Disclaimer:
This is pure opinion. Something that's been nagging me as I work on a project and try to do something within the bounds of the rules only to find myself blocked by those rules. That, and despite the rule in question being more of a concern for players it still chafes me as a DM... Sure I know I can change it, and I do, often, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt all the same.
The subject in question? Point Buy Stats. I have never been satisfied with them as written. What's worse is that I find if infuriating that a set of stats are considered appropriate for "epic fantasy" setting that I have come to view as... sub par or moderate at best. In short I would subject my players to the PRPG's 25 point buy system only if I were feeling particularly mean or spiteful.
Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's how I ran my games growing up. Maybe it's the simple fact that stats a couple points higher always seemed worth it to me. They made my players happy and never seemed to break my game and if I did feel that balance of power shift it seemed easier to compensate than to have my players grumble about their stats being unable to meet their characters concept. Good concepts, by the way, not munchkiny concepts.
What gets me the most is the whole the implication that epic fantasy is so... mediocre. Honestly I'd put the 25 point by in High Fantasy or Standard at least. Then if I had 25 be my High Fantasy I'd feel I had to allow a 1 for 1 exchange up to 14 rather than having 14 cost 5 points. With the 25 point spread keeping your stats at ten and above allows for two sixteens and a 14 which just seems insufficient.
Maybe it's that whole line of thought that in order to have a character who's not only good at what they do but good for role playing they have to have some sort of weakness to balance out their perks. I'm not sure how that mentality came about, I think I recall it being referred to as the 'Stormblade Fallacy' or something, not sure. It is a fallacy though, good roleplaying is good roleplaying, whether you have a stat or two below ten or not.
Maybe I've just been spoiling my PC's all these years I've been letting them play with stats that looked something closer to 18, 16, 14, 12, 12, 10 (36 points per PFRPG Beta's point buy) than 18, 16, 10, 10, 10, 8 (25 point buy). The PC's all die the same when a troll crits them. I think it's because that part of me that over thinks these things always feels like I'm being told "You're doing it wrong!" whenever I see things like that second example being considered 'epic'.
Just needed to get that off my brain. I don't expect this to change at all, I don't expect many (if any) people to agree with me, but it's irked me since 3rd edition came out (during second edition I never really considered other methods of stat developing beyond rolling them up).
In general, I like point buy systems better than level based systems. But by that I'm referring to systems like GURPS, HERO, Shadowrun (which switched completely to buy with 4th).
I've never liked the point buys for D&D I've seen. I usually do the following in my games :
Roll 4d6, drop lowest.
Roll 3 sets of stats.
If you roll a 6 or less, start the whole set over.
If you have two or more stats at 8 or less, start the whole set over.
Once you have 3 sets, pick the one you want, put the numbers anywhere you want.
I usually end up with players have stats about like the following doing this :
18, 16, 15, 13, 11, 10
16, 16, 15, 12, 10, 10
18, 17, 15, 13, 12, 9
And as the OP said, they die just the same when the troll crits them. And, the players are a lot happier. I just adjust the bad guys up a bit is all if things are going too easy.
I couldn't disagree more.
You get beyond 25 points and your getting into the realms of superheros.
25-points sets you up as being well above an average human. It can set you up in the upper reachs of human ability on a stat with relative ease and it rewards you for not spiking your stats to make a well balanced and realistic character. I have to say i think your just a little jaded. I know that for years every character had an 18, but you know what not every character should have an 18...it should be rare, even in epic fantasy.
The stats are a bell curve, with 10-11 being the mid point and a steep climb either side of that.
I see this attitude in people who came over from 1st & 2nd Ed (I used to have it too!) that somehow the 18 is king, and a 16 is a big step down and anything else was garbage, however I have learned to live with the notion that the new 14 is the old 16 and I can adjust accordingly.
How did you survive the old 3d6 stat days?
The stats are a bell curve, with 10-11 being the mid point and a steep climb either side of that.
I see this attitude in people who came over from 1st & 2nd Ed (I used to have it too!) that somehow the 18 is king, and a 16 is a big step down and anything else was garbage, however I have learned to live with the notion that the new 14 is the old 16 and I can adjust accordingly.
How did you survive the old 3d6 stat days?
LOL
Honestly? I played 1st edition about 3 times, 20 years ago. Had a bad GM, swore to never play D&D again. Didn't, until 3.5. So I've been playing it for only the last 5 years.
I couldn't disagree more.
You get beyond 25 points and your getting into the realms of superheros.
25-points sets you up as being well above an average human. It can set you up in the upper reachs of human ability on a stat with relative ease and it rewards you for not spiking your stats to make a well balanced and realistic character. I have to say i think your just a little jaded. I know that for years every character had an 18, but you know what not every character should have an 18...it should be rare, even in epic fantasy.
I totally agree, I actually hate rolling for stats, the PC's end up too powerful, or some of them much weaker, which is more realistic. But a level playing field is important in D&D, in all things. So I like point buy.
|
Well, my group has been built on *gasp* standard point buy. And everyone's happy. You don't need to be level 1 Batman to be useful.
For the record, the party is now 7th level and (without items) still only has 1 18 and 1 17 (with items it's 1 20, 1 17 and 1 18). Yet they seem to be managing to cope with being so weak and puny so far.
Well, my group has been built on *gasp* standard point buy. And everyone's happy. You don't need to be level 1 Batman to be useful.
For the record, the party is now 7th level and (without items) still only has 1 18 and 1 17 (with items it's 1 20, 1 17 and 1 18). Yet they seem to be managing to cope with being so weak and puny so far.
