I find it funny that people think dice rolling discourages min/maxing.As a dice roller, I agree with you.I'm curious for those of us who roll stats, how close do you watch your players? What rules do you put in place?
I ask because, I admit, I have cheated at rolling before. Not so drastic as writing down a higher number or anything. Just rolling each die one at a time, and when one comes up as 1 or 2, trying to hit that die with the next to turn it over into a better number. Doesn't always work, but it skews the rolls higher.
Has anyone had a problem with this, and made rules like 'all dice have to roll together' and the like?
I've never rolled a character like that, but have practiced skewing averages on stats with this method while bored. Found I could usually increase my stats by 3-5 points. Its why in game if we are rolling dice seprately and 1 die has landed before another hits it we go with the previous result if anyone remembers it.
One of the things I like about point buy, and right now I use the 15 point buy, is that the PCs aren't good at everything. I can have two clerics in the party with each focused on something different. I can have two monks in the party, each with a different focus. The players don't feel like others are stepping on the roles they built for their characters.
In my current party (all level 4), there is a cleric, alchemist, paladin, ranger, and rogue. We are introducing a knight this weekend. Because of the 15 point buy, we have seen quite a bit of in-combat healing especially with combat lasting 5 or more rounds. We have seen each character step into a different role so that everyone can do something instead of everyone doing everything. It feels like there is a party of characters instead of a bunch of individuals who are splitting loot.
We are also seeing people having to make different choices to accomplish their goals. For example, the ranger is going to go for sorcerer with a shadow bloodline so he can take a shadow scout prestige class. However, his Intelligence isn't giving him enough skill points to get all the ranks he needs. He will have wait a couple of extra levels to get into his prestige class. He will still be able to take all 10 levels, he just can't do it right away.
Everyone is still having fun. We are just seeing more tactics. We are seeing more roleplaying. We are seeing more use of skills. I am going to be introducing Skillful Stunts from Tome of Secrets for some more fun.
I think that the 15 point buy is working fine for us. I am running the Age of Worms adventure. It's rough right now for them but they are surviving. I think that the next campaign I run I may go for 20 point buy but I'm not sure yet.
Forgive coming late to the thread....
I really dislike point buy, regardless of the number of points, for several reasons. The short version of a long rant is that it leads to too "perfect" characters. They lack uniqueness.
[...]
My preferred stat roll method... 2d6+6 rolled 36 times, in a 6x6 grid, pick one of the 14 lines (6 vertical, 6 horizontal, 2 diagonal) and play as laid. Sure, it's a ton of dice to roll, but players seem to get a real kick out of it, and generally find a row that works for what they want to do but still has a little flavor.
To me, this method seems like it would result in too "perfect" characters (e.g. characters with nothing lower than a 14, say).
Hey all late joiner here. Personally my group is unfortuanely on the side of super stats and we like to play our games as epic warriors of light vs. the shadowly darkness of Evil. lolz :-)
Our standard stat generation method is 5d6 re-roll any 1s and take the highest 3d6 and arrange as you like. It tends to make some pretty powerful characters but it also still leaves that random chance of awkward 6 or 8 in a stat while everything else may be much higher. Another balacing factor to stop from dumping bad stats or everyone being the same is our group is also RP heavy with backgrounds and talking playing major roles in the sessions along with combat. Even that Dwarf with a 6 Cha is sometimes required to speak to people it makes life fun!
I think it is all about gaming style and if you are having fun or not. My group loves super stats and we try to keep our number grinding in check with in-depth story. But thats what we love. If our GM was unhappy we would have to work things out. If your characters are unhappy then the same. Its all about playing with your friends and having fun as a group!
I think it is all about gaming style and if you are having fun or not.
+1.
This is what counts.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Not one part of which the more optimized monk can't do. Or random Joe can't almost do (or do better if you say Random Joe picked up that intimidate). In short, the character feels slightly better than Joe Commoner, not heroic.
The lower-int wizard is smarter than Joe and can cast spells; but is forced to rely on DCless spells (buffs for the most part). So he's reduced to a sidekick.
Thalin, you continue to explain, explicitly, that this is only your position, and that you're not casting aspersions against anybody for different likes and dislikes. For that, you have my thanks.
