|
I have been wondering about this for a while, and despite their other nifty abilities, half elves and humans cannot have as good of ability scores as the other races.
I analyzed this using the point buy system.
15,14,13,12,10,8
15 point buy.
Non-Human or Non-Half-Elf
17,16,13,12,8,8
24 points.
Human or Half-Elf
17,14,13,12,10,8
21 points.
There are other ways to build this, but it seems like that, after the ability modifiers, the humans and half-elves are left behind. This is because a -2 penalty does not offset the two +2s enough for the single +2 to be worthwhile.
Granted, the other races have fixed scores and the human and half-elf get to pick theirs. This might be the reasoning. Still, depending on what class you pick, having the fixed penalties and strengths may not be an issue.
I don't know, the freedom to choose their scores might help offset this, but I almost wish they got +2/+2/-2 to assign as they see fit. That may be a bit too powerful though, and make playing any other race obsolete.
Thoughts?
Humans are good enough as it is, they don't need to get an extra +2 on top of this.
with kaeyoss on this one extra skill extra feat there good.
A lot of players were happy with humans due to the extra feat and skill points, an extra skill point per level is equal to +2 int anyway for non-casters. Half-elves do need some love though. The real problem has nothing to do with the way races are written, though. The real problem is the d20 obsession with low-value "point-buy."
I never use point buy anyway, the 4d6 or 5d6 method with a reasonably generous DM produces the best overall characters without making MAD classes suboptimal choices or pigeonholing them into a specific race/class combo due to "not enough points to make x class good." Point buy is another example of MMO-videogame-ism making its appearance at the gaming table.
Not to mention, for those concerned with "balance among the classes," point-buy is the most unbalanced thing you could introduce to your campaign, as it makes some classes and race/class combos vastly more powerful than others. The lower the point-buy, the greater the disparity...
Example: a wizard with 18 int is far more powerful than a rogue with 18 dex, regardless of other factors. The difference is, the wizard ONLY needs int (and some con early on) so that while you can make an awesome wizard with a maximum primary stat with 25 point buy, you cannot make a good martial character with that relative power since they, at the very least, need 2 good stats and probably 3 (STR, DEX, CON). MAD classes like Monks and Paladins need 4. (STR, WIS, CON, DEX, or STR, CON, CHA, WIS).
You cannot make good characters (other than SAD characters) with point buy unless you're using something like 40 points. At least, not as good as a Wizard or Sorcerer would be at equal point buy. So point buy is NOT balanced, because the classes' needs are vastly different and some just need a lot more points to spend than others. The player with the SAD character will be far, far closer to his potential power than the player with a MAD character at equal point buy.
Translation please: SAD? MAD?
- Ye Olde Grognard.
Don't forget that with the new favoured class rules, they will be in a great position to reap extra hit points or skill points.
I never use point buy anyway, the 4d6 or 5d6 method with a reasonably generous DM produces the best overall characters without making MAD classes suboptimal choices or pigeonholing them into a specific race/class combo due to "not enough points to make x class good." Point buy is another example of MMO-videogame-ism making its appearance at the gaming table.
I never use anything but purchase methods, for rolling methods usually go one of two ways: Either some people have bad luck with their rolls and aren't satisfied with their rolls (got one good roll and many mediocre to bad ones when they needed several decent ones, or vice versa), or people are allowed to reroll and end up with powerful stats across the boards.
Not to mention, for those concerned with "balance among the classes," point-buy is the most unbalanced thing you could introduce to your campaign, as it makes some classes and race/class combos vastly more powerful than others. The lower the point-buy, the greater the disparity...
Rolling methods have the same problem, and they have the added problem that there's always the chance that people get exactly the wrong spread, and lucky people are more powerful than those who didn't roll so well.
Example: a wizard with 18 int is far more powerful than a rogue with 18 dex, regardless of other factors. The difference is, the wizard ONLY needs int (and some con early on) so that while you can make an awesome wizard with a maximum primary stat with 25 point buy, you cannot make a good martial character with that relative power since they, at the very least, need 2 good stats and probably 3 (STR, DEX, CON). MAD classes like Monks and Paladins need 4. (STR, WIS, CON, DEX, or STR, CON, CHA, WIS).
Note that wisdom isn't necessary for paladins any more, and strength isn't that important for monks, especially with the right feat(s).
