RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
The problem some of us have with rolled characteristics is that they unbalance the playing field for the duration of the campaign. If each team at the start of the football season had to roll 3d6 to find out how many players they were allowed on the field at any one time for the whole season, too much would ride on that one roll*.
This is fundamentally different from random injuries, fumbles, bad calls from referees, and other chance events (which I analogize to various in-game dice rolls). It is also fundamentally different from bad play calling or lousy recruiting (which I analogize to limited tactical skill or sub-optimal choices of spells, character class, or feats).
* "We're supposed to be the heroes; we totally can't play with fewer than 14 guys on the field and we should really have 17 or 18." 8-)
This is the best analogy of all time. Kudos for creative interpretation, Doug!
It produces rather bland characters...See arguments above. I really feel the "point buy equals bland characters" statement is a myth.
Are the casters really that likely to be different rolling? Not in my experience, and I've played a lot of casters. Casters requiring one ability to cast spells and another to base DCs on are a pretty rare and special case, anyway. Only the Shadowcaster from Tome of Magic comes to mind, actually. And it makes one wonder- why do they need two stats? Perhaps the game designers intended such PCs to be somewhat hampered by that.
I think the best arguement against the arguement "point buy equals bland characters" is, bland players make bland characters.
A good character comes out in the way a player portrays that character, regardless of the stats. You can have all the cool stats you want but play a character that is boring.
But PC in my game still roll stats nananananah nah!!!
But PC in my game still roll stats nananananah nah!!!
Lol. And thanks for the warm wishes above regarding my desire to write. I actually just officially transferred to the School of Arts and Letters at my university a few weeks ago. In aonther three years, I should have my BA in English. And then.... the world! MUWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Ahem, sorry. Point buy for me, please.
To me the point buy seems wrong. It's prolly just because I've always done it the other way. I'd do it if somebody was mandating it for her or his game, because I'm 38 and I'm still young enough to fight becoming old and set in my ways, but I like rolling.
Me too Heathy. I'm 38 Young enough fight about it, old enough to be stuborn and set in my ways.
Roll them bones man, or beast or Heathy.
The problem some of us have with rolled characteristics is that they unbalance the playing field for the duration of the campaign. If each team at the start of the football season had to roll 3d6 to find out how many players they were allowed on the field at any one time for the whole season, too much would ride on that one roll*.
This is fundamentally different from random injuries, fumbles, bad calls from referees, and other chance events (which I analogize to various in-game dice rolls). It is also fundamentally different from bad play calling or lousy recruiting (which I analogize to limited tactical skill or sub-optimal choices of spells, character class, or feats).
* "We're supposed to be the heroes; we totally can't play with fewer than 14 guys on the field and we should really have 17 or 18." 8-)
Your football analogy doesn't work for me. 14, 17, 18 players on the field. NFl teams have 45 players on the team only 11 are on the field at any given time.
Football players don't point buy thier abilities. That is why some players are good and some are great. Jon Elway, Peyton Manning had thier abilities randomly generated through genetics. That is why they stand out above the other good NFL quarterbacks and are considered great players. Sure these men have drive and experience to be great, but these guys had been outstanding talents since high school. Why? Because of randomly generated genetics.
Great teams have great players who are genetically better players than the others. They are various reasons for this, couching, prestige, but mostly money.
If players had point buy system for thier abilities, then all football players would be about the same ability. What would stand out is the play calling and couching. Thier would be no great football heroes to cheer for.
Your football anology as an argument for point buy abilities scores just doesn't work for me.
Your smart (you play D&D right), I 'm sure you can do better. Try again.
|
If I were comparing characters to football players, your objections would be on point. In fact, I was comparing characters to football teams.
And teams do buy their players using a "point-buy system" in the form of a salary cap. I'm sure Oakland fans will be happy to know that the Raiders are "about the same ability" as the Chargers. I wouldn't recommend going to Vegas and betting based on that premise, though.
I'm in total agreement with Sir Kaikillah and his argument against the football anology,for rolling character stats is far different then rolling the number of players on the field. This comparison just doesn't hold water in my eyes for in D&D the various different situations that a party must deal with are based on CR's which should not change do to character stats, where as in football as was earlier stated is based on a cap with the same amount of player's on either side.I see where your going with comparing a point buy system with a financial cap per say but in all truth they are apples and oranges for an exact balance between any two teams is virtually impossible. So just like each player on any given football team has different stats, each of which do not add up to any given number, nor should in my eyes they in are beloved game. For game balance like political correctness can sometimes go to far.
I can agree where time is a factor there is definitely good reason for the point buy system, but besides that I'll stick to my dice.
Of Dice and Men
I'd would say that better sports players equate to higher level characters, not better base ability arrays; that is, if we are going into analogy mode, here. Doug's stands in my eyes.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'd would say that better sports players equate to higher level characters, not better base ability arrays; that is, if we are going into analogy mode, here. Doug's stands in my eyes.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure that if you took a 'superstar' player and pitted him against a 'normal' NFL player in a test that SPECIFICALLY tested only the attribute in question and not any degree of training or skill, you would probably find that the 'superstars' are not any more intrinsically stronger or dexterous than the normal players (and if they were, only by a small fraction). The main difference is skill. This is, as Saern stated, indicative of higher levels, not better stats.
Now, as for the rare rookie who completely dominates the playing field during his first years on the field? Then you might be dealing with someone of unusually good genetics. This is rare, however, as most players take some time to really rise above the rest. Bear in mind that by 'his first years on the field' I'm not talking about his first years in the NFL. I'm talking about the first time he plays football, usually in high school or possibly a little earlier. Again, someone who starts young will likely be a better player when they come of age simply due to the experience they've had.
|
|
It seems to me that some (by no means all) people have an assumption that if you roll your stats you’re almost certainly going to get “better” stats (more high numbers) than if you use a point buy system in the 24 to 32 point sort of range. And by extension, rolling allows you to create a character of a class or concept that “needs” high stats. Damn! What rolling method are you using?
As an unrelated exercise to the discussion on this thread, I recently rolled up twenty sets of character stats using the “4d6, take the 3 best rolls, 6 times” method. This method seems to be a fairly standard one used by a lot of people, and tends to give “good” stats without usually being super powered.
