I've been thinking about this lately. I know there are a lot of people that like to roll for their ability scores, which I don't blame anyone for. Its fun, and it does lead to some roleplaying ideas when you try to assign various scores. Plus, you really feel like you have "earned" you high ability scores.
That having been said, so that it was easier for me a DM to plan for challenging encounters and to account for good tactics and strategy, I've had my player's make up their characters using a point buy for quite a while now. People play the characters they want to, and there is no feeling that the fighter would have made a better cleric than the cleric because one player rolled better than another.
But I have thought about some encounters and how they have gone, and I've started to think about something else. While I've seen players get battered a lot, I have started to wonder about random hit points. All of my players are scrupulous about rolling their hit points in front of them, and I trust them in any event. But some of them still end up higher than average, especially the front line fighters.
This got me to thinking. Front line fighters can end up being completely crippled by a bad roll, but they can really end up being a tank with a good roll. A wizard is either going to get a 1, 2, 3, or 4, but a barbarian has a 12 point spread of possible outcomes with their roll. A 7 is above average for hit points compared to other classes, but the barbarian can actually be five points higher than that at any given level.
Anyway, I'm wondering if I'm going to be a "no fun" DM, but I'd almost like to try standardized hps at some point in a campaign (but not likely in my current campaign). The barbarian will still pull away from the fighter at higher levels, and both will pull away from the wizard, but neither one will have the dramatic range, which can actually make fighting either impossible (with too low rolls) or too easy (with too high rolls).
I don't want to take any other random element out of the game. Attacks, saves, skill checks, damage, etc. should all really be random, for drama and the sake of the game, but with hit point rolls, one bad roll could haunt you for months, and one good roll could make you invincible for a long time as well.
Again, I get why people like to roll for ability score rolls and hit points, but at the same time, I'm thinking for my DM style, this might be something to check out. Anyone out there try this? It seems like it would make a feat like greater toughness, for example, stand out much more.
I susoect that a lot of people do something in this area. One example I have seen posted on these boards is a 'hp per die' system. It could be something like 3 hps for a d4, 4 for a d6, 5 for a d8, 6 for a d10 and 7 for a d12 or any other numbers like that.
Personally what I do is roll for 1/2 the die. So a d4 becomes 2+1d2, d6 = 3+1d3 ... d12 becomes 6+1d6.
To compensate all NPCs and enemies get 75% of max hps instead of 50%. This results in more hps floating around the system but I've found that this is one of the few areas of the game where my house rule has not blown up in my face - in fact I think its actually improved the game by making the enemies last a little longer which makes some of the players more powerful combos less effective plus it encourages team work. Its rare that one player can take down the bad guy without help from the other players. True my players have more hps as well but I'm not sure how many more hps. I have kind of found that hps for players seem rather high considering the law of averages..,or if not then the player just does not seem to work as advertised. A fighter with below average hps sucks and it will make the player very unhappy to have to play a 'tank' with a glass jaw.
|
I usually allow d4's to re-roll 1's, d8's and above re-roll 1's and 2's.
I'm not sure what d6's should be. Re-rolling both 1's and 2's might be too much of a boost, just 1's might not be enough.
d12's get the shaft just re-rolling 1's and 2's (makes it equal to re-rolling 1's on a d6 by ratio), so I might change that to re-rolling 1,2,3's.
*Brain pops*
In any case, this ups the average a tad. If I were to use standardized hp's, I would probably go with this higher average.
I susoect that a lot of people do something in this area. One example I have seen posted on these boards is a 'hp per die' system. It could be something like 3 hps for a d4, 4 for a d6, 5 for a d8, 6 for a d10 and 7 for a d12 or any other numbers like that.
Personally what I do is roll for 1/2 the die. So a d4 becomes 2+1d2, d6 = 3+1d3 ... d12 becomes 6+1d6.
