point option? 31? 29?
I agree with James here. 25 Points gives the "Elite Array" (8,10,12,13,14,15), with 28 you might get (10,11,12,13,14,15) - just enough be at least average in every stat, but not much more otherwise, so why bother? With 32 points, you can get (10,11,12,13,15,16) - average everywhere at least, and with one or two good stats.
Now, 40 points gets you (10,12,13,14,16,17) - two good or very good stats and three still above average. With some min/maxing, racial adjustments and considering all the stat buffs available through magic, this could get easily over the top.
If I would use point buy, I would use 32 points. It makes for tougher characters while not making them superpowered - they should be heroes, not superheroes.
Stefan
I have played in both AOW & SC and am going to run ST and in all three APs we have had 30 point build characters. this, along with an increase in initial character level (3rd), is enough, considering the number of players in our group (2)to give the PC's a degree of viability... just!
A forty point build would be way over the top though IMHO and not be something i'd even consider. If your players want their characters to have the chance of several high stats i would recommend you suggest they use the standard method for character generation (4d6-lowest).
of course if you feel that a 40 point build would be ok and you want the players to have exceptional characters i say go for it and if it doesn't work out think again.
A 40-point buy would create uber-characters you couldn't even find on Miami CSI.
That was just plain funny. I agree.
Thanks to both Mr. Jacobs and Stebehill for their input which I found very enlightening. I especially enjoyed your comparison to the point arrays, a concept which another DM in our group has espoused for a long time, but which I did not have the math "skillz" to make the connection/comparison with point buy.
I have played a 25 point character and it is a grind, sorta like old school D&D (I could never roll good stats, just my luck) where you are hanging on for dear life. 27 points is interesting, but as a player you always feel you have to sac one ability you wish you could have bumped up a little. I used to think this was an effective way to challenge players.
When you put it in such concise and comparative terms, 32 doesn't seem st all too generous, and like I said, the players are really enjoying their game in the Savage tide, which I think remains balanced and fair. Hey besides, Mr. Jacobs oughta know especially for STAP, what kind of party is appropriate.
Since I began to read Dungeon a little over a year ago, I have tried to create adventures in my own campaign more like the ones I find in your pages (tough, streamlined, "professional") and I now realize that I don't have to Nerf the players' abilities if I am going to be able to challenge them fully, using the near infinite resources at my disposal. I may move to 32 or, since I actually prefer odd numbered point buys (usually leaves at least one ability odd if you don't min/max) maybe 31 or 33..Anyway, thanks again to all.
Thanks to both Mr. Jacobs and Stebehill for their input which I found very enlightening. I especially enjoyed your comparison to the point arrays, a concept which another DM in our group has espoused for a long time, but which I did not have the math "skillz" to make the connection/comparison with point buy.
My pleasure.
I recommend HeroForge, it is a great Excel spreadsheet for creating characters in a breeze. I used it to quickly generate the point-buy scores I posted above. The version I have is 4.0.4. I don´t know if there is a newer version, and I don´t recall where I downloaded that one from, but Googling Heroforge should turn it up quickly.Stefan
Now, 40 points gets you (10,12,13,14,16,17) - two good or very good stats and three still above average. With some min/maxing, racial adjustments and considering all the stat buffs available through magic, this could get easily over the top.
If I would use point buy, I would use 32 points. It makes for tougher characters while not making them superpowered - they should be heroes, not superheroes.
Stefan
I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer here. The points used to build characters depends entirely on what is fun for you and your players. I always use the 32 point buy for my games - its the right fit for my group and me. I don't like lower point builds because it feels like every character is more or less the same - higher point totals allow more variety in character design (assuming your players aren't all min/maxers - mine aren't).
Some folks, though, really like a low point build for the challenge it represents and may enjoy a grittier, less cinematic campaign where the players are ordinary people thrust into extraordinary situations and rise to the challenge. Low point builds create special problems for certain character classes (such as paladins) that have several important attributes, while other classes (such as sorcerors, wizards, and certain fighter builds) can get buy with just one good attribute score.
