Of course there's such a thing as starting ability scores being too high. 100 would be very bad, even in just one stat.
OTOH, you should have just let the guy keep the ones he rolled, they are within the variation of the 4D6 generation rules, and thus aren't any big deal.
-Kle.
No such things as "too high" stats , within the limits of the reasonably "believable", say, stats of 20 or less at starting level. Actually, as a GM I hate characters with exaggerated "drop-Stats" more than better-than-average guys, because the former will stedfastly refuse to do stuff dependent on their "bad" ability.... utterly unrealistic, or do people in real life with less talent keep their mozths shut or their hands idle just because they are "not the best" ?
And while class-specific core stats do have a definite impact in the lower levels (most of all, high Str in melee oriented chars ), but less so in mid- and high-level scenarios, secondary stats are rather more fluff, describing the charactr, rounding him out. Yes, extra skill points/save-boni/HP are nice, but they do not overwhelm the game.
Instead, IMHO they actually encourage a player to have the character act more confidently, more heroically even and "try" stuff because the player perceives the alter ego to be a superior specimen.
BTW, however well-stated the character, if the player is one less skilled, less flexible, he will rarely shine, even with an above-par character.
And no, it's not unfair - if we honestly look about, one does have to admit that some people around seem to "live" with higher scores than others do. there are just some people who are scrawny, unlikable, plain and none too smart.... such is life! People should have equal rights and chances, but they will invariably differ,some being "more capable" than others.
Hence : Weak call on your part having him reduce the stats, they shouldn't be a game-breaker. Stick to your calls
|
To be honest, i am one of those players that seem to always roll high ability scores. Despite that, I am not always one of the most powerful characters. Especially in Pathfinder, other bonuses stack up so quickly that an additional +2 or even +3 does not mean much after the first few levels, and even at those levels the range of rolls allowed by the d20 will tend to balance things out. Also, you need to realize that for combat purposes, which is the only way of comparing character power without knowing a great deal about how you run your games, most classes only need one or two good ability scores to shine. If a fighter has an Intelligence over 13, it really has no effect on his combat prowess. If a wizard has a 14 Strength, it does not improve his spellcasting at all. Higher scores are never useless, but the increase in character effectiveness is much less after the class's primary stats are assigned. Your player's high rolls make him an interesting character for roleplaying, and allow some of the more MAD classes to be viable, but do not break the game.
I've found that high scores are not really a problem. And I once ran a game where, as an experiment, I had a rule saying that for every '6' a PC rolled, he could reroll and add to the total, and keep rerolling as long as that die came up '6'. The highest ability score in that game was a 28 Wisdom assigned to a Monk PC.
( Actually, that worked out very well, because with his 28 Wisdom he was able to find a clue that really helped get the PCs through a tight spot. )
I suppose great differences between ability scores might be a problem. In that same campaign I allowed a reroll if a PC did not have a score over 20.
In another campaign, my first 3.0 campaign, I committed to allowing characters rolled with dice, or rolled with the computer generated that came with the original 3.0 Player's Handbook. Then I found two things: 1) one player had a tendency to make lots of characters and then decide which one he wanted to play; 2) the computer roller consistently produced higher stats than the dice did.
My answer to was to implement a system of XP bonuses based on stats, so those with lower stats would get more XP. (Of course, everybody is getting a bonus, so I'm not penalizing high stats, just trying to even the playing field a bit.) The game worked pretty well, and there were no complaints. I suppose if somebody was bothered by it, they could just roll a character using the generator, or ask to lower their stats so they could get more XP.
I have come up with a plan for a different campaign where one of the steps for rolling characters is to take the PC who has the lowest stats, and allow the player to roll more dice to add to the stats, until that PC no longer has the lowest stats.
But in general, I say the dice are the dice, and if a player rolls all 18s, that's the way it is. Choices of class and feats and strategy and tactics more than make up for ability score spread, in my opinion, once the ones with very low stats are allowed to reroll so that everybody at least has decent stats.
Another idea I heard of was everyone rolling ability scores and pooling them. They players then take turns picking ability scores from what was rolled. This normally leads to equal scores.
The last player picks number back to back.