To compensate all NPCs and enemies get 75% of max hps instead of 50%. This results in more hps floating around the system but I've found that this is one of the few areas of the game where my house rule has not blown up in my face - in fact I think its actually improved the game by making the enemies last a little longer which makes some of the players more powerful combos less effective plus it encourages team work. Its rare that one player can take down the bad guy without help from the other players. True my players have more hps as well but I'm not sure how many more hps. I have kind of found that hps for players seem rather high considering the law of averages..,or if not then the player just does not seem to work as advertised. A fighter with below average hps sucks and it will make the player very unhappy to have to play a 'tank' with a glass jaw.
That's an interesting halfway point, and definitely a "fix" for the wide variable range that the higher hit dice classes have.
That's an interesting halfway point, and definitely a "fix" for the wide variable range that the higher hit dice classes have.
Personally what I do is roll for 1/2 the die. So a d4 becomes 2+1d2, d6 = 3+1d3 ... d12 becomes 6+1d6.
I essentially did that in my 1st edition game - just didn't allow rolling under half. It makes for rather strong characters, and I'd say with 3rd editions con bonuses, too strong.
I did (just before reading Jeremy's method) think of doing the same, but with 1 lower "+", so 1+d2, 2+d3, etc. So maximum would actually be impossible, but it would scale up pretty well (6-11 for Barbarian). I think that would about solve your problem.
I definitely know the hurt of low hp you're talking about. I was playing in a *gestalt* game, but was stuck with a randomly assigned Rogue/Artificer, both of whom get d6 hp - so no optimization there. I then proceeded to roll less than 2.5 average per roll through 11th level or so, and finally resorted to the DMG option of just taking 3 per roll so I'd get at least that much. Was quite painful, especially when consorting with Fighter/Scouts with high hp rolls and much higher con mods :)
Take care!
Check out the Iron Heroes Rule Book
The classes have a much narrower range per level for example the Arminger (heavily armored fighter) gets 1d4 +6 per level. Rolling a 1 is more common but less devastating.
I do average hp as described in the DMG. Don't feel like you're somehow removing necessary randomness from the game, because that's what attack rolls, skill checks and saves are for. The difference between these rolls and stats and hit points is that stats and hit points are a permanent part of a character--you only get that one roll per ability or per level that affects your character for the rest of his/her existence. Attack rolls and such only affect a short stretch of time so having them be random evens out over time.
|
The system i have settled upon is to have players roll their hit-points, but if they choose to do so, they are allowed one reroll. They have to keep the second roll, even if it is lower than the first roll. Ones and twos are always thus rerolled, but they have to think real hard about rerolling if they roll a 6 on a d10 or a 7 on a d12. So far it seems to work to keep hit points on the high side and make the players feel like they have more control over their characters. Still, it is funny when they reroll that two and get a one. At least its funny to me.
This is a very interesting subject. I would speculate (and it's just that, speculation) that more people prize rolling ability scores than rolling hit points. Even though getting bad ability rolls can cripple your character from the get-go, there seems to be more sympathy (and more real "power" or "viability") in a fighter with sub-optimal base stats over one who got screwed on just two hit dice rolls (at least at the lower levels).
I would be very much in favor of taking standard rolls for hit points. Of course, I'm also a proponent of point-buy. As has been articulated already, there are plenty of other rolls in the game (attacks, saves, skills, etc.) to keep it very random. But long-term, non-rerollable, character defining traits should have some sort of safety net I feel; otherwise, you risk seeing a lot of unhappy gamers, and what's the point in that?
I think players, however, would favor rolling, but adding a clause that less than average rolls are discarded (at least, the ones I've known!). Thus, a fighter would always get 6-10 hp (plus Con). I think this might be too much. The only "safety nets" I'd ever consider are universal rerolling of ones (no body wants that, and there's always the chance to turn that 1 into a max roll with just another flick of the wrist), or simply handing out average hit points every level.
Yeah,as a player (and DM), I really hate random hitpoints. 1 roll can screw you completly. Second level barbarian rolled a 1? Too bad, your stuck with it. It it affects your entire cahracter.
