|
As a DM I don't really care if two characters are built identically so long as they are roleplayed differently.
I have seen two characters with different stats and even of different classes, roleplayed effectively identically. So much so that in memory, I sometimes forget which was involved in which parts of the adventure and at times forget that it wasn't just the first guy the whole way through.
Saying that point buy makes characters identical or that rolling makes them diverse does not fly with me. I've seen enough evidence to the contrary.
+1
This is exactly my experience.
As a DM I don't really care if two characters are built identically so long as they are roleplayed differently.
I have seen two characters with different stats and even of different classes, roleplayed effectively identically. So much so that in memory, I sometimes forget which was involved in which parts of the adventure and at times forget that it wasn't just the first guy the whole way through.
Saying that point buy makes characters identical or that rolling makes them diverse does not fly with me. I've seen enough evidence to the contrary.
+1
This is exactly my experience.
Everyone's experience is different. My experience is I will end up with the same character over and over again if I use point buy.
It reminds me of a Knights of the Dinner Table strip that is the ultimate in 'cookie cutter' characters. The whiney guy that reminds me of Wally from Dilbert (can't remember the names) has a character who dies. So he nods and sighs. "Ok, well, my character's clone son, Billy the 27th, warps in to take over his father's quest. He's fully equipped as a new character, and per the inheritance rules, he gets all his father's equipment. Ok, I'm ready to play now." He erases 26th from his character sheet, writes 27th, and then pulls out a pregenerated sheet with the extra equipment he got.
On the other hand, I have seen two players with drastically different characters only realise they both had the same stat array quite a number of sessions after the game had started.
Diversity and creativity isn't just about the numbers on the sheet.
On the other hand, I have seen two players with drastically different characters only realise they both had the same stat array quite a number of sessions after the game had started.
Diversity and creativity isn't just about the numbers on the sheet.
+1, and that is all I gots to say about that.
Some posts removed. Insulting other people's playing styles is not the behavior we want to encourage on the messageboards - please remain civil.
As a DM I don't really care if two characters are built identically so long as they are roleplayed differently.
I have seen two characters with different stats and even of different classes, roleplayed effectively identically. So much so that in memory, I sometimes forget which was involved in which parts of the adventure and at times forget that it wasn't just the first guy the whole way through.
Saying that point buy makes characters identical or that rolling makes them diverse does not fly with me. I've seen enough evidence to the contrary.
+1
This is exactly my experience.Everyone's experience is different. My experience is I will end up with the same character over and over again if I use point buy.
It reminds me of a Knights of the Dinner Table strip that is the ultimate in 'cookie cutter' characters. The whiney guy that reminds me of Wally from Dilbert (can't remember the names) has a character who dies. So he nods and sighs. "Ok, well, my character's clone son, Billy the 27th, warps in to take over his father's quest. He's fully equipped as a new character, and per the inheritance rules, he gets all his father's equipment. Ok, I'm ready to play now." He erases 26th from his character sheet, writes 27th, and then pulls out a pregenerated sheet with the extra equipment he got.
Funny enough, I see this far, far more often in old school gaming, where players die often without hopes of being revived, then I did in newer editions.
It just doesn't FEEL like I'm making a character unless i start it off by rolling dice. If I roll dice and get a 6 a 7 and an 18 I start to get an idea for where to put those stats and why my character might have them. If I'm using point buy, i have a reaaaaaly hard time justifying spending the point on anything but the stats i need.
I think point-buy also favors casters. They need casting stat and dex or con (they can really get by without con and rely on a d6+favored hitpoint +toughness)
It just doesn't FEEL like I'm making a character unless i start it off by rolling dice. If I roll dice and get a 6 a 7 and an 18 I start to get an idea for where to put those stats and why my character might have them. If I'm using point buy, i have a reaaaaaly hard time justifying spending the point on anything but the stats i need.
I think point-buy also favors casters. They need casting stat and dex or con (they can really get by without con and rely on a d6+favored hitpoint +toughness)
Point buy is very very friendly to SAD classes like Wizards and Sorcerers. Any MAD classes usually get hosed by point buy, or you end up with characters that are logistically crippled and should never have made it as an adventurer (Like a Paladin with 16/7/16/7/7/16 or something similar).