The order is basically like this:
Player1
Player2
Player3
Player4
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
repeat
We haven't rolled for stats in over 15 years, and I've never missed it quite frankly. All the drama that dice rolling brings is unnecessary imho.
I can tell people all day long that they need to roll in front of me, but eventually you get someone who rolls offsite and walks in with stats written down as 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 11 and claims they rolled them up fair and square and claim you're calling them a liar when you don't allow them. Blech.
Or when one person rolls stellar and another mediocre (as happened to me) and our characters fill similar roles (fighter types). Nothing like sucking at everything compared to your friend. Sure, I can roleplay my character and get through the session. But when you're clearly inferior at the same job as another PC just due to stat rolls it's time to rethink the character. Fortunately, that game didn't last too long.
To a lesser extent we have that now with rolling for hit points every level past 1st. We had a string of bad rolls (even rerolling 1's) for a number of PC's in recent levels in my game, and it's really bumming out my players. Blearg!
For what it's worth, though, I wouldn't have made the PC change his stats. If you use a stat rolling system to create PC's, you should stick by it, especially if they roll in front of you.
There are plenty of online random dice rollers that you can use if people want to roll their own characters at home. We use them all the time. They have checks to ensure that the rolls are fair and the results are emailed by the dice rolling site to the player and GM simultaneously. Plus they have CRC checks so the GM can check back to the site if he suspects the Player spoofed an email and changed the values. This is the only way our groups allow offsite random dice rolls, whether for stats or for between session activities.
So far I've not had any problems with the Honor System. Most people, I find, are focused on their own characters and probably don't even know what scores the other PCs have.
I suppose if a player did want to get in the other players faces with "I'm so awesome, I have two 18's and a 17, that PC might find himself hampered by a lack of healing spells which, for some reason, got used up on the other PCs and NPCs and 'Oh, I'm sorry, I'm out of healing. You're just going to have to walk it off."
To be honest, i am one of those players that seem to always roll high ability scores. Despite that, I am not always one of the most powerful characters. Especially in Pathfinder, other bonuses stack up so quickly that an additional +2 or even +3 does not mean much after the first few levels, and even at those levels the range of rolls allowed by the d20 will tend to balance things out. Also, you need to realize that for combat purposes, which is the only way of comparing character power without knowing a great deal about how you run your games, most classes only need one or two good ability scores to shine. If a fighter has an Intelligence over 13, it really has no effect on his combat prowess. If a wizard has a 14 Strength, it does not improve his spellcasting at all. Higher scores are never useless, but the increase in character effectiveness is much less after the class's primary stats are assigned. Your player's high rolls make him an interesting character for roleplaying, and allow some of the more MAD classes to be viable, but do not break the game.
A fighter with 13 Int is able to take Combat Experties and thus a collection of feats that a fighter with 12 int cannot take.
I don't want to sound trite, but rolling hight and having that not be of much benefit means that the class being played needed fewer stats to begin with (or the original character concept/build needed fewer stats).
I once rolled up a monk that had 14 int, this allowed him to climb up the Combat Expertise tree and take greater trip, something most monks using a normal point buy spread or a more logical array would not be able to do.
While I agree it's not game-breaking for a fighter (or my afformentioned monk) to be able to eventaull grab greater trip, and not sacrafice much if anything, to say that high stat rolls don't impact characters is false.
|
Was I wrong in asking him to make the change?
Basically yes. You set you the rules for the stat creation, then tried to change them because you did not like what you saw.Basically you would have to change the rules for the entire party, not just the one player.
Was the suggested change unreasonable?
Yes and no. I don't think that it would be unreasonable to not want players with super high stats, I am the same way so to me it was not unreasonable. But to ask him to do it after you set the rule would be.
Is there such a thing as ability scores being too high at 1st level?
Absolutely. But it all depends on what type of game you and your players are wanting to play in.You said that you are running a higher powered campaign, so higher powered characters should probably be in order.
To me, sounds like the real problem is the disparity between players' stats, and therefore their relative value to the party's effort.
Or am I wrong...?
I've played in many types of games, and fully suggest sticking to whatever method you suggest. If you are worried that someone who rolls low will have less of a fun time then someone who rolls high, then rather then lowering someone elses' good fortune bump up the people with lower values.