Two weeks ago, in a different thread (about rolling, rather than point-buy, I wrote the following:
Beware: I'm in a crusty mood.
My campaign originally used a dice-rolling variation on the "Three Dragon Ante" lifepath method Craig Shackleton designed. We re-evaluated our interest in that method when one character ended up with a Strength of 3. (There aren't a lot of weapons a character like that can even carry without becoming winded.) Somebody else ended up with an Intelligence of 5 and a Constitution of 6. So, nowadays I offer players the choice of two methods:
Method One28d6 dice assignment:
- A player can buy traits with the dice if she likes (they cost 1, then 2, then 3, then 4 dice),
- The player assigns the remaining dice to the attributes as she pleases,
- The player takes the sum of the best 3 dice,
- Each additional '6' beyond three adds to the score. So we would evaluate a roll of {3, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6} as a 20.
Method Two 4d6 Grid
--+--+--
Why do we demand to run perfect, Mary Sue PCs? Why are we afraid to run characters with actual low (5 or 6) attributes? Why would the poster named Mok simply pick up his stuff and leave the table if asked to create a character he didn't have absolute control over?
What kind of stories are we trying to tell?
Elric had a lousy Constitution. Kull was not the brightest bulb on the tree. Frodo's physical strength was no match for any of his foemen. Conan was short-tempered and rash. Those faults and failings made them fun to read about. Give Frodo a Strength of 15 and a Dexterity of 20, and Weapon Focus in shortsword, and see whether that makes his saga any more thrilling.
Players think that if their character start with terrific stats, the game will be easier for them. That's ridiculous. As a GM, I know that a party of 2nd-level charactrs with average primary stats of 18, and nothing below a 13, are able to face far tougher challenges than a party whose primary stats are 14, and who have some attributes in the 7-9 range. So the game isn't any easier for the super-human characters, the opposition is just proportionate to their superior selves.
The net effect is that super-statted characters handle any given challenge earlier in their career, about 1 or 2 levels before characters with (4d6, drop the low die, arrange in order) stats. So, they step out of the low-fantasy problems ("I need to climb the rope! What are we going to do about food? Look out: it's a hobgoblin!") right away.
Why not just start the campaign at 3rd level?
--+--+--
Told you I'm in a crusty mood.
Are the APs written for 15 point or 20 point buy characters..I'm presuming the latter.
In the end it's your choice how you play the game..we could argue this till the sun cools and never reach agreement..
Oh yes and it matters not to me for my home games because my players detest point buy.
Are the APs written for 15 point or 20 point buy characters..I'm presuming the latter.
IIRC, 15 in the rulebook is considered "Standard" so the APs probably follow this. Check the NPC stats.
In the end it's your choice how you play the game..we could argue this till the sun cools and never reach agreement..
Yeah. IIRC the OP's argument wasn't "15 point buy ((or any other stat generating system)) is the only way to play." (Edit: typo fixed)
It was, "Players, if your GM decides to go with 15 point buy because that's the standard baseline and they don't have a lot of prep time to advance encounters, please don't give your GM a hard time about it."
That was all.
Fortunately, even when running games at standard point buy (so I could learn and prep the game more easily), my players were most accommodating (but I'm starting to suspect I have the best players EVER). (And they built kick-ass characters anyway). I now feel like I could run at various power levels and do okay, but personally, it was very important for me to learn the baseline first before I figured out how to deviate from it.
It's one thing to prefer a given point buy; it's another to be a jerk to the person who is willing to put a insane ton of time into prepping so you can play your pretendy funtime games.
Are the APs written for 15 point or 20 point buy characters..I'm presuming the latter.
I have often asked the same question - especially given the deadliness of the first two.
edited
14, 12, 16, 18, 12, 15..Id play a wizard with those stats quite happily thank you
One way to find out Hogarth...** spoiler omitted **
Lets see how that pans out.EDIT: Ok... that didn't come out how I expected lol. Oh well, I've got the rolls in the spoiler, time to set up the grid.
