Starting scores (human, half-elf, half-orc):
16 Str (5 pts for 14 +2 race), 13 Dex (3 pts), 14 Con (5 pts), 13 Int (3 pts), 10 Wis (0 pts), 9 Cha (-1 pt)Qualifies for everything in the Combat Expertise chain, Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack, and Power Attack for two-handed weapon combat. Take the first +1 advancement in Dex and put everything else in Str.
See! This is what I was talking about when I said 15 point buy forces cookie cutter stat blocks. In order to build a whirlwind fighter he HAS to choose only certain races and stats. You can't be both a charismatic gnomish fop and a whirlwind fighter. IS the act of building a whirlwind fighter SO broken that you NEED to limit their Roleplay potential by saying they HAVE to have the higher str, dex, and int and the lower cha? Just get rid of the darn stat minimums. Then you may have that interesting gnome fop with the dervish fighting style. So what if their cha is higher than 9 and their other stats are slightly lower. So what if they have fewer bonuses in the combat stats and more in the skill stats. IS that truly a bad thing? I am NOT saying you need high stats. I am saying you get a more interesting and varied group of characters if you eliminate stat minimums.
I apologize for my passionate run on sentence.
But I hope you can see what I am saying.
Why have a bar that says you must be this high to ride? Isn't this a fantasy game? Throw away that throw back to first edition. And play what you want to play. Even if it is less optimized than the stat minimums would say you need to be.
I am saying there is an enormous amount of fun to be had in lower stat characters. Just remove the shackles.
The OP suggested the only difference in playing high stat to low stat is the amount of work the GM has to do to re-balance the monsters. This is only true if you get rid of stat minimums.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
To me, that tells me that you might squeek by the low levels, since much of it relies on luck anyways (the d20 being so much more influential than the modifiers at those levels), but when you get into the higher levels, even with magic, you are going to be behind the curve.Now granted, it accomplishes exactly what it's meant out to accomplish: a more gritty, less heroic game.
Then a reasonable solution might be to have a 15-point base for 1st level PCs, and give the characters 1 point-buy point per character level, or a simple stat increase every two levels, rather than a stat increase every four.
|
How unneccessary.
This kind of makes the additional +2 to one ability score for races even more limiting instead of providing more power.
Yes the racial stats are more important with 15 point buy...I don't have an issue with that actually. That way race actually matters instead of becoming a choose your skin.
|
|
I've noticed that in all the examples given, everyone has to tank Charisma, and no one has anything near a 16 for a starting stat before racial modifiers.
Well that is because tanking charisma is the optimzing way...if you wanted to, you can switch my wisdom and charisma is you wanted to play a foolish fighter. The stength can also be raised higher by lowering wisdom to be 16 to start...and my stat array starts with 15 which is near 16. If not restricted to must have whirlwind stats by level 1, you can bump the strength to 17.
|
|
Starting scores (human, half-elf, half-orc):
16 Str (5 pts for 14 +2 race), 13 Dex (3 pts), 14 Con (5 pts), 13 Int (3 pts), 10 Wis (0 pts), 9 Cha (-1 pt)Qualifies for everything in the Combat Expertise chain, Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack, and Power Attack for two-handed weapon combat. Take the first +1 advancement in Dex and put everything else in Str.
See! This is what I was talking about when I said 15 point buy forces cookie cutter stat blocks. In order to build a whirlwind fighter he HAS to choose only certain races and stats. You can't be both a charismatic gnomish fop and a whirlwind fighter. IS the act of building a whirlwind fighter SO broken that you NEED to limit their Roleplay potential by saying they HAVE to have the higher str, dex, and int and the lower cha? Just get rid of the darn stat minimums. Then you may have that interesting gnome fop with the dervish fighting style. So what if their cha is higher than 9 and their other stats are slightly lower. So what if they have fewer bonuses in the combat stats and more in the skill stats. IS that truly a bad thing? I am NOT saying you need high stats. I am saying you get a more interesting and varied group of characters if you eliminate stat minimums.
How is a choice of 3 races one? Besides which, a dwarf can work as well...you exchange more con for strength...or you can drop the con a bit and wisdom to boost stength. An elf CAN work...but that is hard because of the con hit so you will only start off with 12 con. The small races are just bad because of the strength hit...and damage hit on weapons. The better option of the gnomish fop would be to use the rogue. Str 10, dex 16, con 12, int 13, wis 8, cha 12...the con becomes 14, cha 14 and strength 8. Whirlwind/twf away...take social skills with all those rogue points to be the party face. Taking a square peg and trying to make it fit a round hole when a round peg is right next to it isn't a very compelling argument.
