Don't take that as an endorsement of your side, however. There is a middle ground between 'I don't want to be challenged' and 'I don't want to not be challenged'.Different, not better.
Congrats to you both for being so much better than the rest of us.Exactly. Thank you.
1) I didn't.
2) Fair enough.
I also cry BS to your claim that it doesn't increase character power. Are you seriously suggesting that a 25 point buy fighter has the same damage potential as a 15 point buy one?
Yes.
A fifteen point buy fighter and a 20 point buy fighter most likely have very similar strengths and constitutions. Going from 20 point to 15 point won't make the fighter drop his important stats, it'll make him drop all his others.
The 20 point buy fighter will typically have better intellect and charisma - stats that have little effect on fighting things, but make the character more fun.
That's why I prefer 20 point buy. The actual combat aptitude of classes that don't need a boost, which covers almost all SAD characters, doesn't change. Instead, good classes get a "fun" boost, and classes that aren't as mechanically strong get the boost they need.
I suspect Evil's original point is long lost here.
I think the point he was making is the game is just as fun with a 15-20 point buy, characters are every bit as heroic. It's just a bit easier on the GM planning encounters and using pre-generated adventures.
Ultimately it's not a "my game is better than your game" sort of thing,
everyone can and should play the game they enjoy most.There are some good counter points. Namely:
Higher point buys allow more options for roll playing development - you are not forced to optimize to be effective.
Lower point buys strongly favor classes that have a single prime requisite.
Thanks, Ogre. I appreciate that.
Also, there's nothing in this thread worth fighting about. They're all options at the front of the book. Nobody can take the choice away from you.
State your case why you like what you like, and leave other players to what they like. In the OP, I just wanted players to recognize that higher stats make paperwork for GMs (and don't accomplish what players seem to think they do), and maybe bear that in mind before they push back on a low point buy.
This thread has had a lot of good points in it — usually about the merits and characteristics of a particular choice — but none of the good points assert the inherent superiority of a specific choice.
Except maybe my way. My way is definitely the one true way.
I, as a DM, disagree.
I'll submit my PC's to 25 point buy if I'm grumpy, if I want to punish them I'd go with 20, but 15 would see me without a group. We typically dice roll so any point buy is frowned upon in our group.
I also don't see what the big deal is. Adjusting to higher stats is easy, especially if the PC's are using only the Core rules, if they aren't and they're still powerful then it's usually the kooky base/prestige classes that are to blame for the unbalancing. High stats are small potatoes and honestly, if it makes the players that much happier to have an 18 next to a 16 and nothing with a negative modifier before racial adjustments it's no skin off my nose. At most I might increase a few monster stats and add a few hitpoints here and there.
Personally I think baseline should have been 20. 15 is just downright cruel in my not so humble opinion.
At least that's my two bits...
|
full casters - 15
everyone else - 20
monks - 23What do you do to stop everyone from taking 1 level in Monk, then multiclassing into something else?
Seriously, Monks are not that bad. They have great saves and AC. Most people want to build a monk as an offensive build, but the monk's strength is in its defense.
You mean other then losing out on CL as a caster? For 8 extra stat points, I think losing a CL is fair.
Or a BAB and hp as anything else...for a bunch of abilities you will likely not use much of...other then theextra saves. Losing BAB for 3 extra stat point seems about right as well.
|
Get them to write down;
STR
INT
WIS
DEX
CON
CHA
Hand each player 3d6 and get them to roll once for each stat in the order written above. Complaints? Either say kiss my all powerful muscular DM butt or 15-point stat buy - choice is good.
But in seriousness the dependence on having 18's has become epidemic in D&D. Sometimes I wonder why we don't just drop the stats completely like True20 did. The stat range goes from 1-infinity now. I've lost all sense of what the numbers actually mean, because all they really translate to now is more or less "+". I simple fix would be to have the game designers tone down the require "hit numbers" (be it skill or whatever) as all that has happened is a shift towards 18+ stats. What would happen if we subtracted 2 from all bonuses due to stats, 2 from all AC's and DC's - The only thing I see is less adding to the d20...
S.
|
|
Okay so I have a level 9 EK in a game ATM...15 point buy.
baseline stats: str 13, dex 14, con 12, int 17, wis 7, cha 7.
