Point buy vs. 4d6 drop the low


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 284 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Freehold DM wrote:
Not to be rude at you personally, but this entire perspective is why I hate point buy. I've had characters with pathetic stats end up saving the day and characters with awesome stats get cut down in the first round of combat.

Then hate the person with the terrible perspective since the flaw is with the person.


Freehold DM wrote:
The Admiral Jose Monkamuck wrote:
Ice Titan wrote:
Caineach wrote:
voska66 wrote:
Dragonsage47 wrote:
Since all people are not creattd equally I assume the same for PC's WE never use point buy it is far more unrealistic (lol) than the reality of life, some people ARE stronger, faster and smarter than others.

True but top athletes play with top athletes. Top scientists work with top scientists. You elite military team is elite. If a person lacks the ability they don't make the team.

So in game I look at the adventuring party as group of elites. They all must bring something to the group. A person with too low of stats would be ejected from the group as liability, they just aren't good enough for the team.

This doesn't really work to me. Pretty much every game I have ever run or played in, the players do not get to pick their companions. Sure, you can up and leave, but you can't really replace person A with person B just because person B is better at Y. There is a reason person A is there, and his companions can't just up and leave him.

You know in like, modern film or cinema, where the hero tells the serving girl or the princess or the comedic relief to hide when the bandits attack the inn, or whatever? If your PC sucks, I'm going to tell you to hide when the bandits attack, because I can't tell you from an NPC or a PC.

If your character can't pull his own weight, I'm going to leave you in the last town and recruit someone who can. If you're the guy with the destiny, congratulations; your new destiny is to carry our stuff.

I apologize if I'm being a bit rude, but it's my personal pet peeve when someone creates some awful character and expects the party to put up with them because they've been made by someone at the table.

I second that. Although without the sarcasm or pet peeve as it doesn't piss me off as much as it does you.

Just because you want to play that character it doesn't mean he fits the game. I've seen groups kick out

...

Fair enough, and had that been the main reason I would have stepped in. However this character was not only useless to the party as designed, but had actively worked against their interest. I should have stated that my point was directed at general play style than specifically at a character's stats.


Freehold DM wrote:


TThis opens an ugly can of worms, however, as it implies that someone's worth of even being in your presence at the table in real life depends solely on the stats they came up with for their completely fictional character. Moreover, it opens a whole OTHER ugly can of worms because, well, where do you draw the line? Noone with a stat less than 14? 15? Are you a horrible person because you have a ten rolling around in your stats somewhere?

Not to be rude at you personally, but this entire perspective is why I hate point buy. I've had characters with pathetic stats end up saving the day and characters with awesome stats get cut down in the first round of combat.

When your character can't even hold their role in the group together with a semblance of cohesiveness, you are left at home.

*rambling removed*

EDIT: The whole thing comes down to me just disliking the whole stat rolling paradigm anyways. I like it when the game is balanced for all players-- it keeps out the kind of "MVP" style play you might get with three reasonable people and one extremely powerful player. And I hate it when people have really low stats-- not only are they a burden on us, but they also must feel pretty terrible being completely useless most of the time. I'd rather have someone re-roll until they feel they're powerful enough to enjoy the game than to let someone into the game with terrible stats. Point buy achieves that by just giving us all the same "rolls" to pool from without having to pay 4d6 drop lowest lip service by re-rolling 60 times anyways.

Basically, if your character is terrible, I'd rather that you instead just made a non-terrible character. Do not inflict your tin dog on us-- just make a new person who isn't a tin dog!


wraithstrike wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Not to be rude at you personally, but this entire perspective is why I hate point buy. I've had characters with pathetic stats end up saving the day and characters with awesome stats get cut down in the first round of combat.
Then hate the person with the terrible perspective since the flaw is with the person.

Opens mouth to argue, but ends up achieving enlightenment instead due to the zen nature of this post


Dork Lord wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Actually they kind of do. With Point Buy you can opt to make a dump stat in order to get a higher other stat. You can still have a dump stat or 3 while rolling, but you really don't have any power or choice in the matter. You roll a low score, and it must go somewhere.
So in both methods, if you have a low score, it must go somewhere? Fascinating.
A 10 or an 11 is not really a "dump stat" imo. A 7 is.

Then you can use a point buy that doesn't allow stats below 10. I've played in games like that before. Since that isn't a "dump stat" by your definition, do you see how dump stats have little to do with point buy vs. rolling and rather they have a lot to do with whether your particular point buy or rolling system allows low scores?

I.e., a system where you roll 1d18 for stats is going to have a lot more issues with "dump stats" than a 60-point-buy system where the minimum for each stat is 14.


I don't know what all the hate about having some low stats is. Sure it's a problem if the character is good at nothing but really if none of your rolls are above 14, just redo the rolls. You'd be a crappy DM to force someone to play with that. But there's nothing too terrible about having things you aren't good at, as long as you can make up for it somehow. My first character was a fighter with a wisdom of 8, but she was really fun to play. Sure she couldn't spot to save her life, but she was an amazing two weapon fighter.

It's fun to roleplay with one of your stats below average (10 is the average) it also adds in more challenge in battle, and development for playing. Having all your stats at 18 (Nothing is a challenge anymore) is no more fun than having all your stats 7 (You can't do anything without failing miserably or getting extremely lucky). I guess I'm just a fan of varied stats, but I think it's more challenging and fun when you have mixed stats. Where there are some things you excel at and some things you have a hard time with.

That being said, although I've always done rolled stats, I wouldn't mind doing a point buy.


Ion Raven wrote:

I don't know what all the hate about having some low stats is. Sure it's a problem if the character is good at nothing but really if none of your rolls are above 14, just redo the rolls. You'd be a crappy DM to force someone to play with that. But there's nothing too terrible about having things you aren't good at, as long as you can make up for it somehow. My first character was a fighter with a wisdom of 8, but she was really fun to play. Sure she couldn't spot to save her life, but she was an amazing two weapon fighter.

It's fun to roleplay with one of your stats below average (10 is the average) it also adds in more challenge in battle, and development for playing. Having all your stats at 18 (Nothing is a challenge anymore) is no more fun than having all your stats 7 (You can't do anything without failing miserably or getting extremely lucky). I guess I'm just a fan of varied stats, but I think it's more challenging and fun when you have mixed stats. Where there are some things you excel at and some things you have a hard time with.

