I have always been a firm believer in the randomness of character generation throughout all of the editions of D&D I have played. It was once a badge of honor to be willing to risk really crappy rolls for the chance of really outstanding rolls. You'd roll your stats and, since you had an outrageously strong grasp of the system, fit your rolls into a character you were comfortable playing. When did that give way to point buys that merely give you the illusion of control?
I'm just curious how everyone else feels about this topic. Generally, we use the 4d6, drop the lowest, version. It seems to work well enough. How does everyone else handle it?
Frankly it is purely table preferance IMO there is no 'right or wrong' way to roll. Well the 'right' way is the one that your table players all like and have fun with. Some folks like total control in character creation and some prefer more organic setups.
Rolling is fun until everyone in the group rolls good-above average and you roll absolute crap and are stuck with it. Of course the opposite can be true where everyone else rolls poorly and you roll great.
Point values let everyone have the same stat value's and potentials. Everyone starts on an even foot and it let's you reliably generate a character that fits your concept.
Some folks like random chance. Some don't. It is that simple. Preferance.
As for our Games, the DM used to have us roll 36 stats. 6 columns and 6 rows of 5d6 drop the lowest 2. We could take any six stats from the set as long as they were all in line, horizontally, vertically or diagnoally, but they had to be applied IN ORDER to your stat's. Often times this would end up making a character choose a class other than what they had hoped to play since the stats did not match up.
Finally she decide to go with 92 points, one for one, starting from 0 in all stats, no stat lower than 9 or higher than 18 before racial modifiers. Yes, I know that is insane crazy good but she likes a high powered game and besides myself and her none of the other players had played D&D before so none were optimisers. While I am, I keep my characters strong but not game destroying so as not to outshine the others and it has worked great for us all.
But the new system allowed everyone to play exactly what they envisioned in their heads as what their characters were supposed to be and everyone has the same stat totals so no one feels unlucky or too lucky.
Here's my messed up method...
Roll 1: 4d6 ⇒ (5, 5, 1, 3) = 14
Roll 2: 4d6 ⇒ (1, 4, 1, 1) = 7
Roll 3: 4d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 5, 4) = 13
Roll 4: 4d6 ⇒ (1, 3, 4, 3) = 11
Roll 5: 4d6 ⇒ (1, 1, 2, 3) = 7
Roll 6: 4d6 ⇒ (3, 5, 2, 6) = 16
Roll 7: 4d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 5, 2) = 10
Dropping the lowest die each time and the lowest score overall I get...
13, 11, 10, 6, 14, 9.
Now, roll 1d2+1 for bonus points...
Roll 8: 1d2 + 1 ⇒ (1) + 1 = 2
And I have two bonus points to put where I see fit.
So finally, my character has...
13, 11, 10, 8, 14, and 9. Not the most potent person around, but it could have been worst. My net modifier is 0(minimum must be +1 or 2), so this character is eligible for a re-roll.
Trick question. Under a point buy system how much variation (other than racial bonuses) is there in a fighters strength score...
11 and 12 almost never show up, aside from that I've seen fairly even variation of every number between 10 and 20.
That exemplifies my point quite well: it all depends on player mentality. Some people just want to play a role, others want to create that role in addition to playing it. The first type of person usually likes rolled stats, because they don't have the instincts telling them to create a satisfyingly unique character. The second group, which includes myself and most of the people I'm used to playing with, find rolled stats to be an unnecessary constraint on our creativity. So rolled stats force some people outside of the box, but they put other people inside a different box.
I'm currently in a game with rolled stats, and I ended up with a 26 point-buy equivalent. And yet it's taken me the better part of a week to come up with a character concept that I think I'll enjoy playing because I'm limited to concepts that have two ridiculous stats and nothing else.
Ah...a sickly, clumsy wizard who turned to magic as a way of dealing with all those playground bullies.
A new record! -8 point buy character, ladies and gentlemen.
Hmmmm... maybe I can beat you...
STR
DEX
CON
INT
WIS
CHA
Ah! curses! 6 point buy! Why must I be cursed with aptitude?!
People, if you're rolling 3d6 for old-time's sake, you have to put the abilities in the correct old-time order:
Str
Int
Wis
Dex
Con
Cha
Ah, well then...
STR
INT
WIS
DEX
CON
CHA
Looks like I'm a Conjurer wizard who needs to focus to keep from summoning the same thing over and over regardless of applicability because I think it's just that awesome.