That ended up with either:
18, 16, 15, 14, 12, 12 (point buy: 43) for SAD
or
16, 15, 14, 14, 14, 12 (point buy: 34) for MAD
Although, even most MAD classes could afford having two 12s as the lowest. They could technically (with two +2s and a -2) have 18, 18, 17, 14, 12, 10... which is ridiculously good for any class.
You know... I rather like that spread to be honest. Very few numbers under 10, but plenty under 14. [..] The top row left to right appeals a lot to me, good scores overall, and a very high int which matches the PC's I tend to play (including melee PC's), but I can see several uses for various other choices.
The fourth column is about as good, but with high Str instead of Int. They're the equivalent of a 43 point buy and a 41 point buy respectively, which falls into the "too perfect" category for me, personally. And note that only one roll in that entire grid is below 11!
At least as for me, I'm not interested in playing a character who is co-dependent on his party-mates to have a chance of being successful, my idea of fun is playing an independent individual who's fully capable of setting out on solo adventures (at lower CR of course) and being his own adventurer who happens to work with others from time to time. Different strokes and all that, but I'm not having fun with a character if he's nothing without the group.It feels like there is a party of characters instead of a bunch of individuals who are splitting loot.
With some of the groups I've had lately, this is exactly the problem. I work hard on an adventure, for the group, and then one or two people want to run off on their own leaving me to basically run two or three adventures at the same time with me only being prepared for one. It's a pain in the ass and one I am no longer willing to put up with. I don't mind once in a while but I have a player that is still running off on his own and coming back nearly dead.
This happens no matter what game we are playing. He has done this in Gamma World, d20 Modern, DnD, Pathfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, etc. If he wasn't codependent on the rest of the party, he'd basically have me running two adventures; one I planned and one I have to ad lib just for him.
If my players would be willing to stick together, I would be willing to go with a higher point buy or even back to my favorite: rolling for stats. As it stands, I need a way to keep them together as a group.
Like I said I hand my PC's 18, 16, 14, 14, 12, 10 to distribute so it works really well for me, but to each their own, no sweat hogarth.
Don't get me wrong; I don't have anything against giving out high stats.
I just thought the idea that using an incredibly generous rolling scheme results in less "perfect" characters was odd!
I played a campaign using the 15 point buy, it works ok because the game was designed for that.
But high stats isn't a problem for me, you just need to know the party stats an simplify. In my current campaign people has got very high stats rolling multiple times, the outcoming was far better AC and saves than standard characters, and a bit more hps, damage and skills.
I balanced it giving foes a +2 to attack and a +2 to Save DCs (based on what the characters get), far simpler than using templates, works perfectly and since ultra-AC isn't a problem the combat is as fast as it is supossed to be and entertaining.
Of course the bonuses depend of the party ability scores, +2 is for characters that are using the equivalent of a 40 point-buy, which is a lot.
I wouldn't adjust anything for 15-25 point buy builds, the game gives those options and the difference isn't so big, the tactics used by monsters and PCs are far more important than what you get for a few points.
Gaming is a social experience, and players have the most fun when they work together to make things work.
Really? Then I know several people that are clearly playing the game wrong.
Wondering what people think about this: A monk that has a 16 for Strength, Dexterity, and Wisdom, while the rest of the scores are each a 10. Does this seem overpowered? First level monk.
Doesn't seem overpowered to me. And hey, lower his Int and Cha to 8, and you're looking at approximately an average rolled pointbuy using the 3.5 pointbuy system. Of course, Pathfinder point buy charges a lot more for 16s, so my proposed adjustment is still almost 25 Pathfinder point buy.
Here's a thought for people who keep proposing these really interesting variants based on which character class you play: What if the SAD characters have to use 20 Pathfinder point buy but the MAD characters are allowed to use 30 3.5 point buy? Both are the average point buy for rolling 4d6 drop lowest and then taking the mean in their respective systems. However, 30 3.5 point buy allows, for instance, 14 14 14 14 14 8, whereas that would be 23 point buy in Pathfinder.
Wondering what people think about this: A monk that has a 16 for Strength, Dexterity, and Wisdom, while the rest of the scores are each a 10. Does this seem overpowered? First level monk.This is for a human at 28 point buy.