The various types of stat selection I've used in the past..
2d8+2
2d6+6
4d6 Drop the lowest
4d6 Drop the lowest Reroll 1's
4d6 Drop the lowest Reroll 1's and 2's
4d6 Drop the lowest Reroll 1's and 2's if 24 is rolled, keep the 24.
3d6 Drop the lowest +6
3d6 Full Set Reroll at behest of the GM
15 Point Buy
20 Point Buy
25 Point Buy
32 Point Buy
Static Array of varying amounts, average I've seen is 18/16/14/14/12/10
All in all, the games were very enjoyable. The most powerful character I've seen had 24/24/17/16/12/10.. and yes, he was powerful but he was also really fun to group with. It portrays the characters as "Hero's" right off the bat as they will be incredible at whatever they attempt within their own field.
If a GM told me that my stats were very low, and gave me the "option" to reroll, I don't care if I rolled 6 18's I wouldn't want him to tell me to forcefully lower my stats or to reroll a set that I thought was nice.
I've found that the best compromise to that is to have every member of the group roll up a set following whatever rules you're using, and let the group decide which set to use between all of them. That way you have the lucky players and unlucky players all on the same field. If everyone starts with crazy stats modify your encounters to fit the dynamic of the group.
I equate being forced to lower stats to..
You have 10 Doors hiding 10 prizes.. lets use food in this situation..
Prizes range from some three day old peanutbutter and jelly sandwich.. all the way up to a nice T-Bone.. Player opens door #3 and finds an almost rotten tuna sandwich and you feel bad for him, letting him pick again.. Chooses door #6 and finds that T-Bone and is excited and happy with the result.. You walk up congratulate him and spit on it, toss it on the ground, and put it back onto the plate..
Every player when rolling 3d6 in stats in any format.. 3d6, 4d6 drop the lowest, etc.. is hoping for as many high numbers as possible. 6 18's is the holy grail of stats. If after rolling that they're forced to get rid of it, a player is going to wonder why he even bothers with rolling stats to begin with.
A wizard with 5 8's and a 15 can break the game, a fighter with 6 18's can't. It all depends on the person behind the numbers, not the numbers.
I've found that the best compromise to that is to have every member of the group roll up a set following whatever rules you're using, and let the group decide which set to use between all of them. That way you have the lucky players and unlucky players all on the same field. If everyone starts with crazy stats modify your encounters to fit the dynamic of the group.
After nearly as many permutations of stat generation as you've done (one included using playing cards), this is what I've settled with as the "best of both worlds".
As a DM, I personally didn't have a problem with high stats. Low stats I felt inhibited certain character build options (such as the Int 13 for Combat Expertise, etc).
Someday I might run a game where you don't need to meet stat prerequisites for things like feats or spells, so "rolling low" is no longer an inhibitor to making character builds.
As DM, I do have a problem with everyone being happy. And having the straight 18s guy shining next to the straight 12s or less guy, and watching the unfolding dissastifaction (and possible resentment, depending on the maturity of the player), is why I use the "everyone picks whatever set they want out of those rolled".
I liked Point Buy, because it broke away from inter-player disparity, and generally let you play a character build you wanted.
I liked Rolling, because sometimes to get that good 17 or 18, you'll end up with an 8 or 9 you'll have to deal with.. or more succintly, you get a set of stats you might never have picked normally (kind of like how things are in life).
Combining those two makes a system I end up loving. Everyone roll a set of stats (including the GM if your group is small), and anyone can pick any set of stats they want.
I would allow Point Buy as well, just in case someone really wants that specific build.
To me rolling your character out is the only way to even think of starting a RPG game. That truly is the first thing that motivates and excites our group to begin a new campaign. I know with balance, political correctness, blah, blah, blah it’s the way that some prefer to begin the game and during tournaments or any other type of outside play I agree. Though within the confines of your own group I believe the best way to start is a democratic vote.
With that out of the way there most definitely can be some balance issues that come into play. The way that I compensate for that is by buffing the NPC’s up to the party’s power level while leaving the thralls, grunts and there ilk as is. Besides that, our party really has no problems what so ever with the rolling of PC’s in this fine game we all enjoy.