And that's fine, if they are happy. I just don't like the idea, and it's been said repeatedly in this thread, that if you aren't using the point buy and going for average competent stats, you're somehow not 'good enough' or you are somehow less than the people who do.
The idea is to play what everyone enjoys. If your group is happy with the buy system, great. I'm glad they are enjoying themselves. If we're happier with the way we do it, or if someone else is happier with the epic point buy, then that's fine too.
I just wish there wasn't this sort of snobbish theme of 'Oh, you are one of those stat rollers, I bet you aren't happy if you don't have 18's accross the board, we are so much more mature than you'. Honestly, when people act like that, they come accross as anything but mature. And it's rather annoying too. :)
|
|
Well, my group has been built on *gasp* standard point buy. And everyone's happy. You don't need to be level 1 Batman to be useful.
For the record, the party is now 7th level and (without items) still only has 1 18 and 1 17 (with items it's 1 20, 1 17 and 1 18). Yet they seem to be managing to cope with being so weak and puny so far.
And that's fine, if they are happy. I just don't like the idea, and it's been said repeatedly in this thread, that if you aren't using the point buy and going for average competent stats, you're somehow not 'good enough' or you are somehow less than the people who do.
The idea is to play what everyone enjoys. If your group is happy with the buy system, great. I'm glad they are enjoying themselves. If we're happier with the way we do it, or if someone else is happier with the epic point buy, then that's fine too.
I just wish there wasn't this sort of snobbish theme of 'Oh, you are one of those stat rollers, I bet you aren't happy if you don't have 18's accross the board, we are so much more mature than you'. Honestly, when people act like that, they come accross as anything but mature. And it's rather annoying too. :)
Oh, I've got no problem with stat rollers, I've been one for decades (just). I was referring back to the original post, where the tone was decidedly "how can you even play the game with less than 25 point buy". I didn't read the rest of the thread before replying so it wasn't aimed at anyone other than the OP.
|
It's that reasoning that I use the system of rolling 4d6 dropping the lowest and allowing a reroll of 1s for any single roll.
Ive found that a single 18 isn't game breaking for my players, and often adds a little bit of what I call "adventurer arrogance" that they need for their characters to feel that they are up to the task at hand.
My quintessential wizard player often places that single high stat in his intelligence but would like to play physically fit wizards and I see no reason not to say ok to that by allowing them a system that generates fairly good numbers.
Granted, there is the problem of the one guy who always rolls REALLY high (you all know that guy, and if you're a DM you secretly wish he'd crit fail every so often just to knock him down a peg or two) but on a whole I think it's better than point buy.
Oh, I've got no problem with stat rollers, I've been one for decades (just). I was referring back to the original post, where the tone was decidedly "how can you even play the game with less than 25 point buy". I didn't read the rest of the thread before replying so it wasn't aimed at anyone other than the OP.Well, my group has been built on *gasp* standard point buy. And everyone's happy. You don't need to be level 1 Batman to be useful.
For the record, the party is now 7th level and (without items) still only has 1 18 and 1 17 (with items it's 1 20, 1 17 and 1 18). Yet they seem to be managing to cope with being so weak and puny so far.
And that's fine, if they are happy. I just don't like the idea, and it's been said repeatedly in this thread, that if you aren't using the point buy and going for average competent stats, you're somehow not 'good enough' or you are somehow less than the people who do.
The idea is to play what everyone enjoys. If your group is happy with the buy system, great. I'm glad they are enjoying themselves. If we're happier with the way we do it, or if someone else is happier with the epic point buy, then that's fine too.
I just wish there wasn't this sort of snobbish theme of 'Oh, you are one of those stat rollers, I bet you aren't happy if you don't have 18's accross the board, we are so much more mature than you'. Honestly, when people act like that, they come accross as anything but mature. And it's rather annoying too. :)
LOL
I didn't actually mean yours was, you just happened to be the last in the list so I reply'd to it. :)
There is, however, a definate tinge of the 'point buys are nobler' attitude (granted the OP is sort of out there on the bell-curve the other way). :)
My current campaign is a monster campaign, so the characters have stats all over the place, based on their exact race (got a catfolk woodling, a duerger, a kobold, a draconic half-giant, and a poisondusk lizardfolk). The stats range from 6 to 24 accross all the characters. And everyone is having a ball. And quite a few of them have come close to buying the farm, despite their 'uber' stats. :) Just depends on what you run into and how much the GM's dice hate you. :)
I couldn't disagree more.
You get beyond 25 points and your getting into the realms of superheros.
25-points sets you up as being well above an average human. It can set you up in the upper reachs of human ability on a stat with relative ease and it rewards you for not spiking your stats to make a well balanced and realistic character. I have to say i think your just a little jaded. I know that for years every character had an 18, but you know what not every character should have an 18...it should be rare, even in epic fantasy.
You say that like that is a "bad" thing. But, I do see where you are coming from.
At the same time, I find myself agreeing with the Original Poster. Like many 1st & 2nd edition grognards, I grew up in a world where stat bonuses did not appear until "15" or better - and stats did not naturally improve with character level. (This is why every character needed an "18") So, when I look at a character's stats, my eyesight can be a bit off. :D
Even so, as a GM, I much prefer the Epic build for the players.
I couldn't disagree more.
You get beyond 25 points and your getting into the realms of superheros.
25-points sets you up as being well above an average human. It can set you up in the upper reachs of human ability on a stat with relative ease and it rewards you for not spiking your stats to make a well balanced and realistic character. I have to say i think your just a little jaded. I know that for years every character had an 18, but you know what not every character should have an 18...it should be rare, even in epic fantasy.