That being said, although I've always done rolled stats, I wouldn't mind doing a point buy.

+1, depsite my generosity to my players. In fact the character my name on the boards is from had an 8 intelligence which he absolutely refused to raise under any circumstances. Of course he had an 18 wisdom to balance it out. I know a guy who is really, REALLY looking forward to playing his 6 int fighter named Durned Idgit.


hogarth wrote:
Dork Lord wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Actually they kind of do. With Point Buy you can opt to make a dump stat in order to get a higher other stat. You can still have a dump stat or 3 while rolling, but you really don't have any power or choice in the matter. You roll a low score, and it must go somewhere.
So in both methods, if you have a low score, it must go somewhere? Fascinating.
A 10 or an 11 is not really a "dump stat" imo. A 7 is.
Then you can use a point buy that doesn't allow stats below 10. I've played in games like that before. Since that isn't a "dump stat" by your definition, do you see how dump stats have little to do with point buy vs. rolling and rather they have a lot to do with whether your particular point buy or rolling system allows low scores?

I still see my point. If you can't lower a stat below 10 it would solve the "mandatory dump stat" aspect of point buy (nearly every player in PFS I have ever encountered thus far has made characters with at least one dump stat, usually a 7) but it doesn't do anything in the end but make it so I have to settle for stats less than what I'm used to. Am I spoiled? Maybe. I like rolling because there's a -chance- I might get an 18 or two and even if I don't, odds are I'm going to do better than a 20 point buy would allow for.

Let's see here.... I took out 4D6 and rolled 3 columns just to see at random how I could roll compared to a 20 point buy.

Column 1: 14, 12, 16, 11, 15, 17

Column 2: 16, 15, 15, 18, 11, 17

Column 3: 17, 10, 12, 12, 9, 16

Now I'm pretty sure those are all above a 20 point buy (except maybe the 3rd column) and the 2nd column (the one I'd take) is -way- above the 20 point buy. Why would I want to use point buy when I can roll like that? o.O


Dork Lord wrote:
I still see my point. If you can't lower a stat below 10 it would solve the "mandatory dump stat" aspect of point buy (nearly every player in PFS I have ever encountered thus far has made characters with at least one dump stat, usually a 7) but it doesn't do anything in the end but make it so I have to settle for stats less than what I'm used to.

I notice that you trimmed the last line of my post:

hogarth wrote:
I.e., a system where you roll 1d18 for stats is going to have a lot more issues with "dump stats" than a 60-point-buy system where the minimum for each stat is 14.

You can easily have a rolling system that produces low stats and a point buy system that produces high stats; there's not necessarily a connection between rolling and high stats.

EDIT: Just for fun, I'll try rolling 3 sets of stats.

Spoiler:

4d6 ⇒ (4, 5, 2, 4) = 154d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 1, 4) = 124d6 ⇒ (4, 4, 1, 6) = 154d6 ⇒ (4, 2, 4, 4) = 144d6 ⇒ (1, 1, 3, 3) = 84d6 ⇒ (2, 6, 5, 4) = 17

Spoiler:

4d6 ⇒ (5, 2, 1, 5) = 134d6 ⇒ (3, 1, 5, 4) = 134d6 ⇒ (2, 4, 5, 6) = 174d6 ⇒ (4, 5, 4, 1) = 144d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 3, 5) = 154d6 ⇒ (1, 1, 3, 1) = 6

Spoiler:

4d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 3, 6) = 124d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 1, 3) = 144d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 4, 5) = 184d6 ⇒ (1, 1, 4, 3) = 94d6 ⇒ (4, 5, 6, 4) = 194d6 ⇒ (6, 2, 2, 2) = 12

Note that all three of those have what you would call a "dump stat" (a 7, a 5, and an 8), none of them rolled higher than a 15, and none of them scored higher than a 15 point buy. I'm pretty talented, huh? :-)


It's easy to get low rolls when you don't reroll 1s, Hogarth. The method we use in most of our home games is three columns of 4d6 drop the lowest, reroll 1s, place where you want to. I tend to roll higher on average, so I do much better with rolling than with point buy. I'm not saying everyone else should feel the same way, but using point buy is actually settling for less for me. That's why I feel as I do.

Use the reroll 1s option for your 4d6 and see how many "dump stats" you end up with. You're probably going to get 10+ more often than 9 or less.


Shain Edge wrote:


Why not just give more points in a point buy and say that you can't go below 10? Same effect as not having 'dump stats' if you really really hate them.

I don't have a problem with a bad stat. You do sometimes roll below 8 or 9. The problem, as I see it, is in the choice to dump rather than the choice of where to put the unlucky stat. Even if you give out enough points so that a character can have an 18 without dumping below 10, 10 becomes the new dump. Stats perceived as being unnecessary for "the build" will be set to minimum to pump up the more desired stats.


Dork Lord wrote:

It's easy to get low rolls when you don't reroll 1s, Hogarth. The method we use in most of our home games is three columns of 4d6 drop the lowest, reroll 1s, place where you want to. I tend to roll higher on average, so I do much better with rolling than with point buy. I'm not saying everyone else should feel the same way, but using point buy is actually settling for less for me. That's why I feel as I do.

Use the reroll 1s option for your 4d6 and see how many "dump stats" you end up with. You're probably going to get 10+ more often than 9 or less.

At this point, it really seems like it has nothing to do with "I like rolling" vs. "I like point buy". It's "I like high stats" vs. "I don't care about high stats".

The 4d6-drop-1-reroll-1s technique is equivalent to roughly a 30 point buy, on average, so comparing it to a 20 point buy is ridiculous. (Using stats from this site.)


hogarth wrote:
At this point, it really seems like it has nothing to do with "I like rolling" vs. "I like point buy". It's "I like high stats" vs. "I don't care about high stats".

It seems to me more "I like higher random stats vs. I don't want someone having higher stats than me." But yeah, it is silly to argue preferences. Unless we are all playing together there is nothing to argue about.

It's been a standard in my games to do 4d6 reroll 1's (once) for a long time. You get better than average rolls and usually prevents hopeless characters. If someone beats the odds and rolls poorly then you have them take a short break from rolling (this hopefully breaks up the bad rolling mojo) then have another roll. 2 sets of rolls is the norm. I will allow a 3rd set if the first 2 are bad (after a short mojo altering break). If after that they still roll badly I'd give them a 20 point buy option.

