I want to extend the Point Buy downward so people can "sell down" any attribute score down to 3 to get more points. I am fully aware some players are going to move their dump stat as low as it will go.
The problem is, there doesn't seem to be a pattern for the values going up to 18. What should be the values going down to 3?
3 ?
4 ?
5 ?
6 ?
7 –4
8 –2
9 –1
10 0
11 1
12 2
13 3
14 5
15 7
16 10
17 13
18 17
O is -5. That is why the scale stops where it does and most plays and the devs would not see how someone with a 3 could be an adventure.
If the 3 is in a mental category you are too dumb to make proper decisions if RP'd properly. If you put 3 into a physical stat you are most likely too clumsy, weak, or sickly to adventure. The game does not state that, but if the adventurers were real people they would most likely not survive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
O is -5. That is why the scale stops where it does and most plays and the devs would not see how someone with a 3 could be an adventure.
If the 3 is in a mental category you are too dumb to make proper decisions if RP'd properly. If you put 3 into a physical stat you are most likely too clumsy, weak, or sickly to adventure. The game does not state that, but if the adventurers were real people they would most likely not survive.
Yeah, Raistlin did terribly with his 3 Con.
@darth: There IS a pattern. With the exception of 10-11, they all improve by the modifier of the stat they are about to become. Extrapolating, this would be down to 3:
3 -16
4 -12
5 -9
6 -6
7 -4
8 -2
9 -1
O is -5. That is why the scale stops where it does and most plays and the devs would not see how someone with a 3 could be an adventure.
If the 3 is in a mental category you are too dumb to make proper decisions if RP'd properly. If you put 3 into a physical stat you are most likely too clumsy, weak, or sickly to adventure. The game does not state that, but if the adventurers were real people they would most likely not survive.
Yeah, Raistlin did terribly with his 3 Con.
@darth: There IS a pattern. With the exception of 10-11, they all improve by the modifier of the stat they are about to become. Extrapolating, this would be down to 3:
3 -16
4 -12
5 -9
6 -6
7 -4
8 -2
9 -1
I am pretty sure his con is not a 3. Even people who are bedridden for most of their lives mostly likely have higher than a 3.
According to Hero Builders Guidebook, Raistlin has an 8 con.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Yeah, Raistlin did terribly with his 3 Con.
@darth: There IS a pattern. With the exception of 10-11, they all improve by the modifier of the stat they are about to become. Extrapolating, this would be down to 3:
3 -16
4 -12
5 -9
6 -6
7 -4
8 -2
9 -1
1e Raistlin had a 10 Con in Dragons of Despair - but that was before the novels; the illness/cough thing was a roleplaying quirk introduced by the player that ran him in Tracy Hickman's home game, or so I've been told.
Yeah, the amount of bonus points gets a bit crazy if you follow the progression backwards like that. This is one problem I have with point buy over rolling - If you roll a 3, you are a good player for overcoming such a handicap. If you buy down to a 3, you are a filthy min-maxer who deserves only scorn.
3 Con is more like Peter Parker's Aunt May.
At 7 he is at a -4 modifier to get a -5 he has to go to 0 which makes him comatose or at least unconscious.
Barring house rules he has to start selling off another ability score.
I think he knows that by now, so I would suggest a higher point buy if more points are desired.
|
At 7 he is at a -4 modifier to get a -5 he has to go to 0 which makes him comatose or at least unconscious.
Barring house rules he has to start selling off another ability score.
I think he knows that by now, so I would suggest a higher point buy if more points are desired.
A 7 is a -2 actually. A 3 is a -4, and a 3 int is still sentient and capable of thoughts and opinions. That said, favored class bonus and human bonus skill will negate a lot of the mechanical penalty.
A 7 is a -2 actually. A 3 is a -4, and a 3 int is still sentient and capable of thoughts and opinions. That said, favored class bonus and human bonus skill will negate a lot of the mechanical penalty.At 7 he is at a -4 modifier to get a -5 he has to go to 0 which makes him comatose or at least unconscious.
Barring house rules he has to start selling off another ability score.
I think he knows that by now, so I would suggest a higher point buy if more points are desired.
7 –4
8 –2
9 –1
10 0
11 1
12 2
13 3
14 5
15 7
16 10
17 13
18 17
From an mechanical point of view a 3 can probably learn a class. From a verisimilitude look at things don't expect it. A 3 can barely command a language.
Where did you get the info that a 7 is -2?
The problem is, there doesn't seem to be a pattern for the values going up to 18.
There is. The increase in cost increases by 1 at intervals.