Point buy is very very friendly to SAD classes like Wizards and Sorcerers. Any MAD classes usually get hosed by point buy, or you end up with characters that are logistically crippled and should never have made it as an adventurer (Like a Paladin with 16/7/16/7/7/16 or something similar).It just doesn't FEEL like I'm making a character unless i start it off by rolling dice. If I roll dice and get a 6 a 7 and an 18 I start to get an idea for where to put those stats and why my character might have them. If I'm using point buy, i have a reaaaaaly hard time justifying spending the point on anything but the stats i need.
I think point-buy also favors casters. They need casting stat and dex or con (they can really get by without con and rely on a d6+favored hitpoint +toughness)
Both systems favor casters. If you roll put your best stat in the mental attribute you use, and put the others wherever you want too.
For MAD characters point buy helps out. At least you have some customization so your MAD character is able to minimize the weaknesses. If you roll you might not get enough decent stats to even make it playable.
While SAD casters can take advantage of an extreme ability score it's not really guaranteed that they'll have a score of 16+ for their primary attribute. Under most forms of point buy it's pretty much a given that a caster will start with a 18 or 20 after racial adjustments. Yes they generally have to mortgage the farm but it's not like the wizard needs much more than great intelligence, good dex and good con. They can mortgage strength and charisma and since they have a good will save can probably go with an average wisdom.
I think the variance in the random generation and the ability to game the point buy system has pretty much pushed me towards the fixed array camp. That way I can set an array that works well for MAD classes without being too advantageous to the SAD classes. Further if casters have 16-17s at chargen the already sketchy 3.x save DC math holds up a bit longer.
While SAD casters can take advantage of an extreme ability score it's not really guaranteed that they'll have a score of 16+ for their primary attribute.
That is not even needed. As a SAD character you can put a lot of gold into boosting one stat. The melee class normally have to boost two physical stats, and at least one mental one.
As long as a caster has his primary stat, and mostly constitution trumped up he can normally get by well enough.
|
I know of about four or five 4E groups, and another half a dozen PF groups. None of them use point buy except for PFS play. The general feeling is too 'cookie cutter'. One thing that isn't usually mentioned is that in the standard 15 point buy, you have no minuses at all. Everything starts at 10. Bland.
Stats do not make the character. A bard with only a 12 charisma can still do bardsong, and numerous other buffs to the party. A fighter with a lousy 14 str still has weapon training and specialization to add to his damage. It's more about the role you fill in the party, than whether your stats are better than someone else. In a party of three fighters, a rogue, wizard and cleric, each of the single classes will have many moments to shine, regardless of their stats.
You are correct to a point. The game unfortunately, especially for casters, is set around the strength of their primary stat. If your spells are set at the lower DC's due to a low stat, don't expect to do much against any mid to high CR encounters. Nothing is more frustrating for a caster, when that mob who is about to deliver that coup de grace to your buddy resists that Cause Fear or Hold Person. It's not just a Pathfinder thing, all of 3rd Ed has been like this. Not much was changed in 4e either.
|
|
Both systems favor casters. If you roll put your best stat in the mental attribute you use, and put the others wherever you want too.
For MAD characters point buy helps out. At least you have some customization so your MAD character is able to minimize the weaknesses. If you roll you might not get enough decent stats to even make it playable.
Not always true. If you get all 12's for example, you could still be a pretty decent monk, fighter, ranger, paladin, etc. But you wouldn't be much of a wizard with 12 intelligence. Even if you bump it up to 14, that's "barely passable" territory for SAD casters. And if you roll all real high stats (15+), MAD characters can really take advantage of that and rack up lots of awesome. Casters can also take advantage of some of that, but it feels like your great strength and other abilities are going to waste if you spend the whole time casting.
Not always true. If you get all 12's for example, you could still be a pretty decent monk, fighter, ranger, paladin, etc. But you wouldn't be much of a wizard with 12 intelligence. Even if you bump it up to 14, that's "barely passable" territory for SAD casters. And if you roll all real high stats (15+), MAD characters can really take advantage of that and rack up lots of awesome. Casters can also take advantage of some of that, but it feels like your great strength and other abilities are going to waste if you spend the whole time casting.Both systems favor casters. If you roll put your best stat in the mental attribute you use, and put the others wherever you want too.
For MAD characters point buy helps out. At least you have some customization so your MAD character is able to minimize the weaknesses. If you roll you might not get enough decent stats to even make it playable.