What I think I am going to do, is let each PC choose to re roll their hitpoints at each level, but with a dice 1 size lower.
So if the Barbarian rolls a 2, he can re roll, but he rolls a d10. If he still doesn't like it, he can roll a d8, and so on, until he rolls a d4. Then you have to take it.
I figure it is still random, but reduces the risk of rolling bad, with the side benefit of helping those classes with a big hit dice more.
You can always revert to a really old (1st Ed) method: Roll all 1st level HP normally. After that, each time a character gains a level, instead of rolling a single die and adding in the new amount (along with bonuses) to the old total, roll the appropriate number of dice for the new level, add in the bonuses, then if the new total exceeds the old one, they get the new total.
Example: Grolf, a fighter, just made 6th level. His CON gives him 1pt per die bonus. At 5th, level he had 38 HTK, counting bonuses. Instead of rolling 1d10+1, and stacking it, Grolf roll 6d10+6. Say the roll adds up to 41. Grolf now has 41 HTK at 6th level. If he rolled only 29, he would keep the 38 all the way through 6th to 7th.
This is a form of "averaging" in that multiple dice, when added together, do tend to present the appropriate bell curve. Thus 6d10 would have an "average" roll of 33 (5.5 pts per die x 6 dice = 33). Characters of all classes would tend not to have extraordinarily high HTK most of the time. In the event of an extreme high-curve roll, the character gains the benefit for that level, but as he gains new levels, his HTK will tend to drop back towards the average again.
Play with the math, give it a try. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion.
Thanks, everyone, for chiming in. I'm glad that I'm not the only one that has thought about this, and I appreciate getting to see different variations on how to approach this. Before I do anything too radical, I'm likely just to try the "average" per level method and see how that works, but its good to have some extra ideas as well.
I let characters roll their hits but if they roll super low I give them a second roll that they average against the first. So if a fighter rolls 1d10 and drops a "1" on the first roll he rolls again and if say he got a "9" he adds the 9 and 1 divided by 2 for a 5. It keeps most characters at least average but allows for some variability.
As a Side Note:
All I know is point buy systems are boring. The whole point of a fantasy game to me is to have the "chance" that your character isn't average. I mean if you're pretty much average in real life why would you want to play an "average" farmer in a RPG? I still use the 4d6 drop the lowest. They roll two sets and keep their choice. If they roll total crap and want a third set it comes with a built in character flaw.
So this also brings forth the question: How do you determine hit points for someone joining the campaign?
Personally all joining players (and BBEGs) get 65% of their HD plus Con.
Example:
10th level rouge with a Con of 13.
10 x d6 = 60
60 x 0.65 = 39
39 + 10 (1 con bonus per HD)= 49 starting HP
As a Side Note:
All I know is point buy systems are boring. The whole point of a fantasy game to me is to have the "chance" that your character isn't average. I mean if you're pretty much average in real life why would you want to play an "average" farmer in a RPG? I still use the 4d6 drop the lowest. They roll two sets and keep their choice. If they roll total crap and want a third set it comes with a built in character flaw.
This hits a very interesting note- what is "average?" I think it varies by player, DM, and group overall. For example, I don't agree that point buy generates "average" characters; an "average" person has an array in the range of all 10's and 11's, or the non-elite array (which I believe is 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8). That is, for me, average. Thus, if you even have two 15s, you're already head and shoulders above most people in the world. A 16 is amazing. And if everyone's on the same playing field (meaning the PCs), and this is considered quite "above average" (since the common man can't even begin to compete with the PCs' ability scores), what's the complaint?
Now, I see more validity in the argument that point buy creates cookie-cutter characters, but really, I'm not super convinced of this. Characters made by rolling are likely to assign their scores in the same pattern as one made through point buy, I figure. Plus, there's no more reason to roleplay two rolled fighters differently (or not) than there is (or not) with point buy, since they're likely to come out relatively the same. Ability scores only make up so much of a character's personality, and overall story.
