he likes 20 point
A cogent argument Abe, and one I largely agree with.
I think 20 points is fine, actually. 15 is called "standard" though, and I don't think it should be so controversial to ask people to stick to the standard.
I just wish players were cognizant of the fact that high scores don't mean better characters. At least, not in games with a GM who is doing his job to make the game fun.
But there is truth in this: High ability scores mean that the GM has to do some statblock surgery. That can be fun, but I would prefer it not be mandatory.
Exactly. It's fun to tweak special opponents, but not every opponent. Encounters that feel like speed bumps are hard to make fun and memorable.
Eh not like it's hard to bump up any encounter even on the fly, Add I critter or max the HP of them. Works to make it harder every time.Sure, you could just apply the advanced template to every creature on the fly, it's easy enough using the quick rules. But what's the point? Build them right from go and save yourself the effort later on. In the end they are no more or less effective, you are just making more work for yourself.
Not really, I run games with 6 people 20 point buy as my average game. Maxing HP goes a long way to make it even to be honest. It's not any work at all really, if the stats says 9d8+30 well that's 102 hp, heck adding I extra critter is even less trouble.
I am not seeing the issues, I hear sometimes "this is to tough" or "we almost didn't make it" and can't recall the last time the players found it a cake walk. 20 point buy just isn't that big a deal.
Eh not like it's hard to bump up any encounter even on the fly, Add I critter or max the HP of them. Works to make it harder every time.Sure, you could just apply the advanced template to every creature on the fly, it's easy enough using the quick rules. But what's the point? Build them right from go and save yourself the effort later on. In the end they are no more or less effective, you are just making more work for yourself.
Not really, I run games with 6 people 20 point buy as my average game. Maxing HP goes a long way to make it even to be honest. It's not any work at all really, if the stats says 9d8+30 well that's 102 hp, heck adding I extra critter is even less trouble.
I am not seeing the issues, I hear sometimes "this is to tough" or "we almost didn't make it" and can't recall the last time the players found it a cake walk. 20 point buy just isn't that big a deal.
Compentent players will usual bend the curve. Great players ride the sucker to the ground and get a ECL added to their characters.
But there is truth in this: High ability scores mean that the GM has to do some statblock surgery. That can be fun, but I would prefer it not be mandatory.Exactly. It's fun to tweak special opponents, but not every opponent. Encounters that feel like speed bumps are hard to make fun and memorable.
I actually want to refine my point, so that people might give it a chance:
High ability scores mean that the GM has to do some statblock surgery, This problem diminishes after level 5 or so.
It doesn't invalidate CR as an arbitrary rating of power; you could still use it to compare monsters to eachother (and that's useful). But it would be nice if I could throw two trolls at a CR5 party and not have it be a total cakewalk. With ability scores at 25 point buy, that's not possible. At 20, it depends on other factors, but they'll likely do okay. At 15, Challenge Rating works as advertised; not every time, but often enough that you can use it as a tool for encounter building.
he likes 20 pointA cogent argument Abe, and one I largely agree with.
I think 20 points is fine, actually. 15 is called "standard" though, and I don't think it should be so controversial to ask people to stick to the standard.
I just wish players were cognizant of the fact that high scores don't mean better characters. At least, not in games with a GM who is doing his job to make the game fun.
Yeah actually I would like to comment on something Mr. Fishy stated:
Compentent players will usual bend the curve. Great players ride the sucker to the ground and get a ECL added to their characters.
There is truth to this. A new player will be much more challenged then one that has played and knows the ins and outs of the system. 9 times out of 10 I can run the numbers before the encounter starts and project what my fellow players are going to to. This is due to way too much time on my hands spent thinking over the system and situation (and a bit of native intelligence of course). IF you have a player that you know is good you must adjust accordingly... just adding more numbers or holding back on theirs isn't going to fix the situation -- thinking more will.
There is truth to this. A new player will be much more challenged then one that has played and knows the ins and outs of the system. 9 times out of 10 I can run the numbers before the encounter starts and project what my fellow players are going to to. This is due to way too much time on my hands spent thinking over the system and situation (and a bit of native intelligence of course). IF you have a player that you know is good you must adjust accordingly... just adding more numbers or holding back on theirs isn't going to fix the situation -- thinking more will.
Compentent players will usual bend the curve. Great players ride the sucker to the ground and get a ECL added to their characters.
This is an extremely valuable statement.
Why do I get the feeling that this whole thread is covered more succinctly in the Game Mastery Guide?
|
It's not that "Oh wow I can have an extra high strength!" You can do that anyways -- a 15 point buy doesn't prevent this. It doesn't "stop optimiziation" it doesn't, "Make things a challenge". It strips out the padding for the player.