I found some somewhat surprising results. Of the twenty I rolled, some of the poorer arrays looked like this: 14, 13, 10, 10, 10, 5. Or this: 14, 13, 12, 10, 9, 5. Not exactly the stuff of awe inspiring heroes. Conversely, two of the better arrays looked like this: 18, 16, 13, 12, 11, 11 and 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 7.
Interestingly, out of a total of 120 “rolls” (or results) I only got two 18s and two 17s, and each of these occurred in different arrays. Or to put it another way, out of twenty characters rolled, sixteen of them did NOT score a 17 or an 18. Another four of those twenty characters would have ended up with a score of 5 or 6 in their stat blocks.
Just thought I’d put that out there…
If I were comparing characters to football players, your objections would be on point. In fact, I was comparing characters to football teams.
And teams do buy their players using a "point-buy system" in the form of a salary cap. I'm sure Oakland fans will be happy to know that the Raiders are "about the same ability" as the Chargers. I wouldn't recommend going to Vegas and betting based on that premise, though.
Good point
I am a Oakland Raider Fan! That hurt, really, really hurt!
I'd would say that better sports players equate to higher level characters, not better base ability arrays; that is, if we are going into analogy mode, here. Doug's stands in my eyes.
So why are 15 year NFL veterans replaced by 1st year rookies? Because the younger guys have better abilities. Even Doug agrees with me on this point. It's true the NFL is full of veteran quarterbacks and other players, but after awhile they are kept arround for there experience, but after a while, they play back up to the younger guys. Why? Because in real life your physical abilities wane and no amount of experience can compensate in such a physically demanding sport like football.
Keep the footballl analogies coming, I got more.
P>S> Don't take it personal, I'm itchin for a fight (or a debate), anyway keep it coming.
I'd would say that better sports players equate to higher level characters, not better base ability arrays; that is, if we are going into analogy mode, here. Doug's stands in my eyes.Exactly. I'm pretty sure that if you took a 'superstar' player and pitted him against a 'normal' NFL player in a test that SPECIFICALLY tested only the attribute in question and not any degree of training or skill, you would probably find that the 'superstars' are not any more intrinsically stronger or dexterous than the normal players (and if they were, only by a small fraction). The main difference is skill. This is, as Saern stated, indicative of higher levels, not better stats.
I bet you would be wrong!
Now, as for the rare rookie who completely dominates the playing field during his first years on the field? Then you might be dealing with someone of unusually good genetics. This is rare, however, as most players take some time to really rise above the rest. Bear in mind that by 'his first years on the field' I'm not talking about his first years in the NFL. I'm talking about the first time he plays football, usually in high school or possibly a little earlier. Again, someone who starts young will likely be a better player when they come of age simply due to the experience they've had.
Playing pop warner football as a youth I will tell you a good athelete will dominate the field. When all players starting out as rookies in the NFL have 12 years of experience in football (4 years pop warner, 4 years High School, 4 years college), The genetically gifted athelete is going to get the starting position. Pro sports is the one area where ability is more important than experience, the faster, stronger, tougher guy, will get the starting position over the older more experience guy. That is why the average NFL career is only 3 years.
The genetically gifted athelete is going to get the starting position.
I think it would be interesting to see if the people claiming that genetics and so forth are less important have actually played any sports competitively. I can't imagine that being the case, as anyone with experience in a sport will tell you that some people are just better than others.
I knew a kid in high school who was on the wrestling team and was a regional and state champion right out of the gate, with no experience. He was just a natural-- tremendously quick and agile. I've been fencing for 6 years, and some people with half that experience are tougher than some with twice mine. I can think of two people who have been fencing for 20 years each-- one is phenomenally good and the other is worthless.
Some people are just a total package: strength, speed, intelligence... I know a guy who is 6'5", probably 260 of solid muscle, lightning quick, and looks like he should be on the cover of a trashy romance novel. He is freakishly strong, even for someone his size. I have seen him throw people his own size around like rag dolls.
He is a real person, and a friend of mine. I could not create him using a 32 point buy.
|
|
I think it would be interesting to see if the people claiming that genetics and so forth are less important have actually played any sports competitively. I can't imagine that being the case, as anyone with experience in a sport will tell you that some people are just better than others.
Let's be clear that I have never made, and would never make, any such claim. D&D is a game that makes only the vaguest hand-wave at simulation. Equality of opportunity at the start of play is important because we're playing a game, not because it's more realistic.
If you're interested in simulation, 3d6 once, in order (the original stat generation method) is better. Most people really aren't that special. Not much fun playing with a stat set like 7, 10, 4, 8, 8, 11? I agree, but it's realistic.
Once you decide to depart from the premise that most people aren't special, any claim that dice are more realistic starts to be a bit fatuous.
Let's be clear that I have never made, and would never make, any such claim. D&D is a game that makes only the vaguest hand-wave at simulation. Equality of opportunity at the start of play is important because we're playing a game, not because it's more realistic.
If you're interested in simulation, 3d6 once, in order (the original stat generation method) is better. Most people really aren't that special. Not much fun playing with a stat set like 7, 10, 4, 8, 8, 11? I agree, but it's realistic.
Once you decide to depart from the premise that most people aren't special, any claim that dice are more realistic starts to be a bit fatuous.
Well, not really. A big part of my point was that most people would be better served staying at home and being farmers, and I don't think a 32 point-buy is sufficient to get away from that whole crop of people. Part of my problem here is that I can't imagine someone with Str 14, Dex/Con/Int/Cha 12, and Wis 16 being adequately powerful a cleric to be willing to go out and risk life and limb in an extremely dangerous career. There's just no way-- that person is above average, but is still largely mediocre.
The other point I made was that point-buy makes it impossible to be good at two things without having a serious weakness in something else. It seems absurd to me that all fighters have low charisma or that all wizards are weak physically.
This whole notion of equality being necessary is strictly a videogame mentality, which is unfortunately what D&D has become more and more like. It boggles still, for example, that I can roll a die to see if I can lie to a guard rather than roleplay it out for myself. The videogame mindset is also the one that allows people to justify, for the sake of balance, putting an 8 in Intelligence and then roleplaying as anything other than an idiot. The divergence between attributes and characterization is, IMO, a direct result of point-buy forcing a person to have limited options.