The best reason I see for point buy is that characters can be made outside of game time and brought in. That is hard to argue against. But it still doesn't sway my preference for rolling. Character generation is a large part of the fun for me.


Reelin wrote:
hogarth wrote:
At this point, it really seems like it has nothing to do with "I like rolling" vs. "I like point buy". It's "I like high stats" vs. "I don't care about high stats".

It seems to me more "I like higher random stats vs. I don't want someone having higher stats than me." But yeah, it is silly to argue preferences. Unless we are all playing together there is nothing to argue about.

It's been a standard in my games to do 4d6 reroll 1's (once) for a long time. You get better than average rolls and usually prevents hopeless characters. If someone beats the odds and rolls poorly then you have them take a short break from rolling (this hopefully breaks up the bad rolling mojo) then have another roll. 2 sets of rolls is the norm. I will allow a 3rd set if the first 2 are bad (after a short mojo altering break). If after that they still roll badly I'd give them a 20 point buy option.

The best reason I see for point buy is that characters can be made outside of game time and brought in. That is hard to argue against. But it still doesn't sway my preference for rolling. Character generation is a large part of the fun for me.

Intriguing.

I've been wondering if, due to the changes brought about by Pathfinder, whether or not rolling 4d6 should become the new norm.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I keep seeing this "hopeless characters" business. 4d6 drop the lowest is statistically equivalent to a 15 point buy. Is this too low? Are these characters hopeless. The common theme I see among the "roll-the-dive" crowd is a real love for high scores with no "dump stat". Thus the "reroll 1's" and the "do it three times and choose the best one" systems. Fine, good, and enjoy. That's all fine, and a matter of preference. Don't however, fool yourself or try to sell anyone else on the idea that this is done for any reason other than getting high stats. Perhaps your idea of a hopeless character is different from mine. Okay, no problem. Now you want to argue that rolling the dice vs. point buy prevents helpless characters? Wrong. Very wrong. Point buy gives you the power level you want, every time. Don't like 15 points? Okay, go to 20. 20 too low? Okay, go to 30, or 40, or 50, or 100. See? No more hopeless characters (well, with ONLY 100 points to build my Monk, his dump stat will obviously be Charisma, and he'll only have a 16. Poor me...).

You can't say that letting the dice fall where they may is more realistic, and then start fiddling with the dice to ensure the results you want. There's a reason casinos stay in business, and it's called doing the math. If you start rerolling 1's, and allowing multiple sets of stats to be rolled, the statistically equivalent point buy cost of your systems can still be calculated. There you go, that's the amount of points you'll need to build the character you want.

The real question is a simple one: do I like to gamble, or not? Am I lucky, or not? That's it. The rest is sophistry and obfuscation. Who doesn't like to get lucky, or be powerful, or want to have the greatest character evar!!!1!!!one1? Either you prefer rolling, or you don't. That's it. It's an opinion, and you're entitled to it. And you're not wrong or right when you choose a preference, because that's all it is, is an opinion on something subjective.

For tournament-style play, it has to be points, period. Not because points are objectively better, but because points are objective. Everything's fair and even, which is the point of the tournament. Everyone start's with the same resources. Please leave your irrelevant ruminations on the inherent unfairness of life out of my escapist tournament gaming.

I don't mean to insult anyone in particular, so if it seems like I'm picking on your opinion or preference, I'm not, except in the case where your arguments in support of your opinion seem to me to be bad arguments. If you like rolling, fine, I get it. It's fun when you're lucky, or maybe you like to gamble, or maybe it's the nostalgia, or maybe your DM will slaughter your characters like a peanut-butter covered steak in a room filled with starving dogs if they don't have high enough stats. Or maybe it's all of them. None of which are reasons that rolling is better than point buy, not at all. Those are just reasons why rolling is better for YOU.

Me, I like points. I'm unlucky with dice, I have no nostalgia for the good old days (when I was also unlucky with dice), and I don't like to gamble when I don't have to (while playing D&D, at any rate). These arguments don't make point buy any better than rolling, they only make it better than rolling for ME.

Thank you. I'll be here all week. Please tip your servers.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Shain Edge wrote:


Why not just give more points in a point buy and say that you can't go below 10? Same effect as not having 'dump stats' if you really really hate them.

I don't have a problem with a bad stat. You do sometimes roll below 8 or 9. The problem, as I see it, is in the choice to dump rather than the choice of where to put the unlucky stat. Even if you give out enough points so that a character can have an 18 without dumping below 10, 10 becomes the new dump. Stats perceived as being unnecessary for "the build" will be set to minimum to pump up the more desired stats.

I agree with where I think Bill is coming from. It isn't the fact that a stat is low that is irritating. It is the fact that a deliberate choice was made to make that stat low so that another stat could be higher. It is the act of dumping rather than the final result that bothers me. And it is only an issue for me when you have extreme optimizers who like to play the min/max game. The tendency then is for pretty cookie-cutter power builds that vary little from game to game. That's certainly not how everybody does point buy, but the possibility/temptation is there. I think point buy works great if everybody is an optimizer or if everyone isn't. However, if you have some gifted optimizers playing in the same group with others who don't care to do the math, you can actually end up with characters of more widely varying power than you get by rolling the dice.

By the way, we use 4d6, reroll ones, in order. The twist I use is that I allow one free swap of any two scores, so that someone can always put their best score in the primary attribute of the character class they want to play. I also, as a sop and temptation to the min/maxers, allow for a score to be raised by one one time, at the cost of two in another atribute, but my players rarely exercise that option. The method produces pretty strong and varied characters, in my opinion, somewhere in the neighborhood of a 30 point build (and yes I do adjust CRs to account for that). If I want a little lower power, I eliminate the reroll ones, which knocks it down to somewhere between a 20 and 25 point build, on average, I believe. What I like is that it occasionally produces unusual characters like the fighter with an intelligence of 15, or the wizard with a strength of 16, or the cleric with a dexterity of 15, that you are rarely going to encounter in point buy systems. Makes multi-classing a more intriguing possibility, among other things.


I bought a pair of dice that have STR/DEX/CON/WIS/INT/CHA on the 6 sides at GenCon.

I've been tempted to make people do the following:

1) All stats start at 8, except for one that starts at 12 in your stat of choice.