With elf applied and level points into int, at level 9 I have, str 13, dex 16, con 10, int 21, wis 7, cha 7 before items.
If we did 20 point buy, my str would get 2 more point to get 14, and con 3 more for 14. So pretty much the same character, played pretty much the same...buy the 15 feels more like a character and less like a numbers exercise to me...despite the fact that the 15 point buy stats is a pretty gnarly bit of gaming the numbers. Odd, ain't it.
But in seriousness the dependence on having 18's has become epidemic in D&D.
This is hardly anything new. Previous editions outright gave you bonus experience points if you had a 16 in the related stat, and quite frankly for most builds starting with a 16 is a good thing. Hell, even casters in previous editions needed to get higher intelligence just to learn their spells.
D&D has always put a big emphasis on having big large stats. Nothing has changed.
|
|
Okay so I have a level 9 EK in a game ATM...15 point buy.
baseline stats: str 13, dex 14, con 12, int 17, wis 7, cha 7.
With elf applied and level points into int, at level 9 I have, str 13, dex 16, con 10, int 21, wis 7, cha 7 before items.
If we did 20 point buy, my str would get 2 more point to get 14, and con 3 more for 14. So pretty much the same character, played pretty much the same...buy the 15 feels more like a character and less like a numbers exercise to me...despite the fact that the 15 point buy stats is a pretty gnarly bit of gaming the numbers. Odd, ain't it.
Agreed. Looks perfectly playable. Then again I think it depends on your motivation for playing. Having high stats in every slot means you don't suck at anything - perhaps this is exactly what you want, an escape from life where sucking at things is just par for the course. Others want the challenge of roleplaying sucky scores, which can be really fun too. CHA 7 and WIS 7 - that would rock at the table, my minds eye can see it now... :)
Conan or Oliver Twist, both viable ideas in game. RPG's are just plain great fun.
S.
|
A lot of good stuff here...some of them i will have to try at some point.
2d6+6 was one idea i was kicking around for a bit, decided against it for the upcoming KM campaign i'm running. In the past, it was 4d6, reroll 1's, drop lowest, and it's yielded a LOT of fun gaming. granted, the design time was a lot higher than it could have been, but i didn't know any better.
20 pt buy, with PF rules, is right where i like to run. it's the startup rules for the next AP i'm running.Any NPC's i want to generate automatically get the elite array, and the Advanced Simple template is my very best friend in the book. i mean, +2 to everything, +4 to AC is pretty easy to remember, right?
One day, I hope to run a 15 pt game, where the math is easy, and the DC's aren't astronomical (nor the saves). I don't see that coming, any time soon. my players love their high numbers, even if the DC's simply scale along...
-t
|
|
But in seriousness the dependence on having 18's has become epidemic in D&D.This is hardly anything new. Previous editions outright gave you bonus experience points if you had a 16 in the related stat, and quite frankly for most builds starting with a 16 is a good thing. Hell, even casters in previous editions needed to get higher intelligence just to learn their spells.
D&D has always put a big emphasis on having big large stats. Nothing has changed.
Chances of getting them has...
Higher stats did give you bonuses but I don't remember an expectation that you would have them - due to the method of generating stats. Luck would give you a good stat, good luck 2 good stats, very good luck 3 good stats, and cheating would get you other good stats ;)
I guess expectations have changed, mechanics rule the game, thus more +'s is the only way to beat a "formulated" encounter that requires more +'s. The Art of DMing has taken on more an aspect of the Science of DMing (trigometry of flanking 101 etc).
Stats can cause a game characters to perhaps always end up the same. All fighters WILL have 18+ strength, because the game mechanical difference is too huge to only assign say a 14 in strength (which at least of old still above average muscles).
S.
|
|
The 20 point buy fighter will typically have better intellect and charisma - stats that have little effect on fighting things, but make the character more fun.
This isn't meant as anything other than an honest query. But how do higher stats = more fun? If you say that intellect and charisma are non-combat stats for a fighter and I completely agree - wouldn't roleplaying any number in these stats be a possible source of fun?
Cheers,
S.