Equality is furthermore unnecessary across the classes. A fighter, for example, really only needs a very high strength to be a good fighter. If you get one good stat and other decent ones, fighter, wizard, rogue, or sorcerer are your best options. Two or three good stats gives you options in cleric, monk, etc.. Some classes need more high stats to be as good as other classes can be with one high stat.
I think that ultimately the point-buy people want to shape their stats to their character; I prefer having stats and shaping my character around them. People choose careers around their ablities, not the other way around-- you can develop a better backstory when you have to imagine a character's path up to this point.
I suppose the best rule for whether or not to use point buy would be how you build NPCs in your game.
For instance, both the Age of Worms and the Savage Tide APs use the so-called elite array for important NPCs. Far from being cookie-cutter NPCs, there is an astounding variety of characters.
Compared to the elite array (which is a 25 point build), even a 28 point build character is going to have an advantage in terms of saves, DCs, skill checks, or whatever. A 32 point buy really stretches the distance. I tried 32 points for the AOW sessions that Trueheart mentions above and it was disastrous-my party easily overpowered the key NPCs.
I've also watched some of my players literally roll dice for over an hour trying to get a "perfect" stat array. What most dice rollers mean when they object to point buy is that they want to roll until they have a bonus of at +1 in every stat.
Myself, I kind of like it when a PC has a -1 here or there.
The videogame mindset is also the one that allows people to justify, for the sake of balance, putting an 8 in Intelligence and then roleplaying as anything other than an idiot.
Just what do you think an 8 represents? Just having an 8 in Int doesn't make you an idiot. An 8, to me, is the hill billy, the hick. Not a moron. A 12 is an honor student. You may think that seems low, but having been a straight A student all throughout high school, and recieving a 4.0 GPA last semester in college, I can honestly say there are lots of people who are not as quick as me who get on honor rolls. I just mention that since we seem to be invoking personal experience.
Someone with 10 Strength is totally average. Someone with 12 is noticeably stronger. Someone with 14 would be considered a strong guy, unquestionably. Why couldn't he cut it with that? If we're talking about a cleric who also has a 16 Wisdom, that's still like a freaking guru compared to the average Joe.
However, Doug's right in that the D&D system really isn't meant to be some type of super simulation. That said, however, nothing you claimed about athletes, or your friend, indicates that they somehow have 16+s in all their ability scores.
Of course raw physical ability plays a role in sports! Some people have high Dexterity, in D&D terms, and high Strength. Nothing you said indicated that these people were also somehow geniuses. And, your friend so far seems to have high Strength and Charisma. I don't see how I couldn't built such a person, again, in limited D&D terms, with point buy.
But, this is getting way too tense and energetic. Seems to me you just read the "scale" the abilities are written on differently. I think most people find 15+ to be amazingly high compared to the Joe Schmoe, and perfectly acceptable for adventurers.
Also, didn't 1st edition use the "Roll and see what you have the stats for" method? Wonder why they abandoned that....
|
|
Part of my problem here is that I can't imagine someone with Str 14, Dex/Con/Int/Cha 12, and Wis 16 being adequately powerful a cleric to be willing to go out and risk life and limb in an extremely dangerous career. There's just no way-- that person is above average, but is still largely mediocre.
Really? You think that those stats don't make a good character? While I'll admit that your example array is fairly bland (you could definately vary it more than that, make a more in depth character with point buy), I think those are pretty good stats for many characters.
If a high of 16 and an average (and low) of 12 doesn't make an effective adventurer then plenty of the characters I've played over the years (using ROLLED stats) absolutely sucked.
I ask again, what dice rolling method are people out there using? 'Cos I'd be pretty happy with those stats (and feel that I had a wide range of character choices available to me) using the "4d6" method. Sure, a 17 or 18 would be nice, another stat of 15 or above would be nice, but the lack of those would not make it a mediocre character IMO.
Well, not really. A big part of my point was that most people would be better served staying at home and being farmers, and I don't think a 32 point-buy is sufficient to get away from that whole crop of people. Part of my problem here is that I can't imagine someone with Str 14, Dex/Con/Int/Cha 12, and Wis 16 being adequately powerful a cleric to be willing to go out and risk life and limb in an extremely dangerous career. There's just no way-- that person is above average, but is still largely mediocre.
If you ask me those are kick a#$ stats. This character has a minimum +1 on everything. According to the rules 10 is average. SO the charcter you mentioned is above average in everything. A wisdom of sixteen is awsome. In my experience the best 3 out of 4d6 produces more scores above average than below average. In my opinion the only way to consistantly get scores like 14, 12, 12, 12, 12, 16, you either use a point buy system or you cheat.
I suppose the best rule for whether or not to use point buy would be how you build NPCs in your game.
I've also watched some of my players literally roll dice for over an hour trying to get a "perfect" stat array. What most dice rollers mean when they object to point buy is that they want to roll until they have a bonus of at +1 in every stat.
Myself, I kind of like it when a PC has a -1 here or there.
In my game you roll your stats once in front of me as the DM. I have had players whine about rolling poor stats. I challenge them to play a heroic character with below average stats. So far so good.
I myself like the idea of rolling stats, because of the possibility of playing a character with low stats is a role playing challenge. How many point buy characters have a score of 4? the only way a character is going to get a score like that is if they roll it in front of a DM like myself. 12, 7, 11, 15, 9, 13. I just rolled these stats +0, -2, +0, +2, -1, +1 are the bonuses and penalties. So how would you make this character a Cleric?
Thier is a diversity in the stats, you can get randomly, you may never achieve with a point buy system. To me rolling a character with low stats and playing them is a roleplaying challenge.
So I think your wrong, I don't roll stats so I can get over bonused characters, I roll up character stats because I like rolling the dice. That randomness is part of the fun of the game for me.
Having to role play the roll of the dice is a challenge I enjoy.
P>S> Saern, I apologize for being intense. I've been in a punchy mood, and I am enjoying pushing peoples buttons right now on this thread.
Seriously D&D is not that improtant to me, so I hope nobody is really upset about my posts, because I'm not upset or terribly passionate about the subject.
Just what do you think an 8 represents? Just having an 8 in Int doesn't make you an idiot. An 8, to me, is the hill billy, the hick. Not a moron.But, this is getting way too tense and energetic. Seems to me you just read the "scale" the abilities are written on differently. I think most people find 15+ to be amazingly high compared to the Joe Schmoe, and perfectly acceptable for adventurers.