Conversely, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a 40 point build, either. It all depends on your players. A group of power-gamers will exploit this build to create killing machines; role-players will use the points to build interesting and unusual characters. Why shouldn't the characters be superheroes? Its easy enough to create encounters to challenge them, so if everyone finds this fun, why not?
As an aside, I really have to take exception to the prevailing attitude that Charisma is "always" a dump stat. Personally, I believe that Cha is the single most useful attribute in the game, followed closely by Int, because they are useful irrespective of class. The only time I ever build characters with low Cha is for roleplaying reasons (e.g. a bitter cynic, an arrogant blow-hard, etc.). I find some of the game mechanics, such as half-orcs +2 Str vs. -2 Int, -2 Cha to be an overly intrusive attempt at balance for the worst types of munchkin gamers. No one in my group would ever trade 2 pts. of Int and Cha for 2 pts. of Str.
Anyway, in my opinion the right number of points to build characters is however many it takes to build characters that are fun for you and your players.
Personally I favor 63,824 point buy characters with extended "buy" chart. Charisma is always a dump stat ending up being a paulty 453 or so.
I don't see the issue with half-orcs (or regular orcs) being harsher and dumber. It fits the character of the orc archtype very well.
My one problem with point buy is it sucks if you happen to want to be a paladin or monk as they have more "core" stats than the average standard class. Also you tend to get some very cookie-cutter characters (stat-wise) after a while.
GGG
I don't see the issue with half-orcs (or regular orcs) being harsher and dumber. It fits the character of the orc archtype very well.
The issue with half-orcs is not whether it fits the archetype, but whether they are balanced. I think that sacrificing Int and Cha for Str is overly-punitive and over-values Str. My house-rules give half-orcs +2 Str and -2 Cha. I feel that this is a fair balance, but again, it depends on the types of players you have. Dump-statting munchkins would have a field day with my house rule.
On a more philosophical note, I don't see why half-orcs (or any other race) would be inherently less intelligent than any other. Are entire races really born stupid? This is an outmoded concept that should have ended with the Victorian era. Or perhaps in D&D phrenology is a legitimate field of study?
Where's the rules for point buy?
I've seen it in video games (I guess) but I must profess ignorance; always rolled dice and whatnot...
But I want to learn, man. I want to learn.
You can find the point buy rules in the DMG. There's a chart that shows the cost for each attribute score. All attributes start at 8. Initially each additional point costs only 1 pt. to buy, but the cost starts to accelerate dramatically as the score increases.
I was just curious as to what point buy amount other DMs out there used for running Dungeon adventures.
If I could convince my AoW group to go for it, the point buy plan I'd implement is 24 pts. + d10 (rolled once) for a range of 25-34 points per character (so everyone's not the same). We currently us 4d6 x7 rolls, which has produced some very strong characters thus far (although reckless play has led to a few character deaths too, despite high scores). GGG has a point that it would be kind of difficult to make a viable paladin or monk with the point buy, but I think it could be done in the 30 pt.+ range. Me? I'd be perfectly happy building a 25 point human or half-elf character and multi-classing (13,12,12,12,12,12). Remember the AD&D half elf Cleric/Fighter/Magic-User? Never got to play one (sighs).
Happy Thanksgiving everyone...
LG
On a more philosophical note, I don't see why half-orcs (or any other race) would be inherently less intelligent than any other. Are entire races really born stupid? This is an outmoded concept that should have ended with the Victorian era. Or perhaps in D&D phrenology is a legitimate field of study?
Without getting into an argument on racism, I would say "yes." In fantasy settings (like D&D) 'heroes' need crude, barbaric thugs that are easy to dupe when it is necessary. If you can lump them together and stick a title on them like 'orc' then you don't feel so bad killing them in theri homes and taking their stuff. It seems to me to be the same sort of thinking behind giving half-orcs a bonus to Strength and then a penalty in Charisma doesn't it?
GGG
Without getting into an argument on racism, I would say "yes." In fantasy settings (like D&D) 'heroes' need crude, barbaric thugs that are easy to dupe when it is necessary.
It seems to me to be the same sort of thinking behind giving half-orcs a bonus to Strength and then a penalty in Charisma doesn't it?