You get a 12 then add 2 for the race. That gets you a 14. At level 4 you get a 15m just enough to allow for 5th level spells. This won't allow much in the way of an SoD or SoS caster, but you will still be a caster. Now if you plan to steal the spotlight you may be in trouble. I think stealing the spotlight is bad idea anyway though.
PS: I don't think all twelves make for much of a decent anything(melee) unless your DM is real nice and holds back a lot, especially monks.
I would rather be caster with 12's. The other scores being low would not hurt as much.
I think a 14/12/12/12/12/12 or a 14/14/12/12/12/10 after racial modifications is definitely a viable if unspectacular array. The main problem I see with it is that a good number of feats are tied to an ability score of thirteen which would limit access to power attack for instance if strength wasn't one of your 14s, TWF would be rogue or ranger only, etc.
SoD/SoS casters are pretty dubious builds with this array but that's not necessarily a bad thing as the normal save DC for SoS specialists is has a really high success rate. DPR on martial characters would also be lower but casters are reduced to being support/control instead of blast/debuff/SoD I'm not sure that's a horrible change either.
Even the MAD classes (monk, paladin) would be viable with a 14/14/12/12/12/10 array if everyone had the same array. In comparison they often really struggle to remain relevant with a 15 point buy.
If anyone's curious, I worked out the exact probabilities of the following methodologies: 2d6+6, 3d6+2, 4d6 Drop Lowest, 4d6 Drop Lowest with a single re-roll of 1s, and 4d5. I graphed these probabilities against each other so you can see how the results are distributed.
VERY intriguing. I like this graph. Takes me back to high school math.
If anyone's curious, I worked out the exact probabilities of the following methodologies: 2d6+6, 3d6+2, 4d6 Drop Lowest, 4d6 Drop Lowest with a single re-roll of 1s, and 4d5. I graphed these probabilities against each other so you can see how the results are distributed.
You missed the one I think is actually the best, from up thread. :)
4d4+2
_6 : _1/256 0.39%
_7 : _4/256 1.56%
_8 : 10/256 3.91%
_9 : 20/256 7.81%
10 : 31/256 12.11%
11 : 40/256 15.63%
12 : 44/256 17.19%
13 : 40/256 15.63%
14 : 31/256 12.11%
15 : 20/256 7.81%
16 : 10/256 3.91%
17 : _4/256 1.56%
18 : _1/256 0.39%
As you can see, it creates a nice tight curve with an average of 12, and the most likely range of values is 10 to 14 (72.66%).
I am just curious on what peoples opinions are. Which would you rather have for character creation; Point buy or 4d6 drop the low? Also, why?
Personally I like the point buy with 20 points. I feel that it makes for a nice balanced party where all players can easily have their time in the sun, without 1 character being the "lead" and everyone else feeling like "support cast".
I say this as I have been in too many games where dice roll was used and (after calculating everything out) one or two characters had point buy equivalents in the 40+ while some others where in the 10-20 range (due to poor rolling).
As I said, just curious.
Point buy, no contest. Either 32 (3.5) or 25 (PF).
The reasons are simple.
Even if a method of PB is theoretically equal to a method of dice rolling, in practice it won't be as PB lets you choose where the numbers go and rolls don't. As such it will almost always yield worse results in practice. Not to mention it yields disparate results, and more often than not gets in the way of playing what you want to play.
As for the particular numbers, those are chosen so that the weaker, Multiple Attribute Dependent characters can at least somewhat mitigate their weaknesses. It's not a power thing at all, after all a full spellcaster will have plenty of power stats even on a 25 (3.5) or 15 (PF) PB. They just won't have any fluff stats. The MAD characters will neither have sufficient power stats nor fluff stats.
You just spelled out why I prefer rolling perfectly.
You just spelled out why I prefer rolling perfectly.Because you like the stats getting in the way of what you want to play? Or one of the other reasons? None of which are any better.
I think you both just like having plenty of moderate to high stats. Whether you roll them or buy them is not particularly relevant, IMO.
I have noticed a trend for "I like rolling" to mean "I like high stats", though.
You just spelled out why I prefer rolling perfectly.Because you like the stats getting in the way of what you want to play? Or one of the other reasons? None of which are any better.