No, it's not. 15 SEEMS lower because of several factors. Like you remember the 18,17,15,13,10,8 monstrosity more then the average 15,13,12,11,9,7 you usually end up rolling with the standard method. The second is that most games let you boost up or just plain re-roll even when you shouldn't because you as a player complain, DM feels bad, or you will be made useless because somebody rolled one of the lucky ones. A roll of 14,13,11,10,10,7 is a valid character under the roll system. That is a 3 point character. You think point buy is limiting? Play a couple of those and you will be screaming for point buy.
15 is substantially lower than average if you are used to rolling, and under character generation on page 15 of the core rulebook, rolling 4d6 drop lowest is listed as 'standard'. However, the idea that approximately this point buy is average has been around in design since 3.5. I believe it comes from the fact that the average stat roll is roughly 12.5, and buying three 12s and three 13s is 15 point buy. This fails to consider the fact that the higher stats cost more than 1 point to increase, but it's the only way I think that this could have been misconceived since the beginning of 3.0 when they did so many other beautiful mathematical calculations.
If you'd like, I can give you the Java code that I wrote that shows that the average point buy is 20-21. I assure you--even if you don't throw out the characters that are auto rerolls by the standard rolling system, it's still a 19 point buy average.
|
|
If you'd like, I can give you the Java code that I wrote that shows that the average point buy is 20-21. I assure you--even if you don't throw out the characters that are auto rerolls by the standard rolling system, it's still a 19 point buy average.
Did you use mean value? Mean value comes up higher because good rolls are weighted higher then the bad ones. The 15 point as standard doesn't mean that is an average of ALL rolls, but what those rolls are most likely to come up as. So you would be looking at the median value and adjusting using the modes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
15 is substantially lower than average if you are used to rolling, and under character generation on page 15 of the core rulebook, rolling 4d6 drop lowest is listed as 'standard'.
Hey there, RE.
Just a touchstone: as people have commented before, the text on page 15 of the Pathfinder RPG reads: "The number of points you have to spend using the purchase method depends on the type of campaign you are playing. The standard value for a character is 15 points." Table 1.2 then goes on to offer alternatives fro low fantasy (10 points) to epic fantasy (25 points).
If your players are used to "roll 3d6, drop the lowest, add 6, eight times, rerolling 1's and 2's, arrange as you please" then yes, a 15-point buy will feel low. I suppose that people used to "roll 3d6, in order" will find a 15-point buy giddily expansive, if such people existed.
It was the assertion of the original poster that the modules are designed assuming a 15-point buy, and that anything higher requires the GM to adjust the module, if the group is sticking to pre-written adventures. If not --if GMs are sending 20- or 25-point characters (or some super-stat-rolling characters) through an adventure intended for 15-point buy parties-- then the game is easier than the designers intend.
That may be fine. If the players are trying to get their varsity characters to "win" and don't mind playing JV opponents, then they're happy. If the players are happy, the GM is likely to be happy.
Hey Chris,
Your post is well thought out and pretty much correct on all counts.
However, I think you were answering a slightly different point than I made. I do know that they consider 15 point buy (and its 3.0 brother 25 point buy) to be standard, but it is my assertion that somewhere in the dark mists of 3.0 design, when the designers were working hard to make some ridiculously skillful changes to 2e to get us a better game, someone made a mistake in calculating the "average" point buy of 4d6 drop lowest, and that mistake has propagated onward (if the issue is that you don't agree that 20-21 point buy is the average of rolling, let me know--from everything I've read of yours on the board, and your RPG Superstar stuff, I know you understand the game quite well, so 'm pretty much going to assume you know this).
On the other hand, while yesterday I said they must have made a mistake, I realise I forgot when I wrote it the fact that I had once seen a designer comment that the standard playtest party of Mialee, Lidda, Jozan, and Tordek had been given suboptimal feats to make sure the monsters were killable by poorly designed characters as a baseline, so maybe they intentionally gave those characters lower than average stats for rolling as well (expecting people would usually roll, since point buy wasn't as popular back then)? Since the point buy of 25 (which is now 15 in Pathfinder) could easily have come from the iconics, this could be another answer.
This makes sense to me as a possibility because I've seen that designers put considerable thought into every little choice in the math behind the game--I really like Sean K Reynolds's rant about why Improved Critical and Keen stacking should not have been removed in 3.5, for instance, although Pathfinder finds an excellent way to escape from the inevitability of Sean's math by using added effects on crits.