This "cookie cutter" syndrome can also be redressed by looking at what one considers "average" and "exceptional." On a high-powered scale, point buy just won't do for character diversification through ability scores, since you don't have enough points to spread around to make noticeable differences in the off-stats. If one uses a smaller scale of "average" and "exceptional," smaller differences in ability scores mean more, and point buy can make greatly diversified characters.
I think the DM has the right (and perhaps even the duty) to outline what he considers "average," "above average," and "exceptional." If this is causing problems, DM to Player communications should take place in order to resolve this, but overall, I'd say that the onus is on the players to adapt to the DM's views, in the same way they adapt to his (or her) views on class/race/supplement restrictions/high, low, or medium magic.
Mayhaps this should go in another thread?
Contributor
|
My current system is similar to one posted above. My hit dice break down as follows:
1d4 = 1d3+1
1d6 = 1d4+2
1d8 = 1d5+3 (half a d10)
1d10 = 1d6+4
1d12 = 1d8+4 (cry me a river Barbarians, Knights and Warblades)
That way everyone gets a reasonable number of hit points per level, still gets to roll a die.
As turnabout is fair play, monsters usually 3/4 hit points instead of 1/2. Haven't had a complaint yet...
As a Side Note:
All I know is point buy systems are boring. The whole point of a fantasy game to me is to have the "chance" that your character isn't average. I mean if you're pretty much average in real life why would you want to play an "average" farmer in a RPG? I still use the 4d6 drop the lowest. They roll two sets and keep their choice. If they roll total crap and want a third set it comes with a built in character flaw.This hits a very interesting note- what is "average?" I think it varies by player, DM, and group overall. For example, I don't agree that point buy generates "average" characters; an "average" person has an array in the range of all 10's and 11's, or the non-elite array (which I believe is 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8). That is, for me, average. Thus, if you even have two 15s, you're already head and shoulders above most people in the world. A 16 is amazing. And if everyone's on the same playing field (meaning the PCs), and this is considered quite "above average" (since the common man can't even begin to compete with the PCs' ability scores), what's the complaint?
Now, I see more validity in the argument that point buy creates cookie-cutter characters, but really, I'm not super convinced of this. Characters made by rolling are likely to assign their scores in the same pattern as one made through point buy, I figure. Plus, there's no more reason to roleplay two rolled fighters differently (or not) than there is (or not) with point buy, since they're likely to come out relatively the same. Ability scores only make up so much of a character's personality, and overall story.
This "cookie cutter" syndrome can also be redressed by looking at what one considers "average" and "exceptional." On a high-powered scale, point buy just won't do for character diversification through ability scores, since you don't have enough points to spread around to make noticeable differences in the off-stats. If one uses a smaller scale of "average" and "exceptional,"...
=======================================================================
Well that's why I have huge background tables full of feats, skills and flaws that define a character's history and talents. No two fighters will be the same.
The problem with 'point buy' is you have "dump" stats and if you dont want to have say a horrible wisdom or charisma you're stuck gimping your fighter in the name of "role-play". Not everyone is equal in the world and allowing for 4d6 drop the lowest means that the player drops the dice that control the ultimate destiny of their character. If they drop three 16s and an 18 then hey you can have that high strength, fast yet highly likeable barbarian (aka Conan). This isn't the norm but having the possibility of getting a really strong character is there. Too many people obsess with making sure each character in the game is "equal" and honestly this happens in online games like WoW too.
There may be a campaign where you have to play the Ron Weasley of the group while the other guy got lucky and gets Conan. It doesnt make Ron any less fun. In fact one of my favorite characters I ever played was a thief in 2nd edition named Brynn Foolsfriend that had pretty mediocre stats.
Do yourselves a favor and dont get caught up in "equality" at the gaming table. you can always balance out a weaker character with good game play and as a DM with a nifty item or two to help them along.
Do yourselves a favor and dont get caught up in "equality" at the gaming table.