Also, didn't 1st edition use the "Roll and see what you have the stats for" method? Wonder why they abandoned that....
1) Yes, an 8 is a moron. If the average IQ is 100, then an 8 represents someone who is probably in the 85-90 range. By my standards, that's a pretty dumb person. Maybe not obviously MR, but still really stupid. A 12 is probably an honor student, but I don't consider that to be very impressive. Lots of people are honor students.
2) I agree. I think someone who is moderately above average across the board makes for a mediocre hero, but that's just me. Unless it is my intention to do so for the purposes of an interesting character (and I have, on occassion, had a lot of fun with kobold PCs), I have difficulty wanting to play a character who I feel is worse than I am-- not that I have an 18 Str and therefore a 16 Str is unacceptable, but I mean that in a more generic "my heroic character should feel more capable than I am" way. I'll probably need to justify that statement to someone, but hey.
3) I do prefer to mold my character to what I roll rather than mold my stats to the character I want. I feel like that forces me to explore options I might not have otherwise seen, and hey, I *might* get lucky and roll 17, 17, 17, 17, 15, and 13 using 4d6 in front of the DM and another player like I did last year. And let me tell you, after that, point buy can eat it. It was FAN-tastic. I was also fantastic playing a wizard with a 4 Cha, and no stat over 9 but a 17 Int. Man, was that guy ever a know-it-all.
I wish I read this thread when it started, anyway here are my thoughts. I'm not quoting anybody in particular because I just read the whole thread! So, I'm weighting my arguments against ideas I've seen repeated and not against a particular poster.
Count me against the point buy. Why? I love the thrill of the dice. It's not a wish that I roll everything above 10, or 12, or whatever. It's just the randomness of the dice.
I can roll 3d6 straight up, hey! gimme the blue dice, I have some chalk handy; or 4d6 dropping the lowest, I really don't care as long as it's a surprise.
Some have argued that point buy balances the power level of the characters. I say, why do we need to do that? We are not playing against each other, we are a team, we help each other. I could care less if my fellow party member has all 18s; if anything, his good luck will increase my character's life expectancy greatly.
The argument of balanced power levels among the party sounds to me like a cop out to quiet jealousy between the party; and that is a different problem.
If by reading down to here you are thinking "roll-player", I say no sir! I like my roleplaying, I like creating character concepts and a fitting personality. If anything I'm usually the 1st to loosen up and actually act out my character, BUT don't take my funny-shaped multicolored dice away from me; we ARE playing D&D. There are other games out there where the rules give a better emphasis on roleplaying and a lot less dice rolling. I'm not playing those, I like D&D.
Having said that, I could play in any game, point buy or not. By using point buy you just took away a bit of the fun, but after that we are still rolling attack rolls right? and saving throws? or are we going to decide on what is better for the story instead?
Hmmm he kinda sounds like a power-gamer. The only reason I dont like standard point-buy is the cookie-cutter factor, but the stats arent the only thing that can produce cookie-cutter PC's(feats, placing skill points in the same stats, ect also do this). I like the flavor of rolling cuz people in the world are not alike, but it can produce problems when you roll, such as uber-stat PC's. I have taken the approach of a 75 point buy (starting from zero-which is basically the elite array + three points). I used to allow the guys to roll, but I did 4d6 no rerolls and if they didnt like what they got they can do a 32 point buy instead.
My group has been using the 75 point buy as well for over 10 years. You can always get the character you want and if you decide to go the 18 route, other stats suffer.
It's my experience that going for 15,16 as the highest core stat makes for a better character all-round, being above average in several stats will save you more often than being epic in one stat.
Some have argued that point buy balances the power level of the characters. I say, why do we need to do that? We are not playing against each other, we are a team, we help each other. I could care less if my fellow party member has all 18s; if anything, his good luck will increase my character's life expectancy greatly.
Hopefully, but if the character with all 18s is smashing through each encounter with ease then the DM might want to make the monsters stronger so that they can present at least a decent challenge. Those strengthen monsters might then kill other characters while fighting the 18 character. So I doubt that your character would be living longer because there was a stronger/tougher/etc. character with him
I personally like the idea of randomized stats, but I've seen someone roll poorly on their stats while in a party with someone who got great rolls to dismiss point buy. It doesn't mean that the low roller will be useless to the party, but there is a difference between what the two are able to consistently do successfully. I would say that this is similar to having the players roll a six-sided die at character creation. If they roll a one then their character gets a +1 LA and if they roll a six then they get a -1 LA, causing them to lag behind or stay ahead one level respectively.
I don't want that. Yes, it is a little unrealistic for all the members of each party to be equal in power. But I like it better than having one roll the dice make that big of an impact.
Some have argued that point buy balances the power level of the characters. I say, why do we need to do that? We are not playing against each other, we are a team, we help each other. I could care less if my fellow party member has all 18s; if anything, his good luck will increase my character's life expectancy greatly.Hopefully, but if the character with all 18s is smashing through each encounter with ease then the DM might want to make the monsters stronger so that they can present at least a decent challenge. Those strengthen monsters might then kill other characters while fighting the 18 character. So I doubt that your character would be living longer because there was a stronger/tougher/etc. character with him
I personally like the idea of randomized stats, but I've seen someone roll poorly on their stats while in a party with someone who got great rolls to dismiss point buy. It doesn't mean that the low roller will be useless to the party, but there is a difference between what the two are able to consistently do successfully. I would say that this is similar to having the players roll a six-sided die at character creation. If they roll a one then their character gets a +1 LA and if they roll a six then they get a -1 LA, causing them to lag behind or stay ahead one level respectively.
I don't want that. Yes, it is a little unrealistic for all the members of each party to be equal in power. But I like it better than having one roll the dice make that big of an impact.
Agreed. It's hard for there not to be a silent jealousy develop when you play across from a guy who succeeds at 85% of his rolls, but you only succeed at around 60%. Even if he doesn't start lording over the other players because of his rolls (which I have seen happen and have had happen to me), he is likely to constantly talk about how good his character is. Or, to not offend the other players, has to conceal his joy at his character's greatness, perhaps even feel embarrased by it.
