Say a guy rolls the following stats:
STR 18
DEX 13
CON 14
INT 11
WIS 13
CHA 12He builds his fighter. But then he gets a last-minute call from his GM, saying they're switching to point buy. So he takes the following scores:
STR 18
DEX 13
CON 14
INT 7
WIS 13
CHA 7
That first set looks awfully high for a rolled set... drop the 18 to a 16 and randomly lower the other stats a bit and that looks far more accurate.
Something like 16, 11, 14, 9, 13, 10 would be more typical of rolled scores. You have point buy nailed accurately however.
STR 18
DEX 13
CON 14
INT 7
WIS 13
CHA 7You seem to be saying that the first is fine while the second is powergaming (according to Bill Dunn, the chief difference being that the second was done on purpose). Nevermind that the second array is actually worse, it's the "powergaming" array.
I understand the complaint; some people think there's a perverse incentive to lower your non-useful stats to 7, and they don't like that. However, I agree with you; I wouldn't really call it "powergaming" if the "non-powergaming" alternative is to use a really powerful rolling method.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
except there are 11 more points in the first set than the other.
That's exactly my point. (Perhaps you're not reading my posts carefully?) You seem to be of the opinion that a person who uses (for instance) a 20pt buy and dumps a couple of stats to get others higher is somehow more of a powergamer than someone who rolls to get stats that are even higher.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That first set looks awfully high for a rolled set... drop the 18 to a 16 and randomly lower the other stats a bit and that looks far more accurate.
Something like 16, 11, 14, 9, 13, 10 would be more typical of rolled scores. You have point buy nailed accurately however.
1. Beside the point. Those were just samples to show "Bought VS Higher Rolled".
2. Too high? Have you SEEN some of the systems proposed in this thread? Yikes.
I've actually tended to use 2d6+6 for stat generation before. If we want a higher powered game, reroll 1's.
But again, really, it all comes down to what the group is comfortable with.
That first set looks awfully high for a rolled set... drop the 18 to a 16 and randomly lower the other stats a bit and that looks far more accurate.
Something like 16, 11, 14, 9, 13, 10 would be more typical of rolled scores. You have point buy nailed accurately however.
1. Beside the point. Those were just samples to show "Bought VS Higher Rolled".
2. Too high? Have you SEEN some of the systems proposed in this thread? Yikes.
It isn't beside the point really... you wanted to know which was more power gamery... If you use more accurate numbers it becomes obvious the point buy guy is more power gamery.
Yes I have seen those systems... most of the worse ones were (I am hoping) posted in jest OR were posted by point buy people to support switching to point buy.
Maybe more of an optimizer than a power-gamer thing? Power-gamer wanting bigger numbers, optimizer wanting to squeeze every last bit of power out of the numbers he has?
It is also, as I said above, easy to propose a rolling method without realizing exactly how high-powered it's likely to be.
Is there a definition of Powegamer or Optimizer that can be universally agreed upon here? There seems to be some conflict over what behaviors constitute that label.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
ummm... not really. this isn't about someone being more or less powergamey. building as effective of a character as a person can to fill a role, with a point buy it is more incentivised to dump the unneeded statsexcept there are 11 more points in the first set than the other.That's exactly my point. (Perhaps you're not reading my posts carefully?) You seem to be of the opinion that a person who uses (for instance) a 20pt buy and dumps a couple of stats to get others higher is somehow more of a powergamer than someone who rolls to get stats that are even higher.
Did you forget what we were talking about? This line of dialogue started with me replying to this comment of yours:
the only problem i have with pointbuys is that powergaming is harder to resist. big stupid dirty (7cha 7int) fighter becomes a better fighter than the knight who wants to be both good looking and strong.
So let's put a couple of your statements side by side:
the only problem i have with pointbuys is that powergaming is harder to resist.
this isn't about someone being more or less powergamey.
So which is it? If this isn't about being more or less powergamey, then why is "the only problem" with point buys the encouragement to powergame?
And the specific part I was replying to with my example was this:
big stupid dirty (7cha 7int) fighter becomes a better fighter than the knight who wants to be both good looking and strong.