But in seriousness the dependence on having 18's has become epidemic in D&D.This is hardly anything new. Previous editions outright gave you bonus experience points if you had a 16 in the related stat, and quite frankly for most builds starting with a 16 is a good thing. Hell, even casters in previous editions needed to get higher intelligence just to learn their spells.
D&D has always put a big emphasis on having big large stats. Nothing has changed.
Something has most definitely changed.
In 1st & 2nd Edition, attributes were relatively static. Items like the Girdle of Giant Strength gave the wearer a new strength score, and they were really the only items that enhanced attributes. Even Wishes were very limited in this reguard, with multiple wishes being required to move stats to values above 16.
This changed in 3rd Edition. Characters now get automatic attribute increaces from leveling. Multiple spells and magic items also raise attribute scores either in a temporary or perminet basis.
For these reasons, starting attributes must be smaller to account for this natural growth.
stats for a monk...
I cannot speak as to how powerful those characters are... but any CON score below a 10 is problematic in Pathfinder as you have just reduced your staying power in battle by 2 points per hit dice and reduced your "bleeding out" pool by 3 points.
|
I'm kinda partial to giving options to my group for character creation. I offer them 3 choices in making a a guy:
1) 3d6 eight times pick best 6 stats any order (no reroll of ones)
2) 4d6 six times any order (no reroll of ones)
3) elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8)
So far its worked out good.
We used to do point buy, but it just gave players cause to min-max their guy or it created cookie-cutter PCs, no creativity at all with those methods (at least from the groups I played in or DMed)
Chances of getting them has...
Higher stats did give you bonuses but I don't remember an expectation that you would have them - due to the method of generating stats. Luck would give you a good stat, good luck 2 good stats, very good luck 3 good stats, and cheating would get you other good stats ;)
I guess expectations have changed, mechanics rule the game, thus more +'s is the only way to beat a "formulated" encounter that requires more +'s. The Art of DMing has taken on more an aspect of the Science of DMing (trigometry of flanking 101 etc).
Stats can cause a game characters to perhaps always end up the same. All fighters WILL have 18+ strength, because the game mechanical difference is too huge to only assign say a 14 in strength (which at least of old still above average muscles).
It comes down to reactive character building vs proactive character building.
With dice rolling, I rolled my stats and then made a character based around that. I have all 14's? I can't play a big brutish (if kinda thick) fighter. I get three 16's and three 6's? I can't be a generalized fighter, not the strongest, but pretty smart to back it up.
With point buy, it's proactive. You say "I want to make x character" and then do so.
One way is not superior to the other.
The reason 20 point buy is better is because it allows for more complex characters.
This isn't meant as anything other than an honest query. But how do higher stats = more fun? If you say that intellect and charisma are non-combat stats for a fighter and I completely agree - wouldn't roleplaying any number in these stats be a possible source of fun?
Only for so long.
I don't like big dumb fighters. Whenever I do play a martial type, I still try to get generally good intelligence and charisma (Wisdom? Bah! I'm an adventurer! If I were wise I'd still be at the farm! ;p). Roleplaying any number in those stats can be a possible source of fun, but only so long as they aren't always the same. I think a lot of people don't like playing the exact same type of character over and over again.
I think 25 point buy is too much; it leads to the whole three sixteen's problem. With 20 point buy you can be moderately strong (a 16 in your main stat) and still have points to shape your character how you want. Likewise, you can be very strong in your main stat, but weak in everything else. With 15 point buy, you don't have that choice; you can suck at everything, or suck really badly at a few things and be pretty good at others.
Reading my other posts might be helpful toward that end.Gimped unplayable characters are not fun...sorry.Only tried 15 point buy and it works fine (for ME and those that I play with).
I know that people are different, but saying that a 15 point buy character is gimped, seems a bit .... dramatic.
Saying that YOU don't like it and WHY, would be interesting and informative.
I'd like to hear about your experiences and what kind of troubles that you've had with 15 point buy.GRU
Will do
GRU
|
Damage capability is more than just max stat, if you have significantly lower AC and hit points you are going to be out of the fight sooner and damage drops to zero. This even applies to wizards and sorcerers.
Yes I go with that.
15 point buy fighter:
From what I've seen most players don't optimize as much as you did with that. You don't see the same fighter being a much better archer with a 17 dex? Or being flat out being a better tank with a 16 con and a 19 strength? For that matter being able to actually have some skills by putting some ranks in INT (Though the whole Human bonus thing and extra +2 for going from 7-8 means it costs you 3 points to get one more skill point which really bugs me).