Did you use mean value? Mean value comes up higher because good rolls are weighted higher then the bad ones. The 15 point as standard doesn't mean that is an average of ALL rolls, but what those rolls are most likely to come up as. So you would be looking at the median value and adjusting using the modes.
If you'd like, I can give you the Java code that I wrote that shows that the average point buy is 20-21. I assure you--even if you don't throw out the characters that are auto rerolls by the standard rolling system, it's still a 19 point buy average.
Admittedly I use the mean, which I consider fair as an assessment of how high you might roll if you do take the chance.
However, 15 isn't the median either. It's actually 20 (or at least, 474400/908153 are 20 or above), whereas the mean is closer to 21. Only about 33% of rolls are 15 or below. That's a little lower than the chance to get 25 or above.
|
Well if you want dramatic combat, then just DESCRIBE what your doing. Describe that accorbatic's check you make to avoid the AoO. Decribe how you skewer the enemy. Describe how you move 30 feet in 2 seconds. As long as you don't say well I stomp the ground and fly into the air and land 30 feet away and expect the flying mechanics without actually having a flying mechanics with the ability to move in that tracjectory, it's fine. The character stomps his feet, launches in the air, lands 30 feet away and draws every single AoO as the character that just walked there...and gets to ignore no terrain effects. Like I said, the whole the mechanics won't let me is a crutch.
When I said "dramatic", I didn't mean "changed stuff that happened worldwide in a LARP".
What I had in mind were combats which were very Wuxia/Hercules:the Legendary Journeys/etc - which is pretty much the opposite of "all I did was talk and act".
Fighter: OKay, I quickly feint to the left then do a shoulder roll around the orc on the right.
GM: Okay... Roll your acrobatics skillFighter. Uh, I had to tank my intellegnce to get a high enough str to be able to score a hit. I don't have any skill points and only a 12 dex.
GM: Then you end up flat on your stomach as the orc's axe severs your spine.
|
|
Did you use mean value? Mean value comes up higher because good rolls are weighted higher then the bad ones. The 15 point as standard doesn't mean that is an average of ALL rolls, but what those rolls are most likely to come up as. So you would be looking at the median value and adjusting using the modes.
If you'd like, I can give you the Java code that I wrote that shows that the average point buy is 20-21. I assure you--even if you don't throw out the characters that are auto rerolls by the standard rolling system, it's still a 19 point buy average.Admittedly I use the mean, which I consider fair as an assessment of how high you might roll if you do take the chance.
However, 15 isn't the median either. It's actually 20 (or at least, 474400/908153 are 20 or above), whereas the mean is closer to 21. Only about 33% of rolls are 15 or below. That's a little lower than the chance to get 25 or above.
Humm that seems pretty different from my small rolled dice experiment I did using 25 stat arrays. I got a mean value of 22 but a median of 16 with modes at 14 and 18. My data is much smaller then yours of course...but I did actually use the milled casino dices for this so it isn't a dice variance. I would in fact like to see the java script...you have intrigued my inner (well not so inner) math geek :) .
Although that does bring up another idea behind higher rolled stats...bad dice. You would always grab your "lucky" dice for stats...but the reason they are lucky is that they edges are worn so they land on the high numbers more often.
|
|
Fighter: OKay, I quickly feint to the left then do a shoulder roll around the orc on the right.
GM: Okay... Roll your acrobatics skill
Fighter. Uh, I had to tank my intellegnce to get a high enough str to be able to score a hit. I don't have any skill points and only a 12 dex.
GM: Then you end up flat on your stomach as the orc's axe severs your spine.
Unless the fighter is doing the shoulder roll to ignore an AoO, no acrobatics roll is needed...he just does it.
Did you use mean value? Mean value comes up higher because good rolls are weighted higher then the bad ones. The 15 point as standard doesn't mean that is an average of ALL rolls, but what those rolls are most likely to come up as. So you would be looking at the median value and adjusting using the modes.
If you'd like, I can give you the Java code that I wrote that shows that the average point buy is 20-21. I assure you--even if you don't throw out the characters that are auto rerolls by the standard rolling system, it's still a 19 point buy average.Admittedly I use the mean, which I consider fair as an assessment of how high you might roll if you do take the chance.
However, 15 isn't the median either. It's actually 20 (or at least, 474400/908153 are 20 or above), whereas the mean is closer to 21. Only about 33% of rolls are 15 or below. That's a little lower than the chance to get 25 or above.