I just don't buy it. People that optimize hard do it just as much with 20 points as with 15 points. Just recently someone built a fighter character with 7s for all mental stats using a 20 point buy. Given a 25 point buy he probably would still have had 7s in all mental stats.
Edit: Eh... you are probably right about more typical players though. 20 points is fine.
|
Make a 15 point buy Monk...tell me you arent a vitual cripple compared to the wizard that only needs INT.How are they unplayable? How so gimped?
If the PCs make a 20 point party, all it means is I increase the strength of the opposition. The game ends up almost exactly the same experience for all involved, except the GM can't run the monsters off the page.
Thats a bad example...make a 25 point monk and tell me that isn't crippled compared to a 15 point wizard. The monk is bad period. Personally I'm okay with 15 points. I have made some decent fighter/wizards with just 15 points. The thing about 15 points is that you pretty much ALWAYS need to have some weekness to be super at something. With 20, you can at least be average at everything and be super at one or two things. I like forcing people to have a weakness if they wanna be super at something.
|
I'd have to agree that I favor playing in lower power campaigns.
15 point buy is certainly quite enough in a system where you can also gain points by lowering your other stats.
Characters are more interesting. It's only a small difference in the end but it can help.
So your DC's or AC is 1 or 2 lower? That does not a game ending super gimp character make.
I've seen so many insane methods of dice rolling where DM's pretty much demand that players have such insane stats. Don't waste time if your that type of DM, just give everyone 18's and stop messing around.
Optimize...Mr. Fishy loves that word. It's like calling road kill an asphalt mercy. Optimize? 7 in all mental stats is not "optimizing" a fighter, that's a munchkin larve. Pray for a power gamer.
I actually want to refine my point, so that people might give it a chance:High ability scores mean that the GM has to do some statblock surgery, This problem diminishes after level 5 or so.
This statement is false.
A 15 point buy wizard will have the same important stats that a 20 point buy wizard will have. They can both start with a 20 Intelligence, and will have the same DC's for their spells at 20th level.
By reducing the point buy you do not change this. You could allow a 30 point buy and this basic fact will not change.
Only by reducing the [/b] maximum stat allowed [/b] can you change this fact. Regardless of point buy a 20 is the maximum starting stat and by virtue of that fact we can predict everything else in the game except the dice rolls (and even them in a large enough sample).
A wizard with 20 Int has a maximum DC for his spells of 34 no matter what point buy was used. His to hit numbers will change by less than ten percent in going from a 15 point buy to a 25 point buy -- his save throws will also change only about 10 percent total in going from a 15 to a 25 point buy.
In no case does the maximums that you already have to deal with in a 15 point buy game change just because you allow the players more points to buy with. The only thing that changes is the minimums (and even there not by much).
I understand that you think you need to adjust those stat blocks -- but the funny thing is it still isn't required. A level 20 wizard will have 6~8 (with pearls of power) ninth level spells that will have a maximum DC of 34. Almost all CR 20 monsters will walk over that number with distressing frequency and the lower level save throws only get easier. If your PCs are "pumping their stats" then they are telling you something -- they don't trust you as a GM to not over do it.
They think they need every last one of those +1's they are buying -- and by pumping the stats on the monsters you prove them right. Instead you must earn back their trust in your ability to judge a fitting challenge for them by showing them you can work to their expectations.
It's not that "Oh wow I can have an extra high strength!" You can do that anyways -- a 15 point buy doesn't prevent this. It doesn't "stop optimiziation" it doesn't, "Make things a challenge". It strips out the padding for the player.I just don't buy it. People that optimize hard do it just as much with 20 points as with 15 points. Just recently someone built a fighter character with 7s for all mental stats using a 20 point buy. Given a 25 point buy he probably would still have had 7s in all mental stats.
Edit: Eh... you are probably right about more typical players though. 20 points is fine.
Yeah and that guy quickly got took to task for making a party punching bag. He was pathetic on will saves and got called on it. That character wasn't "optimized" in the least and we all know that.
Instead of taking his points away we made him a better player by sitting there and talking to him and explaining the system to him a bit better.
If instead of saying, "I'm limiting your points because I don't want to work more," the GM spent one session sitting and talking to the players about the differences in approaches and what the numbers really show and how that plays to them he could fix the actual problem.
Lowering the point buy does not change a thing -- Maximum stat is still the same, and end effect is still the same -- only by addressing with the players what's going on can the situation be handled.
|
|
I actually want to refine my point, so that people might give it a chance:High ability scores mean that the GM has to do some statblock surgery, This problem diminishes after level 5 or so.
This statement is false.
A 15 point buy wizard will have the same important stats that a 20 point buy wizard will have. They can both start with a 20 Intelligence, and will have the same DC's for their spells at 20th level.