Higher ACs, higher hit points... just more durable in general.
If nothing else you have pretty effectively demonstrated that 15 points is more than enough to make a viable character. :D
The reason 20 point buy is better is because it allows for more complex characters.
Just because you distribute points to less common attributes like charisma and intelligence when given a higher point buy, it doesn't mean everyone does. Most people will still squeeze in a few more points of strength, dex or whatever, at the same expense of mental stats. Rolling a slightly intelligent and charismatic fighter isn't impossible under 15 point buy, either, but of course you're going to suffer a bit in your primary stats. That's how it should be.
Anyways, after reading this thread I'm considering switching from 15 pt buy to 20 pt buy, and take away the players' ability to buy a 7. I'm really fond of that and I do think that will allow for some cool characters.
I suppose my main issue is with skill points. A 20 point buy can be (potentially) more complex because those points in int translate out to the fighter having one more facet of personality put into his character sheet.
stats for a monk...I cannot speak as to how powerful those characters are... but any CON score below a 10 is problematic in Pathfinder as you have just reduced your staying power in battle by 2 points per hit dice and reduced your "bleeding out" pool by 3 points.
None of those characters had a Con score below 10.
The dwarf monk was
14 str
14 dex
15 con
7 int
18 wis
5 cha
EDIT to Ogre: That was the point. 15 is prefect doable -- 20 is better for "filling out" a character. It doesn't change anything the characters can do though or the over all power level.
???!
Considering the breadth of the cleric spells AND the fact they get decent armor, no ASF, some martial weapons, AND 3/4 BAB (with the accompanying d8 HD), you are going to have to explain that statement a bit more.
As to taking the first 2 levels in Monk (which I would do), then multiclassing (to, say, Cleric or Druid?), I think that is the most obvious exploit to varying pt buy by class.
They need just as many ability scores as a Monk (if not more) they need a decent strength if they want to go into melee, they need a decent dexterity as they are no longer proficient with heavy armor (which I honestly like), they need a decent constitution if they plan on going in to melee, they need a good wisdom for obvious reasons, and they need a decent charisma if they want to be able to channel energy well, the only thing they don't really need is intelligence but what if you want more than 2 skill points every level?
I also cry BS to your claim that it doesn't increase character power. Are you seriously suggesting that a 25 point buy fighter has the same damage potential as a 15 point buy one?Yes.
A fifteen point buy fighter and a 20 point buy fighter most likely have very similar strengths and constitutions. Going from 20 point to 15 point won't make the fighter drop his important stats, it'll make him drop all his others.
The 20 point buy fighter will typically have better intellect and charisma - stats that have little effect on fighting things, but make the character more fun.
That's why I prefer 20 point buy. The actual combat aptitude of classes that don't need a boost, which covers almost all SAD characters, doesn't change. Instead, good classes get a "fun" boost, and classes that aren't as mechanically strong get the boost they need.
I have to agree here. The matter of how much you optimize has a lot to do with what you end up with. With 15 point buy, I feel more pressure to optimise, with 20+ I don't, so in their primary function for me a 15 or 20 point buy will have little effect.
Okay so I have a level 9 EK in a game ATM...15 point buy.
baseline stats: str 13, dex 14, con 12, int 17, wis 7, cha 7.
With elf applied and level points into int, at level 9 I have, str 13, dex 16, con 10, int 21, wis 7, cha 7 before items.
If we did 20 point buy, my str would get 2 more point to get 14, and con 3 more for 14. So pretty much the same character, played pretty much the same...buy the 15 feels more like a character and less like a numbers exercise to me...despite the fact that the 15 point buy stats is a pretty gnarly bit of gaming the numbers. Odd, ain't it.
Now you see, I'd hate that character. Smart, but weak willed and foolish, with no social skills. I could take a hit to one mental stat but not two. With the extra points, I'd bump up the charisma and the wisdom because they make the character more playable to me. So for me, the character wiould be no more powerful with 20 point buy, but much more enjoyable.