Humm that seems pretty different from my small rolled dice experiment I did using 25 stat arrays. I got a mean value of 22 but a median of 16 with modes at 14 and 18. My data is much smaller then yours of course...but I did actually use the milled casino dices for this so it isn't a dice variance. I would in fact like to see the java script...you have intrigued my inner (well not so inner) math geek :) .
Although that does bring up another idea behind higher rolled stats...bad dice. You would always grab your "lucky" dice for stats...but the reason they are lucky is that they edges are worn so they land on the high numbers more often.
Sure thing--glad to be of service! Run this with your favourite Java compiler. It will print for you the number of characters with 20 point buy or above, then the number of the 1000000 rolls it kept (barring the ones the standard rolling system says to reroll as 'hopeless', and even if you include those it only lowers the numbers slightly), then the arithmetic mean. While it doesn't directly calculate the median, if you change the line "if(point>=20)w++;" to vary the number from 20 to whatever your favourite number is, it will tell you what number of rolls are at least that high. That's how I got the median in there for you without keeping a large list.
import java.math.*;
public class MCS {
public static void main(String[] args){
int b=0;
int f=0;
int r1=0;
int r2=0;
int r3=0;
int r4=0;
int sum=0;
int c=0;
int stat=0;
int point=0;
int w=0;
Random r=new Random();
for(int i=0;i<1000000;i++){
b=0;
f=0;
point=0;
for(int j=0;j<6;j++){
r1=r.nextInt(6)+1;
r2=r.nextInt(6)+1;
r3=r.nextInt(6)+1;
r4=r.nextInt(6)+1;
stat=r1+r2+r3+r4-Math.min(Math.min(Math.min(r1,r2),r3),r4);
if(stat<8)
point-=4;
else if(stat==8)
point-=2;
else if(stat==9)
point-=1;
else if(stat==11)
point+=1;
else if(stat==12)
point+=2;
else if(stat==13)
point+=3;
else if(stat==14)
point+=5;
else if(stat==15)
point+=7;
else if(stat==16)
point+=10;
else if(stat==17)
point+=13;
else if(stat==18)
point+=17;
if(stat>=14)f++;
b+=(stat-10)/2;
}
if(f>0 && b>0){
sum+=point;
c++;
if(point>=20)w++;
}
}
sum/=c;
System.out.println(w);
System.out.println(c);
System.out.println(sum);
}
}
EDIT--aww, nuts the tabs got smooshed, but it isn't Python, so it'll still run correctly. Ah, Python...heh
Hmm... perhaps I can clarify my point by giving an example (as others have been doing).
What I like to see in a character is effective versatility. A Fighter that can fulfill multiple combat roles, and still feel like he's capable of doing something outside of combat.
Here's how I see the stat breakdown:
Strength Crucial for being a damage dealer. In my experience, this usually means at least a 16 to be "ahead of the curve" at higher levels with level increases, magic items and buffs. This means 2-4 level increases, a +6 item and probably some inherent bonuses by the highest levels, peaking at around the high 20s, possibly hitting 30.
Constitution This is also in the highly important range. It can be made up for with magic items and toughness feats however, so getting a 14 is probably "good enough" for a start.
Dexterity Having a 14 or 15 in Dexterity allows for a secondary combat style in ranged combat. With just a little bonus along the way, the Fighter can remain viable when facing all those flying/long range combatants at the higher levels. All it takes is a +dex item, maybe a stat increase from leveling or a +1 inherent bonus ioun stone, and a decent +'d range weapon.
Intelligence Starting with a 13 or 14 Intelligence means two things: it opens access to feats without resorting to relying on a magic item to use it (headband.. stat boosters can get costly you know), and it gives extra skillpoints.
This means knowledge skills, mounted combat/animal training, tracking, or social skills to have some kind of use outside of combat. While you might not see stellar scores in these skills, having a feat or two free for Skill Focus down the road can mean you are, once again, "viable" for appropriate CR encounters for those skills.
Wisdom Keeping this out of the negative helps with the Fighter's main weakness, and helps with things that I feel are fairly "warrior"-centric (perception and sense motive in a guard or knight, etc).
Charisma Keeping this out of the negative means that the Fighter can actually focus on social skills as his "out of combat" viability.
It allows breaking the mold of "all melee are brutes with no social capability".
It allows for a Knight concept without needing to resort to Paladin.
.