Counter example: If you have bad luck with your rolls, you get something like 9/14/15/11/11/10. Achievable with 23 Point buy (or 13 purchase), But the 18 int wizard isn't possible with it. Not even Int 16 is possible, and even with standard (25) point buy, your stats would have been better (especially since you'd be able to redistribute and get something like 16/14/13/10/10/8).
And if you get something like 9/18/8/11/12/9, you can forget playing a Monk or Paladin, or even a decent Ranger. Even your fighter would be a glass cannon.
You cannot make good characters (other than SAD characters) with point buy unless you're using something like 40 points.
You cannot depend on being able to make good characters with rolling methods unless you're lucky, or the GM turns it into a lesson in futility by allowing people to reroll until they have awesome stats and/or using powerful dice rolling methods.
It's the latter, the methods that basically eliminate the negative part of randomness, that convinced me to draw the consequences to elminate the pseudo-randomness and go with fixed HP and Point Buy/Purchase methods.
If I was asked whether we could use some dice rolling method in our games for a change, I'd reply "Yes. But if you think you can get insane scores by rolling really well, be warned that Luck is a fickle mistress and may turn on you - and I won't defy her in that. One set of rolls, no rerolls - not for the same character, not for a new one. You'd all roll your campaign scores, that would apply for the whole campaign, so no one can 'accidentally' get his character killed to get another shot. Still up to try the all 18's array when you have to risk the all 3's array in the process?"
Every game I ever played in, whether as a player or a DM, we rolled. We usually got better stats than you could get with point buy. Sure people rolled a few times, it ultimately doesn't matter. "Pretty good scores" that you can all live with is what you should aim for. Or you could let players redistribute a few points, if they got a lot of odd numbers. Rolling itself is part of the social atmostphere.
If you must use point buy, MAD characters need quite a few more points than SAD characters, or you should use a higher number for everyone than the ridiculous 20 or 25.
Sure, using a higher point buy is fine... About equal to allowing multiple rolls.
I just noticed this thread becasue of the title: "Half-Elves and Humans cannot have as high ability scores as others"
...And I thought, isn't that how it's freakin' ALWAYS been in D&D?
Except now you CAN match the max Stat # on an individual Stat.
Half-Elves need help, but it doesn't have to do with their Stat mods.
|
Back to the orginal topic, I have to agree with Kae-Yoss, the Human is definitely good enough as is, and now the half-elf is closer to even with them. The other races still lag behind a bit in that their special abilities and bonuses don't quite keep up with the human and half-elf as more levels are gained.
Although they are much improved from 3.5.
If I was asked whether we could use some dice rolling method in our games for a change, I'd reply "Yes. But if you think you can get insane scores by rolling really well, be warned that Luck is a fickle mistress and may turn on you - and I won't defy her in that. One set of rolls, no rerolls - not for the same character, not for a new one. You'd all roll your campaign scores, that would apply for the whole campaign, so no one can 'accidentally' get his character killed to get another shot. Still up to try the all 18's array when you have to risk the all 3's array in the process?"
But that isn't fun.
If I was asked whether we could use some dice rolling method in our games for a change, I'd reply "Yes. But if you think you can get insane scores by rolling really well, be warned that Luck is a fickle mistress and may turn on you - and I won't defy her in that. One set of rolls, no rerolls - not for the same character, not for a new one. You'd all roll your campaign scores, that would apply for the whole campaign, so no one can 'accidentally' get his character killed to get another shot. Still up to try the all 18's array when you have to risk the all 3's array in the process?"But that isn't fun.
If your definition of fun is "reroll until you get perfect stats", you're fresh out of luck. For me, that means "lie to yourself". If you want control over your stats, go ahead and use point buy. If you want good stats, go for high point buy. Don't be afraid to just say "I'm using 40 point buy". If you think that makes you a power gamer, remember that using 5d6 discard 2 lowest, roll 12 times discard 6 lowest, and then reroll as often as you want until you get something nice makes you a cheating power gamer ;-P
Every game I ever played in, whether as a player or a DM, we rolled. We usually got better stats than you could get with point buy. Sure people rolled a few times, it ultimately doesn't matter.
So you're not really using a luck-based system. You roll until you get powerful stats. Stop kidding yourself and use high-powered point buy already. You're basically already doing it, except you don't want to say it.
I know that as a GM, I don't have the time to sit around a table watching people roll stats for half an hour until they get the all 16+ set or something.