GGG
In response to the first: I think you can find crude, barabaric thugs in any race. There are certainly lots of crude, barbaric thugs in the real world. I remember plenty of guys in my highschool that had a definite "orcish" quality about them. Most of them were on the football team. I'm also not entirely sure that heroes necessarily need stupid opponents who are easily fooled. Aren't clever foes much more interesting?
In response to the second: I don't think this is the same thing at all. Charisma is relative - racial Charisma modifiers are largely a reflection of how other races perceive you. Elements of orcish culture are reflected in behaviour that, to others, seems very antisocial. While you might meet a pretty charming orc, he's an exception who has learned to behave in a manner that other races find socially acceptable. The same isn't true of Intelligence which is a reflection of one's ability to reason and learn. I can't think of any rational explanation for why one race (particulary a Player Character race) would be less intelligent than any other. While most orcs might place little value in education, they are probably quite cunning.
In response to the first: I think you can find crude, barabaric thugs in any race. There are certainly lots of crude, barbaric thugs in the real world.
Agreed.
I remember plenty of guys in my highschool that had a definite "orcish" quality about them. Most of them were on the football team.
Okay, so is that a stereotype?
I'm also not entirely sure that heroes necessarily need stupid opponents who are easily fooled. Aren't clever foes much more interesting?
Yes, but aren't big dumb flunkies a common villain archtype (like the afore mentioned tormenting highschool bullies)?
In response to the second: I don't think this is the same thing at all. Charisma is relative - racial Charisma modifiers are largely a reflection of how other races perceive you.
According to the Player's Guide it is a measure of your force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead and physical attractiveness not merely how one is percieved by others. Are orcs in general as a race considered compelling magnetic leaders? I would say that they are mostly prtrayed as gangs of violent thugs and followers used by greater or more intelligent evils. Since fiction writers shaped the species, that's what they have become in standard game terms.
On the intelligence scale are orcs considered intelligent, reasonable, and learned when compared to humans (the benchmark because they are the primary players of the D&D) in the game? Probably not, in the same way that trolls aren't. Is it somehow racist to say so? In D&D terms I would say no. In D&D there is a book by which the game universe is ruled. The book describes Law, Chaos, 5-foot moves, Good, Evil, how much you can drag, and the hardness of steel. According to the book, orcs on the whole have not the mental accumen or personal magnetism of humans or halflings. The end, period. The argument is true; the book says so (going strictly by the book of course). As our world has neither orcs nor an "official" rule book (various belief systems to the contrary) the argument does not exist here. Orcs (nor elves, nor gnomes...) are not a species here.
In the real world you can measure strength and intelligence and other traits by species. It's been done. Show me a hamster; I'll beat the crap out of it in Dynasty Warriors: Empires 5. By these tests (once again crafted by humans -because we seem to be obsessed with these things) I'm smarter than my dogs (in fact I am pretty smart period so "Nah!") does that make me any happier or even better? Laying on the couch all day and being waited on seems like a pretty good deal especially since there aren't any house payments etc... to worry about.
D&D has a lot more diverse ecosystem with lots more intelligent species than the real world has (which basically are dolphins, mice, and sometimes humans). These species run the spectrum from Int 3 (bakemo from Oriental Adventures come to mind) to as high as you want to go (various intelligent and playable -in somebody's game- fey, outsiders and dragons). The same goes for any ability stat you want to talk about.
The game though is primarily built around fighting and killing monsters and taking their stuff. There are more rules and therefore more emphasis (intentional or not) on this facet of the game than anything else in the core books. How many pages are related to role-playing? Not many. In those terms Strength is more important than Int or Cha for an orc and anyone else who is not likely to be an arcane caster. It affects how well you hit and how much damage you do as well as how much you can carry, all key concerns in a fight. Course if you are nothing but 'fight' come "Prince of Redhand" you're doomed.
GGG
...While you might meet a pretty charming orc, he's an exception who has learned to behave in a manner that other races find socially acceptable...
One such example of note can be found in "The Orb of Xoriat" by Edward Bolme (Eberron setting). Although a hired thug, Jeffers (not his real name) is eloquent, diplomatic, well-mannered, impeccably dressed, and...a half-orc.