From 10, the increase is 1 for 11, 12, & 13; 2 for 14 & 15; 3 for 16 & 17; 4 for 18. So it's: 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
You would have to override the current benefit from 7 through 9 to apply this pattern (and I highly recommend not allowing below a 7), but you could mirror the scores below 10.
I think he was talking about the ability modifier. 7 isn't a -4 modifier, it's -4 points. -2 modifier, -1 for each -2 increment below 10.
Here is why I don't even allow below an 8: the thought of a fighter getting negative skill points hurts my noggin. I'm sure there is no such thing, and that you get your base regardless, but dammit, if you want to be as dumb as the village idiot, skills are out for you, friend.
I think he was talking about the ability modifier. 7 isn't a -4 modifier, it's -4 points. -2 modifier, -1 for each -2 increment below 10.
He was talking about the points. Note that the chart I posted and his chart are the same.
Note that he said:I want to extend the Point Buy downward so people can "sell down" any attribute score down to 3 to get more points.
A 7 is like having a sign saying "Hit me here" a 3 is like having suck a sign in neon, sky written and sending the GM a stipper gram saying " Oh please on all that's holy hit me here hard when I bend over..please no lube"
Just don't do it.
3 -10
4 -8
5 -7
6 -5
7 –4
If you really really really really had to - I'd do the above. But even then I wouldn't do it
Whatever happened to role playing and character development? How did we fall into this "all positive bonus stats or don't bother" mentality?
So what if you make a character with low intelligence. You ever see Forrest Gump?
I don't want to raise the point buy just to get higher stats. The idea is to make players who really want that 18 to make hard decisions about having very low stats in other areas. I expect the power gamer and min/maxer of the group to make characters with very low dump stats. That's OK. The die-hard role player will create a heroic, but tragically flawed character. I am expecting that too.
I'm designing the campaign with an even mix of battles, skill challenges, puzzles, and social conundrums. Everybody will at some point have to face something that they are weakest at.
I think FireclawDrake hit the formula dead on and I will be using that.
|
Whatever happened to role playing and character development? How did we fall into this "all positive bonus stats or don't bother" mentality?
So what if you make a character with low intelligence. You ever see Forrest Gump?
I don't want to raise the point buy just to get higher stats. The idea is to make players who really want that 18 to make hard decisions about having very low stats in other areas. I expect the power gamer and min/maxer of the group to make characters with very low dump stats. That's OK. The die-hard role player will create a heroic, but tragically flawed character. I am expecting that too.
I'm designing the campaign with an even mix of battles, skill challenges, puzzles, and social conundrums. Everybody will at some point have to face something that they are weakest at.
I think FireclawDrake hit the formula dead on and I will be using that.
Looks like 3.5 Loyalist spawned a whole new branch of "screw math, it's ROLE playing so let's make everybody eat a bucket of nails" thinking...
I doubt the OP is looking at selling Con down to three. He's most likely looking for extra points by selling down charisma.
CHA is your ability to interact with others. 3 CHA is about as sociable as Dustin Hoffman from Rainman.
"Definitely time to fight monsters.... Uh-Oh!"
Whatever happened to role playing and character development? How did we fall into this "all positive bonus stats or don't bother" mentality?
So what if you make a character with low intelligence. You ever see Forrest Gump?
I don't want to raise the point buy just to get higher stats. The idea is to make players who really want that 18 to make hard decisions about having very low stats in other areas. I expect the power gamer and min/maxer of the group to make characters with very low dump stats. That's OK. The die-hard role player will create a heroic, but tragically flawed character. I am expecting that too.
I'm designing the campaign with an even mix of battles, skill challenges, puzzles, and social conundrums. Everybody will at some point have to face something that they are weakest at.
I think FireclawDrake hit the formula dead on and I will be using that.
Forrest Gump (rather high functioning for someone impaired) had about a 7 Int.
Whatever happened to role playing and character development? How did we fall into this "all positive bonus stats or don't bother" mentality?
So what if you make a character with low intelligence. You ever see Forrest Gump?
I don't want to raise the point buy just to get higher stats. The idea is to make players who really want that 18 to make hard decisions about having very low stats in other areas. I expect the power gamer and min/maxer of the group to make characters with very low dump stats. That's OK. The die-hard role player will create a heroic, but tragically flawed character. I am expecting that too.
I'm designing the campaign with an even mix of battles, skill challenges, puzzles, and social conundrums. Everybody will at some point have to face something that they are weakest at.
I think FireclawDrake hit the formula dead on and I will be using that.
How hard of a decision it is depends on the GM, and how much he will enforce that low that.
Even Forest Gump was functional enough to take care of himself. He was probably a 7. I would put many severely mentally handicapped people at a 3 who need someone to look out for them.The power gamer will crunch the number compare how the GM runs his game and then decide if it is worth it. He also know that 18 is not that much better than 16 so he will only take it on minimum risk.