I find that the biggest problem with point buy is in the minds of the players. Some of mine just can't stand it if they don't have a positive modifier in every score and a high positive score in their favored attribute(s).
To these players the real problem is a lack of imagination combined with the urge to "beat" an unbeatable game.
I have used point buy as a DM once and that was for a pbp I am now running. I dont care for it myself it leads to the cookie cutter feeling for me, but point by standard is way to low
If your definition of fun is "reroll until you get perfect stats", you're fresh out of luck. For me, that means "lie to yourself". If you want control over your stats, go ahead and use point buy. If you want good stats, go for high point buy. Don't be afraid to just say "I'm using 40 point buy". If you think that makes you a power gamer, remember that using 5d6 discard 2 lowest, roll 12 times discard 6 lowest, and then reroll as often as you want until you get something nice makes you a cheating power gamer ;-P
My definition of "fun" doesn't include the DM smiling cruelly at me as he implicitly tries to deconstruct my personality to reveal me as a powergamer or something while at the same time showing how clever he is at blocking me.
My group recently rolled up some characters for an Eberron campaign and we used what I call, "4d6 drop lowest with insurance." Essentially, everyone rolls (rerolling if they don't get at least one 15 and a positive mod), then we see who got stats significantly outside of the average and adjust accordingly. Perhaps we could have ended up with similar stats with 40 point buy, but the fact of the matter is we don't like point buy. It's just not fun, not at any denomination. We're not worried about some hypothetical third party sweeping in to our gaming group and judging us, as you seemed to imply. We just don't like that method.
Then again, I'm a strong believer that if you can't trust your players and they can't trust you when you're rolling characters, the campaign is already in trouble, possibly even fatally so. Trying to intimidate the players into choosing point buy is a terrible way to start a supposedly cooperative game.
I don't intimidate anyone. I just showed them my point of view - that real rolling methods will carry the risk of getting bad rolls and that methods where you roll and then adjust is just point buy in disguise - and they saw the sense in that. Combine that with my generousity and the fact that I run Modules instead of my own adventures (so all-18s-league characters will mess with the suggested power levels), and it works out just fine.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
To answer the original thread, so?
Elves can't have as high a Con score as Dwarves either.
As to rolling vs point buy. I've been using point buy for some time. my (now collapsed) RotRL game often had certain players complaining he could only 'reasonably' put a 16 in his rogue's intelligence, and didn't have enough skill points. When I pointed out that 4d6 drop the lowest wouldn't result in a surefire 18 either, his argument was 'well it might!'
personally I wrote it off as him wanting something to whine about.
If I was asked whether we could use some dice rolling method in our games for a change, I'd reply "Yes. But if you think you can get insane scores by rolling really well, be warned that Luck is a fickle mistress and may turn on you - and I won't defy her in that. One set of rolls, no rerolls - not for the same character, not for a new one. You'd all roll your campaign scores, that would apply for the whole campaign, so no one can 'accidentally' get his character killed to get another shot. Still up to try the all 18's array when you have to risk the all 3's array in the process?"But that isn't fun.
I agree with BlaineTog here. Its no fun to play a character that doesn't have what its class needs to perform adequately. That doesn't mean having 18 in every stats, it means having decent scores and bonuses.
Part of the problem is that the definition of a "decent score" vary from player to player, DM to DM and gaming group to gaming group.
In an ideal world, I would like my characters to perform equally well, which does not necessarily mean starting with the same ability score array. Some classes perform better with multiple high ability score, other work just fine with fewer higher, scores. I admit that my experience with point-buy is limited, but it seems that I could only be able to make a mediocre ranger while I would have enough to create a decent wizard
Where I do agree with KaeYoss however, is that a player should be ready to adjust its concept from the stats it rolled. Rolled many high-ish scores? Shoot for the paladin! Roll a single high ability, human wizard it is...
But back to the original subject, I feel that humans and 1/2 elves should be entitled their +2 if other humanoids have a +2 to a physical AND a mental stat. I would consider capping starting attribute to 18, but maybe that is an obsolete reference to previous editions...
I don't intimidate anyone. I just showed them my point of view - that real rolling methods will carry the risk of getting bad rolls and that methods where you roll and then adjust is just point buy in disguise - and they saw the sense in that. Combine that with my generousity and the fact that I run Modules instead of my own adventures (so all-18s-league characters will mess with the suggested power levels), and it works out just fine.