The above stat block could look like this (before racial modifiers):
Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 12 (a 25 point buy)
Would you say that this Fighter is "good at everything"? I wouldn't. Anyone even half trying will beat him in most skill-oriented situations, and his alternative combat option (ranged) isn't going to make the Ranger cry foul.
However, he isn't sitting on the sidelines feeling completely ineffective outside of combat, at least contributes to ranged combat, and still excels at his chosen focus (melee combat).
Conversely, a 15 point buy trying to accomplish the same thing:
Str 15, Dex 13, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 10
Significantly less effective in all areas, giving something up in both primary and secondary combat options (possibly not even being able to maintain some choices down the road, like ranged feats), and while he has no penalties to his mental stats, he has nothing that pushes him up either really (unless he's focusing only on knowledge skills as "his thing").
.
It's not a problem with reducing the maximums that can be reached (note that Str was only 1 point different).
I don't think anyone can argue that options outside of your primary focus aren't going to benefit the most from higher point buy. And that's exactly why I think higher point buy is useful.
And unless you get into the 50s or 60s for point buy, a character isn't going to supplant others in their focus, so it's not like you are asking to be great at "everything" for having a 20 or 25 point buy.
Please remember the context of this argument. The Original Post was about how 15 point buy should be used because the other point buys break the CR system. That the "only" reason to have higher point buy would be to have higher pluses.
My argument (and the argument of others I'm agreeing with), is that the CR system was based on having a 16 or higher ability score in a particular "focus", because that's possible with 15 point buy too.
CRs are not based on PCs have straight 12s or 13s. They assume a wizard will have an 18 Int or a Barbarian will have an 18 Str (after racial modifiers).
And 25 point buy isn't making it so that those numbers somehow break the CR system.
.
Now if your method is roll 5d6, drop two lowest, reroll 1s an 2s, and roll 3 sets and pick the best... well, even 40+ point buy might make things a bit wonky when people start "excelling" in too many things.
Did you use mean value? Mean value comes up higher because good rolls are weighted higher then the bad ones. The 15 point as standard doesn't mean that is an average of ALL rolls, but what those rolls are most likely to come up as. So you would be looking at the median value and adjusting using the modes.
If you'd like, I can give you the Java code that I wrote that shows that the average point buy is 20-21. I assure you--even if you don't throw out the characters that are auto rerolls by the standard rolling system, it's still a 19 point buy average.
I think the reason for the discrepancy between 15 point buy and 4d6 drop lowest, is a couple things:
Point buy has 1:1 cost to gain ratio when buying up to 13. Higher than that costs in ever increases ratios.
Rolling can provide the opportunity to have straight 14s, or better, while 15 point buy simply doesn't have the option.
Point buy can only go as low as a 7 (for 4 bonus points). This artificially caps how many "extra" points you can get, while the rolling method still allows rolling 4 or 5 (which with a -2 racial modifier gets put to 3).
This means that rolling has a larger spectrum of bonus to penalty that point buy doesn't account for.
Combine those two situations above with the (admittedly 3e rule) of an array with a total bonus of +0 or lower being "unplayable" and given the option to do a complete reroll... and, well, rolling just ends up cutting out enough of the low numbers to get an overall higher average result.
I'm not a mathematician though, so this is all just my best guess.
If you'd like, I can give you the Java code that I wrote that shows that the average point buy is 20-21. I assure you--even if you don't throw out the characters that are auto rerolls by the standard rolling system, it's still a 19 point buy average.
Decided to give this a try myself, I went with the following point buy values:
Score Cost
3 -16
4 -12
5 -9
6 -6
7 -4
8 -2
9 -1
10 0
11 1
12 2
13 3
14 5
15 7
16 10
17 13
18 16
I had to extrapolate/guess values for stats less than 7 because you can't officially choose them, but they can be rolled. Setting the rolls to accept a minimum of 7 would have artificially raised the totals.
With that in mind, I did 50,000 stat blocks rolling 4d6-drop-lowest. Average stat ranged from 12.23 to 12.26. As expected, the point-buy value of the stat blocks was REALLY swingy, from -36 up to 72. The average was 18.75, median and mode both at 18.
For those curious, the -36 was from a set of 6,7,10,5,3,9. Ouch. The 72 on the other hand was 16,18,15,18,18,15.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'd like to offer Rouge Eidolon some support here.
I didn't use Java; I used some simple Excel work:
I represented a die in cell A1 as =int(rand()*6+1)
Fill down to build four dice.