The 3 half-orcs in our AoW campaign each had INT scores of 12 or 13, and one had a CHA of 14 (with a STR of 12). Definitely not the norm, but fun to role-play.
LG
For the adventure paths a 32 point buy is fairly balanced for the difficulty. For a group of experienced gamers who build their characters as a team and employ good tactics, a 28 point buy would also work. A group that is really good at teamwork and tactics can probably get by with a 25 point buy/elite array. The only problem is that the lower point builds are more susceptible to bad luck kills.
The random methods (being random) can give you mixed results, even with the same group. When one player rolls a 17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 12 (+12 total bunus) and another rolls 14, 14, 12, 12, 10, 9 (+5 total bonus), which has happened in a group I game with, there will be problems challenging the powerful character without killing the mediocre character.
As a DM, I prefer the 28 or 32 point buys, because I can judge the power level of the party even before they create characters. Also, I can be sure that all of the characters in the party will be around the same power level, which makes my job easier.
The racial adjustments to half-orcs are, from a role-playing perspective, negligible. In fact, it can be more enjoyable to play against the stereotype than a "crude, dumb brute." One of the most fun characters characters I played (3.0) was a half-orc bard.
From a min/max perspective, the importance of Strength in combat means even the penalty to both Intelligence and Charisma is a more than fair trade for someone looking to create a melee killing machine. At low levels, the extra +1 to attack rolls and +1 or +2 to damage rolls (depending on Str score and if using a two-handed weapon) can be huge; after a few levels and using Power Attack, one hit can change an entire combat.
According to the Player's Guide it is a measure of your force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead and physical attractiveness not merely how one is percieved by others. Are orcs in general as a race considered compelling magnetic leaders? I would say that they are mostly prtrayed as gangs of violent thugs and followers used by greater or more intelligent evils. Since fiction writers shaped the species, that's what they have become in standard game terms.
I didn't say that Cha is how others perceive you, I said that racial Cha modifiers reflect how others perceive you. Do dwarves find all other dwarves off-putting? No, that is how other races perceive them. But, like I said in a previous post, the issue isn't whether you think the orcish archetype is appropriate, it is whether half-orcs (which are NOT orcs, by the way) are a balanced PC race.
On the intelligence scale are orcs considered intelligent, reasonable, and learned when compared to humans (the benchmark because they are the primary players of the D&D) in the game? Probably not, in the same way that trolls aren't. Is it somehow racist to say so? In D&D terms I would say no. In D&D there is a book by which the game universe is ruled. The book describes Law, Chaos, 5-foot moves, Good, Evil, how much you can drag, and the hardness of steel. According to the book, orcs on the whole have not the mental accumen or personal magnetism of humans or halflings. The end, period. The argument is true; the book says so (going strictly...
Once again, I'm talking about a PC race, not orcs. Also, I was making a philosophical argument for interest's sake. I know what the rules say, that's why I'm objecting to them. But to answer the question you pose: Intelligence has nothing to do with being reasonable, nor does it have anything to do with being educated. It reflects ability to solve problems and learn. Don't forget that half-orcs are half-human. There is no reason why they should be any less able to think than any other race, and half-orcs as presented in the PH, are, in my opinion, an unbalanced race.
The racial adjustments to half-orcs are, from a role-playing perspective, negligible. In fact, it can be more enjoyable to play against the stereotype than a "crude, dumb brute." One of the most fun characters characters I played (3.0) was a half-orc bard.
Funny you should mention that, one of the players in my Savage Tide campaign is playing a half-orc bard
From a min/max perspective, the importance of Strength in combat means even the penalty to both Intelligence and Charisma is a more than fair trade for someone looking to create a melee killing machine. At low levels, the extra +1 to attack rolls and +1 or +2 to damage rolls (depending on Str score and if using a two-handed weapon) can be huge; after a few levels and using Power Attack, one hit can change an entire combat.