You still approach rolling with an aggressively adversarial attitude, as if daring the PCs to try it just so they can get karmasmacked for trying to powergame (since clearly, no one would want to roll their stats just because the find rolling more fun). And if you don't think threatening the PCs with a *much* stricter rolling system than either 3.5 or Pathfinder* recommend isn't intimidation, I suggest you look the word "intimidate" up.
*You're supposed to automatically reroll your stats if you either don't get at least one fifteen, or if your cumulative mod isn't positive, since such characters aren't PC material. It's also considered good form to let PCs reroll if they get one stat at 6 or lower, since such PCs are practically maimed which is, you guessed it, often not fun.
I suggest you look the word "intimidate" up.
Oh, entschuldigen Sie, ich konnte das ja nicht wissen.
You still approach rolling with an aggressively adversarial attitude, as if daring the PCs to try it just so they can get karmasmacked for trying to powergame (since clearly, no one would want to roll their stats just because the find rolling more fun). And if you don't think threatening the PCs with a *much* stricter rolling system than either 3.5 or Pathfinder* recommend isn't intimidation, I suggest you look the word "intimidate" up.
I don't know, he's pretty much summed up the problem with rolling, people roll the dice for their character, don't like the results and promptly reroll until they do. There is no chance involved, it is a guarantee that the player will get a character with high stats, you might as well use the method someone suggested where the players just make up the stats.
In every group I've been in players either roll honestly and one or two players wind up getting the shaft or they cheat* and everyone winds up with great stats.
*You're supposed to automatically reroll your stats if you either don't get at least one fifteen, or if your cumulative mod isn't positive, since such characters aren't PC material. It's also considered good form to let PCs reroll if they get one stat at 6 or lower, since such PCs are practically maimed which is, you guessed it, often not fun.
This is a perfect example of 'cheating'. The rules don't suggest you 'automatically reroll' anything. Maybe you don't call it cheating... maybe that's too harsh a word but the result is that it throws statistics and probability out the window.
About the best system I've seen with rolling is where all the players roll 4d6 x 6 once then the players get to choose which set of stats they want. This way all the characters are more or less equal at the beginning of the game, their stats are likely higher than point buy would yield but they are at least reasonable and equal.
@ the Original Poster: Humans and Half Elves are going to have slightly lower stats. These two races specialize in being the flexible races, there is a ding to overall power in exchange for their flexibility. Humans and Half Elves can be nearly as effective as any race at any class... other races are limited by their predetermined modifiers.
Well, our group has used the 32-point during 3.5 and will be using the 25 point for pathfinder. It seems to work fairly well, even if it is a little "generic". Honestly, I've never seen an issue where we have "cookie cutter" characters.
However, I will say that I miss my old 2e days where we rolled 4d6 6 times and assigned them as we wanted. We didn't worry about rerolling and we sure as heck didn't worry about fairness. Not everyone in life gets to be an Olympic athelete or a brilliant physicist. Sure, sometimes someone rolled really crappy but we still played the character and found ways to make it fun....
|
|
Well, our group has used the 32-point during 3.5 and will be using the 25 point for pathfinder. It seems to work fairly well, even if it is a little "generic". Honestly, I've never seen an issue where we have "cookie cutter" characters.
However, I will say that I miss my old 2e days where we rolled 4d6 6 times and assigned them as we wanted. We didn't worry about rerolling and we sure as heck didn't worry about fairness. Not everyone in life gets to be an Olympic athelete or a brilliant physicist. Sure, sometimes someone rolled really crappy but we still played the character and found ways to make it fun....
Exactly. our group still does that. whether with dice or cards, organinc or free-moving numbers, the players do it once and then play the results and we always have a good time. I really don't get this "my character is only 9/10 as good as my friends" or "oh no, this race is slightly more powerful" mentality that i've seen crop up a lot. what's the point if you're part of a group that works together to achieve goals? there's no winner!
If a character with crappy rolls really does "suck", well what's so wrong with playing that character until their "suckiness" causes the character to die? THEN you can re-roll another character that is drawn into the adventuring party... And if you manage to stick it out and survive, well, maybe those high rolls weren't so necessary...
If a character with crappy rolls really does "suck", well what's so wrong with playing that character until their "suckiness" causes the character to die? THEN you can re-roll another character that is drawn into the adventuring party... And if you manage to stick it out and survive, well, maybe those high rolls weren't so necessary...