Rolling increases player thought durring character creation IME. With point buy, players assign stats without thinking about it and make cookie cutter characters. Even when they make very new and different characters, they often lack depth because players just assigned the stats they want. Very few players I have played with have not done this.
On the other hand, when rolling stats the players often end up with something unexpected. They often will have lower highs, so they will be less the expert, and they will have more moderate stats. Players think more about how they got those stats and what they mean, and in turn I find you get more thought out, well developed, and realistic characters. I had a player in my last game get denied his character concept because he failed to roll an abysmal stat to put into int, which he had planned on dumping to 7 in a 25 point buy. The result was he reworked the concept so that the new int of 12 made sense. Both of us like this character more.
The characters are less optimized, yes. This makes the game more playable, not less. Starting with a 20 in a casting stat hurts the game because your DCs will be seriously out of line. Fighters with 20 str deal disproportionate damage to what the system is designed for. Rolling reduces the likelyhood that SAD characters will have the 1 amasing stat while simultaneously increasing the number of above average stats that MAD characters will have.
I have never had any issues with stat disparity in the party. The only times it has come up, it has added to the game and not detracted, at least in a Pathfinder game. It has been an issue in some homebrews, but that is usually because those favored specialization even more and the system had flaws.
Hogarth, I like 20-30 point stat arrays that are not optimized. I find 15 point buy characters to have disproportionately high stats to rolled characters of higher point values. The point buy character will more likely have extremes, while the rolled character will have a higher average but lower peaks. For point buy, I prefer 20 because players will not drop stats as low to get high stats, but for rolling I prefer 3 sets of 4d6, the result of which I find to be arround 23-28 point characters, with the occasional one higher or lower. In annother thread on this, James Jacobs said he uses the same method.
|
|
I think preference as to point buy vs. rolling really depends on where character creation starts for your group.
If you start character creation with abilities, rolling dice is the better method by far. You roll the dice and you say 'Gee, what can I do with these rolls?' and you figure out what kind of person those rolls make. Especially if you roll your abilities in order.
If you start character creation with 'I want to play a [insert class here]!' then you might be more satisfied with point buy. It's frustrating to roll dice and see that they didn't line up with what you had envisioned, but if your point buy doesn't work like you thought you have nobody to blame but yourself.
I prefer to roll for characters. It makes character creation a group activity instead of a solo activity.
For point buy, I prefer 20 because players will not drop stats as low to get high stats, but for rolling I prefer 3 sets of 4d6, the result of which I find to be arround 23-28 point characters, with the occasional one higher or lower. In annother thread on this, James Jacobs said he uses the same method.
The mean for that method is a (PFRPG) 28.75 point buy, for what it's worth.
For point buy, I prefer 20 because players will not drop stats as low to get high stats, but for rolling I prefer 3 sets of 4d6, the result of which I find to be arround 23-28 point characters, with the occasional one higher or lower. In annother thread on this, James Jacobs said he uses the same method.The mean for that method is a (PFRPG) 28.75 point buy, for what it's worth.
Interesting, seeing as only 1 of my players is higher than 28 currently. I will need to look into it to see if your math is correct.
Interesting, seeing as only 1 of my players is higher than 28 currently. I will need to look into it to see if your math is correct.
Oh, my math could definitely be wrong. :-)
Also, that's assuming that you always pick the set of stats with the highest point-buy value, which might not always be the case (you might prefer a well-rounded set of stats to a "pointy" one, for instance).
|
Point buy is very very friendly to SAD classes like Wizards and Sorcerers. Any MAD classes usually get hosed by point buy, or you end up with characters that are logistically crippled and should never have made it as an adventurer (Like a Paladin with 16/7/16/7/7/16 or something similar).
What they should have done to offset the SAD is have different costs for different attributes. Strength should be the cheapest, then Con and Dex, followed up by Cha. The PB for Wis and Int should be the most costly.
My reasoning is how different attributes have an impact on the game: Str gives bonus to hit and damage vs. Wis which gives extra spells, bonus to saves, DC of casters spells, etc.
They shouldn't have the same point buy value.
StuffYou just spelled out why I prefer rolling perfectly.Because you like the stats getting in the way of what you want to play? Or one of the other reasons? None of which are any better.
I see it the opposite quite frankly.
I roll my stats and, well, there they are. I decide which one goes to strenght, which goes to int, etc. And that's it.
That's...not much player thought.