2) Everyone rolls the "characteristics die" 22 times and adds 1 to the attribute that comes up on each roll.

3) Ignore points from there.

This gets everyone the 'random character' without resulting in "I'm Three Eighteens Man with my Trusty Sidekick: Nothing Higher Than A Twelve." power disparities.


ElCrabofAnger wrote:
I keep seeing this "hopeless characters" business. 4d6 drop the lowest is statistically equivalent to a 15 point buy. Is this too low? Are these characters hopeless.

I respectfully point out that the people complaining about hopeless characters are the pro point buy people, not the pro rollers. Like you, they are worried that they will roll bad characters so prefer the safer point buy system. And that is a perfectly valid reason. No one argued that rolling prevents hopeless characters.

ElCrabofAnger wrote:
The common theme I see among the "roll-the-dive" crowd is a real love for high scores with no "dump stat".

I question the logic in saying that rollers only want the high stats. If high stats is all one is concerned with, a simple raising of the points is all that is needed, as you pointed out. One can get consistently higher scores by raising the points to 30, 40 or even 50 over rolling dice. Why bother with the rolling? The exact answer varies, but following simple logic points out that high scores is not the reason.


ElCrabofAnger wrote:


Either you prefer rolling, or you don't. That's it. It's an opinion, and you're entitled to it. And you're not wrong or right when you choose a preference, because that's all it is, is an opinion on something subjective.

Forgot to point this out in my post.

Very true words. There is no right or wrong in this.


AdAstraGames wrote:

I bought a pair of dice that have STR/DEX/CON/WIS/INT/CHA on the 6 sides at GenCon.

I've been tempted to make people do the following:

1) All stats start at 8, except for one that starts at 12 in your stat of choice.

2) Everyone rolls the "characteristics die" 22 times and adds 1 to the attribute that comes up on each roll.

3) Ignore points from there.

This gets everyone the 'random character' without resulting in "I'm Three Eighteens Man with my Trusty Sidekick: Nothing Higher Than A Twelve." power disparities.

:D

Here I go.:

1 = STR,
2 = DEX
3 = CON
4 = INT
5 = WIS
6 = CHA.

I want to make... a bard. I have a 12 in Charisma.
1d6 ⇒ 3
1d6 ⇒ 6
1d6 ⇒ 2
1d6 ⇒ 3
1d6 ⇒ 5
1d6 ⇒ 3
1d6 ⇒ 5
1d6 ⇒ 1
1d6 ⇒ 6
1d6 ⇒ 2
1d6 ⇒ 2
1d6 ⇒ 6
1d6 ⇒ 3
1d6 ⇒ 5
1d6 ⇒ 4
1d6 ⇒ 6
1d6 ⇒ 3
1d6 ⇒ 4
1d6 ⇒ 2
1d6 ⇒ 3
1d6 ⇒ 2
1d6 ⇒ 3

Final Stats
STR 9 DEX 15 CON 15 INT 10 WIS 11 CHA 16

... Turned out to be a sorceror. Not bad. 24 point buy. Human for a +2 in Charisma and we're off! .. Or gnome or halfling for -2 str and +2 con or dex. All races equal.

Another, but more compact. This time I want to be a fighter, so 12 Strength:
22d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 2, 3, 2, 2, 6, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 3, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 3) = 79
Final Stats
STR 15 DEX 12 CON 12 INT 12 WIS 10 CHA 13

... Decent? 16 point buy. I guess human for +2 in strength. A little lackluster next to the halfling...

A final... I'm really hoping for anomaly here. 22 6's in a row? I'll make Wisdom 12. I'll be a cleric.
22d6 ⇒ (3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 1, 1, 5, 1, 1, 5, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 1, 5) = 58
Final Stats
STR 15 DEX 11 CON 14 INT 11 WIS 15 CHA 8

.. Wonderful. 19 point buy. I start the game with two channel energies. I'll be a dwarf. Now I have one. Cleric of Norgorber so I can surprise kill the party.

I like the method. Would be fun for a one-shot.


Freehold DM wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Not to be rude at you personally, but this entire perspective is why I hate point buy. I've had characters with pathetic stats end up saving the day and characters with awesome stats get cut down in the first round of combat.
Then hate the person with the terrible perspective since the flaw is with the person.
Opens mouth to argue, but ends up achieving enlightenment instead due to the zen nature of this post

I really want to hear this one as long as it is civil anyway.


I used to love rolling, but once I gave point buy a try, I never wanted to do anything else. It keeps everyone on an equal footing.


What would a straight 4d6 be in terms of point buy?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Reelin wrote:
ElCrabofAnger wrote:
I keep seeing this "hopeless characters" business. 4d6 drop the lowest is statistically equivalent to a 15 point buy. Is this too low? Are these characters hopeless?
I respectfully point out that the people complaining about hopeless characters are the pro point buy people, not the pro rollers. Like you, they are worried that they will roll bad characters so prefer the safer point buy system. And that is a perfectly valid reason. No one argued that rolling prevents hopeless characters.

I was not referring to hopeless characters as an argument for or against rolling. Rather, I was calling into question what people consider hopeless characters. I apologize if that isn't more clear. My beef lies with the idea that a character is hopeless if it doesn't reach a certain level of power, as judged by the rolling (or buying) creator. I think "hopeless character" is a term much like "broken", very subjective, often overused, and usually not applicable. Yes, there are such things as hopeless characters, but they should never be helpless because of a point-buy build (who do you blame for that? Just make sure you give the player's enough points to survive your campaign, you killer DM you), and most die-rolling schemes are rigged to favor the rolling player (drop the ones, do it 3 times, etc.). Maybe this whole idea deserves a thread of its own, which I will not be creating.

Reelin wrote:
ElCrabofAnger wrote:
The common theme I see among the "roll-the-dice" crowd is a real love for high scores with no "dump stat".
I question the logic in saying that rollers only want the high stats. If high stats is all one is concerned with, a simple raising of the points is all that is needed, as you pointed out. One can get consistently higher scores by raising the points to 30, 40 or even 50 over rolling dice. Why bother with the rolling? The exact answer varies, but following simple logic points out that high scores is not the reason.