Meh, with 15 points something needs to go down below 10 on at least 1 stat to start off with 20 int. And this only applies for pretty much wizards and other back line casters...also known as the caster focused druid. EVERYONE else needs to make some sacrafices to make a character that will work in their roles with 15 points. A fighter with 20 str isn't so great with that 10 con and dex now is he. A cleric with 20 wis and 10 cha, 10 str and dex may have some issues with channel bursts and walking up to heal front liners. Yes the 15 point buy punishes a wizard or caster druid less then pretty much everyone else...but like I said, I wanna see characters that have some weaknesses if they wanna be super at something.
So the fighter kills his int and cha... yeah what a weakness...
Personally I don't go for 20 strength on a fighter -- 18 is plenty and leaves lots of room for the other stats I want... and doesn't really hurt at all.
I'd have to agree that I favor playing in lower power campaigns.
15 point buy is certainly quite enough in a system where you can also gain points by lowering your other stats.
Characters are more interesting. It's only a small difference in the end but it can help.
So your DC's or AC is 1 or 2 lower? That does not a game ending super gimp character make.
I've seen so many insane methods of dice rolling where DM's pretty much demand that players have such insane stats. Don't waste time if your that type of DM, just give everyone 18's and stop messing around.
my personal perference is 15 to 20 point buys. we generally dont do anything higher.
Now remember back in the day when you rolled 3 6siders and that was your stat?
I dont think stats have anything to do with CRs and monsters and certainly by taking monsters and modifying them you neutralize the fact that they have higher scores, so they might as well have all 10s.
Most of my characters lately have been "hard to biuld" meaning they are monks, paladins or mystic theurges that need higher ability scores in multiple stats.
I currently play a monk in kingmaker, who is a split class monk cleric.
Certainly I had a good wisdom (actaully decided to be a cleric AFTER I leveld once, it wasnt planned)
we had a 20 point buy and I still have a 8 (or maybe its 7) charisma
and i think i have a 9 intelligence. Most of the characters have some kind of low stat to make up for the fact they needed higher points in some other stat or two.
negatives here or there make an interesting character.
Take my monk, charisma si essential for intimidate, so he's hampered at intimidating. I explain this as my monk is very quiet and not vocal, even though half orcs are known to be intimidating. I use the half orc bonus and skill focus to offset the penalty for my half orcs intimidate and still put ranks in that skill (even though i started out in negatives)
The monk is still the group "intimidator" (even though the rogue has a much better charisma)he just does this by giving people a silent stare and cracking his knuckles, whilst the rogue uses bluff "you dont want to upset the wookie (read half -orc) when they loose a game they are known to rip peoples arms out of their sockets). The Gm let's us use her bluff to "aid" my intimidate.
I also go around threatening people by speaking orc ( a language not that many npcs in this camapign apparently know) and the rogue "translates" (she doesnt speak orc at all) "he says he's a wanted man in seven kingdoms,and he doesn't like you"
(sorry im a star wars fan and so is my wife)
anyway with her bluff bonus it's like i dont have a negative to the skill at all, totally negating my low charisma.
Funniest bluff/intimidate team up yet:
Other players are in olegs, I was outside attending to my duties as "royal assassin" when the others were trying to get some information out of this gnome explorer. The wizard sends me a whisper, filling me in on the gig. I come into the bar shouting (I never do this) "Dang I'm hungry!" *looks over to party and gnome* "OOOOooooh seven silver for your gnome! he looks tasty!"
The rogue promptly whispers to the gnome , If you cooperate with us, I think I can get the orc drunk enough, he might just go for a dog sandwhichand a half keg of rum.....but he might be difficult to sway, I don't think he's really eaten much in days!"
I rolled an 18 fro my intimidate and the wife rolled a 20on her bluff.
It was great!
I never really payed attention to what they wanted from that gnome, I wasbusy drawing a character pic of my monk. Ha!
So to all you players out there, I beg you, take the 15 points. Your GM can then build encounters super-easily, and you'll get to play more! Anyone can make a "powerful" character by writing down big numbers rather than small ones, but you cannot make an awesome character in this way.
I totally agree. Inflation is one of the worst problems especially at higher levels. If you can kill ogres at level 2, then by level 20 there's not really much the DM can be doing besides spending 20 hours a week statting out enemy NPCs with the same ability inflation.
I tried to convince my players to do old school iron man D&D. 3d6 straight down the line. No, you can't rearrange them, what's wrong with you?
I'm actually kinda serious; it worked fine back in the day. As Evil Lincoln points out, it's all about the scaling. God forbid an orc is actually stronger than a first level fighter...