You say that like that is a "bad" thing. But, I do see where you are coming from.
At the same time, I find myself agreeing with the Original Poster. Like many 1st & 2nd edition grognards, I grew up in a world where stat bonuses did not appear until "15" or better - and stats did not naturally improve with character level. (This is why every character needed an "18") So, when I look at a character's stats, my eyesight can be a bit off. :D
Even so, as a GM, I much prefer the Epic build for the players.
Don't get me wrong, mutants and masterminds ftw.
But if i wanna play a superheroes or demigods game, i will play M&M or Exalted, not DnD. ;)
|
I couldn't disagree more.
You get beyond 25 points and your getting into the realms of superheros.
25-points sets you up as being well above an average human. It can set you up in the upper reachs of human ability on a stat with relative ease and it rewards you for not spiking your stats to make a well balanced and realistic character. I have to say i think your just a little jaded. I know that for years every character had an 18, but you know what not every character should have an 18...it should be rare, even in epic fantasy.
The problem with not having 18 and 19s, is that the spellcasters then cannot cast their high level spells, as they are totally reliant on the stats in your spell casting ability (Int, Wis or Cha). Let's take the Cleric or Wizard; they get 8th level spells at 15th level and 9th level spells at 17th level. At 15th level they have had 3 stat boosts, so if they stick all their boosts in Wis/Int, they have to have started at 1st level at a score of at least 15. So the spellcasting characters, at the very least, need to 'spike' their stats.
There is also a assumption in the game itself that stats will get that high, a number of feats have stat prerecs of 19 or above.
I couldn't disagree more.
You get beyond 25 points and your getting into the realms of superheros.
25-points sets you up as being well above an average human. It can set you up in the upper reachs of human ability on a stat with relative ease and it rewards you for not spiking your stats to make a well balanced and realistic character. I have to say i think your just a little jaded. I know that for years every character had an 18, but you know what not every character should have an 18...it should be rare, even in epic fantasy.
The problem with not having 18 and 19s, is that the spellcasters then cannot cast their high level spells, as they are totally reliant on the stats in your spell casting ability (Int, Wis or Cha). Let's take the Cleric or Wizard; they get 8th level spells at 15th level and 9th level spells at 17th level. At 15th level they have had 3 stat boosts, so if they stick all their boosts in Wis/Int, they have to have started at 1st level at a score of at least 15. So the spellcasting characters, at the very least, need to 'spike' their stats.
There is also a assumption in the game itself that stats will get that high, a number of feats have stat prerecs of 19 or above.
So if you don't take all your levels in wizard if your playing the full 20 levels. The person who can dedicate their entire life to wizardry and master all its secrets is rare beyond rare, play that up in your games. Don't dilute the rarity and specialness of a wizard who can use 9th level magic by having any tom, dick and harry wizard, even amongst the pc wizards, be able to cast them. And in fairness, 15 is a fairly accessable starting point for any wizards intelligence under the points by system.
When I think about what characters would have "epic" stats my mind goes to examples like Conan, Beowulf (from the Saga not the newest film) or Captain Kirk and you would be hard pressed to accurately make those characters with the 25 point buy stat block. .
I think that RPGs over the years have turned the idea of a having a character with high stats into a taboo of sorts. Many have more or less said that a powerful character can't be interesting. (snark) I suppose that's why my examples above are doomed to obscurity.(end snark)Both as a DM and a player I prefer the PCs to have high stats because more powerful characters means more powerful villains.
When I think about what characters would have "epic" stats my mind goes to examples like Conan, Beowulf (from the Saga not the newest film) or Captain Kirk and you would be hard pressed to accurately make those characters with the 25 point buy stat block. .
I think that RPGs over the years have turned the idea of a having a character with high stats into a taboo of sorts. Many have more or less said that a powerful character can't be interesting. (snark) I suppose that's why my examples above are doomed to obscurity.(end snark)Both as a DM and a player I prefer the PCs to have high stats because more powerful characters means more powerful villains.
Firstly, kirk is entirely within the range of normal human ability. He might be a prodigy, but he isn't a interlectual or physical demigod.
Secondly, Beowulf does not fit comfortably into the kinds of stories that DnD grew out of. If you want to play Beowulf, games like Scion deal with it much better than DnD ever can.
I am unaware of any game that has ever said power is a bad thing. Hell, a lot of the games which I enjoy have considerably more power in them than the most spiked 20th level wizard. I mean mage the ascention arch-mages make a 20th level wizard look like a bad joke.
Power does not make a PC or NPC worse. But it cant make them better either. Some of the most memorable Fantasy NPCs i have ever come across have been relatively low powered villains.
Given a choice between shoulder barging karl-heinz wasmeier of the middenheim via duct at the end of a bloody dangerous battle, or fighting the runelord of greed... i know which memory i will be talking about with my gamer friends 20 years from now.
The problem with not having 18 and 19s, is that the spellcasters then cannot cast their high level spells, as they are totally reliant on the stats in your spell casting ability (Int, Wis or Cha). Let's take the Cleric or Wizard; they get 8th level spells at 15th level and 9th level spells at 17th level. At 15th level they have had 3 stat boosts, so if they stick all their boosts in Wis/Int, they have to have started at 1st level at a score of at least 15. So the spellcasting characters, at the very least, need to 'spike' their stats.
I am not sure I follow you on this.
Take a Wizard for example:
1st Level = Int 15
4th Level = Int 16
8th Level = Int 17
12th Level = Int 18
16th Level = Int 19
So the Wizard can have an "Int 19" just in time to need it at 17th level, when he/she would get their 9th Level spells.