I still think of character creation as roll up.
...and then there was the Marvel Superheroes game where 2 players rolled 'Jimmy Olsens', another rolled a weak techie, I had a decent Torch knock-off and one guy rolled up a Norse god! He thought it was a great game, but the rest of us sat around while he adventured. Campaign lasted one very short game.
|
Was I wrong in asking him to lower the ability scores? Is there such a thing as ability scores being too high at 1st level?
IMO, you rolls the dice, you takes your chances.
If you want balance, use point-buy. If you were trusting the dice and you don't like the results, you now know why you should use point-buy in the future.
Then again, I'm sure you would have allowed someone who rolled dismally poor to try again so you're not totally out of line when you ask a player to accept an adjustment but you have to be as willing to accept a, "No thanks." from him as you would accept it from a player who rolled poorly.
Having said all that, I've been playing D&D since 1978 (not a boast... just integral to the point I'm making). There either were no point-buy systems or they were so peripheral that they may as well not have existed. There wasn't even a "standard array". And the game marched on.
I'll stipulate to the point that stats weren't quite as important as they currently are. You didn't need a 19 Intelligence as a wizard to cast the highest level spells (you just had to meet a minimum to be a wizard... ahem... MAGIC USER). There are PLENTY of valid arguments on both sides of the Point-Buy vs. Random Generation methods of attribute generation. Neither is right or better beyond the 4 walls of the room you're playing in at that time.
Solution:
Tell him to play a monk :)
actually he might have a decent chance of shining with stats like that, even when playing that class.
Personally, I think that if you want to roll for starting scores, then you should be willing to accept the results (re-rolls only for characters with no scores above 11 or "unplayable" combinations like one 12 and everything else less than 9; even standard NPC scores of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 can make a decent character when counting racial adjustments, such as an elf wizard with 10 Str, 14 Dex, 9 Con, 15 Int, 8 Wis, 9 Cha). Then again, I started when the "standard" was roll 3d6 in order and characters had to meet ability score minimums to be able to be a particular class.
My preference is for point buy, which keeps things fairly well balanced between PCs. However, I also like the "organic" method from 3.x: roll 4d6 drop lowest in order, re-roll any one score (if desired), and swap the position of a single score with another one (if desired). You can be guaranteed of having your highest score where you want it, but you have limited to no influence on the arrangement of the rest of the scores. It also helps prevent "cookie cutter" characters, more often seen with point buy, but still pretty common with the "arrange as desired" rolling/stat array methods.
I am going to be starting a game soon and my players just rolled up their ability scores. I let them use the 4d6, reroll any 1s, drop lowest. I also told them I would allow them to reroll all six ability scores if they didn't like the six they rolled the first time, but only if I agree the first scores are too low.
One player rolled up some pretty crappy ability scores. My campaign is pretty high powered, so I told him to go ahead and reroll.
I sat there and watched in amazement as he rolled two 17s, three 16s, and a 12. He was very happy with those rolls, but I was pretty shocked.
Just to feel better about it, I asked him to lower one 16 to 14 and the 12 to a 10. I did not think it would be such a big deal. In fact, the change wouldn't really hurt anything.
He argued against it and told me he didn't agree. He rolled those scores, he should keep them. He argued that I could just adjust the game to match his higher ability, and that the high scores really wouldn't cause big problems.
my argument was for party and character balance. He is pretty much good at everything and has few weaknesses. On top of that, no one else in the party comes close to him in ability scores. I wanted to avoid his character being too good, and thus being the super star of the party.
Also, if I adjust things to match his power, the rest of the party might have trouble with the higher challenges.
Was I wrong in asking him to lower the ability scores? Is there such a thing as ability scores being too high at 1st level?
Personally, I would have let him keep them. What I would have done instead, is let everyone else reroll their lowest score (or two lowest, depending on how big of difference it was). But this is coming from a DM who always does 5d6, drop the 2 lowest, reroll anything below 10. Me likey high-powered campaigns.