Ah, well then...
Looks like I'm a Conjurer wizard who needs to focus to keep from summoning the same thing over and over regardless of applicability because I think it's just that awesome.
Close. -8 point buy... can someone around here roll six 3s already?
Str
Int
Wis
Dex
Con
Cha
First three. I'm so proud.
These are the stats of a shy, sickly wizard who is a paraplegic. The 11 STR is from wheeling myself around the academy in my wheelchair.
|
My point was not all fighters will have an 18 in strength if rolled.Unless your rolling straight down, that doesn´t hold true. The fighter will STILL place the high stat in their strength. And even then with 6 strength, I doubt somebody will try for fighter with that.
Not all fighters have 18 strength in point buy either...especially with 15 point buy...and even still with 20, your gonna see 14s and 16s depending on what they are doing with the fighter. Only at really high point buy do you see all 18s all the time fighters. But then again thats like having really generous rolling method that generates 18s a lot too. Your goona see fighters with 18s in strength wither you use uber high point buy or generous rolling methods...that has nothing to do with the value of rolling stats vs point buy as both can be scaled as high or low as you want. It´s just that point buy gives you more precise control over the scaling.
The dice gods had their Götterdämmerung.
I like to think I'm appeasing them so that I can get good rolls for my next character to work on. I already had ground to make up, because I wasn't kidding about the Whisper Gnome (16, 16, 16, 18, 12, 17; Str 15, Dex 20, Con 18, Int 16, Wis 16, Cha 10 for a tiny Jayne Cobb who's surprisingly insightful at times in an upcoming Urban Arcana game).
Here I go again on my own:
STR
INT
WIS
DEX
CON
CHA
O.O
Sweet chocolate-covered Jeebuz, I'm that meathead from Hudson Hawk! It's like I won the lottery!
My issue with rolling (especially with low numbers of dice) and with low point buy is simple. I enjoy playing heroic characters, and I usually come into a game with an idea of what I want to play before I ever start rolling dice (or splitting points). I don't find 3d6 to be particularly fun. I don't want to play an average Joe (or below average) Joe.
That doesn't mean I have to be above average in everything, but I am a little bothered when I'm saddled with something like a six to stick somewhere and have to decide "Am I impossibly weak, or superbly clusmy, or sickly (aka dead), or mentally handicapped, or a giant fool, or uglier than an orc."
My preference is point buy.
|
It´s just that point buy gives you more precise control over the scaling.
Before you think I'm a moron, I get your point. But, and with all respect, with a point buy "it is far more likely" that the highest possible available score will be placed in the primary stat for the class you are playing (it only makes sense too). If you had to make another of the same character class due to death "it is likely" that your mind won't have changed that dramatically on priority of stats. It is also "more likely" that a rolled method with provide a more variable range to said primary stat and that character number 2 is not certain to have the same stat is character 1 in case of character 1's demise.
Your point about generous random vs large point buy is complete valid and I agree 100%.
Fair enough?
S.
My point was not all fighters will have an 18 in strength if rolled.Unless your rolling straight down, that doesn´t hold true. The fighter will STILL place the high stat in their strength. And even then with 6 strength, I doubt somebody will try for fighter with that.
Not all Fighters will have an 18 in Strength if generated in point buy, either.
False dilemma is false.
EDIT: And to continue the bandwagon...
STR:
INT:
WIS:
DEX:
CON:
CHA:
Looks like a sorcerer for me.
STR 3d6 ⇒ (2,4,2) 8
INT 3d6 ⇒ (5,6,5) 16
WIS 3d6 ⇒ (5,5,5) 15
DEX 3d6 ⇒ (3,2,1) 6
CON 3d6 ⇒ (6,3,1) 10
CHA 3d6 ⇒ (5,4,2) 11
Wizard, who is wise and very clumsy, he is normal in his physic, although he is lacking in muscle, and he is quite plain.