That sounds mighty condecending. 'Do myself a favor'? 'Don't get caught up'? Thanks, but I do myself the favor every day of not getting caught up in the pretense of 'realism' of rolling for stats. Unless you're looking for a flame war, I recommend that you write your posts to be a little more reader friendly. Believe it or not, we are mostly reasonable adults here and we do not appreciate the inference that we are otherwise.
Do yourselves a favor and dont get caught up in "equality" at the gaming table.That sounds mighty condecending. 'Do myself a favor'? 'Don't get caught up'? Thanks, but I do myself the favor every day of not getting caught up in the pretense of 'realism' of rolling for stats. Unless you're looking for a flame war, I recommend that you write your posts to be a little more reader friendly. Believe it or not, we are mostly reasonable adults here and we do not appreciate the inference that we are otherwise.
Look it was a suggestion that what I read a lot of on here is fear of a "super character". I think the fun of the game is having a "chance" to be super if the dice gods smile on you once every few campaigns. I'm not sure how you took "do yourself a favor" as condescending.
My point was d20 has a huge set of flaws inherent in the game from the beginning and that the least of which is handing everyone a pair of 15s and some dumps stats doesnt address.
I said what I said with the purpose of pointing out the game's flaws and to try and explain ways that I have worked around it (making character development a very detailed process helps).
I stick with the fact that DMs on here seem terrified that "Jack has a super character" and little Suzy might get offended. I've never had someone quit my campaign in almost 20 years of running it so I do think I have some valid ideas on how to keep suspense in a game despite good stats.
Do yourselves a favor and dont get caught up in "equality" at the gaming table.That sounds mighty condecending. 'Do myself a favor'? 'Don't get caught up'? Thanks, but I do myself the favor every day of not getting caught up in the pretense of 'realism' of rolling for stats. Unless you're looking for a flame war, I recommend that you write your posts to be a little more reader friendly. Believe it or not, we are mostly reasonable adults here and we do not appreciate the inference that we are otherwise.
Skuldin does have a point, though. a lot of people have to live with average stats. We can't all be Conan, it's alright to be the kender sometimes, who everybody keeps around for fun. then again, who wants to play the cliche` dumb half-orc barbarian? Speaking of which, I hate those rules. Half-orcs are underpowered, and that's because nobody likes 'em. Elves, on the other hand (how I've come to hate that name...) have 10 subraces so that you can play any sort of elf you like. 'Cause, face it, thanks to Orlando bloom, everybody thinks of elves as good-looking humans. And as for dwarves... well, tell me how many special abilities they have. 'Cause everyone nowadays can't get enough of them crabby short guys who constantly rant, rant, rant against something in a thread that really has nothing to do with them. Blah, blah blah. they go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and it seems that they will never quit it until...
They do at the end of the post, while too busy whining to realize that it is likely that noone is still listening....
...
...
...You really aren't, are you?
Look it was a suggestion that what I read a lot of on here is fear of a "super character". I think the fun of the game is having a "chance" to be super if the dice gods smile on you once every few campaigns. I'm not sure how you took "do yourself a favor" as condescending.
What "do yourself a favor" insinuates is that we're not mature enough or smart enough to think for ourselves. Just imagine me telling you "Do youself a favor and don't get taken in by the [your political party of choice]'s sappy propaganda BS." I'm giving you advice with this statement, but even if I don't realize it I'm also insinuating that you are incapable of making decisions without my guidance. That's condecending.
For example, the following paragraph is an example of condecending insinuations:
I honestly worry a little about people who are always hoping for that lucky day when they roll an 'above average' character. To my mind, average is 10s and 11s across the board. So unless you're playing under a hardcore DM who uses '3d6, keep what you get' or low powered point buy, no character is ever average. What I worry is that when someone refers to 'an average character' they're actually saying 'just on par with the losers that I adventure with'. Assuming that the goal of rolling for stats is to one day get lucky and roll a super-hero character sounds too much like "one day I'll be better than everyone else and shine the brightest". It worries me that some gamers play d&d so they can have more fun than everyone else, both because it reflects on their emotional motivations and because gaming with such a person will have an impact on my enjoyment of the game. I play the game to be part of a team, not to follow a team or to lead a team.