I don't think so (but in the spirit of fairness, I was wrong once in 1986. There is a statistically significant chance it could happen again.;) ) As I said earlier, the rollers like to roll, well, because the rollers like to roll. That's why (and how) they roll. The problem is, the various die stacking schemes (and there are a lot of them) exist solely to raise the floor on what can be rolled, in one way or another. If a given groups rolling scheme is 4d6, drop the lowest, one time, place them however you want, and be done, well then, yes, you're right, they do it solely because they like to roll, and not for the higher scores. While anecdotal evidence is lousy evidence, the written record of the posters in this thread is pretty solid. I don't intend to produce a scientifically rigorous document, but I will ask that you look back at some of the methods for rolling presented in the thread and tell me how many of them do not modify the basic 4d6 roll in an attempt to avoid these "hopeless characters". These modifications result in PCs with higher stats. This would indicate that the group using these methods wants characters with higher stats. Which is fine, but just because the miniscule chance of a character with the minimum possible stats (based on said method) exists doesn't mean that the intention behind the system is to garner higher stats while enjoying the Kenny Rogers feel of rolling the dice.

In summary, I agree with you: why bother with the dice? But motives are important here. If you're really after the randomness, the highs and lows, the inherent unfairness of life, why all the systems designed to stack the dice in a character's favor? Just calculate what level of power you think they should have, and give them that many points. You could even have them roll a d4 (or d6, or d8, or d10...) and add (or subtract) that many points from the pool. See? Random, and not all characters are the same, just like life. So if you're one of the groups that uses 4d6 straight up, then my arguments about wanting higher stats don't apply to you, and more power to you, and have fun. If you use some method designed to get higher scores (all of them, who uses a method designed to get lower scores?) then my arguments do apply, and you obviously want the higher scores; it's implicit in your choice of such a system. You know what? More power to you too, and have fun.

Also, Reelin - you're a class act. Thanks for disagreeing with me civilly. It's a common occurrence on these boards, but credit should still be given where it is due, to encourage such awesomeness.


wraithstrike wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Not to be rude at you personally, but this entire perspective is why I hate point buy. I've had characters with pathetic stats end up saving the day and characters with awesome stats get cut down in the first round of combat.
Then hate the person with the terrible perspective since the flaw is with the person.
Opens mouth to argue, but ends up achieving enlightenment instead due to the zen nature of this post
I really want to hear this one as long as it is civil anyway.

Dude, it's just zen. And an excellent example of it. People are flawed, arguments aren't.

The Exchange

My group prefers the 4d6 drop the lowest. I also have them roll a 7th stat and keep the best six. There is one guy that constitantly rolls a bit better than the others but nobody seems to mind and the group has been together for a long time.


Freehold DM wrote:
What would a straight 4d6 be in terms of point buy?

4d6, drop the low, has its average sit at about 19 to 20 points.

Liberty's Edge

Point buy does encourage folks to have a "dump stat" or three, which I dislike. Here's what I've tried recently, to great success:
1) Ask the players to choose the luckiest person at the table.
2) Ask that person to roll 4d6 (drop the low, etc.)
3) Look at the results and ask your players if that's acceptable.
4) Everyone uses the same stats, but makes whatever characters they like with it.

It has all the randomness and fiat of "The world gives you these stats" die-rolling, but none of the "he got more stats than me!" that often accompanies die-rolling.

Sovereign Court

What I dont' like about rolling is the disparities between party members. I have yet to see a party with rolled stat characters where at least one character wasn't 1) Hugely more powerful statwise than the others or 2) Pathetically underpowered compared to everyone else.

Rerolls, rules on "if your rolls suck this much you can try again", etc. are all desperate attempts to plug this hole.

One suggestion I read on these boards that would remove this protest against rolled stats for me is that everyone at the table rolls a set of state by whatever rules you agree on - then any one set of those rolled stats may be chosen by each player to build their character.

If Bob the Lucky gets 3 18's, you'll have a high powered party as nearly everyone chooses that set of stats. But at least no one will have a serious starting disparity in power levels from the rest of the party unless it was their choice to begin that way.


Jess Door wrote:

What I dont' like about rolling is the disparities between party members. I have yet to see a party with rolled stat characters where at least one character wasn't 1) Hugely more powerful statwise than the others or 2) Pathetically underpowered compared to everyone else.

Rerolls, rules on "if your rolls suck this much you can try again", etc. are all desperate attempts to plug this hole.

One suggestion I read on these boards that would remove this protest against rolled stats for me is that everyone at the table rolls a set of state by whatever rules you agree on - then any one set of those rolled stats may be chosen by each player to build their character.

If Bob the Lucky gets 3 18's, you'll have a high powered party as nearly everyone chooses that set of stats. But at least no one will have a serious starting disparity in power levels from the rest of the party unless it was their choice to begin that way.

1. nice thread necromancy.

2. Is that really an issue? I have never seen it cause any problems in a game. Even games where one character was a 40 point buy and annohter was 16 had no issues. I generally see stats having relatively little impact on overall gameplay.


Caineach wrote:
Jess Door wrote:

What I dont' like about rolling is the disparities between party members. I have yet to see a party with rolled stat characters where at least one character wasn't 1) Hugely more powerful statwise than the others or 2) Pathetically underpowered compared to everyone else.

Rerolls, rules on "if your rolls suck this much you can try again", etc. are all desperate attempts to plug this hole.

One suggestion I read on these boards that would remove this protest against rolled stats for me is that everyone at the table rolls a set of state by whatever rules you agree on - then any one set of those rolled stats may be chosen by each player to build their character.

If Bob the Lucky gets 3 18's, you'll have a high powered party as nearly everyone chooses that set of stats. But at least no one will have a serious starting disparity in power levels from the rest of the party unless it was their choice to begin that way.

1. nice thread necromancy.

2. Is that really an issue? I have never seen it cause any problems in a game. Even games where one character was a 40 point buy and annohter was 16 had no issues. I generally see stats having relatively little impact on overall gameplay.