Right you are. What I find objectionable is the assumption that everyone is looking to min/max to make a killing machine. The underlying assumption is that the physical attributes are more important than the cerebral or social attributes. It suggests that players are more interested in killing things than role-playing. Most players I know got over that by the age of 15. The rules force half-orcs into stereotypical roles while at the same time being advertised as being about creating options. Having played a half-orc bard, I'll bet you found the hit to your bardic abilities and skill points hurt you a lot more than the +1 to hit and damage in melee helped you. No other PC race in the game is constrained in the same way that half-orcs are, nor are players punished so badly for choosing a class other than their race's favoured class. Elves, for example, are not penalized for not being wizards.
|
I myself use the 3d6 method and you keep what you role. If a player rolls 3 1's, then s/he can reroll all 3d6. This is step one.
Step 2: Then you factor in the racial +/-'s.
Step 3: Then the aging +/-'s. I use the chart on page 13 from my old 1979 Dungeon Masters Guide.
This way the entire party doesnt consist of 'kids.' The wizards ages always seem to range from Middle Aged to Venerable. The fighter types are ususally young and stupid. My players love it and yes, there are ways to increase your stats over time.
Sure, they dont have heroic stats, but they are better than the average Joe, or Jane.
There's more to it than this but you get the gist of it.
Best of all, my players really learn to think out situations(outside the box) and are better players because of it.
It does bring back the value of regeneration and sustenance rings, as well as full plate for the fighters.
Thoth-Amon
We used 25-point buy for the Shackled City, and it worked just fine.
However, I have recently come to favour the maligned 28-point buy. It allows a few 'spare' points for a bit more character customisation, which 25-point buy doesn't really allow, without giving a significant power boost. Why 28, and not 27 or 29? Dunno. The DMG said 28, and that's what stuck.
A 32-point buy represents a slight but noticable power increase. A 40-point buy represents a significant power boost. And, in general, I'm of the opinion that if you want tougher characters, you're better off just playing at a higher level - this gives the toughness that you want, but leaves the rest of the system intact and (in theory) balanced. I use a similar rationale for not using Gestalt characters, any sort of feat-per-level variant, and so forth.
All that said, I'm starting to get really sick of my players character generation methods using point buy. These days, if they give me a race and class combination, I can guess what the stats will look like, and be right almost every time. And yes, unless they're a Bard, Sorcerer or Paladin (occasionally Cleric), Charisma is a dump stat.
|
Right you are. What I find objectionable is the assumption that everyone is looking to min/max to make a killing machine. The underlying assumption is that the physical attributes are more important than the cerebral or social attributes. It suggests that players are more interested in killing things than role-playing. Most players I know got over that by the age of 15.
My lot are average age 42, and kicking butt is their favorite pasttime. Killing machines predominate. It's a matter of taste rather than age.
My lot are average age 42, and kicking butt is their favorite pasttime. Killing machines predominate. It's a matter of taste rather than age.
You're right, of course. Sorry if my previous post came off as condescending - I shouldn't have added that last part.
I myself use the 3d6 method and you keep what you role. If a player rolls 3 1's, then s/he can reroll all 3d6.
I came back to D&D when 3rd Edition was released, after 15 years of playing other systems. I was nostalgiac for those good old days when people "rolled up" a character, so that's how we generated characters for my first campaign. One guy got unbelievable rolls - an 18, two 17's, two 16's, and a 15. I might have suspected he was cheating, but he rolled the character right in front of me, using my own dice. Other players were not so lucky and some got nothing higher than a 12, and mostly 10's and 11's. This created some problems in the game since there was such a wide disparity between the competence of different characters. Some players felt redundant and ineffective as God-boy cleaned up the opposition all by himself. Since then I've used the point buy system and everyone has been much happier for it. Rolling is great if everyone is okay with it and prepared to take what they get, but otherwise it can cause some dissatisfaction.
A previous poster mentioned using 24 points + 1d10. We tried this method a few months back in a game I was playing in. I got lucky and rolled a 10. This method isn't a bad trade-off for groups that want some control over their character's attributes but also like rolling. The disparity between 25 points and 34 points is substantial, but not insurmountable. I still like a straight 32 point buy system, but this method wasn't a bad alternative if everyone is up for it.
Having played a half-orc bard, I'll bet you found the hit to your bardic abilities and skill points hurt you a lot more than the +1 to hit and damage in melee helped you. No other PC race in the game is constrained in the same way that half-orcs are, nor are players punished so badly for choosing a class other than their race's favoured class.