I start out with a statement that immediately throws your mental stability into doubt, then follow up with several statements which cast your thoughts under the harsh light of silly contradiction. I finish with a statement that all but points to you and says "immature geek!" while simultaneously describing myself as mature and cooperative at the same time. That's condecending.
In a more serious vein:
As proponent of point buy, I do not "fear" super characters. I'm a player in a game right now and I rolled for my stats just like the others because that's what our DM wanted. Did I ever consider leaving the game because the DM has us roll for stats? No, but I would have preferred point buy despite the fact that both of my characters got pretty lucky with their stats--at the very least I wouldn't have had to make a special trip to my DM's apartment just to make my characters. I use point buy when I DM because it makes the game simpler for me. Could I make a poorly rolled character feel special by giving them extra goodies and designing fights specifically to let them shine? Of course I could, but it's so much simpler to just use point buy and not have to jump those particular hoops.
As proponent of point buy, I do not "fear" super characters. I'm a player in a game right now and I rolled for my stats just like the others because that's what our DM wanted. Did I ever consider leaving the game because the DM has us roll for stats? No, but I would have preferred point buy despite the fact that both of my characters got pretty lucky with their stats--at the very least I wouldn't have had to make a special trip to my DM's apartment just to make my characters. I use point buy when I DM because it makes the game simpler for me. Could I make a poorly rolled character feel special by giving them extra goodies and designing fights specifically to let them shine? Of course I could, but it's so much simpler to just use point buy and not have to jump those particular hoops.
=======================================================================
Well to be honest I've never shafted a player that rolled two "farmers" I've usually given them a roll on the flaw chart and let them roll a third set. I think where I have my biggest problem with point buy systems is the sameness of every character. Sure it may be easier on the DM to do this and that's fine but as a high detail person with regards to character creation, background etc I feel that a unique set of stats is part of that process. How can you have "Conan" (can you tell I love Robert E Howard?) with a point buy system? If I put an 18 in strength then he's either going to be super slow, have low con or be dumb as a brick, not well liked etc?
Off the top of my head I would probably say Conan would have a stat line like this at level 1:
Str 18, dex 17, con 17, int 12, wis 9, cha 15
No way you could get a stat set like that with point buy, which is all i'm trying to say. I'm not saying every character should have a stat line like that but once in a while to have a character like that isn't all bad either.
To each their own and if you are looking for "ease" of use as a DM point buy is certainly better but the game has enough formula as it is with cookie cutter looking feat choices and the way combat plays out that I guess I feel that rolling dice to get an unique character is part of what makes DND better than say World of Warcraft. Character customization is king.
I see a thought on the board here of equality of characters versus non-equality. With point buy, one is essentially starting all PCs as created equal. No-one outshines anohter through awesome stats, adn no-one is a loser commoner.
But life ain't like that. I suppose it can be in role-playing games, but were I a character in an RPG, I wouldn't exist (in a point-buy scheme). Some people are simply luckier than others, or destined by fate to have a few more edges, or shined on by the stars to have a variety of gifts.
In my experience, I tend to prefer dice rolling for stats. I also prefer the games I run to be slanted a little to the right of the bell curve too, and have used a variety of "random" stat generation techniques. Occasionally, some of the characters start off as gods among men (I've seen 2 18s and a 17, with nothing lower than a 13, on 4d6). I've also seen the average mensch, with nothing above a 13.
As DM, I prefer to keep my players in a similar spread of awesomeness, so that the mensch and the god aren't adventuring buddies. My experience has shown that stats mean more to less mature players. They are hte ones who tend to rely on ability scores more and brag about their "leet"-ness. Good players can craft a grand experience with nearly any set of scores, and have fun doing it.