I use the Pathfinder RPG Standard Fantasy (15 point) buy and only allow 1 score below 10.
That means that spellcasters spends 3 points to get to a 13 and the racial +2 to get to the minimum 15. The characters start out above average, but with a weakness, and not "god-like".
It also fosters co-operation between the characters and reduces the loner character. They all shine in their own way.
This is what we like and use.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Pretty much how I feel too. I'm not running a game to play the noble martyr, I don't want to be bored any more than the players do. So I'm happy if they've got higher stats, it means that I can build comparable NPCs to challenge them.
Not only do I use one of the above mentioned rolling systems (4d6, reroll 1s, drop the lowest) But I've also been known to allow players to pick the best of three sets. My best friend is actually pretty notorious for rolling average or less with any given die that touches his hand; so he's taken to just writing in stats that are equivalent to what the rest of the party rolled.
Some of you guys would probably hate this, but when I want an "epic" game; I tell players to roll 1d10 and add 8 to get their stats.
We also have a house rule that players only have to roll half their new hp at level up. So if you're a fighter you'd get 5+d5+con bonus. We do the same for monsters/NPCs and it lets us have slightly longer combats.
On the subject of epic games, we also tend to tack on extra hp to monsters. As much as a couple hundred at times. I'm of the opinion that the PCs should be able to wade through small armies like Legolas or Rambo, but not kill the big foozle in two rounds. It's a difficult balance to strike, because stats notwithstanding most of my players are of the - "Hey, I figured out how to do several hundred points of damage" variety.
I seem to remember the druid abusing the crap out of holly berry bombs or something.
Sorry to ramble, and I know this wasn't the original point of the thread, but I'm genuinely curious. Why does it so often seem like there's an adversarial relationship between DM and players? In conversation, forums, and so on I often hear something along the lines of, "Well in MY game, I don't ALLOW..."
I kind of hope I'm misunderstanding this, and what people mean to say is, "I don't like that, so I talked to my players and in order to assure our mutual enjoyment of the game we reached a compromise."
That's how most games are run, right?
I use the Pathfinder RPG Standard Fantasy (15 point) buy and only allow 1 score below 10.
That means that spellcasters spends 3 points to get to a 13 and the racial +2 to get to the minimum 15. The characters start out above average, but with a weakness, and not "god-like".
I am not sure I follow this either.
For 15 points I get
a "15" for 7
a "14" for 5
a "13" for 3
a "12" for 2
a "10" for 0
an "8" for -2
This adds up to 7+5+3+2+0+(-2) = 15 for the RPG Standard Point buy.
With a racial bonus +2 into the character's primary casting attribute gets to a "17.
Sorry to ramble, and I know this wasn't the original point of the thread, but I'm genuinely curious. Why does it so often seem like there's an adversarial relationship between DM and players? In conversation, forums, and so on I often hear something along the lines of, "Well in MY game, I don't ALLOW..."
I kind of hope I'm misunderstanding this, and what people mean to say is, "I don't like that, so I talked to my players and in order to assure our mutual enjoyment of the game we reached a compromise."
That's how most games are run,...
I can not say how "most games" are run, but I will tell you how my game is.
There are seven of us, including me the DM, and other than one guy, we work in IT for major companies and generally have lots of disposable income. Rather than put *everything* on the table, I have limited the character creation process, and the books(*) that are available to be used.
As DM, I have a full time job (ie. 50 hours per week), a wife, two children, one grandchild, church, and volunteer work at a local hospital. With limited time I run adventure paths (currently Rise of the Runelords), so I have to keep the options down.
My guys have no problem with this, and in fact welcome the reduction of the tons of options down to a manageable level. They find that they can build characters to their liking with just the basics. They also trust me to run an interesting game, which they have told me that I do.
But then, that is how my game is run, and we are all good with it. YMMV.
-- david
Papa.DRB
* books: For this campaign only, it is the Pathfinder Beta rules and the prestige class supplement as we are testing the system. Normally, it was the V3.5 rules, with most of the Complete Books after my approval. Once the PfRPG is final, we will take a look at the final rule set, including prestige classes and probably limit the books to what we are using now.
That means that spellcasters spends 3 points to get to a 13 and the racial +2 to get to the minimum 15.I am not sure I follow this either.
For 15 points I get
a "15" for 7
a "14" for 5
a "13" for 3
a "12" for 2
a "10" for 0
an "8" for -2This adds up to 7+5+3+2+0+(-2) = 15 for the RPG Standard Point buy.
With a racial bonus +2 into the character's primary casting attribute gets to a "17.
My understanding of the question was you need a 19 to get 9th level spells by character level 17, and how did you do that without an "epic" point buy.
My "solution" is to spend 3 points to get your spellcasting stat to a 13, add the racial +2 to get to 15. Then +1 at 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th level gives you the 19 you need.
That leaves 12 points in the 15 point buy method to spend on other stats.
I built a cleric this way and his stats are: Str 12, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 15, Cha 14. He is a cleric of Desna and will take two levels of Spherewalker and use the thrown starknife as his primary weapon. Quite respectable and built with 15 point buy.
But that is the way that I and my group play. YMMV.
-- david
Papa.DRB
I am a grognard player/gm, and I relate to a previous post about being a bit myopic concerning the perception that you need at least an 18 to have a satisfying character. Ability bonuses didn't start till almost 15, and ability score weren't as inter-related.
Having said that...
I have come to regret using the 25 point buy, versus the 15 buy-in or even a 20...
Speaking only for myself, I thought with more points they'd spread them around more for a more well balanced character.
They don't.
They still max out a particular stat, only now I have enabled that habit.