STR 4d6 =(4,4,3/2) =11
INT 4d6 =(4,3,2/2) =9
WIS 4d6 =(5,4,4/2) =13
DEX 4d6 =(6,2,2/1) =10
CON 4d6 =(6,5,1/1) =12
CHA 4d6 =(5,5,3/1) =13
Com 4d6 =(6,6,6/1) =18
Because I was desperate for one good stat, I now have a very good looking chap, who has average str, not the brightest, somewhat wise, average coordination, some what tough, alright in his mannerism, and as I said damn good looking, I am going to make him a commoner! :)
STR 5d6=(6,5,4/4,3)=15
INT 5d6=(5,5,3/1,1)=13
WIS 5d6=(5,5,4/2,2)=14
DEX 5d6=(5,5,3/3,1)=13
CON 5d6=(5,5,6/4,4)=16
CHA 5d6=(6,6,6/4,3)=18
COM 5d6=(6,4,3/2,1)=13
strong, bright, wise, agile, tough as nails, great with his words and can convince people that the sky is not blue, with a nice smile.
I think this will do for a good paladin, or better yet I will just take a favored soul and update it to pathfinder.
|
|
Not all Fighters will have an 18 in Strength if generated in point buy, either.
False dilemma is false.
I ammended to say "primary stat" in the post above your one. What was you DEX score at level 1 pray tell?
S.
I ammended to say "primary stat" in the post above your one. What was you DEX score at level 1 pray tell?
S.
16. And it was a 25 point buy.
|
|
16. And it was a 25 point buy.I ammended to say "primary stat" in the post above your one. What was you DEX score at level 1 pray tell?
S.
If you made the same character again would you put 16 in that stat again?
S.
EDIT: Please don't take from this that I am against ANY method that groups use and are happy with. My point is just that in my experience, from a real example, Fighter A died and Fighter B (Fighter A's twin with differing hp's), arrives. Dull. If we aren't happy with random stats, why do we roll hp at all? That can also make character (1) "lesser" than character (2).
E.g. 2nd level Mage, CON (+2) hp's = 16, 15, 14, 13, 12. That's a huge 25% difference worst to best rolls. If I get 12 hp's should I get my character killed under the idea I'm not as good as the Mage with 16 hp's?
Absolutely. He needed to be competent in all three physical stats and I made a conscious effort to keep his Will save up, so he needed Wisdom as well. In order to give him an 18 Dex, he'd have had to drop one of Str, Con, or Wis to 10 from 14 and drop another one of them from 14 to 13. That sacrifice isn't worth it for me. For others, it might be. Which rather blows your "all point buy characters are identical" assertion out past the Oort cloud.
I think some of people's preferences come down to what their expectation is coming in. If a player comes to the table to create his character with a firm idea of exactly what kind of character he wants to play, he isn't likely to be happy with a randomly rolled character, unless he gets lucky or is using one of the many alternate methods people use to modify die rolls.
I, on the other hand, like playing pretty much every kind of character (even bards and clerics), and enjoy the anticipation of seeing what the dice will give me. It's kind of like opening presents on Christmas. What is it in that strangely shaped box? A shiny new wizard? A dashing rogue? A brutish barbarian? It's all good.
One last thing. I get very discouraged reading the various posters who refer to either their own or someone else's character as "gimped" or "unplayable" or "dead weight" or "a liability" because their stats are lower than someone else's. In thirty years playing RPGs, I have never, ever seen the success of a character be determined by what their stats are. The success of individual actions or die rolls, sure, but not the overall success of the character. Some of the most successful characters I've seen have either serious flaws or mediocre stats. Overall success comes from the choices a character makes and how he is played, not the rolls. That is as true in 3.5 and PF as it was in 1st ed.
After all, over enough time, the luck of the dice will even out. Guaranteed. Ask any casino owner. They wouldn't be making money if that weren't the case.
Decisions do matter more than stats, but you still need playable stats. What are playable stats depends on several factors though.
10's across the board are not playable stats without the DM's help, and people dont want to depend on the DM for their survival. <---Dont take that out of context. I know we all depend on the DM. I mean the player will rely on the DM to go out of his way to keep him alive barring miracle rolls with the dice.
That's a strawman argument.You want to pull "Stormwind Fallacy" out while your at it?
The example was extreme to make my point. NOT having an optimised stat leads to either the defeatist attitude of "My character sucks, you guys all have far better stats", because a character hinge entirely on stats and game mechanics right?! Or, having to invest a little bit of time and effort into creating a roleplaying situation that allows you to mitagate your numeric (only numeric, not character) disadvantage.
S.
PS: I don't believe the Stormwind Fallacy is a fallacy. Just a bunch of number crunchers self-justifying the fact they "push" the rules of a system so much it buggers the game up for the DM and the other players. Well done guys, take a bow. But don't get offended by this statement - just repeat the mantra "Stormwind Fallacy" several times...