Not too much, with starting Str 14, Int 12, and Cha 14 (after adjustments). Skill points are usually the most constraining part of character creation and development for me, anyway. Granted a half-orc has to focus on fewer skills than a human, but it's easier than a dwarf cleric of Moradin with Int 10.
Thanks for all the feedback. I decided to run my campaign with 36 point buy. My group is 50% experienced players and 50% still fairly new and learning the fundamentals, so I wanted to give the players a slight edge. Also this gives players that are thinking Monk or Paladin options the ability to play them.
36 is straight 14s which is dull and boring but overly decent stats. However everyone went with some good stats and some low that fit there concept. I might switch to 32 thew next campaign when everyone is a little more experienced.
|
On a more philosophical note, I don't see why half-orcs (or any other race) would be inherently less intelligent than any other. Are entire races really born stupid? This is an outmoded concept that should have ended with the Victorian era. Or perhaps in D&D phrenology is a legitimate field of study?
You are confusing the word "race" as we commonly apply it towards the human race with "species" which would actually be a more accurate word to use in D&D. Men and orcs are not the same thing with only cosmetic differences. Orcs, elves, dwarves, humans, and half-orcs are all completely different animals altogether with different physical and mental abilities. Would you regard a dolphin to be smarter than a jellyfish? Same principle.
Men and orcs are not the same thing with only cosmetic differences. Orcs, elves, dwarves, humans, and half-orcs are all completely different animals altogether with different physical and mental abilities. Would you regard a dolphin to be smarter than a jellyfish? Same principle.
In the next campaign I run, I am considering disallowing half-breeds for this reason. The plumbing just shouldn't work. At most, a half-breed would be quite rare and quite sterile (not that virility comes up in my games, mind...)
|
Right you are. What I find objectionable is the assumption that everyone is looking to min/max to make a killing machine. The underlying assumption is that the physical attributes are more important than the cerebral or social attributes. It suggests that players are more interested in killing things than role-playing. Most players I know got over that by the age of 15.My lot are average age 42, and kicking butt is their favorite pasttime. Killing machines predominate. It's a matter of taste rather than age.
I've found it's great therapy. I have to "roleplay" every freakin' day at work. What's wrong with choppin' doors off and kickin' heads in?
Right you are. What I find objectionable is the assumption that everyone is looking to min/max to make a killing machine. The underlying assumption is that the physical attributes are more important than the cerebral or social attributes. It suggests that players are more interested in killing things than role-playing. Most players I know got over that by the age of 15. The rules force half-orcs into stereotypical roles while at the same time being advertised as being about creating options. Having played a half-orc bard, I'll bet you found the hit to your bardic abilities and skill points hurt you a lot more than the +1 to hit and damage in melee helped you. No other PC race in the game is constrained in the same way that half-orcs are, nor are players punished so badly for choosing a class other than their race's favoured class. Elves, for example, are not penalized for not being wizards.
I'm kind of missing the core to this argument. The class is balanced in terms of the killing machine style of play but it would seem to me to be balanced if roleplaying is your thing as well. Almost any class is interesting if the power level of the race is really completely secondary to the races roleplaying potential. A Half Orc has lots of roleplay potential even if it has a -2 in both intelligence and charisma.
Thanks for all the feedback. I decided to run my campaign with 36 point buy. My group is 50% experienced players and 50% still fairly new and learning the fundamentals, so I wanted to give the players a slight edge. Also this gives players that are thinking Monk or Paladin options the ability to play them.
36 is straight 14s which is dull and boring but overly decent stats. However everyone went with some good stats and some low that fit there concept. I might switch to 32 thew next campaign when everyone is a little more experienced.
If your just using core rules you might be OK. If there are a lot of supplement books allowed then I think your going to high. My campaign is 36 point buy - biggest mistake I made in this campaign and I won't make it again. Its totally off the rails. Patient players willing to put some time into optimization can make phenomenally potent killing machines. Things like Grappling and Tripping are partly held in check by a reasonable stats but once a character can fairly easily pull off an 18 in strength without really compromising other important stats like Constitution and Dexterity things can get ugly fast. Their ACs tend to sky-rocket and then they are really hard to hit by monsters appropriate to their CR level while at the same time they find it a breeze to hit monsters of the correct CR. All the while shrugging off these wimpy mooks damage on thsoe rare occasions when their great AC does not allow them to avoid the blow.