Meanwhile, the guy with the bad stats starts feeling useless, incompotent, incapable, begins to resent the other character, then perhaps his player, and eventually the campaign. I've seen it happen.
Yes, there is a thrill to rolling the dice. However, the results can often be disappointing. Just like any gambling. It's just better off, in my mind, for everyone to start out on a balanced field. You negate that jealousy feeling and can get on to a great, cooperative game where everyone is important.
And, no, using point buy isn't somehow going to lead to diceless D&D. That's somewhat similar to saying the government putting security cameras on their buildings is going to lead to security cameras in your house; a non-sequitur.
Just what do you think an 8 represents? Just having an 8 in Int doesn't make you an idiot. An 8, to me, is the hill billy, the hick. Not a moron.But, this is getting way too tense and energetic. Seems to me you just read the "scale" the abilities are written on differently. I think most people find 15+ to be amazingly high compared to the Joe Schmoe, and perfectly acceptable for adventurers.
Also, didn't 1st edition use the "Roll and see what you have the stats for" method? Wonder why they abandoned that....
1) Yes, an 8 is a moron. If the average IQ is 100, then an 8 represents someone who is probably in the 85-90 range. By my standards, that's a pretty dumb person. Maybe not obviously MR, but still really stupid. A 12 is probably an honor student, but I don't consider that to be very impressive. Lots of people are honor students.
2) I agree. I think someone who is moderately above average across the board makes for a mediocre hero, but that's just me. Unless it is my intention to do so for the purposes of an interesting character (and I have, on occassion, had a lot of fun with kobold PCs), I have difficulty wanting to play a character who I feel is worse than I am-- not that I have an 18 Str and therefore a 16 Str is unacceptable, but I mean that in a more generic "my heroic character should feel more capable than I am" way. I'll probably need to justify that statement to someone, but hey.
3) I do prefer to mold my character to what I roll rather than mold my stats to the character I want. I feel like that forces me to explore options I might not have otherwise seen, and hey, I *might* get lucky and roll 17, 17, 17, 17, 15, and 13 using 4d6 in front of the DM and another player like I did last year. And let me tell you, after that, point buy can eat it. It was FAN-tastic. I was also fantastic playing a wizard with a 4 Cha, and no stat over 9 but a 17 Int. Man, was that guy ever a know-it-all.
Again, I think a lot of the problem is that you seem to consider a 14 as "meh," whereas others (perhaps most) consider that "nice!" Just a difference in play style, nothing wrong with that, but it has nothing at all to do with point buy vs. rolling. Similarly, it seems that you still incorporate 1st edition conventions, or at least philosophy, into your gaming. Again, nothing wrong with that, but most people don't, it really misses the heart of the matter, and a qualifier to that effect would have been nice before a statement like "point buy sucks!" so that we could understand you were coming from a slightly a-typical frame of reference.
1) Yes, an 8 is a moron. If the average IQ is 100, then an 8 represents someone who is probably in the 85-90 range. By my standards, that's a pretty dumb person. Maybe not obviously MR, but still really stupid. A 12 is probably an honor student, but I don't consider that to be very impressive. Lots of people are honor students.
Actually, an 8 isn’t a moron. IQ is defined by probability and standard deviation from the mean. As the probability distribution of 3 to 18 being rolled on the sum of three six sided dice is fairly easy to determine, we can map IQ to ability scores.
IQ from 85 to 115 represents the 1st standard deviation from the mean. Roughly 70% of the population falls in this territory. Looking at a random sample of 100 people, we’d expect 70 of them to have IQ’s falling in this range. Now – just by looking at them – could you separate the people on the high side from those on the low side? I doubt it. Functionally, there is some difference, which you would notice only with extended interaction, yet all of them manage to function in today’s society without undue difficulty. None of them are “morons.”
As it turns out, the corresponding range of die rolls to that same range is 8 to 13. The sum of a three die six roll will fall in that range roughly 70% of the time. A character with an 8 (IQ 85) might be a bit slow, but not uncomfortably so. A character with a 13 (IQ 115)might learn things a little faster than average, but isn’t a genius by any stretch.
OK, so what about an IQ of 70 – the lower limit one can be at before being classified as retarded? (Definitions of retarded vary, please don’t quibble about this.) The range of 70 to 130 represents two standard deviations from the mean. Approximately 95% of society falls into this range. The best range of die rolls that matches this probability is from 5 to 16. Meaning that while someone with an intelligence of 5 (IQ 70) is definitely slow, they are still able to function and could even graduate from high school!
I think we’re being a little too hard on 8’s and 9’s. In most real situations, they would be difficult to distinguish from 10’s and 11’s. Even playing a 6 or 7 should be possible with a little imagination.
I think we’re being a little too hard on 8’s and 9’s. In most real situations, they would be difficult to distinguish from 10’s and 11’s. Even playing a 6 or 7 should be possible with a little imagination.
I think it is tremendously funny that we're using the same evidence to come to polar opposite conclusions. I think the 10s and 11s are being overestimated. :)
I guess it depends on your view of what a "normal" person is. However, again, it is completely irrelevant to point buy vs. rolling.
I guess it depends on your view of what a "normal" person is. However, again, it is completely irrelevant to point buy vs. rolling.
*Gasp* You mean, you don't want to see two more pages of discussion about exactly what IQ each point of intelligence represents? How can you not care exactly what the difference 3 points of dexterity makes in a character's reaction time? The issue may be lacking in relevance to the issue of point buy vs. rolling, but it is still important!
I hereby voice a motion to excommunicate Brother Saern from the Paizo community, for he is obviously failing in his faith and devotion to our cause! Who's with me?
Hopefully, but if the character with all 18s is smashing through each encounter with ease then the DM might want to make the monsters stronger so that they can present at least a decent challenge. Those strengthen monsters might then kill other characters while fighting the 18 character. So I doubt that your character would be living longer because there was a stronger/tougher/etc. character with him
This was the thought that crossed my mind as well. I mean with this rampaging war machine loose the DM is liable to start tossing fire balls right and left. Now the high stat guy, at 5th level, has +15 hps and gets an extra +3 to the reflex save so he has a pretty good chance of taking half damage and has hps to spare. The end result is the person not so lucky with the dice is liable to get caught in the crossfire and end up dead.