Facing something you are weakest at, and something that a real life version of that ability has are two different things.
Maybe we just have different opinions on what a 3 is or you are really lenient as a GM, in which case the 3 might be taken.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was once in a campaign where a player put his (rolled) 3 into Cha - no one wanted to sleep near him, no one ever wanted to talk to him, and when he died, we rolled his body into a ditch and kept going. The party cleric had raise dead prepared that day, but the world was better off without him.
A lot of times it's not about putting a stat below 7 in order to get more points for better stats, it's about playing a character with a real weakness. When played well, those characters can be quite memorable. If that's the effect you're looking for, I'd suggest letting players lower stats below 7, but not give tham any extra points for it.
Keep the point buy ratio 1:1 all the way?
A lot of times it's not about putting a stat below 7 in order to get more points for better stats, it's about playing a character with a real weakness. When played well, those characters can be quite memorable. If that's the effect you're looking for, I'd suggest letting players lower stats below 7, but not give tham any extra points for it.
Totally agree. This is the way I would go.
A lot of times it's not about putting a stat below 7 in order to get more points for better stats, it's about playing a character with a real weakness. When played well, those characters can be quite memorable. If that's the effect you're looking for, I'd suggest letting players lower stats below 7, but not give tham any extra points for it.Totally agree. This is the way I would go.
I agree as well. The system would be far too subject to abuse otherwise.
I dont think it is a good idea, but if you allow scores of 3 to function I very much would advise to change the bonus a low ability can bring probably -1 per point below 10. It would mean that a 6 in this system is the same as a 7 normally, which it is for most purposes, if you want a 4 or 3 for roleplay reasons you get another 2 or 3 extra points.
It seems to me you will run into many more complications for little benefit, at some point it might be better to balance characters with an exceptional hindrance with suggested flaws and traits rather than ability points.
It's one thing to sell a stat down to 8 or 7. It's another to sell a stat so far down that a character can't reasonably be expected to adventure.
Because nothing exciting ever happens to handicapped people?
You want a con of 3 for roleplaying reasons? No problem. then you shouldn't mind not getting extra points for it.
"I see you are a serious role-player, therefore I can screw you over with impunity!" <-- GMs that I hate.
And if you show up with a 3 score on my table, don't expect to have your limitations just hand-waved away. Because quite frankly, if the rest of the players don't cover for you, you're not likely to survive a table of mine.
Isn't the entire party supposed to be covering each other anyway?
|
"I see you are a serious role-player, therefore I can screw you over with impunity!" <-- GMs that I hate.
If you are a serious roleplayer, why are you worried about lowering ability scores to 3 to raise other scores higher?
I mean, you can roleplay a weakness the same no matter what number it is, right?
|
|
Lets look at what stats of 3 would translate to.
Strength 3: Character has trouble standing up on his own and can barely carry his own equipment. When fatigued the character is near paralyzed.
Dex 3: The character literally needs a walking aid to stay up right or may not even be able to walk at all. The character has trouble manipulating items and weapons. When fatigued the character is near paralyzed.
Con: 3 The character is sick almost every day. His immune system is severly compromised. The character would become winded after climbing a few flights of stairs, and would need to rest every few minutes when doing something like exploring a dungeon. The charactere would have -4 hitpoints per level, a 10th level wizard would have 20 hitpoints total IF a six was rolled on the die each time. more likely the character would have 11-12 hitpoints (this character would more than likely not survive as an adventurer and therefore never make it to 10th level).
Int 3: Can barely grasp spoken language, forget reading or writing. The character would need supervision to perform even basic tasks. I'm talking even things like going to the restroom. This is barely above animal intelligence here. Think mental function of a 3 year old.
Wis 3: Were not just talking someone that is a little gullible here were talking some that needs constant supervision. Anyone get your head stuck in a railing of the stairs as a kid? Now imaging that you were unable to learn your lesson not to do that any more. This person put I ANY kind of dangerous situation would most likely not survive. The chaos of combat would confuse him/her. They would wander away from the rest of the party if not watched 24 seven. Someone would have to account for their possesions and food. This person would not have the common sense to actually take rations with them. Would stand outside in a storm and freeze to death in cold weather because he would have the common sense to take a jacket.
Cha 3: Someone with a Charisma this low would...
While I do believe that the average adventurer does not have any stats that are 3, I would like to remind everyone that the above post is merely one interpretation of each of these low stats. A low dexterity character could be clumsy, or really fat, or other. A low con could be ill all the time, but he could likewise simply be the runt of the litter, or have an old battle-wound that limits his endurance. Low charisma can be surly and repulsive, or it can be low confidence, or any number of other things.