Now of course you can deal with this train wreck. Go around beefing up the monsters and heavily modifying all the encounters to take into account the fact that your players are phenomenal killing machines. I spend hours upgrading all the monsters my players will meet when, if I had gone for a more reasonable point buy, I could leave the monsters as they are in adventures and instead spend those hours honing the story line or improving the roleplaying encounters. That is really what the choice pretty much boils down too.
I'm using 30-point-buy in the Age of Worms campaign that I'm currently running, and so far everything is going very well. The players don't complain about bad stats (although they did lobby for 32-pb for a little while before we started playing), and the encounters have been challenging but not too easy.
(Well, except for Encounter at Blackwall Keep, which became a walk in the park after they came up with the "Beguiler casts Sleep, the others run into the enemies with Silence, coup-de-grace" method).
I'm going to have to jump in here with the player's perspective: PCs are heros, and should have better stats than most, with the exception only of the end-of-adventure Boss NPC, who is 2-4 levels higher to compensate for facing a party. My DM usually gives us the option of a 32 point buy, or rolling the 4d6 per score in front of him. We always chose the point buy. One of our group created a 1st level elf fighter, with a 20 Dex (he wanted to created a different kind of character), with all his other scores being very low. You can't do something like that with only 25 points.
What I haven't seen mentioned in the previous posts, is when you apply the racial bonus/penalty. To the "8" at the start, or at the end, after the point buy? We do it at the end, to make it more meaningful.
Yes, the PCs are heroes..... I don't think that also means that they all should have 18's for stats.
I use a 75 point system, divided over the 6 stats. This gives you heroes that have 3 points more than the elite array, they are more powerful than other powerfull people, but only slightly.
You can always have the character you want, but there are choices to be made, you can have 3 18's and 3 7's, you decide.
The added benefit of this method is that a) all characters are the same (in terms of power) and b) teamwork is necessary as no character can do everything.
Over-powered PCs make the game less fun in my opinion.
I am steering my Eberron campaign into the STAP. My player's characters have just come back from retreiving the Whitehearth Schema from the Mournlands and will be asked to join a joint expedition by House Kundarak, House Cannith and another, yet to be decided House, to a remote island to the east of Q'barra. Yes...my players are L4 and they will be launching directly into The Sea Wyvern's Wake. I do plan on them stopping off in Sasserine, off the coast of Q'barra, before heading on, and they are going to come upon Kraken Cove along the way, for some foreshadowing, but there will be no Bullywugs or Lotus Dragons.
The characters started out with a 32 point buy, and were happy about it. 40 points? Go back to playing video games.
All the high point buy folks would hate my games--25 point buy (28 if I'm feeling REALLY nice) or the player can roll 4d6 and drop the lowest die. Actually gets people back to possibly rolling the dice for characters. And I don't have to monkey around with any of the game mechanics to compensate for overly powerful PCs. For the "PCs are heroes" argument, that's true, but average is 10-11. 12-15 is beyond what most people ever achieve, and 16+ is heroic.
Note that I do allow flaws (generally using the Book of Distinctions and Drawbacks) and so a character can conceivably bump up stats that way as well, but at a cost.
Oh, and the hate would further continue as I invoke my Charisma house rule:
Will saves related to Charms, Compulsions, Fear, etc. are based off Charisma rather than Wisdom (which is used more for Illusions and such).
Charisma as a dump stat in my games can be very dangerous...
Oh, and the hate would further continue as I invoke my Charisma house rule:
Will saves related to Charms, Compulsions, Fear, etc. are based off Charisma rather than Wisdom (which is used more for Illusions and such).
Charisma as a dump stat in my games can be very dangerous...
An excellent rule -- it only makes sense for a stat that describes how well you exert your personality over others. Wisdom has evolved to a description of how perceptive a character is, not a measure of willpower.