I guess it depends on your view of what a "normal" person is. However, again, it is completely irrelevant to point buy vs. rolling.*Gasp* You mean, you don't want to see two more pages of discussion about exactly what IQ each point of intelligence represents? How can you not care exactly what the difference 3 points of dexterity makes in a character's reaction time? The issue may be lacking in relevance to the issue of point buy vs. rolling, but it is still important!
I hereby voice a motion to excommunicate Brother Saern from the Paizo community, for he is obviously failing in his faith and devotion to our cause! Who's with me?
Haha, fool! You cannot excommunicate me! I am- oh, what's this? Hunh? I am being handed an eviction notice? All right.... *walks away grumbling some cliche about this not being over*
This was the thought that crossed my mind as well. I mean with this rampaging war machine loose the DM is liable to start tossing fire balls right and left. Now the high stat guy, at 5th level, has +15 hps and gets an extra +3 to the reflex save so he has a pretty good chance of taking half damage and has hps to spare. The end result is the person not so lucky with the dice is liable to get caught in the crossfire and end up dead.
Hopefully, but if the character with all 18s is smashing through each encounter with ease then the DM might want to make the monsters stronger so that they can present at least a decent challenge. Those strengthen monsters might then kill other characters while fighting the 18 character. So I doubt that your character would be living longer because there was a stronger/tougher/etc. character with him
Obviously I'm of a different mentality, as these two responses shocked me. And because of that I consider myself very lucky. My DM, or me as a DM, wouldn't increase (or decrease) any challenge because of high (or low) rolled characters. The challenge is what it is. If it's easier for a high stat char so be it, though I doubt it. In my experience, a single character, no matter his stats, is not going to win the fight for the party; and I'm surprised when other people claim so.
The thought of a DM wanting to kill the characters is awful. Don't get me wrong, I've had characters killed, and I've killed plenty characters as a DM, but just throwing extra fireballs for spite is not good form for me.
On the other hand if you were playing with me, and you feel everything is too easy for your high-stat character, you can always retire him and make a new guy. The same if you are not having fun with your low-statted character. It's not a big deal. Actually, it's not big deal because we've never had any player retire his character. So we are not afraid of abuse.
From the perspective of me as a player, as long as my guy has a chance to act against the baddies all is fine. And I find it impossible in normal play not to be able to act because of a fellow party member. Besides, and I can't believe I'm suddenly on this side of the fence but, the game is not all combat; there is roleplaying too, and that is always fun no matter your CON.
I guess, at the end of the day, I have a pretty good gaming group, at least in that respect. From now on I'll complain less when they go astray from the adventure.
That's all fine and good, but many DMs scale challenges for their players. When your 20th level, you're not likely to fight goblins anymore. Sure, they're there, but it's just not right for your character. Similarly, there might be a green dragon in that cave, even when you're just 1st level, but most DMs won't do this because it's no fun to just get mashed. Also, if no one has Diplomacy, Bluff, Gather Information, etc., then adventures and scenarios where these things are necessary aren't likely to be on the menu, unless the DM designs it with the intention that it's going to be hard due to the party's lack of these skills, but that's still tailoring the challenge consciously.
In the same fashion, if someone is mincing every monster/NPC they fight, then the players in many groups get bored, or the DM starts feeling bad because he doesn't see his players actually being challenged. So, he starts making things tougher, not just throwing fireballs out of spite (although, if a player gets snotty about his character, it may become spite).
I'm glad to hear you have such a well-balanced group; hold on to them! However, many people do get uppity if they have a character with really good stats, either towards fellow players and/or the DM. And even if they don't, the guy that rolls low often really feels kind of crappy compared to that guy. Think about playing on a sports team- no, you're not competing with each other, but still the weak link might feel jealous of the star player. And that star player, while he certainly can't win a game by himself, may be the tipping factor when his team and the others are matched up.
Just my 2cp.
Let me start by saying I agree completely with Saern’s above post.
I wouldn't increase or decrease the challenge because the characters had high or low stats. I would however increase the challenge if they consistently were not challenged by the toughest battles. Likewise I would decrease the challenge if, despite their good tactics and planning, they have trouble beating every encounter, even the easy ones, I would decrease the power of the encounters until there is a balance.
I didn’t exactly say a single character with all 18s would win battles without the rest of the party, but looking back I see that I was a bit … I think overzealous is the word I am looking for.
What I meant when I said the player with all 18 would smash though every battle not that they would single handedly win every battle, I would think that their abilities would only slightly increase the damage they do. However I think the increased ability scores would make it harder to make that character feel he was in danger.
I don't want to kill the characters I want to challenge them. I want them to think that if they don't fight they’re hardest in tough battles they might get killed. I want to take them to brink of destruction during the final battle and remember it as an epic fight. I don't want to disappoint my players with easy battle after easy battle.
The sports team analogy is valid. Random chance should not apply too much bias in the long run.
Say you move into an apartment with a roommate and there are two seats, one inherently better than the other (more comfortable, better view of the TV, or something). You can either give it to the first person to "call" the good seat, or flip a coin for it. However, it's more fair to flip a coin every time than to flip one when you move in.
Success, whether in D&D or in our hypothetical apartment, has value to the persons involved, so a significant change in the odds from the outset can be quite unfair. Better either to set them at a fixed value, or to let a player choose his own benefits at the expense of others, same as we do with skill points and most other character generation elements.
Advocates of rolling, however, generally find that rolling good ability scores is something special. You're taking a big risk because you might get stuck with rubbish stats, but the payoff is that when you do get something good, it's like finding treasure that you get to keep.
I'm going to weigh in on the point buy side here. I have 2 main reasons, one of which has been extensively covered; the average playing field reason. People with higher stats than others are (in general) more powerful and thus get more spotlight. If your group is totally not like that, wonderful. I wouldn't say it represents the average experience though. My other reason is that (IMO) point buy lets you keep your stats from influencing your character concept too much. Let's say you have a character (doesn't matter what class) whom you conceive of as being being a little smarter than the common man, but not clever enough to keep his mouth shut about it or to decide what information is relevant and what's not. So you decide you're going to make his INT one of your mid-range stats (say, at least a 12 or 13) and your WIS your low. Then you roll stats, and it turns out your low is a 12. Doesn't really matter what your high is (it might even be a 13), your character concept just changed all of a sudden, because this guy must be fairly clever with a 12 WIS. On the other end of the spectrum, your low could be a 6. Now instead of being slightly indiscreet and a little tactless, he has a 50/50 shot of being able to find his shoes every day. I suppose what I'm saying is, rolling stats makes your character itself more arbitrary, not just his average performance.