I won't change in the middle of a campaign, but if and when I start another, I'll lower the point buy-in down from 25.
and we are all good with it.
Well that pretty much sounds like a friendly game, doesn't it? I suspect if you had a good deal of outcry from your players regarding this or that point, you'd probably try to work something out that pleases everyone. I was addressing what seems like a prevalent "my way or the highway" mentality. Not the actual restrictions that a DM wants to put on their game.
Although I don't know why you'd think being busy means you need to limit player options, it's not really my concern. A seven player group though, that's an impressive thing to manage.
and we are all good with it.Well that pretty much sounds like a friendly game, doesn't it? I suspect if you had a good deal of outcry from your players regarding this or that point, you'd probably try to work something out that pleases everyone. I was addressing what seems like a prevalent "my way or the highway" mentality. Not the actual restrictions that a DM wants to put on their game.
Although I don't know why you'd think being busy means you need to limit player options, it's not really my concern. A seven player group though, that's an impressive thing to manage.
Yea, very friendly game the vast majority of the time.
Busy means that I don't really have the time to go over every book, and a lot are broken, (Complete Mage & Complete Scoundrel) or not clear, or need to be understood completely.
Oops.. six player group, with me the DM as seventh.
-- david
Papa.dRB
|
|
and we are all good with it.Well that pretty much sounds like a friendly game, doesn't it? I suspect if you had a good deal of outcry from your players regarding this or that point, you'd probably try to work something out that pleases everyone. I was addressing what seems like a prevalent "my way or the highway" mentality. Not the actual restrictions that a DM wants to put on their game.
Although I don't know why you'd think being busy means you need to limit player options, it's not really my concern. A seven player group though, that's an impressive thing to manage.
Because it means he needs to have the time to read and digest everything those players can do. This is doable with core rules, but the more splats you get into, the more options they have and the longer it takes to find everything to check what this or that feat does. Also if you're not playing at home it means the more weight you have to lug around for one feat (I resolved this with PDFs and character cheat sheets [also useful if players can't make it as you still know what they're cpaable of], but updating those takes up a large part of my free time].
EDIT: Ninjaed!
That means that spellcasters spends 3 points to get to a 13 and the racial +2 to get to the minimum 15.I am not sure I follow this either.
For 15 points I get
a "15" for 7
a "14" for 5
a "13" for 3
a "12" for 2
a "10" for 0
an "8" for -2This adds up to 7+5+3+2+0+(-2) = 15 for the RPG Standard Point buy.
With a racial bonus +2 into the character's primary casting attribute gets to a "17.
My understanding of the question was you need a 19 to get 9th level spells by character level 17, and how did you do that without an "epic" point buy.
My "solution" is to spend 3 points to get your spellcasting stat to a 13, add the racial +2 to get to 15. Then +1 at 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th level gives you the 19 you need.
You mis-understand. I was not disagreeing with you, in fact I demonstrate that the Standard 15 points can and does get quite respectable stats. Earlier in this thread I even demonstrate how to get to the 19.
What I did not get is your math. Why put only "3" points into your character's primary stat? (This is especially true if your race doesn't conveniently give you a bonus there.)
What I did not get is your math. Why put only "3" points into your character's primary stat? (This is especially true if your race doesn't conveniently give you a bonus there.)
Ah, Ok... My guys usually play a human, with the occasional other race, so the racial bonus is put into the appropriate stat.
This campaign is the first one in a very, very long time that has more non-humans than humans as PCs. A dwarf fighter (con/wis), half-orc monk (str/wis) (the two of them spend all day drinking if not adventuring lol), a hafling rogue (dex/cha) and a hafling bard (dex/cha).
That way the racial bonus is always useful, so they can get the 15 minimum at first level needed for spellcasters with only 3 points spent on the stat (plus the racial bonus).
-- david
Papa.DRB
|
We tend to do something like mdt a bit. As follows
roll 4d6, drop lowest.
roll up to 3 sets of stats.
keep the one you like the most.
But then to be fair some of our group doesn't always take the best set of stats, some take the lower set cause it fits their character concept better. Plus we have a rule you can lower any stat of course for free and some do.
As for who asked about GM's and the my way or the highway. Well i have meet some like that but sometimes it is about the GM is wanting to tell a specific story and the characters need to match that. If the GM tells the players what he is running then by joining the game they are default agreeing to play in that setting.
Like if I was running a conanesk style game I wouldn't allow a firebreathing dragonman in that game.
|
|
I'm cursed when it comes to die rolling, and after 20 years, even the friends who started out mocking the concept have gone so far as to adopt house rules *just for me,* because I roll so horribly.
One popular rule was that everytime someone rolled a 1, the character was handed a token, and could use that token to buy off their next 1 (but they obviously wouldn't get a token for a 1 that they had bought off!), allowing them a reroll, basically halving the number of horrible failures I would get. To be fair, it was extended to the other players, but, just for me, a rule was instituted that I couldn't hoard coins if I rolled a bunch of 1's during a session on rolls that I didn't feel were life-or-death enough to spend a coin negating!
Back in the day of 3d6 stats, and even 4d6 drop the lowest, a mulligan rule was imposed, again, because of me, that if my character ended up with not a single +1, I was allowed to reroll entirely.
And then there was Villains & Vigilantes, where I was forced once to roll a random number of super-powers, and then roll which powers randomly, and I'd end up playing 'invisible guy' or 'guy who can run away from fights before he gets one-shotted by a mook' while others at the table were playing characters who had rolled the powers of Spider-Man, the Hulk and Doctor Strange *all in one character* or some sort of Graviton / Superman hybrid who *also* had my characters single super-power of invisibility...