Trust me, Caineach, it can have an effect. The guy with the 40-point buy can make saves that make the 15-point buy cringe, take more/give more punishment, and so on. Where it can hurt the most is if you throw something at uberguy outside of his expertise that he does well at just because of his higher stats, while the 15-point buy was having problems with the same thing. I've been uberguy in a party with people who had lower stats via rolling and felt guilty as I did OK at everything. My redeeming features was that I was playing a monk;)


Lathiira wrote:


Trust me, Caineach, it can have an effect. The guy with the 40-point buy can make saves that make the 15-point buy cringe, take more/give more punishment, and so on. Where it can hurt the most is if you throw something at uberguy outside of his expertise that he does well at just because of his higher stats, while the 15-point buy was having problems with the same thing. I've been uberguy in a party with people who had lower stats via rolling and felt guilty as I did OK at everything. My redeeming features was that I was playing a monk;)

I've been in dozens of games with large stat discrepancies and have never seen any issue. I don't doubt you, its just never been a problem. The difference between a 40 point buy and a 20 is usually like +1 to 2 or 3 stats, and that just isn't a big deal.


Caineach wrote:
Lathiira wrote:


Trust me, Caineach, it can have an effect. The guy with the 40-point buy can make saves that make the 15-point buy cringe, take more/give more punishment, and so on. Where it can hurt the most is if you throw something at uberguy outside of his expertise that he does well at just because of his higher stats, while the 15-point buy was having problems with the same thing. I've been uberguy in a party with people who had lower stats via rolling and felt guilty as I did OK at everything. My redeeming features was that I was playing a monk;)
I've been in dozens of games with large stat discrepancies and have never seen any issue. I don't doubt you, its just never been a problem. The difference between a 40 point buy and a 20 is usually like +1 to 2 or 3 stats, and that just isn't a big deal.

Well, we're just 2 people playing the game. We need lots more cases to really examine this topic thoroughly. There are always other factors as well. MAD vs. SAD classes, luck, playstyle, and whatnot.


Caineach wrote:


2. Is that really an issue? I have never seen it cause any problems in a game. Even games where one character was a 40 point buy and annohter was 16 had no issues. I generally see stats having relatively little impact on overall gameplay.

My thoughts are:

1) In a game in which mechanics are reasonably important (which won't be every PF game, but I'd guess most), it's usually not that fun, long-term, to be playing a much weaker character. I think this is more pronounced in a cooperative game, not less, because it's fun to be able to contribute roughly as much as the other players.

2) It's hard on the DM to deal with a big power disparity between two characters -- it's a struggle to legitimately challenge Toughy McEighteensPants without frequently blowing Sadsack Lowstatserson straight to dead. PF improves this over 3.5 in that one failed save is less likely to cause your death, but....

As a moderate tangent, I always thought charisma was a big problem with any system in which you assign which stat goes where, be it point-buy or roll-but-then-place. It's just not as valuable as the other stats, ever. 18 charisma doesn't mean to even a sorcerer or bard what 18 intelligence means to a wizard or 18 wisdom means to a cleric, although in most ways it comes close. The next time I run a game I might experiment with half-price charisma (including points you get back for dumping it below 10).


Caineach wrote:
Lathiira wrote:


Trust me, Caineach, it can have an effect. The guy with the 40-point buy can make saves that make the 15-point buy cringe, take more/give more punishment, and so on. Where it can hurt the most is if you throw something at uberguy outside of his expertise that he does well at just because of his higher stats, while the 15-point buy was having problems with the same thing. I've been uberguy in a party with people who had lower stats via rolling and felt guilty as I did OK at everything. My redeeming features was that I was playing a monk;)
I've been in dozens of games with large stat discrepancies and have never seen any issue. I don't doubt you, its just never been a problem. The difference between a 40 point buy and a 20 is usually like +1 to 2 or 3 stats, and that just isn't a big deal.

As I said at the beginning of the thread, I was in one AD&D game where one guy's character had basically no bonuses. He wasn't very happy about that.

Sovereign Court

My first game ever consisted of rolled characters. One player had no score lower than 15, and 3 18s. He rolled in front of the DM. The other players had no score over 14 (I came in much later and had stats closer to the lower players).

That game was the tale of the sorceror that was nearly a god, and his merry band of hapless sidekicks. The DM would throw stuff that was a challenge at the party - a challenge for the uber build character. The rest of us...well, we ended up running away very often, while the sorceror took things out on his own. One character was so bad, he was a bard with a 13 charisma and only one other stat that wasn't less than 10. He literally bought a magical buckler that transformed into a tower shield, and put that puppy up and hid behind it and sang. Every combat.

Power disparities like that are killer for a game. The rest of party, even if they're mature and find other avenues to enjoy themselves in for the game, can't help but resent Mr. Demi-god and his great powers of being Central To The Plot because in the end he's the only one that matters to the success or failure of the group. The player with the high stats, even if he purposely tones himself down to lessen the pain, can't help but pull out all the stops if there's any trouble and take over the limelight again. The DM, in order to challenge one member of the party, has to throw challenges that will TPK the rest. Or bore the the one.

This is why I have preferred point buy ever since. I like the organic feel of rolled stats. But the headaches involved outweighed that preference for me. The suggestion of having a "Pool" of rolled stats solved that problem nicely, I think.

I was just following links and was interested enough to post here. I didn't mean to be a necromancer. My mother will be so disappointed in me...


Jess Door wrote:

My first game ever consisted of rolled characters. One player had no score lower than 15, and 3 18s. He rolled in front of the DM. The other players had no score over 14 (I came in much later and had stats closer to the lower players).

That game was the tale of the sorceror that was nearly a god, and his merry band of hapless sidekicks. The DM would throw stuff that was a challenge at the party - a challenge for the uber build character. The rest of us...well, we ended up running away very often, while the sorceror took things out on his own. One character was so bad, he was a bard with a 13 charisma and only one other stat that wasn't less than 10. He literally bought a magical buckler that transformed into a tower shield, and put that puppy up and hid behind it and sang. Every combat.

Power disparities like that are killer for a game. The rest of party, even if they're mature and find other avenues to enjoy themselves in for the game, can't help but resent Mr. Demi-god and his great powers of being Central To The Plot because in the end he's the only one that matters to the success or failure of the group. The player with the high stats, even if he purposely tones himself down to lessen the pain, can't help but pull out all the stops if there's any trouble and take over the limelight again. The DM, in order to challenge one member of the party, has to throw challenges that will TPK the rest. Or bore the the one.

This is why I have preferred point buy ever since. I like the organic feel of rolled stats. But the headaches involved outweighed that preference for me. The suggestion of having a "Pool" of rolled stats solved that problem nicely, I think.

I was just following links and was interested enough to post here. I didn't mean to be a necromancer. My mother will be so disappointed in me...