Even the APL system hasn't caught up. There's a reason that boss fights in the Paizo APs are often 4+ ELs above the party level. My players' PCs are 3rd level and I have to stat out 7th level bad guys (plus goons!) to give them a run for their money. "Uh, OK, how about 5 CR 5's..."
I personally prefer lower stats, slower progression, and actually having fun and challenge fighting all those low level iconic critters without having to go "quantity: 40" on it.
I personally prefer lower stats, slower progression, and actually having fun and challenge fighting all those low level iconic critters without having to go "quantity: 40" on it.
Yeah just like first edition! When quantity 40 was what goblins did!
Oh wait... I missed the point...
Perhaps proving to the players they can trust you would work. They need to know they aren't going to get ganked for having low stats... inflating to "challenge" them again leads to wanting more on their part to feel "effective".
Standard "player vs DM vs player" rocket tag here.
|
I recall James Jacobs had said the CRs of monsters were set using the pregen test parties that had low point buy and not min-max'd.
I am running a game right now where everyone is playing iconic pregen with 15 buy and they are using what they got very effectively. In a game of random dice rolls, a +1 higher bonus doesn't make you elite.
The last few games I've run were all 15 point buy or the 3.5 equivalent. (ETA: and as I think about it, the last 3.5 game I ran was standard point buy but then everyone got a +2 to one stat. When we converted to Pathfinder, that actually worked out to 15 point buy plus racial bonuses, more or less.)
In 3.5, there was a MAD issue paladin at early levels; he got better as things went along. I'm running a high level PFRPG game at 15 point buy and in my experience, the characters are powerful and effective. Yes, of course, by the point the characters are, they've gotten level bonuses to stats.
But that's also kind of why I like 15 point buy--because when you level up, that stat boost feels all the cooler. And you run a game at 25 point buy, high level characters are godlike to the point that it can be extremely frustrating for a GM, especially an inexperienced one, to try to make encounters challenging without crossing the line over to TPK.
Look: 10 is an average ability. If you have a 12, you are above average. If you have a 16, you're amazing. 18, extremely rare.
I don't, not as a player nor as a GM, understand why some players (and their GMs for that matter) feel they need 18s in everything (yes, this is hyperbole, please calm down) to be "effective."
I sometimes wonder this obsession with exceptionally high stats it is some sort of holdover from AD&D. That was the last time I felt a stat of 15 or 16 was "low-average" -- but that's also because you normally didn't get any kind of benefit from your stats until you had at the very least a 16 in anything. But it hasn't been like that for 10 years now.
Now, I don't think my players have felt "gimped" (god, I f*!&ing hate that word) by having 15 point buy. They haven't told me that, at least.
And the reason I chose 15 point buy was the reason the OP mentioned: because I wanted to have the party at the power level the game's guidelines described for challenges. And I would prefer to learn the system at the power level the devs tested the game at BEFORE I start playing with the power levels in the future.
I have no problem with game with high stats as long as the GM knows what they're doing. Personally, whether player or GM, I would rather stick to 15 or 20 (for more high magic/high stakes games).
My question to the people who think that 15 point buy is screwing your players: what is your personal, actual play experience with that? What happened to you that you felt your GMs were screwing you over, rather than simply following the guidelines in the rulebook? I am curious as to why you think it means characters are weak (as opposed to "only somewhat above average" rather than "demigods at 1st level" which is my personal perception of 25+ point buy). I don't want to hear theories based on the idea of a fight 1st level characters might have with a CR 82 paragon crab, I want to hear what actually happened to you that made you feel consistently put at a disadvantage. Statistics are useful, yes, but I can check those on my own. What I want to know is the practice so I have something to compare to the theory.
And if anyone ever wants run a pbp to test it out just how "bad" 15 point buy is, I'll happily play your monk. I agree, it's still the most MAD class and likely to suffer from lower stat distributions, but I'd like to still play it out.
ETA: BTW: This is not a judgment on people who play 25 point buy. You like those high power games, great! But I just don't comprehend why some players feel that is "necessary" or the only way to make characters "playable" when in my experience, that's simply not true.
My personal experience is that the amount of point buy isn't important. The end game is still the same.
In the end I can survive and thrive on a 15 point buy game -- it doesn't cramp my style -- but by the same token the extra points from higher point buys aren't going to turn me into some unstoppable god.
The point I see where the break happens and why people want to start with a 20 in a stat is completely caster based and directly caused by monster stats. Monsters routinely clear the maximum DC's for spell effects faster than the PCs do at higher levels -- to have a spell fail at high level is not just a waste of action -- it's a waste of a very valuable resource (the spell slot) that is extremely limited.