Of course, there are those of you who roll stats and then make your character afterward. And those people are wrong.
(kidding)
|
1) Yes, an 8 is a moron. If the average IQ is 100, then an 8 represents someone who is probably in the 85-90 range. By my standards, that's a pretty dumb person. Maybe not obviously MR, but still really stupid. A 12 is probably an honor student, but I don't consider that to be very impressive. Lots of people are honor students.
I don't know where people got the idea that IQ directly correlates to an Intelligence number in D&D but it doesn't work at all as a model for how intelligence works. I don't remember where I read it but I read that intelligence scores reflect more on the ability to think quickly than it does to the theoretical usage of quantum physics. If Krusk has an 8 int and Redgar has a 12 they should both be able to think of the answer to a question, but it takes Krusk longer to come up with the answer.
What would a 25 intelligence mean for IQ, something like a 250? That is ridiculous. A 25 int should mean that the person in question retains alot of knowledge and can access it very quickly and effectively, not that they can devise ways to outrun the speed of light or the exact trajectory, velocity, and force needed to launch a storm giant into space.Someone with an 8 intelligence could just be slow to pull knowledge from his brain, not neccessarily stupid or a moron. They could be very smart, just not good at retaining information, hence the negative modifier to inelligence based checks.
My 2
FH
FH said:
Someone with an 8 intelligence could just be slow to pull knowledge from his brain, not neccessarily stupid or a moron. They could be very smart, just not good at retaining information, hence the negative modifier to inelligence based checks.
My 2
FH
Wouldn't the opposite be true as well then, getting the information inside your head? I view an Int 8 character as someone who is not very bright (a moron if you will) and who as a consequence is not very interested in gaining knowledge.
1) Yes, an 8 is a moron. If the average IQ is 100, then an 8 represents someone who is probably in the 85-90 range. By my standards, that's a pretty dumb person. Maybe not obviously MR, but still really stupid. A 12 is probably an honor student, but I don't consider that to be very impressive. Lots of people are honor students.
I don't know where people got the idea that IQ directly correlates to an Intelligence number in D&D but it doesn't work at all as a model for how intelligence works. I don't remember where I read it but I read that intelligence scores reflect more on the ability to think quickly than it does to the theoretical usage of quantum physics. If Krusk has an 8 int and Redgar has a 12 they should both be able to think of the answer to a question, but it takes Krusk longer to come up with the answer.
What would a 25 intelligence mean for IQ, something like a 250? That is ridiculous. A 25 int should mean that the person in question retains alot of knowledge and can access it very quickly and effectively, not that they can devise ways to outrun the speed of light or the exact trajectory, velocity, and force needed to launch a storm giant into space.
Someone with an 8 intelligence could just be slow to pull knowledge from his brain, not neccessarily stupid or a moron. They could be very smart, just not good at retaining information, hence the negative modifier to inelligence based checks.
My 2
FH
Correct- at least how I see it. The stats don't act in a vacuum. It seems to me that, when considering how to play and imagine a character, you have the physical and mental sets of abilities, and in each field, you have to look at the "whole package" to get a feel for what the character is really like.
This was illustrated to me by a warlock that a friend of mine once played. He had 14 or 15 Wisdom, 17 or 18 Charisma, and 7 Intelligence. It quickly came to my attention that the guy must not be a drooling retard, or how wouldn't be able to exercise that Charisma. And, obviously, he's observant of things. However, the way I interpreted the character, he would have been the dark, mysterious type who spoke very little. Many people would think of him as brooding, dangerous, and powerful, but the truth would be that he often didn't have anything to say and would be struggling to remember everything that was going on. Rather than being a "victim" of his low Intelligence (being dumbfounded and confused quite often), he would simply dismiss books and other things, and get flustered and agitated when people tried to force learning on him. "I don't worry about that kind of thing;" "Why are you lecturing me?" Etc., etc. Good in the spontaneous, in the moment, but bad at devising a plan or strategy ahead of time or remembering the details of something that happened yesterday. Good thing he was Chaotic Neutral, anyway!
Now, if someone has 8 Intelligence, 10 Wisdom, and 7 Charisma, then yes, you may be looking at a case of MR. But just one low stat doesn't determine it all.
EDIT- Kind of what Darkjoy said; a sort of "double taxation" effect. The character isn't good at remembering "book learning," and thus never seeks it out, compounding the problem.
Of course, there are those of you who roll stats and then make your character afterward. And those people are wrong.
(kidding)
LOL!
Padan brings up an interesting point, and reading some of the posts here, and in the Old/Young Gamers thread, I think it may be a generational thing. Tell me if I'm putting my foot in my mouth, but older gamers (who still prefer the Old Ways) may be more comfortable with their character being "dictated" to them, "chosen" for them, even if it's the dice that they're rolling that are doing said choosing.
Younger gamers (that's me) don't necessarily want this. I want to make my character myself. I want to come up with the concept and an idea of the path I hope he will take throughout his "career." And I don't want the random dice telling me whether I can or can't do that. Now, I'll fine tune the character depending on the stats I end up with, but I'd prefer point buy because it guarantees that I'll be able to get the basic PC that I desire.
Also, Padan's right that, by using point buy and somewhat restricting the range of "off abilities," it leaves them more open to interpretation by the player, who can go in a variety of directions with them without worrying so much whether it contradicts the "rules" (as much as they apply to this) or not. In my eyes and the eyes of others I know, that allows for more roleplaying, not less, because you can get into the character more.
Granted, sometimes a roll may give you a great set, and not in a power-gaming sense, but in the sense of a range of abilities that dictate out a character that you wouldn't have thought of and turns out to be great fun. However, my experience is that the dice aren't so kind, and this is similar to the attraction people feel to gambling. Yes, the results could be awesome, but the odds are they're not going to be.
Padan brings up an interesting point, and reading some of the posts here, and in the Old/Young Gamers thread, I think it may be a generational thing. Tell me if I'm putting my foot in my mouth, but older gamers (who still prefer the Old Ways) may be more comfortable with their character being "dictated" to them, "chosen" for them, even if it's the dice that they're rolling that are doing said choosing.