The point of my example was that (especially given the incredibly generous rolling methods presented by various posters in this thread) the dumb fighter often will NOT be "a better fighter than the knight who wants to be both good looking and strong" because he'll roll better stats than the 7INT/CHA fighter could buy.
Rolling allows the fighting prowess without the cost, allowing the strictly-superior character, yet you've labeled the point buy as encouraging powergaming. Then, when shown the problem, you retconned and claimed that it wasn't about who was more powergamey.
Make up your mind.
|
ummm... not really. this isn't about someone being more or less powergamey. building as effective of a character as a person can to fill a role, with a point buy it is more incentivised to dump the unneeded stats
Everyone dumps unneeded stat. You just have to put a comprehensive limit to it with point-buy. I've seen someone come with a 20/18/16/7/7/7, the guy was promptly ordonnated to come back with something that doesn't feel like he's taking us for idiots.
On the opposite, we allowed our barbarian to play a half-ogre with a maximum of 20 Str at level 1 (including racial modifiers), who had 5 Int/5 Wis/13 Cha (and not even using Intimidation in combat or roleplay). Would you call him a bad roleplayer ? Because I can assure you he's not, and he doesn't even play it "THOG BREAKS THINGS" like.
Is there a definition of Powergamer or Optimizer that can be universally agreed upon here? There seems to be some conflict over what behaviors constitute that label.
Powergaming - when someone who prefers the other system does something you claim not to like "to squeeze every last bit of advantage out of the system." Those filthy dirtbags!
Roleplaying - when someone who prefers your system optimizes their character "to play their character correctly." Those gaming geniuses!
Roleplaying - when someone who prefers your system optimizes their character "to play their character correctly." Those gaming geniuses!
This statement made me rage so hard, mainly because a lot of people actually believe that it's true, there is only one way to play a specific character "in an effective manner".
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
areIt isn't beside the point really... you wanted to know which was more power gamery... If you use more accurate numbers it becomes obvious the point buy guy is more power gamery.
Yes I have seen those systems... most of the worse ones were (I am hoping) posted in jest OR were posted by point buy people to support switching to point buy.
some
posts.
It's mostly 4d6, reroll 1s, drop lowest; often with the possibility of rerolling the entire set. That will (typically) produce scores substantially higher than most point buys. The stats I gave were not unrealistic for the methods people are using.
I don't mind dump statting nor I do impose a limit over them. Because it's one of the best way a GM can spot the ones on which to release his or her GM wrath. Wanna have Cha 4 because you wanted Str 22 at 1st level? Go ahead, no I'm not grinning in evil contemplation of your ironic and unescapable demise, why are you asking?
Is there a definition of Powergamer or Optimizer that can be universally agreed upon here? There seems to be some conflict over what behaviors constitute that label.
Powergaming - when someone who prefers the other system does something you claim not to like "to squeeze every last bit of advantage out of the system." Those filthy dirtbags!
Roleplaying - when someone who prefers your system optimizes their character "to play their character correctly." Those gaming geniuses!
Seems to be a running theme, unfortunately. As a result, the terms, much like the label of "Mary Sue" become words that have no real meaning beyond "The person using them is trying to label their opposition in the worst of ways."
So in summation...
don't you guys just love all the people bragging about their '30 years of experience' in a game that is (if you count 3.0, 3.5, and PF as different editions of the same game. AD&D and it's predecessors most certainly are not part of the same game) less than 12 years old?
Yeah... that makes a lot of sense.
30 years IN GAME YEARS. Which makes me a player with over 1500 years of experience.
Except this wasn't during life or death situations. This was during downtime. I'm not kidding when you I said the character never said anything to anyone unless it was to refer to another character -it took us a while to even learn the guys name. And when it comes to skills and your workplace anecdote, replace "try to fix" with "use" and you will be closer to what actually happened at the table. If that's depth to you, so be it -it was unending frustration to me. And the splitting up was never in combat situations -it was during the roleplaying heavy side quests or trips to town for supplies.