Point buy? Do I want to lose a bit of strength to gain Int and some skill points? Should I add some wisdom to my rogue to help shore up that will save at the cost of another stat? I'm going to drop wisdom on my bard because he's rather naive and foolish, where should I put it?
It also lets you make the character you want. I want a naive and foolish bard who's charismatic and fast on his feet. Ok, drop wisdom, raise dexterity and charisma. I want a barbarian that fits perfectly in the extremes, low wisdom, low charisma, low intelligent, but high Murderan. A wizard that's wise as well as intelligent. A druid who leans far more towards shifting and attacking then casting spells.
Rolling stats? I just got a bunch of 12's. There goes any of those.
Point buy allows for more optimization and customization, dice rolling tends to produce a bunch of scores around the statistical norm (although 6 rolls really isn't enough to deal with the large amount of variance in most dice-rolling systems).
If you like extreme scores point buy is generally more solid as the point buy system in both Pathfinder and 3.x definitely encourage dump stats and boosting 1-2 primary scores. If you like a bunch of slightly above average scores then dice rolling it pretty reliable.
Personally the primary problem that I've always seen arise with dice rolling is that one PC is invariably that much better than the rest or one is low enough that they become a drag on the rest of the party.
One solution I've used in the past in regards to these issues has been to have the group as a whole roll n number of arrays and then the group as a whole selects the best array (typically the highest array but not always) the group then uses that array for all characters modified by racial modifiers etc.
It solves the equity issue and generally reduces the preponderance of 18/16/13/10/7/7 and similar stat lines which seem to dominate in many groups.
At a certain point in time though I think the fixed array becomes the obvious solution but people don't really care for it.
IME. With point buy, players assign stats without thinking about it and make cookie cutter characters. Even when they make very new and different characters, they often lack depth because players just assigned the stats they want. Very few players I have played with have not done this.
I guess it is an experience issue then. I don't need forced bad stats to make a different fighter/rogue/etc every time. I never thought of people making cookie cutter characters as an issue before, but since you are not the first to bring it up I think it has merit for those games. It still has the issue of a power discrepancy. If I were a DM and the cookie cutter thing was an issue with my players I would just give a different stat array for every game*. It is hard to make a clone of an old character with different stats.
*I really would not care if my players making cleric 1.0 and 2.0, but if I did that stat array is what I would do.
I prefer to roll for characters. It makes character creation a group activity instead of a solo activity.
How does either method make it more or less of a group issue?
Point buy is very very friendly to SAD classes like Wizards and Sorcerers. Any MAD classes usually get hosed by point buy, or you end up with characters that are logistically crippled and should never have made it as an adventurer (Like a Paladin with 16/7/16/7/7/16 or something similar).What they should have done to offset the SAD is have different costs for different attributes. Strength should be the cheapest, then Con and Dex, followed up by Cha. The PB for Wis and Int should be the most costly.
My reasoning is how different attributes have an impact on the game: Str gives bonus to hit and damage vs. Wis which gives extra spells, bonus to saves, DC of casters spells, etc.
They shouldn't have the same point buy value.
I agree, but the cost of those should be taken into class design. I think in 10 years or so when PF 2.0 comes out that should be done.
How does either method make it more or less of a group issue?I prefer to roll for characters. It makes character creation a group activity instead of a solo activity.
People get together to see the dice rolls.
And laugh at the stats i roll.
How does either method make it more or less of a group issue?I prefer to roll for characters. It makes character creation a group activity instead of a solo activity.
People get together to see the dice rolls.
And laugh at the stats i roll.
That sounds familiar. I have a friend who is hated by the dice gods in all things that concern rolling.
|
|
How does either method make it more or less of a group issue?
Rolling stats generally occurs when everyone's there, so that everyone can see the stats that are rolled and keep everyone else honest. While you're all there together, rolling stats, you may as well collaborate on character creation. The characters are created in a group environment. This also means that some characters will have some pretty terrible weaknesses, and they'll need extra help in those situations; the group as a whole is aware of these, at least dimly.
Point buy is often the inverse. You tell everyone what the setting is like and how many points they have, and they all go home and make their characters. Then they come back with full characters and bring them all together. The characters are created in a solo environment and it's generally assumed that if any have glaring weaknesses in their abilities, that it's that character's own darn fault. The characters are more independent of each other.