I have a couple other rules from my Audor campaign that might also be interesting:
Each starting character gets a number of "Character Points" based on level. I've been giving PCs one Character Point per level. Character Points can be used for various purposes:
* One character point can be cashed in for 100 gold pieces worth of cash or equipment (this has to come from a source, of course).
* Two character points can be used to buy a bonus feat.
* You might pick up a class ability from another class, for a number of character points determined by how many I think that class ability is worth.
* One character point can raise one of your stats by one point.
So if you have a Fighter with an Int of 12, and you want to take Combat Expertise, you can use a character point to raise your Int to 13.
I would have let him keep his rolls, as I DM a game where at first level, one of my players rolled 3 17s and 3 18s right in front of everyone. We were all stunned, but he rolled normally with normal dice that we all used. I let him keep the rolls and we had no problems with it and ran through the Rise of the Rune Lords :) After that depending on what we are doing I let my players roll 2D6+6 or 1D6+12 so they either have minimum score of 8 or minimum score of 13 and max 18, plus or minus racial modifiers. It all depends on how heroic I want them to be :)
I find point buy the best for RPGs, though I do admit that dice rolled characters have a certain spice and organic feel to them.
The reasons for point-buy
1) party Balance, (no one character, is more powerful than the other in terms of stats, and stops one from out shining another, or spawning negative emotions)
2) those that choose to min-max approach, should sooner or later eat their weaknesses, (good roleplay opportunities there)
3) if you choose the right point value (around 20, I go 16 for more of a challange) the CRs of the monsters do a better match up to the party causing less need to adjust the monsters in modules and APs.
4) Is used in organized play (it's the only method accepted), makes it easier to make new organized play characters, with an idea of how much you can play with.
|
|
Yeah. Point buy when you want things predictable. I tend to roll lousy, except when I make up for it in spurts. During character creation more often than not it happens. Then the GM tells me to dial down the score a bit. Often later with my lousy rolls he realizes I should have left the rolls as is. It can be a bit frustrating.
There are plenty of online random dice rollers that you can use if people want to roll their own characters at home. We use them all the time. They have checks to ensure that the rolls are fair and the results are emailed by the dice rolling site to the player and GM simultaneously. Plus they have CRC checks so the GM can check back to the site if he suspects the Player spoofed an email and changed the values. This is the only way our groups allow offsite random dice rolls, whether for stats or for between session activities.
Don't put your new-fangled gadgets in my hobby, you young-un! *grin*
It's good to know there are secure ways of handling this nowadays, but like I said, we haven't rolled for stats in ages and our group vastly prefers it that way. Thanks for the heads up, though!
I do not care what method is used. As long it the same for all. And yes stats can be to high if group if group is not having fun.
I do not care what method is used. As long it the same for all. And yes stats can be to high if group if group is not having fun.
Or the stats can be too low and are getting DM saved. (But not likely)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was I wrong in asking him to make the change?
Was the suggested change unreasonable?
Is there such a thing as ability scores being too high at 1st level?
1. Depending on how you asked, yes or no. Asking him nicely with a good-reasoned argument isn't wrong, but not accepting his no would be wrong.
2. Depends on the campaign.3. Depends on the campaign.
A suggestion if you don't like point buy and want the randomness but don't want to suffer things like this:
Take a deck of cards. Pick out the cards from 4 of diamonds to 9 of diamonds, and 4 of spades to 9 of spades. Take those twelve cards, shuffle them, and put them in face-down pairs. Turn them over. Those are your stats.
Thus, the sum of all "rolls" is an average of 13, no roll is over 18 and no roll is under 8. If you are fortunate to get an 18, you'll probably have some low stats too, and if you get an 8, you'll have good stats otherwise.
A suggestion if you don't like point buy and want the randomness but don't want to suffer things like this:
Take a deck of cards. Pick out the cards from 4 of diamonds to 9 of diamonds, and 4 of spades to 9 of spades. Take those twelve cards, shuffle them, and put them in face-down pairs. Turn them over. Those are your stats.
Thus, the sum of all "rolls" is an average of 13, no roll is over 18 and no roll is under 8. If you are fortunate to get an 18, you'll probably have some low stats too, and if you get an 8, you'll have good stats otherwise.
Gotta say, this sounds like an interesting chargen method. May give it a try sometime.