Now PC class to PC class? The save throw formulas for spells and save bonuses works out alright (though if you check the number you'll find that even with NPC classes in the mix the ratio of high will saves to number of classes is really high -- same for most monster types too).
The high save bonuses for monsters combined with the very limited nature of high level magic in addition to the fact that there are few high level items and that items have really bad save throws means that as a caster you feel you must get as much as possible or simply be a drain on everyone else's resources to no good end effect.
EDIT:
I simply wanted to point out that the thought that "25 point buy = high powered while 15 point buy doesn't" is a myth. The point buy doesn't really affect that much between 15 and 25 -- the maximums are still what they are, and are still obtainable and must still be considered when playing or GMing... and were in the design of the system -- the system accounts for them already since it accounts for the maximums and the minimums.
I don't mind 15 point buy, but I prefer 20 point for the reasons some have stated. My main stats will be the same, but my off-stats will be average instead of dumped, to make me effective. Though I tend to take one just plain bad stat for fun in roleplaying.
Gimped unplayable characters are not fun...sorry.
Fortunately, a 15-point buy does not produce gimped, unplayable characters...
Gimped unplayable characters are not fun...sorry.Fortunately, a 15-point buy does not produce gimped, unplayable characters...
This... 10 is when it starts getting hard 5 is just too low.
Meh, with 15 points something needs to go down below 10 on at least 1 stat to start off with 20 int. And this only applies for pretty much wizards and other back line casters...also known as the caster focused druid. EVERYONE else needs to make some sacrafices to make a character that will work in their roles with 15 points. A fighter with 20 str isn't so great with that 10 con and dex now is he. A cleric with 20 wis and 10 cha, 10 str and dex may have some issues with channel bursts and walking up to heal front liners. Yes the 15 point buy punishes a wizard or caster druid less then pretty much everyone else...but like I said, I wanna see characters that have some weaknesses if they wanna be super at something.
I actually want to refine my point, so that people might give it a chance:High ability scores mean that the GM has to do some statblock surgery, This problem diminishes after level 5 or so.
This statement is false.
A 15 point buy wizard will have the same important stats that a 20 point buy wizard will have. They can both start with a 20 Intelligence, and will have the same DC's for their spells at 20th level.
I'm sorry, am I reading this right?!?
Are people actually arguing that 1st-level characters should start off with a 20 in their prime stat? WTF?!?!?
On top of this, I'm guessing that stat-boosting items are available in these games. Are God-stats really necessary?
If this is the norm rather than the exception, then all the b-ing & moan-ing about "getting the math right" that people argue for all the time is a steaming pile of dung...
I've got a reputation at the local FLGS as the go to guy for effective characters. Please note I said effective... not over powering.
I prefer the 20 point buy.
Is it because it makes it easier?
No.
Most effective characters can be made just fine with a 15 point buy. Yes even the monk.
So why a 20?
Because in order to be effective with 15 you have to strip everything else out. No that monk can't afford a 10 Cha... probably not even a 10 Int honestly. He needs those points else where if he wants to contribute.
Is this a problem? Yes and no. For the character -- not so much, he/it can do what is needed and contribute meaningfully and still survive. For the player however it really does matter. That 7 Int and 7 Cha is going to bug him. He wanted his monk to be more than an idiot savant. He wanted a likable guy that might be a little slow on the up take but wasn't at a 7 Int. What do those extra 5 points go into? The role play parts. That's what gets spent to give the character a 14 cha for his monk -- or a decent strength for his wizard. It's what keeps the cleric from dumping dex. It's why the paladin can afford to have a wisdom score other than 7 (the bard too for that matter).
Those extra points are what gives the character flavor -- style -- they are what sets him apart from every other fighter with a strength of 16, Dex of 14 con of 14. He needs them to have the extra skill point to represent that internship his father got him on the merchant ship, the fact that he paid for his wizarding school through breaking and entering and selling the goods from that.
It's not that "Oh wow I can have an extra high strength!" You can do that anyways -- a 15 point buy doesn't prevent this. It doesn't "stop optimiziation" it doesn't, "Make things a challenge". It strips out the padding for the player.
IF you are relying on the numbers to challenge your players you are doing both them and yourself a huge disservice. The...
I agree on all of the points made by Abe here.
When reduced to a pure #'s = power analysis, role-playing gets left by the way-side.
When I started the hobby, and continue to pass it onto my little batch of broodlings, I'll be passing on the "role" more than "roll" of the playing. In the end, the numbers if left to the min/max/optimization/whatever game will edge out role-playing every time, hands down.
I don't really like point buy for this reason - always go w/rolled stats. (Generally 4d6, re-roll 1's and 2's).