Being a DM who likes to throw some serious challenges at my parties, I don't mind high ability scores. Some NPCs and monsters will have pretty good scores and hp too. Average people will require a lot more luck to defeat the villains, which is one of the explanations for why the villains have power in my campaign. Heroes are needed to unseat them.
Of course, I also run campaigns where the PCs are part of the world, not the sum of it. If they decide to check out the dragon's cave at second-level, be prepared to bring in the back-up characters. My players generally know when they are outmatched, and I have learned to drop hints about whether they are on a "good" campaign path or straying from where they should if they want to live.
The point is, I like the rampant diversity random rolls can bring. I adjust for super good and bad rolls, and it doesn't take that much to do so. As for hit points, I usually allow rerolls for 1s, and sometimes 2s (or have other DM fiats to make sure they aren't too far from the adventure power levels). I like some of the other suggestions presented for alternative hit points provided here, and may use them in my next campaign. And that is what it comes down to -- what do you like in your campaigns? You can offer suggestions to others, but there is no rule that someone else must abide by.
Not even for ending sentences in prepositions... :)
Character customization is king.
It's odd that you say that, because that is one of the common arguments against rolling for stats. If I want to play an all-around well rounded character and I roll three 18s and three 3s, well there goes that character idea. If I want to play a highly focused character with a serious achilles heel and I roll all 14s, that character isn't going to happen. Those are exaggerations, but you get the idea.
I'm going to agree to disagree with you, as we obviously think of game stats in vastly different ways. To me, ability scores are a secondary part of personality creation--they should be used as rough guidelines for a character's history and personality, but they're much more important when the battle dice start rolling than during character creation. From your numerous mentions of flow charts, random tables and detailed character analyses, you obviously like to put much more time and attention into character creation than I do. Maybe I just don't like any dice dictating how I create a personality while you like the possibilities of a highly randomized auto-creation system.
But life ain't like that. I suppose it can be in role-playing games, but were I a character in an RPG, I wouldn't exist (in a point-buy scheme). Some people are simply luckier than others, or destined by fate to have a few more edges, or shined on by the stars to have a variety of gifts.
Have you ever considered making other character stats realistically random? Each level, you have a 30% chance of gaining a new feat. Rogues get 2d8 skill points per level while fighters get 2d2 per level (first level skill points are multiplied by 2d4 at first level). Each level, you have a 25% chance to add 1 point to a random ability score. Each level, a sorcerer has a (75 - 5 per spell level)% chance to learn a new spell of each level. Heck, what are the chances that four to six adventurers of exactly the same XP total meet in a tavern and decide to strike out together? Everyone roll 1d100 X 100 for their starting XP and level.
Okay, I'm being sarcastic but the point is valid. This is why I don't buy the "realistic" argument against point buy. Sure it's not realistic that all members of a group would have the exact same amount of natural talent, but just about every other aspect of character generation and advancement is equally "unrealistic".
I'm going to agree to disagree with you, as we obviously think of game stats in vastly different ways. To me, ability scores are a secondary part of personality creation--they should be used as rough guidelines for a character's history and personality, but they're much more important when the battle dice start rolling than during character creation
=======================================================================
Ok you still are missing my point. If I want to roleplay Conan under your scheme it isnt possible. A 15 strength may be "enough" strength for your tailored encounters but in the player's and even in the game he's not "that" strong. He isn't Conan, he isnt even close; in fact if I want a character to be as strong as Conan then I have to be mentally slow or as is the case with many players very unlikeable due to his 6 charisma.
The dice can sometimes govern what you will become much like being born. If I'm born very likeable and strong then I could be a swashbuckling fighter or a muscular fighter/sorcerer etc but "point buy" and "arrays" are basically static characters much like World of Warcraft where every undead fighter gets the exact same starting stats. I preferred 1st edition where it took a high charisma to be a paladin making the class more rare. Yes 3.5 blows 1st edition out of the water in 95% of the gameplay but in this assigning points I think it's basically only good for tournaments or one to three shot sessions where you are handed a character to run through "X" module.