Set A5=sum(A1:A4)-min(A1:A4), which takes the sum of the top three dice.
Then I created a lookup table to represent Table 1.1 from PFRPG page 15: =vlookup(A5,$B$9:$C$21,2,FALSE) This takes the value in A5, tries to find it in the table sitting in cells B9 through C21, and reports back the value in the second column, the point-buy cost.
I filled to the right, creating six columns of attributes.
I summed up the point-buy values =sum(A6:F6)
And then I selected the first 6 rows, 7 columns, copied, and pasted, over and over again, until I had 50 sets.
For those sets, I asked to see the average, median, max, and min of the total cells.
So, I rolled cohorts of 50 characters using a 4d6-keep-3 method, and looked at the average (add them all up and divide by 50), the median (the middle value, if you lined them all up, least to greatest), the least, and the greatest.
The first thing I noticed was that there were a lot of rolled characters with stats below 7, so the spreadsheet threw back error messages, since there is no point-buy value associated with a roll of 6 or below. So I extended the table, setting the point-buy of 6 at -6, and 5 at -8. I still found that over half of the cohorts of 50 characters would have at least one member with a stat of 3 or 4, but I threw those entire cohorts out.
The second thing I noticed was that there were a lot of dumb stat picks. For example, a character might have stats of 15 and 17. That's dumb. A choice of 16 and 16 would give better bonuses, at the same point cost.
First Cohort: Average 17.12; Median 18; Highest 40; Lowest -10
(That is, of the fifty characters, the one with the best stats would cost 40 points to buy, the one with the worst stats would be 10 points in the hole, the middle-of-the-road character ould cost 18 points, and the average would be 17.12. The average and median are different, because very high or low values affect the average more than they do the median.)
Second Cohort: Average 19.36; Median 18; Highest 49; Lowest 0
Third Cohort: Average 21.12; Median 21.5; Highest 51; Lowest -7
(The median can have a ".5" because we have an even number of data points. If the 25th highest character had cost 22, and the 26th highest had cost 21, then the median would be 21.5.)
Fourth Cohort: Average 15.38; Median 16; Highest 42; Lowest -11
Fifth Cohort: Average 17.72; Median 19; Highest 40; Lowest -7
Sixth Cohort: Average 19.44; Median 21; Highest 53; Lowest -12
(If you're interested in what a point-buy of 53 looks like:
{6,6,4,3} = 16
{5,6,1,6} = 17
{5,4,6,6} = 17
{2,6,6,4} = 16
{6,5,1,4} = 15
{4,3,1,3} = 10
How fun would it be if that character were sitting next to the one whose point-buy total was -12?
Seventh Cohort: Average 19.36; Median 18; Highest 54; Lowest -6
What does all this go to show? That the 4d6-keep-3 rolling method can best be represented by a point-buy of about 18 or 19.
You can't be both a charismatic gnomish fop and a whirlwind fighter.
Gnome (+2 Con, +2 Cha, -2 Str) 15-point buy:
13 Str (7 pts for 15 -2 race), 13 Dex (3 pts), 14 Con (2 pts for 12 +2 race), 13 Int (3 pts), 8 Wis (-2 pts), 14 Cha (2 pts for 12 +2 race)Charismatic, check. Low Wis for a fop, good match of mechanics with role-playing. Still qualifies for Combat Expertise chain, Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack, and Power Attack.
No, it's not.
15 is substantially lower than average if you are used to rolling, and under character generation on page 15 of the core rulebook, rolling 4d6 drop lowest is listed as 'standard'.
Yes it is, on average; the average "4d6 drop lowest" roll is genuinely better than 15 points. It's a little tricky to compare, of course, since rolling allows scores between 3 and 6 whereas point buy doesn't. But let's assume that the cost of purchasing stats is symmetric (i.e. if going from 17 to 18 costs 4 points, then going from 3 to 4 costs 4 points). Then we end up with something like in this Google spreadsheet: http://tinyurl.com/PointBuyVersusRolling
So for one roll, you have a 0.1% chance of rolling a 3 (which costs -16 points), a 9.4% chance of rolling a 10 (which costs 0 points), and a 1.6% chance of rolling an 18 (which costs 17 points), for example. The average point buy equivalent for a single stat roll is 3.14 and so the point buy equivalent for 6 rolls is 18.8 points.
EDIT: Ah, I see Rogue Eidolon did all of the work already, and my calculations don't include rerolls (as per the book). Note that I got the same mean result of 19 that he did.