Exactly! One of my favorite characters from 2e was a fighter with a 14 STR and everything else was 10 or below. Good ol' Druthgar the barbarian made it through 8th level when the campaign finally came to an end as a useful and entertaining character for the group and myself. Even with other characters with multiple 18's or scores averaging 14 or higher....
I follow standard PHB dice rolling - roll 4d6, drop the lowest, reroll if your net modifier from all stats is not a +1 or better, and reroll if you don't have at least one 14.
If, after generating your ability scores via the standard method, you don't like your array, you can use a 32 point buy.
This way, players get stats that are good, either way. They get the chance to be really lucky with their stats, but they're guaranteed to have decent stats anyway.
My current group has been frustrating the hell out of me, because two of my players continually show up for a game with already rolled stats, even though I've explicitly stated that I want them to roll them at the table. And then I have to put up with whining about how they don't get the stats that their build needed. I'm getting a little fed up with it, but I haven't felt the need to put a kebosh on it just yet. Next time, though...
|
|
I run pretty high-powered games, and I don't bother with point buy or rolling dice. You get 18, 18, 16, 14, 13, 10. Put 'em where you want 'em, slap on your racial modifiers and let's play already.
I ... I think I <3 you.
On a less comical note, humans and *halfies are getting screwed, but isn't that really the modus operandi of DnD? Up until 3.0 there was no real reason to play a human, the bonus feat is what won it over for most people. Halfies are still woefully inept, but that is more because they are a piss-poor version of the elf with some minor skill bonuses.
Odd that the half-orc doesn't suffer the problems of under power (not in PF at least) yet his retarded cousin the half-elf is lonely because no one wants to play with him.
*I will call half-elves 'halfies' until they earn the right to be a race in their own right by gaining some measure of weapon familiarity and possibly a defining racial characteristic that is unique to them and not stolen from another race or feat (skill focus, seriously, wtf).
*You're supposed to automatically reroll your stats if you either don't get at least one fifteen, or if your cumulative mod isn't positive, since such characters aren't PC material. It's also considered good form to let PCs reroll if they get one stat at 6 or lower, since such PCs are practically maimed which is, you guessed it, often not fun.This is a perfect example of 'cheating'. The rules don't suggest you 'automatically reroll' anything. Maybe you don't call it cheating... maybe that's too harsh a word but the result is that it throws statistics and probability out the window.
Actually, from page 8 of the 3.5 PHB . . .
REROLLING
If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and roll all six scores again. Your scores are considered too low if the sum of your modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if your highest score is 13 or lower.
It's not as generous as BlaineTog's method (and I realize this is an old thread, but I felt it needed my two cents' worth very badly ;) ) but the 3.5 rules DID have a mechanic for a mulligan.
I think BlaineTog hit the nail on the head as to the reason, as well: it's not FUN to play a character with all crappy stats, at least because you were forced into it. A single low stat, or even two? Sure. Every stat below 9? Heck, even in SECOND edition that would have been unplayable -- you couldn't have qualified for any of the classes. :P
Wow, that many of you really used 32 point-buy in 3.5? When we were admitting to ourselves that we wanted uber characters, we used 28, but most of the time we used 25. With pathfinder we have been using elite array (15,14,13,12,10,8), add your racial modifiers, let's go. I once was going to use a 32 point-buy, but that was for an intentionally over-powered gestalt campaign (gestalt is a system of character building in Unearthed Arcana, where you level 2 classes at once), but we never really got around to it.
On a less comical note, humans and *halfies are getting screwed, but isn't that really the modus operandi of DnD? Up until 3.0 there was no real reason to play a human, the bonus feat is what won it over for most people. Halfies are still woefully inept, but that is more because they are a piss-poor version of the elf with some minor skill bonuses.
Half-elves might be no dwarves, but I wouldn't call them piss-poor. Sure, they lose a martial weapon (not that useful, and actually useless to several classes), a skill point per level, and the bonus feat.
But the do get something back for it: Low-light vision, some immunities, and several saveral useful skill bonuses (including always-useful perception and a full-fledged skill focus).
They still have the lack of an ability penalty, the bonus for free favoured class, and the right to choose their ability bonus.