The reason 20 point buy is better is because it allows for more complex characters.Just because you distribute points to less common attributes like charisma and intelligence when given a higher point buy, it doesn't mean everyone does. Most people will still squeeze in a few more points of strength, dex or whatever, at the same expense of mental stats. Rolling a slightly intelligent and charismatic fighter isn't impossible under 15 point buy, either, but of course you're going to suffer a bit in your primary stats. That's how it should be.
Anyways, after reading this thread I'm considering switching from 15 pt buy to 20 pt buy, and take away the players' ability to buy a 7. I'm really fond of that and I do think that will allow for some cool characters.
Yes, it really depends on how you play, and for DM's it depends on how your players play.
|
|
I've just read several threads where people are dealing with players with astronomical Ability scores.
I've been trying to use a 15 point buy in all my new games, and I still get push back from the players.
I just don't get it. All high scores accomplish is more paperwork for the GM and/or ruining the experience for all involved.
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.
*steps down from soapbox*
I tried something to keep my players, whom are mostly "power gamers" to stop crunching the numbers so much and focus on character development. I could go in detail about why this has worked for my campaign very well, but in short, this is my "homebrew", give it a try?
The first thing I asked my players before they made their character is to choose what sort of starting "Edge" they would prefer... to put it simply...
Edge 1: "STATS"
*roll 4d6, ignoring lowest die for Ability Scores
*1 Trait
*starting Gold is rolled for as normal
(the Monk, the Druid, and the Cavalier in my group went for this)
Edge 2: "ORIGIN"
*roll 3d6 for Ability Score (then +1 to any attribute regardless of any racial bonuses, no stats above 18)
* 3 Traits (one from each Trait sub-category: IE Combat, Magic, Faith, etc)
* starting Gold maxed
* item(s) of the player's choice... GM approved of course. (Since the player's Ability Scores are going to be "lower" that will have very dynamic affect on their overall character in everything they do, so I would suggest to be generous, but reasonable. I found making custom items per the players wishlist that would "grow" with them as they level is in short, quite an fun experience so far =)
|
Personally, I think DnD anymore is way to focused on what your stats are. I don't give a crap about stats, but I do understand the advantage of having them go higher and higher. Personally, if Pathfinder goes to a version two I hope they redesign the game so that your stats can't go higher in any one stat than 20 (unless you're playing monstrous races), and that items and spells don't do stupid things like +2 to +4 to some stat or the other (In the baldur's Gate game stat items usually boosted stats to a set number instead of giving a +2, that's what I prefer). Take the game away from worrying about silly numbers and worrying more about what you do with your character.
And for the record evil Lincoln, I wouldn't bat an eyelash at someone saying to use 15 point buy (although honestly I prefer rolling)
|
|
You know, this thread does make me nostalgic for dice rolling. With all of that said, dice also encourage the SAD classes; which like many I do find less fun.
The possibilities to make MAD more viable are:
*Points by class. I like this, though it may havre the negative effect of discouraging clerics (I've found few that like playing straight support cleric-bards, so it's tougher). For the record, you can always say the points you take disallow you from ever multi-classing into any class with less points (so if your Monk wants to ever be a cleric, he'll take the 15 point build, not 25).
*High points / no stat buydown
*Dice rolled in attribute order. I think this is kinda cool, in the sense you might get the freakishly strong wiz. You can set baseline minimums, and maybe a point buy afterwards to help low Con rollers get "on their feet".
*A stat block. Old school: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. By far the worst for SADs, so may be the best system. Also encourages characters on the level Pathfinder expects. May go with this next time.
My mind does wheel; while I am certainly a power gamer, I do dislike the cookie-cutter characters encouraged by point buy systems.
The 20 point buy fighter will typically have better intellect and charisma - stats that have little effect on fighting things, but make the character more fun.This isn't meant as anything other than an honest query. But how do higher stats = more fun? If you say that intellect and charisma are non-combat stats for a fighter and I completely agree - wouldn't roleplaying any number in these stats be a possible source of fun?
Cheers,
S.
The difference being that you are forced to play this exact character every time or be much worse at your intended combat roll. I prefer to be able to play the character of my choosing.
Its all you like: if GM and players are satisfied then your way is ok.
We play most of the time 20 point buy, We have one rule, only your racial penalties makes it possible to get something below 10. You cant take an 7 on charisma to get 4 extra points.