So you are saying a mechanically strong character cant be RP'd, and it takes a weak character to be RP's well?
|
|
Absolutely. assertion out past the Oort cloud.
Er, actually you just proved it. Your FighterMan dies at the hands of a mighty (Int 24) Balor (really you should have spent more than 10 in Int FighterMan, you would have seen that coming). But wait FighterMan2 (Fighterman's identical stat'ed twin) was hiding behind the door and jumps out at the Balor! Oh crap yells the Balor how many more of you are there! FighterMan2 responds, this build has infinite clones as we are optimised to kill you my firey enemy!
So in case my point got lost in the above... YOUR FightMan would be identical no matter how many times to built him. Inject random stating and FighterMan2 ends up more than likely not the same. See. I wasn't saying everyone on the planet makes the same character with point buys, just that every individual is likely to stat up the same type of character the same way.
Guess the oort cloud isn't as far out as we thought?
S.
If we aren't happy with random stats, why do we roll hp at all?
I asked that question a long time ago. I came to the conclusion that the con modifier makes it not matter so much if we roll bad every once in a while, unless you are the person to dump constitution.
I normally roll well though. If I rolled bad I would for hit points I would probably be very much against it.
Three reasons why our game changed from rolling to point buy:
1) Characters not balanced to each other (thus challenge for one was death for another)
2) Cheating. No one wants crappy stats. They say they didn't cheat. They really did roll those awesome stats... of course they did roll 50 odd times.
3) They did it anyways. How many times have you seen/heard :"Man this character would be kick ass if not for that 8. Hey GM can I switch some stat points from my X stat and even out my Y stat?"
|
|
So you are saying a mechanically strong character cant be RP'd, and it takes a weak character to be RP's well?
Nope, I'm saying the motivation behind extreme mechanically strong characters usually is first "being mechanically strong" followed by "characterisation". The "character" is fit like a skin over the skeleton of the optimised class. Completely my personal (as a DM) preference but you can tell when a person has had an idea for a PC and then fitted a class to the idea - and I prefer it that way. I have been guilty of "nerfing" optimised characters - bad form I know, sue me. Had a player with a fighter with a bow (optimised to death), can't remember what level now, but his bow got stolen. Silly bugger hadn't "diversified his portfolio" so his damage went from uber to terrible. I also hit him with every WILL save I could. His next feats were on other weapons and Iron Will.
S.
PS: I'm also really tight with magic items. I like cats however.
Absolutely. assertion out past the Oort cloud.Er, actually you just proved it. Your FighterMan dies at the hands of a mighty (Int 24) Balor (really you should have spent more than 10 in Int FighterMan, you would have seen that coming). But wait FighterMan2 (Fighterman's identical stat'ed twin) was hiding behind the door and jumps out at the Balor! Oh crap yells the Balor how many more of you are there! FighterMan2 responds, this build has infinite clones as we are optimised to kill you my firey enemy!
This isn't a problem with stats at all, this is a problem with player expectations and desires vs DM's expectations and desires. What you describe above has nothing whatsoever to do with stat rolling vs point buying. Personally I as a DM would never allow a character to have an "identical twin"; if they're that attached to the character that they want to play it again, just get the character revived or use action points or a similar system to keep them alive in the first place.
PS. FighterMan actually wasn't optimized to kill Balors. He was actually designed to be as well-rounded as possible. The very terms of the challenge precluded him being optimized only against Balors. Your sarcasm is as fail as your logic.
PPS. You did, in fact, claim that ALL Fighters would have an 18 in <Primary Stat> if created in point buy. That is false on every level, which is all I was pointing out with my original post.
|
|
If we aren't happy with random stats, why do we roll hp at all?I asked that question a long time ago. I came to the conclusion that the con modifier makes it not matter so much if we roll bad every once in a while, unless you are the person to dump constitution.
I normally roll well though. If I rolled bad I would for hit points I would probably be very much against it.
I agree with you. Differences in hot points which as you point out canbe made worse by CON differences. Are my groups number one issue for "unbalance" the fighter can take the incoming fireball that nukes the wizard. One group I played in had a roll 50%+ rule on hit points at each level.
S.