I'm seeing a 25 point buy. Where are the extra 3 points?
|
I'm seeing a 25 point buy. Where are the extra 3 points?Wondering what people think about this: A monk that has a 16 for Strength, Dexterity, and Wisdom, while the rest of the scores are each a 10. Does this seem overpowered? First level monk.This is for a human at 28 point buy.
Lower one to 8 to get an additional 2 points. 16 costs 10 points. Bump the 8 up to 10 from human racial boost.
|
I find it funny that people think dice rolling discourages min/maxing.As a dice roller, I agree with you.I'm curious for those of us who roll stats, how close do you watch your players? What rules do you put in place?
I ask because, I admit, I have cheated at rolling before. Not so drastic as writing down a higher number or anything. Just rolling each die one at a time, and when one comes up as 1 or 2, trying to hit that die with the next to turn it over into a better number. Doesn't always work, but it skews the rolls higher.
Has anyone had a problem with this, and made rules like 'all dice have to roll together' and the like?
I have all the players put in 1d6 each, and then roll in front of one another. This stops anyone from "pre-rolling" for 15 minutes (no joke: this was a problem in my groups) and determining their best 4 dice. Since all players don't like that, you end up with at least one "normal, doesn't always roll 6s" d6.
If the stats look too low (such as 2 14's as the top), I may adjudicate a re-roll of a column.
My house rule is 17 points, no buying down below 10.
I'm a lot less interested in "player choice" than I am in "good game". I think you can have a good game at any point level, be it 5 or 50, so long as the GM takes care to adjust the opposition accordingly.
That said, why not use standard point buys and standard opposition? The magic's not in the numbers; it's in the players. If you're hung up about the numbers, you're missing the point of the game.
|
Gaming is a social experience, and players have the most fun when they work together to make things work.Really? Then I know several people that are clearly playing the game wrong.
Er, under ANY rpg I know of they are! If we slightly modify the sentiment of the post and remove the word most then you have the central theme for group based rpg's. Why bother having a group at all if one person can do it all? Stupid to share the loot amongst those you aren't required. RPG's were/are on the whole were designed as a WE not an I experience.
Lower one to 8 to get an additional 2 points. 16 costs 10 points. Bump the 8 up to 10 from human racial boost.I'm seeing a 25 point buy. Where are the extra 3 points?Wondering what people think about this: A monk that has a 16 for Strength, Dexterity, and Wisdom, while the rest of the scores are each a 10. Does this seem overpowered? First level monk.This is for a human at 28 point buy.
Or buy 2 sixteens and a fourteen then boost the fourteen into a 16 with the stat bump.
16 = 10 points
16 = 10 points
14 = 5 points
14+2(racial bonus) = 16
It doesn't cost 28 points to get that, only 25.
Yep, the secret with point buy is to use your racial bonus on your highest stat, never the lowest.
My players too are spoiled whiny brats..but there is one argument that I cannot disagree with:
As long as scenarios consist of combat after combat after combat after combat after...yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwn...combat, then I don't blame them for wanting to min-max their characters with "win-button" powers.
jh
|
|
Lower one to 8 to get an additional 2 points. 16 costs 10 points. Bump the 8 up to 10 from human racial boost.I'm seeing a 25 point buy. Where are the extra 3 points?Wondering what people think about this: A monk that has a 16 for Strength, Dexterity, and Wisdom, while the rest of the scores are each a 10. Does this seem overpowered? First level monk.This is for a human at 28 point buy.Or buy 2 sixteens and a fourteen then boost the fourteen into a 16 with the stat bump.
16 = 10 points
16 = 10 points
14 = 5 points14+2(racial bonus) = 16
It doesn't cost 28 points to get that, only 25.
Didn't think of that. Thank you.
To me, a roleplaying game is all about roleplaying a character, not about filling the 'caster'or 'striker' or whatever role the team needs so they can go beat up "team evil"
Definitely agree with this. Any given campaign is a balance between Role Playing and Game, based on the DM's style and (hopefully) the players' preferences. Some people prefer the "Game" aspect, and to them, playing a monk with a 7 Cha and and 8 Int is no big deal, because the monk has the numbers he or she needs.