At the same time, since the inception of 3.x it's *really* turned into the numbers game vs. 2e's more abstract sort of loose play and "roll vs. stat for ..." mechanic. This is more or less gone fully now, and in it's place is a stat-based enhancement to an ability check that starts at least at a DC of 10 to be worth rolling/checking in the first place. If you've got even a 14, that's only a +2 on your check to hit a 10. Compare that to the old "roll vs. ability score for ..." and go w/rolling a 14 or less on the D20 to "succeed" or whatever.
I understand fully where that drive to get the stats up matters more in this edition than previous ones. My point in even drudging that up is to show the *why* on the player's end of things it's such a big deal. In 2e this was not anywhere near such a big deal as only the extreme ends of the stats granted benefits in the first place, AND the ability itself (not the bonus) mattered in many cases. Now - ability is irrelevant and the bonus is the be all/end all in character building. Reducing the points for point-buy just drives this all home that much more.
Ok, I'm done ...
*nostalgically wanders off thinking of the more simple 2e rules in places*
Well and honestly it's because the stats matter now more too.
Back in 1st and 2nd edition the difference between a 9 and a 14 in a stat mechanically was insignificant. Generally there wasn't even a bonus or penalty in those ranges (and occasionally even lower) so it didn't matter what stat you had -- in the end unless it was above the bell curve or below the bell curve it wasn't actually going to have an effect.
3.x has changed that by adding in more bonuses and penalties with a smaller range between each -- so the actual stat means something now instead of just being a number on paper.
Well and honestly it's because the stats matter now more too.
Back in 1st and 2nd edition the difference between a 9 and a 14 in a stat mechanically was insignificant. Generally there wasn't even a bonus or penalty in those ranges (and occasionally even lower) so it didn't matter what stat you had -- in the end unless it was above the bell curve or below the bell curve it wasn't actually going to have an effect.
3.x has changed that by adding in more bonuses and penalties with a smaller range between each -- so the actual stat means something now instead of just being a number on paper.
Stats both matter more, and less at the same time, though.
More because everything grants a bonus (almost anyway), and the whole resolution is D20 + bonuses in nature.
By comparison to the 2e method, ability checks were pretty common for different things non-combat based. In that system, though conferring no "bonus" per se, if you had a character with an 8 or 10 in an ability and they had to make the check - they sucked big time. *at best* they had a 50/50 shot (which, relatively speaking is a better chance than most straight ability checks in 3.x now anyway w/each "+" being a 5% increase in being able to make your target.) A 50% chance is not half bad mechanically vs. even an 18 score now (+4 mod = +20% to succeed).
I'm not the best math-crunchie out there, nor do I care to be, but on a quick view, the mechanical difference in terms of "making the roll" or "success" is just a bit easier from level 1 in 2e even w/the non-bonus level ability scores. Their bonus was usually wrapped up in the other benefits they granted, AND the fact that their ability checks were FAR more likely to succeed than the 3.x version of similar checks are now.
Just sayin' ...
|
Something that might be interesting for a MAD vs. SAD character design would be allow someone to have X point-buy, and be able to spend them however they please, or X+5 point-buy, but be forbidden to dump stats below 10, or spend more than 1/2 X in any one attribute.
So the 15 point-buy Wizard could spend 13 of those points in Intelligence, and be the whiz-bang smartest kid in the room (but not exceptional at anything else), but the 20 point-buy Monk can't dump stats and can't put more than 10 pts. in any one attribute.
My own personal design limitations make a higher point buy less 'over the top,' since I am likely to design a Cleric with a starting Wisdom of 14 and 12s in his other stats, instead of some Dex-dumped, Int-dumped idiot savant klutz with an 18 starting Wisdom, but that sort of thing is purely personal choice, and giving me the freedom to make a well-rounded character gives someone else the freedom to make a socially dysfunctional Monk who dumped Charisma so hard that she's still crying about it.
On one hand, the game announces that 'stats are varying between 3 and 18, 10 being the average'.
Yet somehow many players are used to the 'stats vary between 8 and 25, 15 being the average'.
A 15 pts buy looks like a happy medium to me, although my preference also goes for a bit more.
I wish the game basic assumption was 'stats vary between 8 and 18, 13 being the average'
I'm chiming in to agree with the 20 point buy. Its a little above the baseline, but not much, and feels a little more flexible. As a player I've rarely used the extra five points to min/max, but usually to make sure that if my character isn't suppose to be dump, I can drop a 12 in my Intelligence and not feel too bad about it, for example.
|
|
Meh, with 15 points something needs to go down below 10 on at least 1 stat to start off with 20 int. And this only applies for pretty much wizards and other back line casters...also known as the caster focused druid. EVERYONE else needs to make some sacrafices to make a character that will work in their roles with 15 points. A fighter with 20 str isn't so great with that 10 con and dex now is he. A cleric with 20 wis and 10 cha, 10 str and dex may have some issues with channel bursts and walking up to heal front liners. Yes the 15 point buy punishes a wizard or caster druid less then pretty much everyone else...but like I said, I wanna see characters that have some weaknesses if they wanna be super at something.