So you are saying a mechanically strong character cant be RP'd, and it takes a weak character to be RP's well?Nope, I'm saying the motivation behind extreme mechanically strong characters usually is first "being mechanically strong" followed by "characterisation". The "character" is fit like a skin over the skeleton of the optimised class. Completely my personal (as a DM) preference but you can tell when a person has had an idea for a PC and then fitted a class to the idea - and I prefer it that way. I have been guilty of "nerfing" optimised characters - bad form I know, sue me. Had a player with a fighter with a bow (optimised to death), can't remember what level now, but his bow got stolen. Silly bugger hadn't "diversified his portfolio" so his damage went from uber to terrible. I also hit him with every WILL save I could. His next feats were on other weapons and Iron Will.
S.
PS: I'm also really tight with magic items. I like cats however.
That sucks dude. Sneakily forcing a guy to take other feats. That is no different than telling him what feats to take. I know you admitted it was bad form, but it still irks me to be controlled by a DM. I would have taken up craft(bow) as a skill and made my own bow. Taking his bow could have been a great RP opportunity though if he wanted to try to hunt it down. This is also what I would have done, while using the crappy self-made bow.
|
|
Personally I as a DM would never allow a character to have an "identical twin
PS. Your sarcasm is as fail as your logic.
PPS. You did, in fact, claim that ALL Fighters would have an 18 in <Primary Stat> if created in point buy. That is false on every level, which is all I was pointing out with my original post.
First, with a point buy there will be a way that is better than others to stat up a class - this will be independant of the number of times you make up that class. Why would you not allow a player to use this array just because they have before? By making them change you are introducing a certain amount of variation from their optimum - dice would do the same thing.
Second, sorry I was trying to be funny, I can't honesty take all this too seriously - it's a game about fairies and elves... My logic seems sound enough, I error was not reading all the FightMan thread - I read your character and the end three posts. The last post in that thread was amusing. Either way, you have my apologies if I crossed the "smart-arse" line, it was not the intent.
Thirdly, I ammended my brash statement by using the term "primary stat" and "best possible score" later to take into both non-melee builds (hate that term), other classes and other point buy levels.
S.
|
|
That sucks dude. Sneakily forcing a guy to take other feats. That is no different than telling him what feats to take. I know you admitted it was bad form, but it still irks me to be controlled by a DM. I would have taken up craft(bow) as a skill and made my own bow. Taking his bow could have been a great RP opportunity though if he wanted to try to hunt it down. This is also what I would have done, while using the crappy self-made bow.
:) Thank you.
I didn't tell him what to take, was just exploiting the HUGE holes his character presented to me as DM in an effort to point out that "optimaistion" can work against you.
You are on the money about the RP that ensued. Man he was gunning for the thief who stole his VERY expensive STR bow! I may not be your cup of tea as a DM, but given your response to what I did (making the crappy bow etc) you would be my kind of player!
Regards,
S.
I don't understand why two characters with identical stats would automatically assumed to be clones. I give commoners pretty much all 10's and my players don't have trouble distinguishing between the barkeep, the dishonest merchant, and the poor fisheman. Stats don't matter for roleplay, and those who say you need to roll in order to have improved roleplay (Stormwind fallacy, I suppose) are probably getting hung up on the wrong aspect of roleplay.
I think good character building has two components: Mechanically competent characters, at least relative to one another, and good character concepts. I think point buy is better for both when you start off with an idea about what type of character you want to play first, then go about making him/her.
Rolling is fun and all, but the fun ends when your character is so much better than everyone else or so much worse. At least I think most players don't enjoy being dramatically better or worse than others. (I suppose some might enjoy being the best, but they probably game for different reasons than me.)
That sucks dude. Sneakily forcing a guy to take other feats. That is no different than telling him what feats to take. I know you admitted it was bad form, but it still irks me to be controlled by a DM. I would have taken up craft(bow) as a skill and made my own bow. Taking his bow could have been a great RP opportunity though if he wanted to try to hunt it down. This is also what I would have done, while using the crappy self-made bow.:) Thank you.
I didn't tell him what to take, was just exploiting the HUGE holes his character presented to me as DM in an effort to point out that "optimaistion" can work against you.
You are on the money about the RP that ensued. Man he was gunning for the thief who stole his VERY expensive STR bow! I may not be your cup of tea as a DM, but given your response to what I did (making the crappy bow etc) you would be my kind of player!
Regards,
S.
It is all good man. I have never had a DM I completely agreed with. I just try to adjust.