So when I started running games, in 2nd edition, it was 'choose your own attributes' all the way. The numbers crept up as we got more experienced and verified that we all enjoyed larger-than-life encounters (and the characters that would be required to survive them), so at the end, it was something like 86 attribute points to spread between the six attributes (giving an average of 14.3 or something in *every* stat). Since stats below 15 didn't give any bonuses, and you needed an 18(something) strength to get a Str bonus, it wasn't even close to over the top as it sounds.
With 3rd edition, bonuses started at 12, so those numbers were higher than we liked, and we basically 'eyeballed' stats. Now we use the highest point-buy, usually, since we prefer our heroes to be kinda heroic. We role-play just fine without each character having to be below average in some way because of a stat below 10, and party interdependence / enforced teamwork is already built into the game via necessities like healing and trapfinding being limited to specific classes and roles. There's no 'need' for everyone to have a low attribute, mechanically, so we generally don't worry about it.
We've played quite a few games at deliberately lower power levels, even some zero level 'apprentice' D&D, or 75 CP GURPS Fantasy, but we prefer the higher end of the starting scale. For that reason, we greatly preferred Vampire the Masquerade to Vampire the Requiem. Even at the GenCon VtR demo game run by WW staffers, the pregenerated 'computer expert' failed to get a single success on every one of three rolls he made (and would have needed multiple success rolls to accomplish anything anyway!), and the entire party of supernaturally powerful creatures of the night was routed by a single non-supernaturally powered guard dog. Ugh. If I want to spend 4 hours of my life accomplishing nothing and feeling frustrated and unappreciated, I'll get a job at Burger King and at least get PAID for it! I've got something like 200 WoD books (pretty much all VtM, KotE, VtDA, Mummy, Wraith, Mage and Werewolf books, original and 'Revised'), and several others in my gaming group have dozens, but we've only gotten the first two or three Vampire the Requiem books, the gameplay experience having been so frustrating.
|
|
Set you sound like one of the guys in my group. He is a horrific roller.
I agree about the WoD games I much prefer the revised ones, but it is much harder to find groups that still use them. Luckly I can get that fix on a online chat site that a friend of mine runs. It is nice to be able to pop on a couple of times a week for some RPing.
|
Set you sound like one of the guys in my group. He is a horrific roller.
I had one of Set's kindred spirits in a group I ran through a multi-year custom campaign. This guy was guaranteed to fumble at least three times over a session. At the time I was running off custom crit hit/crit miss charts I had made and he seemed to do more damage to his own party members than their opponents. After a couple months of this, I allowed his character to pick up a fumble recovery skill (he had plenty of experience with fumbles at that point, so a skill seemed to be a sensible thing); each time he would fumble, he would make a skill check to avoid the fumble and simply miss.
As to the point buy issue, I tend not to use point buys. People vary, and so should the PCs. I have the PCs roll 4d6, re-rolling 1s one time (if it comes up a 1 again, it's fate), dropping the lowest die and placing the 6 rolls as they see fit. While this does lead to some higher stats, most PCs end up with one or two stats as average or below average.
The main thing, I think, is how you view the PCs. Are they normal folks who are aspiring to great things or are they the traditional heroic types who are clearly above the average, or even excelling from the average? Point buys are great if you want to have all PCs within a single group (normal folks or exceptional folks), but you lose the potential for a player to roleplay a normal person amongst exceptional people who tries to out do them.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
We've had a number of threads about different attribute generation systems.
I started a campaign with the following:
I wanted a process that “feels real,” –that is, takes into account a character’s history, the whimsy of fate, and the player / character’s desires– and which also gives each player a chance to develop his character’s backstory in a natural way. This system was not particularly fast, and replacement PCs will have the option of a more streamlined procedure to get back into the game quickly.
One key feature harkened back to a character creation process from AD&D 1st Edition’s Unearthed Arcana, the dice buy.
Step 1: We perform a Three-Dragon Ante Reading (see Dragon issue 343) with 22 dice. This process distributes the dice among the six attributes in a process that invites the player to walk through the character’s history.
(For example, one step may decrease the character’s Dexterity but increase her Wisdom. Her player might decide that a childhood injury cost her a finger, from which she learned a lesson of prudence.)
Step 2: During any three steps in the PC's history, the player can assign a “trait” (see Paizo’s Traits document ) to the character. These are useful abilities, about half as powerful as a feat.
Step 3: This step reflects the desires of the player and the deliberate decisions of the character. To the 22 dice already assigned, the player adds 6 dice. I strongly advise making sure there are at least 3 dice per attribute, but each player can distribute the 6 dice as he pleases.
Step 4: The player rolls all the dice committed to each attribute, and records the sum of the best 3d6. More than three “6”s add +1 per additional “6”.
(For example, if there were 7 dice committed to the PC’s Intelligence, the player would roll 7d6 and take the best three. If the result was “1, 3, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6”, that would be a roll of 19. (The best three dice are 6+6+6 = 18, and there’s an additional “6”, for a +1 to the result.)
If there are only 2, 1, or 0 dice committed to an attribute, the player would roll 2d6 + 2, 1d6 + 4, or 0d6 + 6, respectively.
The problem we had is that my players kept getting clumped dice in Step 1. One player, for example, ended up with 15 out of 22 dice investing in Wisdom. He put at least two dice in each stat, but ended up rolling a "3" for Strength and a "5" for Intelligence. (And with those 15 dice in Wisdom, rolled a "16".)
Sigh. Nice idea. Didn't seem to work.
My current stat generation system is the 3-by-3 grid. It's simpler, not as exciting, but on the other hand, it creates saner characters.