This build makes nothing worse and keeps it for the gm easy enough. He can take the monsters an CR as stated.
5 pages in, and all it's done is make me MORE in favor of rolling for stats. ;-P
+1. The point buy system, which was really adapted from computer games, seems to play directly into the hands of the powergamers and min/maxers. Great for them if they are enjoying it, but not my cup of tea.
I suppose my main issue is with skill points. A 20 point buy can be (potentially) more complex because those points in int translate out to the fighter having one more facet of personality put into his character sheet.
Of course, if skill points for the fighter is the issue, bumping them up to 4/lvl does the trick. The campaign setting goes this route through the use of a feat and the Trailblazer product bumps all the 2/lvl classes to 4/lvl and backs up their assessment mathematically that it doesn't screw class-balance. Bumping skill points assures the bump is applied to remove the limitation you're percieving. Increased stats, don't guarantee the character is any more well-rounded.
I think a 20-point buy is certainly viable, just not required for effective play. If I were running a game that nerfed/stripped out the majority of stat-boosting items in the game, I'd lead with 20 points.
Whoops! Forgot to mention that I do stat raises every 4 levels differently(2 points instead of 1).To different stats or any stats?
It's two points that you can put anywhere- two points into one stat or one point into two different stats.
5 pages in, and all it's done is make me MORE in favor of rolling for stats. ;-P+1. The point buy system, which was really adapted from computer games, seems to play directly into the hands of the powergamers and min/maxers. Great for them if they are enjoying it, but not my cup of tea.
I wouldn't call myself either a power gamer or a min/maxer, but I prefer point buy because I can make the character I want to play. In fact, if you look you will see that many of those arguing for higher point buy are doing so in order not to min/max better but to make their characters more rounded and playable.
Point buy was never adapted from computer games, it is used in a great many other RPGs and has been for many, many years. I prefer it because it is fair across the board to all players; I have been in games where the God of Dice has smiled on one player and frowned on another and left us with a munchkin and a dead-weight.
A lot of good stuff here...some of them i will have to try at some point.
2d6+6 was one idea i was kicking around for a bit, decided against it for the upcoming KM campaign i'm running.
-t
Good.
Me and my friend like to mock "heroic" stat generation sometimes when bored to see how wildly we can skew the system. We then translate them into point buy totals and laugh about how bad or ridiculous they are.
I think our maximum point buy we've rolled so far was 56~ (18 18 16 16 12 10 or somesuch) and our lowest point buy we've rolled was 5 (13 13 12 10 9 8)
So you have Ewan McDarkpast, native Hermean over here with so many bonuses that he could opt in to take a seventh stat, choose to put a 12 in it and divide up his stats equally to populate it and still have more modifiers than the character that should be, in all rights, a farmer.
And they're in the same party.
|
|
+2; it's rare a thread has this much impact, but I believe next game I run will be based on dice rolling of some sort. Kinda interesting thinking; points make it easy (no ""character generating" session, everyone can show up with their guys), and make people feel more fair. On the other hand, I've had understatted guys in the past and didn't feel insanely understatted; it was probably because those with the extreme stats took the less powerful, more stat-heavy rolls.
|
|
They need just as many ability scores as a Monk (if not more) they need a decent strength if they want to go into melee, they need a decent dexterity as they are no longer proficient with heavy armor (which I honestly like), they need a decent constitution if they plan on going in to melee, they need a good wisdom for obvious reasons, and they need a decent charisma if they want to be able to channel energy well, the only thing they don't really need is intelligence but what if you want more than 2 skill points every level????!
Considering the breadth of the cleric spells AND the fact they get decent armor, no ASF, some martial weapons, AND 3/4 BAB (with the accompanying d8 HD), you are going to have to explain that statement a bit more.
As to taking the first 2 levels in Monk (which I would do), then multiclassing (to, say, Cleric or Druid?), I think that is the most obvious exploit to varying pt buy by class.
So...your saying the cleric is MAD because you think the cleric should be able to be good at everything...umm yeah....
You know what, in that case a wizard is MAD too. You need high int obviously, high con for HP, high dex for AC...you get NO armor after all, high str so he can carry an entire library with him, high wisdom for will saves so all he can dump is his cha.