But for people who are more than 1/2 way toward Role Play on the axis (like myself), this is mostly not acceptable. What are the odds that, in a given campaign world, every monk is an idiot with a bad personality who fights well? It strains belief. Most players I know don't want to "fill a slot" as much as they have a character concept they want to play. It's up to me to fit him/her into the campaign world so the player has fun. BUT, there are definitely those who enjoy the game aspect almost exclusively, and for them the numbers are what counts.
This isn't a line, you know. You can be a cool individual and still be a part of the group.
Batman worked with the Justice League, you know :U
Discussions like this make me happy I don't actually play in tournaments & stuff. I run the game the way I & my players like. As long as we have fun & eat a lot of pizza, who cares? Whatever you do, balance it with your players & don't worry about what everyone else on the boards thinks. BUT!!!! If your player's aren't having fun, THEN you are doing something wrong. In the end, it is all about group chemistry.
To me, a roleplaying game is all about roleplaying a character, not about filling the 'caster'or 'striker' or whatever role the team needs so they can go beat up "team evil"Definitely agree with this. Any given campaign is a balance between Role Playing and Game, based on the DM's style and (hopefully) the players' preferences. Some people prefer the "Game" aspect, and to them, playing a monk with a 7 Cha and and 8 Int is no big deal, because the monk has the numbers he or she needs.
But for people who are more than 1/2 way toward Role Play on the axis (like myself), this is mostly not acceptable. What are the odds that, in a given campaign world, every monk is an idiot with a bad personality who fights well? It strains belief. Most players I know don't want to "fill a slot" as much as they have a character concept they want to play. It's up to me to fit him/her into the campaign world so the player has fun. BUT, there are definitely those who enjoy the game aspect almost exclusively, and for them the numbers are what counts.
Look just cause you can't role play it doesn't mean others can't. Your assumption that someone who understands the numbers can't be more than "1/2 way toward role play" smacks of stormwind fallacy.
Also your assumption that an INT of 7 is an idiot shows you haven't been following the thread very closely -- that's in the 16th percentile which means 15 out of 100 people are dumper than you are -- if a 7 is full bore idiocy what are those other 15 people?
By your same logic someone with a 13 INT must be a full blown genius since that's the same distance in from an INT of 10 as 7 is only in the opposite direction.
Yes the guy is slow -- and probably shy since he got picked on as a kid for not being a good thinker but that doesn't mean he didn't learn early on that "practice makes perfect" and developed amazing technique and a great body from all that practice.
Guys it is physically impossible to roleplay and be good at math.
My friend John once, his head exploded.
*casts Summon Mister Fishy*
Guys it is physically impossible to roleplay and be good at math.
My friend John once, his head exploded.
Yeah. He was probably trying to minmax Minimus
(I've been tempted to make players do character generation in Minimus BEFORE allocating points for Pathfinder.)
No I was addressing Rando1000. His argument (a repeat of earlier ones) is patently false. Without more information about the player assuming that he has 7s just to maximize and that he is bad/wrong/unfun for doing this is flat... irksome to me.
And the 15 point buy forces more 7s into a party than it would normally have too (part of the original topic which we covered in pages 3~5 iirc). A 20 point buy means less 7s are needed to cover your bases, and just because you cover your bases doesn't mean you are a "bad role player" or "only care about the numbers"
Honestly I think the only thing left to say in general is:
Stormwind Fallacy.
Originally Posted by Tempest Stormwind
Tempest Stormwind
05-15-06, 03:58 PM
I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.
Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.
I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
How does this impact "builds"? Simple.
In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.
In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.
By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.
And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).
Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.
They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.
Now we have that out of the way lets recap the thread:
1. 15 point buy does not lower the power of the game. The maximums and minimums are already built in and can't be exceeded due to the number of points a character is allowed and therefore the basic "power level" isn't really going to be broken by assigning more points.
2. A 15 point buy character is perfectly playable. It isn't going to have room for fluff stats but you can easily build a character that can function in a game without dragging the party down.
3. Fun is good. If you like rolling great, if you like point buy great. In the end everyone has their own way of genning stats and that's ok.
4. Role playing is not anti-thetical to roll playing and visa versa.