Str=
Int=
Wis=
Dex=
Con=
Cha=
Looks like a fighter for me.....
|
|
Can you tell us an example of a 'characterization of a mechanic' and how you feel that is distinct compared to 'a character concept that is then fleshed out mechanically'? I'm curious what the difference your discussing really is.
I'm working on the assumption this is an honest query...
MY thoughts on the matter (right or wrong) are;
A player who discribes their character in terms of their characters (i.e. Arthur the blacksmiths adopted son...) as opposed to "My TWF who was a blacksmiths adopted son". Actually I guess it's harder to explain than I thought. Ok, try again. We read numerous threads about optimisation of this or that but very few on how to write a good character background. I believe both are as hard as each other and I can usually tell when the background was moulded to fit the game mechanics. Is this making any sense? I think a character should be "alive" perhaps after the stats but long before planning levels 1-20 including all feats etc. By planning mechanically A --> B it turns the adventures and quests into a means to an end (gain XP/levels) rather than a living story where the PC's find themselves becoming things they never dreamed of at level 1. Perhaps I've read too many novels and not enough textbooks and it's coloured my DMing and what I think RPG's are about. I don't want paint by numbers I want a blank canvas, somewhere my characters evolve and change not just tick off another predictable level milestone.
Was that sort of an ok explanation?
S.
Str
Dex
Con
Int
Wis
Cha
Using the 3e order.
I guess I'll go with a Dwarf cleric in heavy armor. I know it's not quite in the spirit of the game, but I wouldn't want to play this character. Much rather poin buy. :)
Can you tell us an example of a 'characterization of a mechanic' and how you feel that is distinct compared to 'a character concept that is then fleshed out mechanically'? I'm curious what the difference your discussing really is.I'm working on the assumption this is an honest query...
MY thoughts on the matter (right or wrong) are;
A player who discribes their character in terms of their characters (i.e. Arthur the blacksmiths adopted son...) as opposed to "My TWF who was a blacksmiths adopted son". Actually I guess it's harder to explain than I thought. Ok, try again. We read numerous threads about optimisation of this or that but very few on how to write a good character background. I believe both are as hard as each other and I can usually tell when the background was moulded to fit the game mechanics. Is this making any sense? I think a character should be "alive" perhaps after the stats but long before planning levels 1-20 including all feats etc. By planning mechanically A --> B it turns the adventures and quests into a means to an end (gain XP/levels) rather than a living story where the PC's find themselves becoming things they never dreamed of at level 1. Perhaps I've read too many novels and not enough textbooks and it's coloured my DMing and what I think RPG's are about. I don't want paint by numbers I want a blank canvas, somewhere my characters evolve and change not just tick off another predictable level milestone.
Was that sort of an ok explanation?
S.
I like gaining levels. I actually hate to leave the table without leveling, but my characters normally have character. Whether you build around the concept or the mechanics it will not affect roleplaying if the player wants to RP. If he does not, then it wont matter what you do he wont RP. I also think the dependency to plan a build out depends on how hard the DM runs the game. Other factors may also be involved.
|
Hmm, I'm curious now...
Str:
Int:
Wis:
Dex:
Con:
Cha:
Perhaps a Rogue who was beaten within an inch of his life with an ugly stick?
__
Personally, I am a fan of rolled stats, on both sides of the screen, assuming that both my DMs and my players will have reasonable expectations.
My first game I ran had one character who had three 18's, two 15's, and a 13. A freaking 68 point buy. And it was legit too; I was sitting right there watching him with my jaw hanging open. But I let him play it and he while he was effective in combat, he really didn't outshine anyone else, surprisingly enough; he did however have an interesting delusion that he was god incarnate...
Anyways, I think I'm gonna steal that "grid" method, that sounds... interesting.
good stuff
+1 for saying what I wanted to say only a lot better than I tried to.
I like gaining levels. I actually hate to leave the table without leveling, but my characters normally have character.But do you feel your character is defined by his/her level? If you don't level for a while does it make you character any less?
Honest questions,
S.
No. I just like seeing character growth in all aspects. It is not just an RP thing though. If I play a video sports game I will take the weakest team try to make them better. I like SimCity because over time the city got better. I don't like games to much where the character does not get better. I am not saying I can't play a game where I stay at the same level, but it wont be as much fun.
My druid in CoT went from TN to NG. I RP'd him so he was less concerned with his own motivations, and he began to care more about others as the game went on, even if he will never admit it.