I'm sorry, am I reading this right?!?
Are people actually arguing that 1st-level characters should start off with a 20 in their prime stat? WTF?!?!?
On top of this, I'm guessing that stat-boosting items are available in these games. Are God-stats really necessary?
No, I'm saying that if you wanna start off with 20 in your prime stat, then you should at least be less then average at something...which 15 point buy enforces...but not 20. In fact 20 lets you be a super genius who has average strength, average hand eye cordination, average common sense, average social skill and the health of a low end athlete. Which is why I like 15 over 20. The option of starting with 20 in your prime stat is always there. Which is what Abe was getting at...but I don't like the "free" 18 that 20 point buy gives you.
I generally don't like the idea that a super genius can't otherwise be average.
However at the same time an 8 is within the standard deviation for normal so it still is average I guess (by the same token a 20 really isn't "super genius" either).
I just don't think the "Your good at something so you must be bad at something else" is very accurate to life.
I just don't think the "Your good at something so you must be bad at something else" is very accurate to life.
Agreed. I'm also rather disappointed that the "be reasonable" wasn't someone complaining about how unreasonable 15 point buy is.
I generally don't like the idea that a super genius can't otherwise be average.
However at the same time an 8 is within the standard deviation for normal so it still is average I guess (by the same token a 20 really isn't "super genius" either).
I just don't think the "Your good at something so you must be bad at something else" is very accurate to life.
Really? That tends to be very much my experience. My mother, for example, is one of the top 5 researchers in her field in the world...but she can't program a VCR and is horrible at personal finance. My friends that are the most stable financially and/or the most accomplished academically are single dispite themselves, sometimes downright reclusive.
Totally off-topic, sorry.
Actually, I think its a little of both. I think there are plenty of people with the right circumstances that might be above average at almost everything, but if you get really, really good at something (16+ especially), you do tend to start missing out on other things.
Except for Batman.
Actually, I think its a little of both. I think there are plenty of people with the right circumstances that might be above average at almost everything, but if you get really, really good at something (16+ especially), you do tend to start missing out on other things.
Except for Batman.
Well..Batman is a little on the crazy side. I mean, OK, that's not something represented by D&D stats but it is something. The man can be every alignment at once, it wears on the psyche :P
|
|
I generally don't like the idea that a super genius can't otherwise be average.
However at the same time an 8 is within the standard deviation for normal so it still is average I guess (by the same token a 20 really isn't "super genius" either).
I just don't think the "Your good at something so you must be bad at something else" is very accurate to life.
Really? That tends to be very much my experience. My mother, for example, is one of the top 5 researchers in her field in the world...but she can't program a VCR and is horrible at personal finance. My friends that are the most stable financially and/or the most accomplished academically are single dispite themselves, sometimes downright reclusive.
Totally off-topic, sorry.
Agreed. I know lots of VERY smart people and this seems to be the norm around here as well.
|
|
Actually, I think its a little of both. I think there are plenty of people with the right circumstances that might be above average at almost everything, but if you get really, really good at something (16+ especially), you do tend to start missing out on other things.
Except for Batman.
That because batman is living in a world of superheros where 16 is a baseline. And he's insane...awesome...but insane.
Each 5 points doesn't make a big difference. It always comes down to what you're going to sacrfice in general to be better at something specific.
Going for most total +'s
15 point buy has average +7 stat bonuses: 14, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12
20 point buy has +8 (+.5) bonuses: 14, 14, 13, 13, 12, 12
25 point buy has +10 (+.5) bonuses 14, 14, 14, 14, 13, 12
Specialised characters have a much much lower average.
15 point Monk build without race total +4 bonuses: 17, 12, 14, 8, 12, 7
20 point Monk build without race total +5 bonuses: 18, 12, 14, 7, 14, 7
25 point Monk build without race total +7 bonuses: 18, 14, 14, 8, 14, 7
In both cases there's not a big difference between 15 and 20 point buys. The real difference in ability is the jump to 20, which offers twice the improvement.
That all said, I almost always go for 20 point buys. When I run kingmaker in a few months I'm going to be going hard on the players (and denying them cohorts - hate those guys!) so they're going to need 25.