If you think your players need straight 18s in every stat, go for it. If you think your players will not be able to create their characters properly without the divine array, give them the divine array.
If the monsters seem awfully weak for their CR, don't complain.
I've worked with 32 point buy and 25 point purchase, and I think the characters are up for the task.
In fact, I already think sometimes they're too powerful.
I've never liked the point buys for D&D I've seen. I usually do the following in my games :
You can do that. Or you can just give them 40 points or something and stop kidding yourself :P
Seriously, rolling the dice, and rolling them again if you don't like the results, and roll them again if the stats are too low, and roll them again for good measure.... Stop wasting time and use purchase.
Creative Director
|
Whatever name gets applied to the various amounts of points you have available is mostly just flavor. But what we must do as the designers of the game is determine where the implied baseline is for the game. We need to know what's "normal" for a set of stats, so that we can assume that all the normal monsters and NPCs work off that baseline (before racial mods). The choice of style of play is up to the players and GM, but no one choice (be it low-powered stats for PCs or super-high powered stats for PCs) is the "right" one for everyone.
My personal problem isn't as much as with the stats and their names as much as it is gamers who pick on other gamers for their preferred choice of play, I guess.
The problem with not having 18 and 19s, is that the spellcasters then cannot cast their high level spells, as they are totally reliant on the stats in your spell casting ability (Int, Wis or Cha). Let's take the Cleric or Wizard; they get 8th level spells at 15th level and 9th level spells at 17th level. At 15th level they have had 3 stat boosts, so if they stick all their boosts in Wis/Int, they have to have started at 1st level at a score of at least 15. So the spellcasting characters, at the very least, need to 'spike' their stats.There is also a assumption in the game itself that stats will get that high, a number of feats have stat prerecs of 19 or above.
As was pointed out, a starting 15 gets you to 19 before you get 9th level spells. I've rarely seen a spell caster not put his best stat into the casting stat.
Furthermore, it's likely that the player picked a race that gives a bonus to his casting stat. So you only need a 13 to get 9th level spells. By 17th level, +6 stat boosters aren't all that expensive, and it's a strange caster who doesn't have one for his casting stat. So actually, you only need a 7. (Admittedly, low level play will be challenging.)
Around this level, you also start to get inherent bonuses. A +5 inherent bonus means that you only need to put a 2 into your casting stat to get 9th level spells. (Admittedly, it is cheaper if you can cast Wish to get them instead of reading a manual, but you can't always have everything you want.)
Yes, I know that I've wandered into hyperbole, but if a starting stat of 2 is sufficient to let you eventually cast 9th level spells, I'm having trouble seeing how a casters "need to 'spike' their stats." You could fairly easily start with a Wizard with an Int of 12 and never reach a point where you can't cast your top spells. (13 at 4th level, 15 at 7th level from a +2 item, 16 at 8th level, 17 at 12th level and 19 at 15th level from a +4 item.)
even the friends who started out mocking the concept have gone so far as to adopt house rules *just for me,* because I roll so horribly.
Rudy?
I started a campaign with the following:
That actually sounds like a very cool setup. I've always vastly preferred character creation that helps to build a "childhood" for a character. Traveller had an interesting generation, as have several computer RPGs like Darklands.
As for point buy, no. I'll never use point buy in any of my games, and doubt my regular DMs will ever suggest it. We prefer an element of randomness, customized to give a certain minimum power level. I wouldn't really care if it took an hour for everyone to create a first level character, it would still be preferable to point buy.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I've always vastly preferred character creation that helps to build a "childhood" for a character. Traveller had an interesting generation, as have several computer RPGs like Darklands.
See if you can get your hands on a copy of the original edition of Cyberpunk, by R. Talsorian Games.
|
|
Rudy?even the friends who started out mocking the concept have gone so far as to adopt house rules *just for me,* because I roll so horribly.
Apparently there's a whole bunch of us!
We cursed folk won't be having a meeting any time soon, because wherever we would congregate would be the site of a meteor impact or something...
I've always vastly preferred character creation that helps to build a "childhood" for a character. Traveller had an interesting generation, as have several computer RPGs like Darklands.See if you can get your hands on a copy of the original edition of Cyberpunk, by R. Talsorian Games.
I'll look for it.
I have never used anything but the Epic fantasy point buy for my players (and have seriously considered upping it). I find it especially limiting for classes which have multiple stats they should have at a reasonable rate.
While I wouldn't up the "Epic fantasy points", indeed we -never- use anything lower at our tables either.
|
I couldn't disagree more.
You get beyond 25 points and your getting into the realms of superheros.
25-points sets you up as being well above an average human. It can set you up in the upper reachs of human ability on a stat with relative ease and it rewards you for not spiking your stats to make a well balanced and realistic character. I have to say i think your just a little jaded. I know that for years every character had an 18, but you know what not every character should have an 18...it should be rare, even in epic fantasy.
You know, for a Fighter to take advantage of the full range of his fighter feats and therefore the full range of his class, he has to have a very good STR, a good CON, needs, DEX at least 13, and INT at least 13. He has 4 stats that really require 13 and above. I can take a 16, 13, 13, 13, 10, 10 for 19 points. Don't need Charisma, so 16, 13, 13, 13, 10, 7 for 15 points just to have a character that has the option to use its abilities.
And if I am playing EPIC fantasy, I had darn well better be super human. It's like saying you are going to be fighting against Superman but you get to be just slightly above the average human to do so. Yeah, right. Like I am going to play THAT game.