The average point buy equivalent for a single stat roll is 3.14 and so the point buy equivalent for 6 rolls is 18.8 points.
Really? Kinda neat that it resolves to pi...
You can't be both a charismatic gnomish fop and a whirlwind fighter.Gnome (+2 Con, +2 Cha, -2 Str) 15-point buy:
13 Str (7 pts for 15 -2 race), 13 Dex (3 pts), 14 Con (2 pts for 12 +2 race), 13 Int (3 pts), 8 Wis (-2 pts), 14 Cha (2 pts for 12 +2 race)Charismatic, check. Low Wis for a fop, good match of mechanics with role-playing. Still qualifies for Combat Expertise chain, Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack, and Power Attack.
Ok, ok fine. I was wrong about not being able to make the gnome fop.
But I still think the options are limited enough with the reduced point values of a 15 point start. And that's the whole point of all these arguments. A normal start is actually close to a 20 point buy as the math ninjas have showed us. Which means the game is supposed to work best at that value. Using a 15 point start means you will have more min/maxing in order to stay effective. Is that what you want? More min/maxing? Maybe it is.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
But I still think the options are limited enough with the reduced point values of a 15 point start. And that's the whole point of all these arguments. A normal start is actually close to a 20 point buy as the math ninjas have showed us.
Yes, it is.
Which means the game is supposed to work best at that value.
No, it isn't. Please, read page 15 yourself, if you don't believe us. It's there, near the bottom of the second column. The default point-buy is 15. It really is. The game "works" at a point-buy of 20 or 25. (or 50.) But the game designers set encounter difficulties to work for weaker characters than that. If you wanted to simulate the same level of difficulty for stronger characters, you'd need to increase the threat-level.
The distinction is, again, random rolling generates odd values half the time. The difference between a point-buy of 15 and a random roll of 18 or 19 falls into all those 9's and 11's, and 17's. If you were building the character, and you decided you wanted a stat bonus of +3, you'd pay 10 points for a score of 16, not 13 points for a 17.
Using a 15 point start means you will have more min/maxing in order to stay effective. Is that what you want? More min/maxing? Maybe it is.
Some people call this rhetoric "passive-aggression". It's an attack cloaked in civil language. Not that I would ever accuse you of such a thing. (grin; no real offense intended)
The issue I take with it remains: "What do you mean, 'effective'?" There's no hard, bright line. A character with lower stats is going to be less keen than one with higher stats. Less "effective", if you like. Batman is "less effective" than Superman. Frodo is "less effective" than Aragorn. Elric is less effective than Corwin of Amber. That doesn't make them less fun to play, or their stories less compelling.
|
Using a 15 point start means you will have more min/maxing in order to stay effective. Is that what you want? More min/maxing? Maybe it is.
No what we've shown is that the 15 point build is viable, even for builds that are a little creative. Min-maxers will do it regardless of the PC creation method they're given. Being "effective" must be measured against the DM's challenges. It's up to the DM to provide an appropriate challenge for the group of players at the table. It's a compromise and balancing act on both sides of the screen. Without knowing your target, it's meaningless to discuss effectiveness.
The Fighter who has to dump charisma or intelligence is going be running into many, many situations where he's getting the party in trouble because he's not able to communicate with any sort of grace at all, or because he fails to bring enough skill points to the table.
Only if the DM is actively trying to screw over the party to make a point.
|
|
Eh, speaking for myself, whenever my players are involved in social interactions, they roleplay their sides, and if they want anything out of it they roll an appropriate check (generally diplomacy or bluff). Based on the RP they'll get a negative or positive modifier, but even the best RP can't prevent the 7 Cha fighter without any ranks in the given skill from unintentionally insulting the host or some such at least half the time.
Well, then the fighter really ought to keep quiet and let the bard, cleric, or whoever has charisma and diplomacy ranks handle it. Also, the DM should be ready with some sort of backdoor for a failed RP encounter. Not every failure should be a game stopper. If every lost combat means TPK, if every sprung trap is overkill deadly, and every botch diplomacy roll derails the adventure, that's an adventure design problem, not a character design problem.
Eh, speaking for myself, whenever my players are involved in social interactions, they roleplay their sides, and if they want anything out of it they roll an appropriate check (generally diplomacy or bluff). Based on the RP they'll get a negative or positive modifier, but even the best RP can't prevent the 7 Cha fighter without any ranks in the given skill from unintentionally insulting the host or some such at least half the time.Only if the DM is actively trying to screw over the party to make a point.