PS:I think the characters power is a large part of the character the same way anyone's skill identifies who they are to an extent. Pro athletes are examples of this.
Alternate viewpoint:
Point buy allows a player who wants to make a diverse, weird, crazy, or uncommon type of character to do so.
Rolled dice do not.
Point buy vs rolled dice have nothing to do with optimization (I'd much rather optimize a character with radically high stats then low, after all!). It's about retroactive vs proactive character building.
Player A wants to make a smart and social rogue. He uses point buy, and does exactly that. His style was proactive - he came up with the character and then used the stats generation system to create it. As a rogue who favors charisma and intelligence, he's certainly not as "optimized" as another rogue may be. Likewise, if he wanted to make a high dexterity powerhouse, that option, too, is open.
Player B rolls his dice, sees the scores, and then makes a character based around it. His style was retroactive - he randomly generated his stats first, and then made a character around it. If he wants to make a rogue that favors charisma and intelligence, he might be SOL, or it might work out perfectly. Likewise, he may roll hilariously high stats and become an optimized monstrosity.
Incidentally, it's complete and utter BS to pretend that older editions didn't award this garbage. They rewarded it more then 3.5 does. The difference between 14 and 16 strength in 3.5 is a little bit more damage, a little bit more ability to hit, and a little bit more carrying weight. In 2e, you just gained 10% experience points.
As for describing your character as "A TWF that was a blacksmith's son," how is that anything worse? Fighter A uses two weapons and was a blacksmith's son. Fighter B uses two weapons and was a blacksmith's son. The only difference is that Fighter B tells you more about his character then Fighter A.
The reason there's handbooks on how to optimize and not on how to make a character is the same reason you can get a college degree in Math and not in "Being imaginative." Optimization is, well, math. It's right there. The guide works the numbers so you don't have to, and lets be honest, a lot of people - especially here - want to avoid heavy math at all costs. And that's fine. But you cannot make a guide on roleplaying because of how diverse, bizarre, and entirely reliant on the player in question are. If I make a handbook about how to make a mathematically good rogue, you can't really argue too much about it, other then to disagree with what I classify as mathematically good or to critique the actual math. But imagine if someone made a "How to be a good druid" guide, and then stated that the only way to roleplay properly was to be a tree hugging elf druid who smokes pot all day long. There'd be no end to the (properly aimed, quite frankly) attacks and insults at them.
Math works across the board, but what works for me in a character may not work for you. Math is a universal. Taste in characters is not.
|
|
The reason there's handbooks on how to optimize and not on how to make a character is the same reason you can get a college degree in Math and not in "Being imaginative."
Er, you can. An Arts degree can contain some or all components that qualify for "being imaginative". Right now there may be several BA's trying to find the words (and correct grammar) to chastise you!
I can see that point buys allows everyone to feel the world is fair place - same points, choice is where you put them. I'm fine with that, just I think that sometimes it's more interesting to play the hand your dealt as it were. As for Rollplayers vs Roleplayers how you generate your character's stats is immaterial.
S.
The reason there's handbooks on how to optimize and not on how to make a character is the same reason you can get a college degree in Math and not in "Being imaginative."Er, you can. An Arts degree can contain some or all components that qualify for "being imaginative". Right now there may be several BA's trying to find the words (and correct grammar) to chastise you!
I can see that point buys allows everyone to feel the world is fair place - same points, choice is where you put them. I'm fine with that, just I think that sometimes it's more interesting to play the hand your dealt as it were. As for Rollplayers vs Roleplayers how you generate your character's stats is immaterial.
S.
As someone with no small number of friends attending the Academy of Art, that Arts degree isn't gonna do much for you ;p
And while certainly you can get a degree in English, it's about writing habits, not actual use of the imagination. There's no degree or class that teaches you what to write.
Anyways, Twilight exists, my argument is ironclad ;p
|
|
As someone with no small number of friends attending the Academy of Art, that Arts degree isn't gonna do much for you ;pAnyways, Twilight exists, my argument is ironclad ;p
As someone who pursued chemistry I'm have trouble faulting you. Pursuing a degree in English I'm sure qualifies you highly to teach someone else so they can get a degree in English...
And as for the last statement, the mind boggles. Yet still, all aournd the world 30-40 year old women are wondering if necrophilia or beastiality is the preferred option! Go figure?
S.