Referring to Batman or Katanas in any thread can immediately derail them. This makes me wonder if posting a reference to Detective Comics Annual #3 would be like placing a Bag of Holding in a Portable Hole and break the internet.
|
|
Really? That tends to be very much my experience. My mother, for example, is one of the top 5 researchers in her field in the world...but she can't program a VCR and is horrible at personal finance. My friends that are the most stable financially and/or the most accomplished academically are single despite themselves, sometimes downright reclusive.
Some would theorize that this is because we've all got the one brain, and social intelligence, mathematical/musical intelligence and language proficiency/creative intelligence are all fighting for the same lumpy grey biscuit.
[Which would provide a funny explanation for our political system. Anyone who wins the popularity contest to get themself elected to office probably has, like, two brain cells left to actually govern with... Cue the rise of the Celebrity Supermodel political party and their thousand year reich!]
But, humor aside, I know plenty of socially popular intelligent people, and even a few mutant freaks who are both good at math and computers *and* creative and erudite.
|
|
I actually want to refine my point, so that people might give it a chance:High ability scores mean that the GM has to do some statblock surgery, This problem diminishes after level 5 or so.
This statement is false.
A 15 point buy wizard will have the same important stats that a 20 point buy wizard will have. They can both start with a 20 Intelligence, and will have the same DC's for their spells at 20th level.
By reducing the point buy you do not change this. You could allow a 30 point buy and this basic fact will not change.
So first of all the biggest impact is not at 20th level, it's at 1-5th level and EL says that above.
When you have to actually play through low levels most people with lower point buys don't max out their primary ability but spread out their points so they have at least a little durability. Wizards are a poor example to go by because their output is effected far less by their stats than the rest of the party. Look more at the archer, the paladin, the cleric, druids... pretty much any class that is going to be in into combat benefits from multiple high abilities. Their damage potential at low-mid levels is about 80% based on their stats and if they boost one single stat at the expense of others they are likely to be very fragile.
Even that wizard is going to have 1-3 more HP/ level, his reflex and fort saves are going to be 1-2 points higher. At low levels that stuff makes a big difference. Overall durability doesn't have a lot to do with maximum stat as it does just overall stats available.
At 20th level? Eh the difference is far less pronounced. At first level it's HUGE.
I understand that you think you need to adjust those stat blocks -- but the funny thing is it still isn't required. A level 20 wizard will have 6~8 (with pearls of power) ninth level spells that will have a maximum DC of 34. Almost all CR 20 monsters will walk over that number with distressing frequency and the lower level save throws only get easier. If your PCs are "pumping their stats" then they are telling you something -- they don't trust you as a GM to not over do it.
The fact that you are looking at CR 20 creatures makes me suspect you missed his point.
Me, I sometimes think the right balance is to assign the size of the point-buy based on the class being chosen. So, pick a MAD class, you get more points to spend. Pick a powerful class, you get fewer points to spend. Might kinda balance things out a bit.
Mind you, I haven't tried it, but I've noodled it around in my head from time to time. Something like this:
Barbarian 18
Bard 25
Cleric 16
Druid 18
Fighter 16
Monk 27
Paladin 20
Ranger 24
Rogue 21
Sorcerer 15
Wizard 15
|
|
But, humor aside, I know plenty of socially popular intelligent people, and even a few mutant freaks who are both good at math and computers *and* creative and erudite.
Yes but were they healthy as a horse, strong as an ox and graceful as a cat to boot? I'm guessing they were probably sub-par at something.
|
|
Me, I sometimes think the right balance is to assign the size of the point-buy based on the class being chosen. So, pick a MAD class, you get more points to spend. Pick a powerful class, you get fewer points to spend. Might kinda balance things out a bit.
Mind you, I haven't tried it, but I've noodled it around in my head from time to time. Something like this:
Interesting idea but some of your choices really raise eyebrows. I suspect you would see a LOT more monks and bards. Personally, I would just break it into 2.5 tiers.
Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Summoner - 15
Everyone else - 20
Monk - 23
This would include the playtest classes also.
|
|
Me, I sometimes think the right balance is to assign the size of the point-buy based on the class being chosen. So, pick a MAD class, you get more points to spend. Pick a powerful class, you get fewer points to spend. Might kinda balance things out a bit.
Mind you, I haven't tried it, but I've noodled it around in my head from time to time. Something like this:
Barbarian 18
Bard 25
Cleric 16
Druid 18
Fighter 16
Monk 27
Paladin 20
Ranger 24
Rogue 21
Sorcerer 15
Wizard 15
Humm that's an idea...but MC would abuse that a bit...you can take ranger one for example get all these stat boost and go straight fighter after that...or one level of monk if your willing to take a BAB hit. That and the fighter at 16 seems a bit low. A fighter can be pretty MAD if you wanna TWF and/or use combat expertise tree. They should at least get as much as the barbarian.