In my world life aint fair and sometimes you have to make due with the stats you rolled (ie were born with); sometimes it's peaches and sometimes it's pits.
Ok you still are missing my point.
No I didn't miss your point, I just chose not to respond to it because I do not consider it an issue. If the DM wants to run a game with conan-type characters he/she can use a high point buy. There are plenty of DMs who run point buy games in excess of the 32 point "high powered" variant in the DMG and/or institute the "1 for 1" rule so that players don't have to sacrifice anything to have awesome stats.
Ok you still are missing my point.No I didn't miss your point, I just chose not to respond to it because I do not consider it an issue. If the DM wants to run a game with conan-type characters he/she can use a high point buy. There are plenty of DMs who run point buy games in excess of the 32 point "high powered" variant in the DMG and/or institute the "1 for 1" rule so that players don't have to sacrifice anything to have awesome stats.
If the DM isn't looking to run a super high powered campaign, you shouldn't expect to have a super hero character regardless of whether the DM uses rolls or point buy. If you get lucky and roll 3 18s that's great for you, but otherwise you're just setting yourself up for dissapointment.
Ok we agree the DM has final say on such matters.
I was simply stating that no matter how much you say that background is more important than the dice rolls for your character and as a long time DM I am inclined to agree; the stats do determine a lot about your character. If I state in my background that "through years of living in the wilds he honed great strength and was the strongest of his tribe" simply wont happen with a 15 strength. Low powered is fine but what i've found in games is when characters have relatively lower scores the DM seems to Monty Haul the campaign and give out tons of magic items to boost the characters up to face the high challenges. Forgive me, I come from a Rolemaster background where I prefer inherent character skills to be a determining factor in victory/defeat over having a +4 longsword.
It's a fine line to walk between not enough magic items and too many but to me personally I hate that wealth by level chart they put in the DMG. Worst idea ever to have characters of massive wealth just because they happened to have fought in a lot of battles.
If that were the case the Vietnam vets that survived multiple tours would all be living in mansions :) but I digress.
We both have different DM styles and that's what makes the game great, I'm not saying one is "better" than the other but as a long time DM and online gamer I can sure tell you I want as much freedom in my character design as possible. The moment things are fixed and handed to me is the moment I might as well see the pretty graphics on a video game.
No, they arent apples to apples but apples to peaches is still comparing fruit to fruit.
calm down, guys! No need to get so heated! you can agree to disagree, and both of you are right, in some aspect. I'm sure no one meant to offend the other. Personally, I think that rolling could be best in some ways, but you don't want to have an unrealistically powerful/weak character...
Kobold Cleaver is correct. This thread is getting too heated. I wouldn't say flame war, but perhaps "cinder melee." Luckily, the folks here at Paizo are pretty good at keeping their heads about things.
Skuldin's comment about doing myself a favor was somewhat condescending; however, I now feel confident it wasn't meant in that vein, so no harm done.
I understand that point buy isn't "realistic" (not like wizards and dragons and stuff). I understand that in "real life," not everyone is created equal.
This isn't life. It's D&D.
Ironically its getting heated over a discussion of point buy, which was an ancillary issue that I mentioned in passing, when the actual discussion was over hit points and if randomized hit points might cause problems in a game session or over the length of a campaign.
As far as point buy goes, I prefer it, but not because I'm seeking any kind of mythical sense of balance, but because I feel bad if one player rolls bad and another one rolls really well. Its not about game balance but interpersonal balance between players. I'm not worried about high stats (I usually have players use a 32 point buy), I'm just concerned about everyone having the same place to start, and what they do from an even start is up to them.
As far as hit points go, the reason I wanted to discuss this is that the amount of hit points a character has actually can cause a wide range of issues in a game. A fighter with low hit points is not going to be able to perform his purpose, but a fighter with consistently above average hit points is going to negate the fear of things like traps and AoO because they can "spend" their "extra" hit points to ignore these issues.