As for monk for 2 levels, if you wanna give up 2 CL for some stats...I says that perfectly fair.
5 pages in, and all it's done is make me MORE in favor of rolling for stats. ;-P+1. The point buy system, which was really adapted from computer games, seems to play directly into the hands of the powergamers and min/maxers. Great for them if they are enjoying it, but not my cup of tea.I wouldn't call myself either a power gamer or a min/maxer, but I prefer point buy because I can make the character I want to play. In fact, if you look you will see that many of those arguing for higher point buy are doing so in order not to min/max better but to make their characters more rounded and playable.
Point buy was never adapted from computer games, it is used in a great many other RPGs and has been for many, many years. I prefer it because it is fair across the board to all players; I have been in games where the God of Dice has smiled on one player and frowned on another and left us with a munchkin and a dead-weight.
Fair enough. I agree that many players will not abuse the point buy system by min/maxing. My only point is that it is easier for power gamers to abuse the point buy system than it is a roll the dice system. And again, if that's the way people want to play, more power to them. Just not for me.
A lot of good stuff here...some of them i will have to try at some point.
2d6+6 was one idea i was kicking around for a bit, decided against it for the upcoming KM campaign i'm running.
-t
Good.
Me and my friend like to mock "heroic" stat generation sometimes when bored to see how wildly we can skew the system. We then translate them into point buy totals and laugh about how bad or ridiculous they are.
I think our maximum point buy we've rolled so far was 56~ (18 18 16 16 12 10 or somesuch) and our lowest point buy we've rolled was 5 (13 13 12 10 9 8)
So you have Ewan McDarkpast, native Hermean over here with so many bonuses that he could opt in to take a seventh stat, choose to put a 12 in it and divide up his stats equally to populate it and still have more modifiers than the character that should be, in all rights, a farmer.
And they're in the same party.
The 2d6+6 does not skew the system as much as you'd think. I've been using it for awhile and all it does is prevent you from having any stat below an 8. The rolls my players have gotten are allot more "average" than you'd believe. However, there are always exceptions and some people do seem to have the luck of the dice.
Bad rolls as always fall under a "mulligan" and can be re-rolled. (Those with no or only a +3 positive total I believe it is.)
So...your saying the cleric is MAD because you think the cleric should be able to be good at everything...umm yeah....You know what, in that case a wizard is MAD too. You need high int obviously, high con for HP, high dex for AC...you get NO armor after all, high str so he can carry an entire library with him, high wisdom for will saves so all he can dump is his cha.
As for monk for 2 levels, if you wanna give up 2 CL for some stats...I says that perfectly fair.
I'm not saying a Cleric should be good at everything but I think the reason a Cleric has access to medium armor, a possible marital weapon, and has a 3/4 BAB rather than 1/2 is so they can do more than cast spells and channel energy.
One thing,
I keep hearing how 15 point buy doesn't make 'heroic' characters.
How is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 (or 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10) not heroic compared to 10, 11, 10, 11, 10, 11?
(moved from wrong thread)
You are comparing it to the wrong thing.The problem is that some character ideas need to spread out the stats and would have 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Others DONT need to spread the stats and have 17,15,15,7,7,7. Character 1 (the spread out stats) uses his +2 from his race to fill out the lower stats (the 12 or 13), character 2 (with the focused stats) uses it to bring his 17 to a 19. You end up with 15,14,13,14,10,8 vs 19,15,15,7,7,7 where the later is not hurt mechanically by the 7's.
One thing,
I keep hearing how 15 point buy doesn't make 'heroic' characters.
How is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 (or 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10) not heroic compared to 10, 11, 10, 11, 10, 11?
(moved from wrong thread)
You are comparing it to the wrong thing.The problem is that some character ideas need to spread out the stats and would have 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Others DONT need to spread the stats and have 17,15,15,7,7,7. Character 1 (the spread out stats) uses his +2 from his race to fill out the lower stats (the 12 or 13), character 2 (with the focused stats) uses it to bring his 17 to a 19. You end up with 15,14,13,14,10,8 vs 19,15,15,7,7,7 where the later is not hurt mechanically by the 7's.
and which 3 stats would you be putting those 7's into Sir