Wow, that many of you really used 32 point-buy in 3.5? When we were admitting to ourselves that we wanted uber characters, we used 28, but most of the time we used 25.
Used 35 pb for a while, and heard of many with even higher values.
*You're supposed to automatically reroll your stats if you either don't get at least one fifteen, or if your cumulative mod isn't positive, since such characters aren't PC material. It's also considered good form to let PCs reroll if they get one stat at 6 or lower, since such PCs are practically maimed which is, you guessed it, often not fun.This is a perfect example of 'cheating'. The rules don't suggest you 'automatically reroll' anything. Maybe you don't call it cheating... maybe that's too harsh a word but the result is that it throws statistics and probability out the window.
Actually, from page 8 of the 3.5 PHB . . .
REROLLING
If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and roll all six scores again. Your scores are considered too low if the sum of your modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if your highest score is 13 or lower.It's not as generous as BlaineTog's method (and I realize this is an old thread, but I felt it needed my two cents' worth very badly ;) ) but the 3.5 rules DID have a mechanic for a mulligan.
I think BlaineTog hit the nail on the head as to the reason, as well: it's not FUN to play a character with all crappy stats, at least because you were forced into it. A single low stat, or even two? Sure. Every stat below 9? Heck, even in SECOND edition that would have been unplayable -- you couldn't have qualified for any of the classes. :P
It may not be cheating in the sense that you shout out "Look, GM! A woman who thinks your unhealthy obsession with a game and its rules makes you hot and thinks your cellar-tan is attractive." and "roll" all 18s while the GM is desperately looking, but it's cheating if you roll but don't go with what you roll.
If you're eliminating all results of bad luck (rolls below a certain value, complete arrays if they're not good enough), but not compensate for too good luck, you're not really using a luck-based method. You might as well admit that you want control over your stats, put away the dice, and use an array or purchase method. If you insist on very powerful stats and claim that only rolling the dice (in a way that everything is at least good, and at best incredibly powerful) can grant them, just go and use a higher array or more points.
I could run my current wizard character as either human or half-elf with no real lose to the character build, I needed skill focus in both spellcraft and a knowledge skill anyways. yeah I lose one skill point but I would get the notice doors thing which is good, and low light vision which almost everyone else in the party has. I wouldn't even miss the martial weapon proficiency (I carry a staff of mithral might just becuase of the + 2 to Int, otherwise I wouldn't have any weapons). Only reason I did human was because everyone else in the party is human, dwarf, gnome, or halfling. Keeps everything kind of close. We just don't have any elves with us this time around.
Wow, that many of you really used 32 point-buy in 3.5? When we were admitting to ourselves that we wanted uber characters, we used 28, but most of the time we used 25. With pathfinder we have been using elite array (15,14,13,12,10,8), add your racial modifiers, let's go. I once was going to use a 32 point-buy, but that was for an intentionally over-powered gestalt campaign (gestalt is a system of character building in Unearthed Arcana, where you level 2 classes at once), but we never really got around to it.
Yes... everyone using different standards for what a 'normal' character is makes for a real challenge balancing the game. The 'elite' array is actually decent now because pretty much any class can have a 17 in their primary attribute and a 14-16 in their secondary attribute.
Pathfinder Society standardized on a 20 point build so I've started using that for the players in my group.
Wow, that many of you really used 32 point-buy in 3.5? When we were admitting to ourselves that we wanted uber characters, we used 28, but most of the time we used 25.
I've used 28 or 32, but never (maybe once?) 25. Which isn't really that shocking when you consider that the popular "4d6, drop the lowest, reroll if total modifiers are too low" results in about a 30 point buy*.
*At least I know someone who did the math and that's what he claimed.
The groups around here tend to use 24~28 point buy, or 15~20 point buy. Usually it's the lower number unless the group is smallish (3~4, instead of a typical table of 5~6). When I'm looking to see if something is under of overpowered I use a 15 point buy to see if it's underpowered, and the 25 to see where it tops out. If the 15 can keep up in a four person party it's not underpowered, if the 25 doesn't take everything out without the rest of the party having much to do other than walk behind him.
|
|
I find that the biggest problem with point buy is in the minds of the players. Some of mine just can't stand it if they don't have a positive modifier in every score and a high positive score in their favored attribute(s).
20-point buy and the new racial stat mods give you that; 25-point buy gives you really rather good stats.
I'm going for 20-point buy in my RotRL campaign, I think.