Older gamers know how to make or acquire loaded dice and remember to bring them along for character generation. This alleviates the pain of having your stats dictate your character.
Seriously D&D is not that important to me, so I hope nobody is really upset about my posts, because I'm not upset or terribly passionate about the subject.D&D NOT THAT IMPORTANT! Excommunicate this man from the boards AT ONCE!
I apologize! Can come back and play know.
The sports team analogy is valid. Random chance should not apply too much bias in the long run.
Say you move into an apartment with a roommate and there are two seats, one inherently better than the other (more comfortable, better view of the TV, or something). You can either give it to the first person to "call" the good seat, or flip a coin for it. However, it's more fair to flip a coin every time than to flip one when you move in.
I'm not sure how roomates, living with each other in an apartment, has anything to do with sports? So if your trying to make an argument, for experience over physical ability in sports, your wrong. If that were the case the football greats like Joe Montana and Jerry Rice, would never retire and only get better as players.
Success, whether in D&D or in our hypothetical apartment, has value to the persons involved, so a significant change in the odds from the outset can be quite unfair. Better either to set them at a fixed value, or to let a player choose his own benefits at the expense of others, same as we do with skill points and most other character generation elements.Advocates of rolling, however, generally find that rolling good ability scores is something special. You're taking a big risk because you might get stuck with rubbish stats, but the payoff is that when you do get something good, it's like finding treasure that you get to keep.
IN D&D, ability stats are important at the lower levels, except for spell casters. As a character gains experience and levels, those ability score bonuses and penalties, loss there significance. For example The 10th level fighter with 13 strength would still whuup on the 1 st level 1/2 orc barbarian with the 20 strength.
So, as happens in many heroic tales, player characters that gain in power and skill, find ways to overcome there short comings. A Wizard with a 13 intelligence has to become crafty indeed to achieve the highest level of spell casting. For this wizard to become a 20th level wizard, with the most powerful arcane spells available, would be an epic achievement indeed.
So, as happens in many heroic tales, player characters that gain in power and skill, find ways to overcome there short comings. A Wizard with a 13 intelligence has to become crafty indeed to achieve the highest level of spell casting. For this wizard to become a 20th level wizard, with the most powerful arcane spells available, would be an epic achievement indeed.
Especially considering that he is not allowed to cast spells higher then 3rd level. I suppose, though, he could gaze upon them fondly in his spell book.
Of course, there are those of you who roll stats and then make your character afterward. And those people are wrong.
(kidding)
I'm sooo wrong. Wee Jas punish me! Yes punish me!
Oh thats so good.LOL!
Padan brings up an interesting point, and reading some of the posts here, and in the Old/Young Gamers thread, I think it may be a generational thing. Tell me if I'm putting my foot in my mouth, but older gamers (who still prefer the Old Ways) may be more comfortable with their character being "dictated" to them, "chosen" for them, even if it's the dice that they're rolling that are doing said choosing.
I see point buy as dictating my choices. In a bad German accent, "You vill build your character wizzin zese parameters. You vill be equal to all otherzzs in your group. Zere vill be no paragons, and no deficienczes to overcome vith in zee adventuriing group.
Younger gamers (that's me) don't necessarily want this. I want to make my character myself. I want to come up with the concept and an idea of the path I hope he will take throughout his "career." And I don't want the random dice telling me whether I can or can't do that. Now, I'll fine tune the character depending on the stats I end up with, but I'd prefer point buy because it guarantees that I'll be able to get the basic PC that I desire.
Thats what wrong with kids today. They want it thier way. I blame Burger King for that. Damn you Burger King. That's why old guys make better poker players, we can play the cards we're dealt and still come out a winner.
Granted, sometimes a roll may give you a great set, and not in a power-gaming sense, but in the sense of a range of abilities that dictate out a character that you wouldn't have thought of and turns out to be great fun. However, my experience is that the dice aren't so kind, and this is similar to the attraction people feel to gambling. Yes, the results could be awesome, but the odds are they're not going to be.
If they are not awesome stats, do you have the guts to play the stats you got? Are you a crafty enough D&D player to survive the lower level with not so awsome stats and achieve the highest level for that characters class, lacking any great ability scores?
In that question, lies the difference between old gamers and new gamers. Old gamers can remember a game where the emphasis was overcoming challenges, role playing was secondary. That is why old gamers are comfortable with rolling stats, where younger players are not. For older gamers you take the stats you have, arrange them the best you could and faced the challenges of the DM, with your character. New gamers grew up playing D&D where role playing is emphasized over challenge.
Younger players want to build a character that fits thier "character concept". I think an old gamer, facing a challenge, can fit his "character concept" to fit his abilities, but back in the day thats what you had to do. We didn't have point buy so we are comfortable not using it. You newbies learned to game with such things as point buy, so when faced with the randomness of earlier character generation styles, you all can do with out it. The concept of building a "character concept" arround your abilities, rather than the other the other way arround seems restrictive for you For me, as an old gamer the randomness feels liberating to me. I don't have to decide how to build my abilities arround my character. Have abilities, build character, that to me feels more spontaneous, more free.
So, as happens in many heroic tales, player characters that gain in power and skill, find ways to overcome there short comings. A Wizard with a 13 intelligence has to become crafty indeed to achieve the highest level of spell casting. For this wizard to become a 20th level wizard, with the most powerful arcane spells available, would be an epic achievement indeed.Especially considering that he is not allowed to cast spells higher then 3rd level. I suppose, though, he could gaze upon them fondly in his spell book.
A crafty wizard would have an Int of 14 by the time he is 7th level and able to cast 4th level spells.
Wowzers, what a thread. After years of playing WOD and D&D, I can honestly say that point buy leads to more arguments...hence, this topic! I'm surprised noone has brought up the perils of min/maxing. While that not be a very PC(heh) term to use nowadays, it's the essence of the point buy philosophy. Some people(in my experience, VERY few) use point buy to create interesting charaters. Others use it to murder machines(a free internet to the person who knows where that reference comes from!). Randomizing the starting points, while an interesting idea, doesn't really solve much of anything- save perhaps to balance out a secondary stat. Rolling first and coming up with the character second is the only way for me.