It's okay to necro every now and again. Just be sure to wash your hands afterwards.

That said, I would say this is more bad DMing than bad rolling. He clearly had made adventures with the powerful sorcerer in mind and ignored the other characters. Then again, I wasn't there, so maybe I'm being a little unfair.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Some months ago, the same topic came up. I had a suggestion, then, for compensating characters with poor stats. It began when DigitalMage was concerned about the disparity:

DigitalMage wrote:

Supposing you were running a D&D3.5 game using the 4d6 drop lowest method, arrange to suit with the explicit re-roll rule of total modifiers of +0 or less and no stat higher than a 13.

3 players roll really well:
P1: 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 18--a 64-point buy under Pathfinder
P2: 10, 12, 14, 18, 18, 18--a 58-point buy under Pathfinder
P3: 12, 14, 16, 16, 17, 18--a 57-point buy under Pathfinder

And then the fourth player rolls:
P4: 8, 8, 8, 12, 12, 14 --a 3-point buy under Pathfinder
Good enough to not warrant a re-roll according to the official rule

1) Would would as GM (assuming the other players were also in favour) ask Player 4 to re-roll?

2) If you did ask Player 4 to re-roll and he declined, would you be happy to run the game with those characters, despite the disparity in scores?

What follows is my reply:

Well, I'll note, for the record, how freakish those first three scores are. I've run an Excel program, examining over 700 "4d6-keep-3" characters and the median comes out to about a 19-point buy. Over those 700 characters, the highest two had point buys of 54 and 53, and those were anomalous; the next highest had a point buy of 45. So, your hypothetical group has three guys who rolled deeply into the top 99.72-percentile.

Player 4 is low, but he's not freakishly so. My analysis places him in the 5th percentile.

I've suggested that one way to keep characters with disparate stats in line is to provide compensatory traits, one trait for every 3 point-buy difference. PCs 2 and 3 should get two traits. PC 4 should get (64 - 3 = 61 divided by 3 = 20.33) twenty extra traits, or perhaps ten extra feats.

Or, since a level is worth about five feats, you could start him 2 levels higher, and arrange some sort of experience multiplier to keep him there.

--+--+--

If Player 4 decided he wanted to play his "Joe Normal amongst the Gods" character, without any heavy trait or level compensation, I'd be happy to let him, and provide some sort of justification for it. The other characters would need to understand that they're responsible for Joe's safety. Maybe they're elite adventurers, and he's the son of their patroness.


I've been playing for about 12 years now, started on 1st Ed, then jumped to third when it came out. Overall I would say the 4d6 drop the lowest is better for fun characters.
Spending points to plan out a character is no fun. Running a fighter with a natural int of 4, was one of my funnest characters ever, had to have the rogue in the party explain stuff slowly :).
But overall I think it should be up to the D.M., not the one player who whines that he can't roll a decent stat line. Let him use a point buy and everyone else roll. And enforce the costs of stats not let him have a 1 for 1 either.
In the long run it really doesn't matter, the enemies are going to get lucky and slaughter a P.C. on occasion, good stats or not.
But in my opinion point buy is a crutch. I have used it and don't really feel that heroic using it. But I have rolled bad characters best stat was a 13 worse stat was a 6. Last person standing :)
It comes down to how the group works together and thinks, not how equal everyone is. When people cry they want equality they are usually the ones green with jealousy over someones character.
And some of the best villains I have encountered are the 4d6 method. Human cleric/ rogue because he had a stat line that was interesting from just rolling straight down the line. This is what makes the game fun and memorable. Not being another point clone.
But that is my rant.... 4d6 forever.


Jess Door wrote:

My first game ever consisted of rolled characters. One player had no score lower than 15, and 3 18s. He rolled in front of the DM. The other players had no score over 14 (I came in much later and had stats closer to the lower players).

That game was the tale of the sorceror that was nearly a god, and his merry band of hapless sidekicks. The DM would throw stuff that was a challenge at the party - a challenge for the uber build character. The rest of us...well, we ended up running away very often, while the sorceror took things out on his own. One character was so bad, he was a bard with a 13 charisma and only one other stat that wasn't less than 10. He literally bought a magical buckler that transformed into a tower shield, and put that puppy up and hid behind it and sang. Every combat.

Power disparities like that are killer for a game. The rest of party, even if they're mature and find other avenues to enjoy themselves in for the game, can't help but resent Mr. Demi-god and his great powers of being Central To The Plot because in the end he's the only one that matters to the success or failure of the group. The player with the high stats, even if he purposely tones himself down to lessen the pain, can't help but pull out all the stops if there's any trouble and take over the limelight again. The DM, in order to challenge one member of the party, has to throw challenges that will TPK the rest. Or bore the the one.

This is why I have preferred point buy ever since. I like the organic feel of rolled stats. But the headaches involved outweighed that preference for me. The suggestion of having a "Pool" of rolled stats solved that problem nicely, I think.

I was just following links and was interested enough to post here. I didn't mean to be a necromancer. My mother will be so disappointed in me...

Interesting. As a longtime DM, it never really occurred to me to shape encounters toward just a single member of the party. I always consider the strength of the party as a whole, one organic thing, rather than it's component parts. In my experience, no character, no matter how powerful, will survive the stuff I throw at the party unless they are all pulling together. My group tends not to worry about who is doing the most damage or who is being the star in that particular encounter. They are very results oriented, and don't care who is the star so long as the job gets done. I do try to throw enough varied encounters/challenges/situations at them to ensure that everyone has the chance to shine, but that's not what I think you are talking about.

All that said, in one 2nd edition campaign long ago, by own dwarven fitghter/cleric got so powerful (not due to exceptional rolled stats, but rather from some dubious Monty Haul DMing that left him with some inappropriately powerful stuff), that other DMs started to design special adversaries just for him, with a bit more power. They didn't up the difficulty of the whole encounter, just made sure my portion of it was going to be challenging. I just knew that, if we encountered four ogres and a hill giant, the hill giant was going to make a beeline for me.


Duck wrote:

Spending points to plan out a character is no fun.

It's good to know that the games Champions and Mutants & Masterminds are no fun. I'll let the publishers know they can stop selling them now. ;-)

(Just kidding, I know what you meant.)


