|
I like it and don't think it needs to be changed. Also, if you're going to propose new rules, you should do so in the new rules forum.
Under the 3P system, the characters I generated had slightly better stats in every case then if I generated them in the equivalent 3.5 setting. The difference wasn't much, usually 1 attribute score had to be lower in the 3.5 point buy because I'd be 2 points shy.
I like it, considering attribute boost many races get, could have some fun character designs.
Here is a proposal for a simpler, quicker point-buy system for Pathfinder.
Spoiler:
-Start with a base of 7.
-It costs 1 point to increase from an even score to an odd score.
-It costs 2 points to increase from an odd score to an even score.Ability Score-----Point Cost
7--------------------0
8--------------------2
9--------------------3
10--------------------5
11--------------------6
12--------------------8
13--------------------9
14--------------------11
15--------------------12
16--------------------14
17--------------------15
18--------------------17Low Fantasy: 36 points
Standard Fantasy: 44 points
High Fantasy: 52 points
Epic Fantasy: 60 pointsSample Standard Fantasy Array #1: 8, 10, 10, 13, 14, 15
Sample Standard Fantasy Array #2: 8, 8, 10, 13, 13, 18
Sample Standard Fantasy Array #3: 8, 8, 9, 9, 18, 18
Sample High Fantasy Array: 8, 10, 12, 14, 14, 17
-A player will decide either to increase his ability modifier from one score by making it even or gain access to certain feats by increasing two scores to an odd value.
I don't see this as being more simple than the system proposed in Alpha 3, but it may be I haven't used your system enough (outside of a quick thought experiment) to really judge.
Here's the comparison I'm making:
1. Amount of points to be spent:
10 points in 3.p vs 36 in your system. While both scale somewhat predictably when the setting power level is increased ( 5 vs. 8), I find it easier to increment something by 5s.
2. Base: 10 v 7. From a balance point, all 3.P characters start out as average, compared to being built up from a "medicore" baseline. Granted, you give enough points for a character to overcome that baseline deficiency.
3. 3.p explicitly lists that you can buy down a stat at baseline to add more points to your pool. This allows for the option to have a character with "character" as a specifically desired trait, rather than the result of trying to minimize negative modifiers.
4. The 3.p point cost is tied to the modifier granted by the stat.
I like this idea. In fact, it's similar to something I proposed in an earlier thread on point buy systems but never actually detailed. My only quibble is that I can't really figure out your system for determining the number of points given at each power level. In fact, your values seem kind of underpowered, given that most of your example arrays have two negative modifiers. A hero with one glaring weakness is an interesting roleplaying opportunity; one with a couple of them is an accident waiting to happen.
A logical system for determining point values is to just determine what you would like the average attribute to be and then multiply that by 6. I've generated some alternate point values below.
Low Fantasy (average attribute 11.5): 42 points
Standard Fantasy (12.5): 51 points
High Fantasy (13.5): 60 points
Epic Fantasy (14.5): 69 points
Sample Standard Fantasy Array 1 (middle of the road): 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10
Sample Standard Fantasy Array 2 (extreme values): 18, 14, 12, 12, 10, 8
Also, what do you mean by "gain access to certain feats by increasing two scores to an odd value"?
Here is a proposal for a simpler, quicker point-buy system for Pathfinder.
** spoiler omitted **
-A player will decide either to increase his ability modifier from one score by making it even or gain access to certain feats by increasing two scores to an odd value.I don't see this as being more simple than the system proposed in Alpha 3, but it may be I haven't used your system enough (outside of a quick thought experiment) to really judge.
Here's the comparison I'm making:
1. Amount of points to be spent:
10 points in 3.p vs 36 in your system. While both scale somewhat predictably when the setting power level is increased ( 5 vs. 8), I find it easier to increment something by 5s.2. Base: 10 v 7. From a balance point, all 3.P characters start out as average, compared to being built up from a "medicore" baseline. Granted, you give enough points for a character to overcome that baseline deficiency.
3. 3.p explicitly lists that you can buy down a stat at baseline to add more points to your pool. This allows for the option to have a character with "character" as a...
1. So the first priority in designing the purchase system should be catering to people who can't handle numbers greater than 10? And I think one big problem with the purchase system in Alpha 3 is that it looks like they picked an average attribute score for "Standard Fantasy" and just added or subtracted 5 without thinking about what it did to the average.
2. The two systems have the same lowest possible score (7). You just don't need to worry about subtracting with this system.
3. Under either system, you always have the option to leave a score as a 7 if you want to.
4. Not really. Otherwise a score of 11 would be free just like a 10. :-p
|
Also, what do you mean by "gain access to certain feats by increasing two scores to an odd value"?
Most players are inclined to raise their ability scores to EVEN numbers, because you gain an ability modifier bonus at even scores, not odd scores.
However, pre-requisites for Feats are ODD ability scores. So to gain that Feat you're reaching for, you need to obtain an odd number.
I think this is what he's referring to.
Why messing around with point-buys at all?
It's much more simplier to just give out a number of ability points!
Want average power adventurers? Give 6x12,5 = 75 Ability points and let the players assign as they like.
Want High power? Then go with 85 points or something.
Why messing around with point-buys at all?
It's much more simplier to just give out a number of ability points!
Want average power adventurers? Give 6x12,5 = 75 Ability points and let the players assign as they like.
Want High power? Then go with 85 points or something.
Because a one-for-one system allows you to min-max without spreading out your scores. (For example, on your 75-point system, you could have 18, 18, 10, 10, 10, 9). You could use those kind of systems in 2e, when there were ability score requirements for various classes to force some variety, but not anymore. At least, not unless your group consists entirely of hardcore roleplayers who would never try to min-max ability scores.
|
A logical system for determining point values is to just determine what you would like the average attribute to be and then multiply that by 6. I've generated some alternate point values below.
Low Fantasy (average attribute 11.5): 42 points
Standard Fantasy (12.5): 51 points
High Fantasy (13.5): 60 points
Epic Fantasy (14.5): 69 pointsSample Standard Fantasy Array 1 (middle of the road): 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10
Sample Standard Fantasy Array 2 (extreme values): 18, 14, 12, 12, 10, 8
I like.
Since those were off the top of my head, I probably should do some more number crunching with my values to see if it works. It's possible this might be a little overpowered at the high levels.
Okay, for people who have trouble with big numbers, I've modified quest-master's system to start at 10 like the Alpha system. The cost increases aren't identical to the original system because the pattern starts over going downward below 10. Anyway, here's the system:
7 = -4 points
8 = -3
9 = -1
10 = 0
11 = 1
12 = 3
13 = 4
14 = 6
15 = 7
16 = 9
17 = 10
18 = 12
Low Fantasy = 10 pts. (11.67 avg., because 10's a nice round number)
Standard Fantasy = 21 pts. (12.5 avg.)
High Fantasy = 25 pts. (~13 avg.)
Epic Fantasy = 30 pts. (13.5 avg.)
I reduced the average scores of the two highest levels because I didn't want people running around with two 18s until epic levels.
It looks like I totally screwed up my alternate system. When going down from 10, the modifier changes at the odd numbers instead of the even. That's what I get for relying on memory rather than the charts. :-/
Anyway, I figure the easy modification is to have no scaling below 10, since this system isn't particularly stingy on the high end. Basically, just change the beginning of the chart as follows:
7 = -3 points
8 = -2
9 = -1
I like this idea. It seem more balanced to me.