It's a subtle difference. And I can't say it's 100% true in all cases.
How does either method make it more or less of a group issue?Rolling stats generally occurs when everyone's there, so that everyone can see the stats that are rolled and keep everyone else honest. While you're all there together, rolling stats, you may as well collaborate on character creation. The characters are created in a group environment. This also means that some characters will have some pretty terrible weaknesses, and they'll need extra help in those situations; the group as a whole is aware of these, at least dimly.
Point buy is often the inverse. You tell everyone what the setting is like and how many points they have, and they all go home and make their characters. Then they come back with full characters and bring them all together. The characters are created in a solo environment and it's generally assumed that if any have glaring weaknesses in their abilities, that it's that character's own darn fault. The characters are more independent of each other.
It's a subtle difference. And I can't say it's 100% true in all cases.
Point buy keeps everyone honest, and if they are not honest it is normally found out anyway.
Most groups I know might agree to play a certain class, but they build the class on their own. Most of us also prebuild our characters, with room for changes of course so I don't think rolling has an affect on that at all. The only time all of us meet is if one of us is introducing a new system.In short the few times we have built characters together had nothing to do with rolling vs PB.
I prefer point buy, because I can tell people to make characters using 20 pt buy and they have them ready when they arrive at my house to play, though, that does kill the character creation process for a more dynamic group...
Interesting, seeing as only 1 of my players is higher than 28 currently. I will need to look into it to see if your math is correct.Oh, my math could definitely be wrong. :-)
Also, that's assuming that you always pick the set of stats with the highest point-buy value, which might not always be the case (you might prefer a well-rounded set of stats to a "pointy" one, for instance).
On further calculation, I see that the standard deviation is about 9 points, so there's a wide range of possible stat levels.
Nice,
I had thought it would group nicely, but it's still nice to see it shown in a graph that way. :) 4d4+2 heavily weights it towards the median (12) more than any other method, but still keeps the range in the 6 to 18 range. I like that. Thanks for updating the graph.
|
I'm not sure how it would work, since d20 currently relies on a strong interaction between positive ability modifiers and class abilities, but you're unlikely to have all the +s you really want across the board.
I would aim for something along the lines of needing a 9 in a relevant ability to do class things, and a 13 (probably no more than that!) to do more interesting things, but the actual number of rounds or uses per day of anything being fixed. The whole thing suddenly becomes much simpler to keep track of, but less prone to abuse, and still maintains the flavour (perhaps even more so as it is less numerical).
This may have been intentional, but this is essentially the way it worked in 1st and 2nd Edition. The bonuses you got for very high stats were much less than they are in 3rd/PF.
This may have been intentional, but this is essentially the way it worked in 1st and 2nd Edition. The bonuses you got for very high stats were much less than they are in 3rd/PF.
Except for Dex (up to +4 bonus to AC). Or Con, for fighter-types (up to +4 bonus to hit points). Or Str, for fighter-types (up to +3/+6 bonus to attack/damage). And Wis, for clerics (a bunch of bonus spells).
IME. With point buy, players assign stats without thinking about it and make cookie cutter characters. Even when they make very new and different characters, they often lack depth because players just assigned the stats they want. Very few players I have played with have not done this.
I guess it is an experience issue then. I don't need forced bad stats to make a different fighter/rogue/etc every time. I never thought of people making cookie cutter characters as an issue before, but since you are not the first to bring it up I think it has merit for those games. It still has the issue of a power discrepancy. If I were a DM and the cookie cutter thing was an issue with my players I would just give a different stat array for every game*. It is hard to make a clone of an old character with different stats.
*I really would not care if my players making cleric 1.0 and 2.0, but if I did that stat array is what I would do.
You see, I have never found stat power discrepancy to cause an issue in any d&d game I have been in. Someone with mediocre stats will generally perform perfectly well in a game with someone with amasing stats. Very poor stats can cause issues, but it is highly unlikely with my prefered rolling method.
My issue with cookie cutter characters is that pretty much every fighter has the same charisma/int in point buy. That is not saying they will not also be the lowest stats for rolling, but if a 12 is your lowest stat thanks to rolling players tend to play it differently than if you dropped it down to an 8, which almost every non-intimidating point buy fighter I have seen does. 2 8 charisma fighters could be very different, but it is a reduced variablity that I do not like to see.