Brian Bachman wrote:


Interesting. As a longtime DM, it never really occurred to me to shape encounters toward just a single member of the party. I always consider the strength of the party as a whole, one organic thing, rather than it's component parts. In my experience, no character, no matter how powerful, will survive the stuff I throw at the party unless they are all pulling together. My group tends not to worry about who is doing the most damage or who is being the star in that particular encounter. They are very results oriented, and don't care who is the star so long as the job gets done. I do try to throw enough varied encounters/challenges/situations at them to ensure that everyone has the chance to shine, but that's not what I think you are talking about.

You've been more fortunate (or smarter) as a DM than I've been.

In the last 3.5 campaign I DM'd, which had rolled stats by player demand:

Character A was a favored soul who had rolled pretty good stats -- nothing crazy, probably something along the lines of 16 14 14 14 12 10. She wasn't super munchkined out by any stretch of the imagination, but was basically a competently built member of that class, ending up with good AC, pretty good HP, good saves all around, etc.

Character B was a sorcerer who had rolled pretty bad stats. She had a decent charisma, but had around 10-11 con and I don't think dex or wis were any higher. Her spells were picked along a theme and not extremely effectively at that. Her AC tended to hang around 10 or 11, her HP were abysmal, and only her will save was even passable.

Now, I grant you, that's not all down to stat rolling (although powerwise, I think the two classes were pretty even with each other), but typically if I threw an encounter that could even make A sweat (unless all of the enemies focused fire on her for some reason), it would kill B. The best outcomes were when A had to spend most of her actions healing B in combat just to keep her alive. This wasn't fun for either of them.

In retrospect, there are some things I could have done better as a DM to force those two characters to balance a little bit better, but it's one example of many I've seen in which a big power disparity just isn't fun for the players. No one wants to be the character that's so bad that the good characters need to constantly work to keep them alive, at least not over the course of a full campaign.


My 2 cents:

Step 1. Have ALL players at the table roll stats
Step 2. Take the highest set and convert it to points
Step 3. Have all players make characters with that point total

This accomplishes a couple of things:

1. Lets everyone roll dice (wooo)
2. Evens up playing field for all characters
3. Group is now a "group" since they are all trying to roll well for the "group" and the game hasn't even started yet.
4. Character builds are all "by choice" so no b1tch1ng.

I have been using this since 1979 will all my groups and it works fine. Works really well since some folks can't get past the numbers and on the the roleplaying.

-Centerpunch


AdAstraGames wrote:

STR/DEX/CON/WIS/INT/CHA...

1) All stats start at 8, except for one that starts at 12 in your stat of choice.

2) Everyone rolls the "characteristics die" 22 times and adds 1 to the attribute that comes up on each roll.

Awesome! Gotta get me some! Great system, too!

Don't we have a mathmatician on this thread? My computer skills are too decayed, but someone should be able to knock out simple odds based on 4 keep 3' and '4 keep 3/reroll 1s'. Remember in converting to equivalent points the costs for high scores increases.


I have people do this:

A) Set out a stat array of 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 13. Arrange them so the 13 is in your most important stat.

B) Everyone rolls 12d6; a die roll of 1 adds +1 to STR, a 2 is +1 to DEX, etc.

C) Sort out the dice and put numbers where thou wouldst. If you've rolled a hideous streak and would have an attribute above 18, re-roll the placement of the excess.

D) You may remove up to 2 points from one attribute to other attributes. No other attribute can receive more than 1 point. You may not add points to the attribute you put a 13 in, initially.

E) Apply racial mods.

This results in everyone having a stat array that sums to 75, which is what most 'reasonable' 20 point builds or 4d6 drop the low look like. While everyone's stat array sums to the same amount, there's a lot of variety in the outcome. It's unusual to get an 18 raw stat.

It also avoids the usual point buy cookie cutterisms ("Oh, look, Yet Another 7 INT, 7 CHA fighter") where people sell off the things that won't penalize them in game because they're too much work for the GM to enforce.


When I started this game with the Moldvay box, stats flat-out worked differently, and 3d6 in order was actually not a TERRIBLE way to determine them. By the time we reach pathfinder, there's so much choice inherent in making a character anyhow - and stats are so much at the core of the game's mechanics - that we actually use a predetermined score set most of the time. This means makes the "math" behind the characters more predictable, which means we can get past them to the game we'd all like to play. Nobody complains about "cookie-cutter pc's" though. If I were playing in my game, I might ;-)

Liberty's Edge

In the games I run, I run a custom point buy with two dice-for variables.

To determine YOUR point pool, it's a constant plus like 2d4 or something, I kind of forget. Then once points are bought and locked in, each point has a 1/6 chance of going up by 1. Then you get one absolute point to put anywhere.

This of course can result in pretty damned high opening stats, but doesn't always. It also means that a player who rolls 2 and a player who rolls 8 are only different by 6 general points, so they are still pretty close.


Bwang wrote:
Don't we have a mathmatician on this thread? My computer skills are too decayed, but someone should be able to knock out simple odds based on 4 keep 3' and '4 keep 3/reroll 1s'. Remember in converting to equivalent points the costs for high scores increases.

4d6-drop-lowest is about a 20 point PFRPG point buy (although it's slightly higher if you allow rerolling for "hopeless" characters, a la 3E D&D), and 4d6-drop-lowest-reroll-1s is about a 30 point PFRPG buy.

Liberty's Edge

Rolling dice can force players to build their characters around whatever 'nature' gives 'em. 'Nature' in this case, being represented by random number generators. If everyone's stats are way different at the end, you can always grant the lagging character some more points before you really start.

I suspect that parties who prefer to roll stats also don't mind character death as much as those who use point-buy systems.


Well, I use PF 20 point buy, with 1 score GE 8, the rest GE 10 after racial bonus/penalty.

However in the past I have also done the following:
1) Everyone at the table rolls 4d6 (usually 5 players) and I as DM roll the last 4d6 and we all used the same scores.
2) An old DnD 2 (I think?) method of 8 + 7d6 and you added the d6 values to 8 for each score and you could not "waste" part of a d6. Each person rolled a d6 and DM rolled the last one.

Either of the above let the players roll, but evened out stats so we didn't have Pete with lowest score of 16 (true!!) and Rich with highest score of 15.

-- david
Papa.DRB

101 to 150 of 284 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Point buy vs. 4d6 drop the low All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.