My point is, if you do let someone take their stats that low, let the player decide what his specific handicap is. Of course, the mechanics will function even if he attempts to down-play his limitation.
...Lets look at what stats of 3 would translate to.
Strength 3: Character has trouble standing up on his own and can barely carry his own equipment. When fatigued the character is near paralyzed.
Dex 3: The character literally needs a walking aid to stay up right or may not even be able to walk at all. The character has trouble manipulating items and weapons. When fatigued the character is near paralyzed.
Con: 3 The character is sick almost every day. His immune system is severly compromised. The character would become winded after climbing a few flights of stairs, and would need to rest every few minutes when doing something like exploring a dungeon. The charactere would have -4 hitpoints per level, a 10th level wizard would have 20 hitpoints total IF a six was rolled on the die each time. more likely the character would have 11-12 hitpoints (this character would more than likely not survive as an adventurer and therefore never make it to 10th level).
Int 3: Can barely grasp spoken language, forget reading or writing. The character would need supervision to perform even basic tasks. I'm talking even things like going to the restroom. This is barely above animal intelligence here. Think mental function of a 3 year old.
Wis 3: Were not just talking someone that is a little gullible here were talking some that needs constant supervision. Anyone get your head stuck in a railing of the stairs as a kid? Now imaging that you were unable to learn your lesson not to do that any more. This person put I ANY kind of dangerous situation would most likely not survive. The chaos of combat would confuse him/her. They would wander away from the rest of the party if not watched 24 seven. Someone would have to account for their possesions and food. This person would not have the common sense to actually take rations with them. Would stand outside in a storm and freeze to death in cold weather because he would have the common sense to take a jacket.
Cha 3: Someone with a Charisma
Except as it stands, the mechanics of a 3 charisma can be offset with skill points at first level, or never come up at all. A character with a 3 int will still gain at least 1 skill point per level, possibly up to 3. We have to worry about the powergamers and min-maxers who are going to abuse the #e11 out of this system, not the role players.
|
|
Except as it stands, the mechanics of a 3 charisma can be offset with skill points at first level, or never come up at all. A character with a 3 int will still gain at least 1 skill point per level, possibly up to 3. We have to worry about the powergamers and min-maxers who are going to abuse the #e11 out of this system, not the role players.
Once again, I'm not saying this is a great idea, and there will be people who would exploit such a system. I'm merely saying that it is not the DM's place to say what EXACTLY a stat level represents. A 3 in a stat could be roleplayed and represented in a number of different ways, and I take issue with someone who tries to define exactly what a 3 looks like, always.
Except as it stands, the mechanics of a 3 charisma can be offset with skill points at first level, or never come up at all. A character with a 3 int will still gain at least 1 skill point per level, possibly up to 3. We have to worry about the powergamers and min-maxers who are going to abuse the #e11 out of this system, not the role players.Once again, I'm not saying this is a great idea, and there will be people who would exploit such a system. I'm merely saying that it is not the DM's place to say what EXACTLY a stat level represents. A 3 in a stat could be roleplayed and represented in a number of different ways, and I take issue with someone who tries to define exactly what a 3 looks like, always.
I can agree with that, we all have our different opinions. Let me direct my previous post back at the concept of the thread in general.
We actually have a Strength 3 kobold sorcerer PC in my Legacy of Fire group, using 15 point buy. He does just fine, with a few caveats. Burlier PCs act as the party pack mules (and even cart him along when climbing is required). Of course, one ray of enfeeblement plasters him to the floor.
Except as it stands, the mechanics of a 3 charisma can be offset with skill points at first level, or never come up at all. A character with a 3 int will still gain at least 1 skill point per level, possibly up to 3. We have to worry about the powergamers and min-maxers who are going to abuse the #e11 out of this system, not the role players.Once again, I'm not saying this is a great idea, and there will be people who would exploit such a system. I'm merely saying that it is not the DM's place to say what EXACTLY a stat level represents. A 3 in a stat could be roleplayed and represented in a number of different ways, and I take issue with someone who tries to define exactly what a 3 looks like, always.
I think it is the GM's place. A GM should be able to trust the player's, but that is not a given. He has to decide how much of a factor a low stat is.
The scores have limitations, but in the absence of hard rules the GM has to decide how debilitating that is. He does not have to be exact, but score X is not capable of ______ is reasonable. I am sure an NPC with an int of 4 outsmarting the players when they have creative plans would not go over well.In short if the score makes you an incapable threat as an adventuring villain then it should have the same affect on adventuring PC's.