The Fighter who has to dump charisma or intelligence is going be running into many, many situations where he's getting the party in trouble because he's not able to communicate with any sort of grace at all, or because he fails to bring enough skill points to the table.
What I got from this is you, as the DM, are trying to force the entire party to actively participate in something whether they should be or not. That is your fault, not theirs, if they fail.
|
Why have a bar that says you must be this high to ride?
Having played a bit of Mutants & Masterminds, where you can take Power Attack with a Str 10 or 'Combat Expertise' regardless of your Int score, I agree with this.
Having a higher Strength just makes Power Attack *even better,* it shouldn't also be a requirement to get your foot in the door.
The notion of ability prerequisites for Feats is also applied unevenly. If someone wants to be able to Disarm or Trip people, he's *got* to have an Int 13, but he can take Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Augment Summons, etc. and be the dimmest bulb that ever cast a spell.
Attacking a stick in someone's hand is more intellectually challenging than metamagically enhancing a spell?
It's not even insane troll logic, because there is no consistently applied logic or coherent theme to the prerequisites.
Why doesn't Disruptive require an Intelligence minimum? It's got to be harder to train a warrior to recognize and effectively interfere with the act of casting spells than it is to say 'hit the pointy thing in his hand.'
If Power Attack requires Strength, and therefore has a Strength prerequisite, then Endurance requires Constitution (since it's all about Con checks and Fort saves) and *obviously* would have a Constitution minimum, right? Oh, perhaps it's designed to allow a low-Con character to compensate for a low Con score, in which case, why doesn't Power Attack allow someone to compensate for a low Str score?
It's all backwards-compatibility stuff, I'm sure, but it was unnecessary when it was introduced with 3.0, and the proliferation of needless prerequisites remains a game-limiter today.
Force them into something they shouldn't be participating in? How is it my fault if they slay the dragon and get invited to a banquet with the King and his Companions before they've had a chance to rest and one of them botches something because of their stats?
Which necessitates the 7 Cha Fighter having to be the face or give a speech in what way?
Using a 15 point start means you will have more min/maxing in order to stay effective. Is that what you want? More min/maxing? Maybe it is.Some people call this rhetoric "passive-aggression". It's an attack cloaked in civil language. Not that I would ever accuse you of such a thing. (grin; no real offense intended)
I intended no offense. I really wasn't trying to be difficult.
Why have a bar that says you must be this high to ride?Having played a bit of Mutants & Masterminds, where you can take Power Attack with a Str 10 or 'Combat Expertise' regardless of your Int score, I agree with this.
Having a higher Strength just makes Power Attack *even better,* it shouldn't also be a requirement to get your foot in the door.
The notion of ability prerequisites for Feats is also applied unevenly. If someone wants to be able to Disarm or Trip people, he's *got* to have an Int 13, but he can take Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Augment Summons, etc. and be the dimmest bulb that ever cast a spell.
Attacking a stick in someone's hand is more intellectually challenging than metamagically enhancing a spell?
It's not even insane troll logic, because there is no consistently applied logic or coherent theme to the prerequisites.
Why doesn't Disruptive require an Intelligence minimum? It's got to be harder to train a warrior to recognize and effectively interfere with the act of casting spells than it is to say 'hit the pointy thing in his hand.'
If Power Attack requires Strength, and therefore has a Strength prerequisite, then Endurance requires Constitution (since it's all about Con checks and Fort saves) and *obviously* would have a Constitution minimum, right? Oh, perhaps it's designed to allow a low-Con character to compensate for a low Con score, in which case, why doesn't Power Attack allow someone to compensate for a low Str score?
It's all backwards-compatibility stuff, I'm sure, but it was unnecessary when it was introduced with 3.0, and the proliferation of needless prerequisites remains a game-limiter today.
Thank You!
This is exactly my point.
The stat requirements are an artifact from the old days. They are not needed. And they should be discarded to increase fun.
Which means the game is supposed to work best at that value.No, it isn't. Please, read page 15 yourself, if you don't believe us. It's there, near the bottom of the second column. The default point-buy is 15. It really is. The game "works" at a point-buy of 20 or 25. (or 50.) But the game designers set encounter difficulties to work for weaker characters than that. If you wanted to simulate the same level of difficulty for stronger characters, you'd need to increase the threat-level.
I am not sure you are right here. The standard method is the rolled character. It goes to reason that that is what they designed the CR for. There is no evidence they even considered point buy till much later in development. Is there?