15 points is really adequate for Low Fantasy. 20 points barely gets you fun to play without sitting there going "Nope can't do this, that or well, much of anything else my class has options for." And 25 for an EPIC game means the bad guys will just rip into you and laugh.
Maybe I am a power gamer, but it is like playing a Rogue and you get to Sneak Attack OR pick Locks, OR you can have some skills, but we won't let you do all three. Who wants to play a wizard and find out you need to put your abilities into 4 different abilities just so you can cast all of your spells? How would you like to play a Paladin who can either Smite OR Detect Evil but not both?
What is the point?
Disclaimer:
This is pure opinion. Something that's been nagging me as I work on a project and try to do something within the bounds of the rules only to find myself blocked by those rules. That, and despite the rule in question being more of a concern for players it still chafes me as a DM... Sure I know I can change it, and I do, often, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt all the same.The subject in question? Point Buy Stats. I have never been satisfied with them as written. What's worse is that I find if infuriating that a set of stats are considered appropriate for "epic fantasy" setting that I have come to view as... sub par or moderate at best. In short I would subject my players to the PRPG's 25 point buy system only if I were feeling particularly mean or spiteful.
Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's how I ran my games growing up. Maybe it's the simple fact that stats a couple points higher always seemed worth it to me. They made my players happy and never seemed to break my game and if I did feel that balance of power shift it seemed easier to compensate than to have my players grumble about their stats being unable to meet their characters concept. Good concepts, by the way, not munchkiny concepts.
What gets me the most is the whole the implication that epic fantasy is so... mediocre. Honestly I'd put the 25 point by in High Fantasy or Standard at least. Then if I had 25 be my High Fantasy I'd feel I had to allow a 1 for 1 exchange up to 14 rather than having 14 cost 5 points. With the 25 point spread keeping your stats at ten and above allows for two sixteens and a 14 which just seems insufficient.
Maybe it's that whole line of thought that in order to have a character who's not only good at what they do but good for role playing they have to have some sort of weakness to balance out their perks. I'm not sure how that mentality came about, I think I recall it being referred to as the 'Stormblade Fallacy' or something, not sure. It is a fallacy though, good roleplaying is good roleplaying,...
It really depends on the difficulty of the game. My group plays with stats similar to yours. I have never played with 25 point-buy. I want the game to be difficult enough that at least 32 is required. I normally start all players at zero and give them 82 stat points on a 1 for 1 basis. An example of this would be 18 16 14 12 12 10. With a 25 point buy you are barely above the average person.
I couldn't disagree more.
You get beyond 25 points and your getting into the realms of superheros.
25-points sets you up as being well above an average human. It can set you up in the upper reachs of human ability on a stat with relative ease and it rewards you for not spiking your stats to make a well balanced and realistic character. I have to say i think your just a little jaded. I know that for years every character had an 18, but you know what not every character should have an 18...it should be rare, even in epic fantasy.
You know, for a Fighter to take advantage of the full range of his fighter feats and therefore the full range of his class, he has to have a very good STR, a good CON, needs, DEX at least 13, and INT at least 13. He has 4 stats that really require 13 and above. I can take a 16, 13, 13, 13, 10, 10 for 19 points. Don't need Charisma, so 16, 13, 13, 13, 10, 7 for 15 points just to have a character that has the option to use its abilities.
And if I am playing EPIC fantasy, I had darn well better be super human. It's like saying you are going to be fighting against Superman but you get to be just slightly above the average human to do so. Yeah, right. Like I am going to play THAT game.
15 points is really adequate for Low Fantasy. 20 points barely gets you fun to play without sitting there going "Nope can't do this, that or well, much of anything else my class has options for." And 25 for an EPIC game means the bad guys will just rip into you and laugh.
Maybe I am a power gamer, but it is like playing a Rogue and you get to Sneak Attack OR pick Locks, OR you can have some skills, but we won't let you do all three. Who wants to play a wizard and find out you need to put your abilities into 4 different abilities just so you can cast all of your spells? How would you like to play a Paladin who can either Smite OR Detect Evil but not both?
What is the point?
On the 15 points you listed, your already superhuman. Strength 16 is equal to a great white shark. 12 is equal to a pit pony. Strength 16 is super human strength.
We have been using beta since release and have used 25 points by to play through a chunk of curse of the crimson throne. My wizard has points to spare enough that he is able to get into fights with his broad sword and win a good chunk of the time. That is on top of being a damn fine spell caster.
Epic is as epic does, you don't have to be a superhero to have epic adventures.
Maybe it's that whole line of thought that in order to have a character who's not only good at what they do but good for role playing they have to have some sort of weakness to balance out their perks. I'm not sure how that mentality came about, I think I recall it being referred to as the 'Stormblade Fallacy' or something, not sure. It is a fallacy though, good roleplaying is good roleplaying,...
It was called the stormwind fallacy, and it is itself almost always a strawman argument when applied in discussions.
But flawed characters being more interesting, is an idea that goes far deeper than roleplaying games. From drama, litriture and myth you will find that many of the greatest characters have flaws and weaknesses which make them far richer characters. From Achillies with his one weak spot to herculies complicated family life and great furies, through to Don Quixote tilting at wind mills. In modern fantasy fiction you have john constantine's chain smoking, you have Morpheus' love life in sandman, or superman with cryptonite. Pulp detectives have booze and wonderwoman her apparent loves of BDSM.
The characters that resonate with us across time, are flawed. If your desire is to play a marry sue 'wish forefilment' character, more power to you, have fun with it. But that doesn't mean that the base rules of the game should be changed to enable you in that. 25 points buy characters are already superhuman, they can take on immense chanllanges and they are as powerful as should be presented within the core rules.