In my experience, the players had their characters piggy back off each other, in essence making negative /complimentary versions of each other. The guy with low cha never spoke to ANYONE unless it was to refer people to the character with high charisma. The character with low intelligence never once attempted to use a skill, they would just call for the character with high skill points or intelligence.That sounds like what any group of people with healthy, realistic understandings of their own strengths and weaknesses would do (especially in potentially life-threatening situations). Sounds like good roleplaying to me. The guy who's no good at speeches or freezes up around girls or whatever knows to let the pretty-boy do the talking. There are several people in my office who will go get help if the slightest thing goes wrong with their computer rather than fix it themselves.
It sounds like you're upset with people making characters who have depth.
When the party had split up, it was the point buy characters players who would start to complain, saying it was unfair that the DM was splitting the party (the amount of times the phrase never split the party came up was obscene) and would come up with the most obnoxious reasons for why they could not leave a each others (or another party members) side. And this is only the most recent example. There are others, but I won't go on.So a group of people who have saved each other's lives is reluctant to split up? Yeah, totally unrealistic. ;)
Except that neither OD&D, AD&D, or AD&D 2nd edition are the same game as 3/P. Any experience beyond 12 years is of limited value, and may in-fact be negative training if mis-applied.So in summation...
don't you guys just love all the people bragging about their '30 years of experience' in a game that is (if you count 3.0, 3.5, and PF as different editions of the same game. AD&D and it's predecessors most certainly are not part of the same game) less than 12 years old?
Yeah... that makes a lot of sense.
30 years IN GAME YEARS. Which makes me a player with over 1500 years of experience.
I'll politely disagree, but let's leave it that way. No point in derailing the discussion now.
|
|
See, this is why I prefer to ban stats under 10 (except racial penalties) and give large point buys. (Minimum 30)ummm... not really. this isn't about someone being more or less powergamey. building as effective of a character as a person can to fill a role, with a point buy it is more incentivised to dump the unneeded statsEveryone dumps unneeded stat. You just have to put a comprehensive limit to it with point-buy. I've seen someone come with a 20/18/16/7/7/7, the guy was promptly ordonnated to come back with something that doesn't feel like he's taking us for idiots.
Well, for us it's the contrary. We just set a reasonable judgement over each character, depending on personality, class and intended roleplay. Usually, as a rule of thumb, you may not have more than two stats under 10, and no more than one with a 7. On the other hand, we hate characters without flaws (no stat under 10) - both because they look bland, and because they usually aren't effective at their job.
To give an example, here are the characters of my group (from memory, so there may be mistakes, with appropriate 13th level wealth) :
(Mine) Human, middle-aged, Fighter 12 (vanilla S&B, Shield Master, Bashing Finish, Keen scimitar)/ Paladin 1
22
17
13
14
8
12
Half-Ogre, middle-aged, Invulnerable Urban Barbarian 13
26
15
21
6
6
14
Elf, Hexcrafter Magus 13
10
22
14
20
14
8
Half-orc (diluted blood), TH sunderer Fighter 13
24
12
18
8
14
12
Human, DMPC Mindchemist 13
10
18
14
24
12
7
Human, middle-aged, Qinggong drunken monk of the sacred mountain's lotus
22
8
18
8
20
12
Since there is a natural limit when it comes to put points into major stats, you HAVE to spend points in dump stats when you would not have enough to raise a 15 to 16, for example. And If you are left with a 15, if this isn't your most important attribute, you may as well go down to 14 and see how much points gained that you can put elsewhere.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think that one of the "powergaming" complaint topics that the dice-rolling sneetches dislike among the point-buying sneetches has to do with utility. In many point-buying schemes, players drop all the points into stats where they would be the most efficient: I see a lot more character builds with "STR 16 DEX 14" than those with "STR 15 DEX 15". Die-rolling sneetches end up with more "wasted" rolls. So it doesn't feel like the characters are as optimized.
(They are, if the die-rolling sneetches have choices about where to assign scores. The optimization is just on a rougher granularity.)
The following attribute-generation method has been suggested on every thread. It keeps the level of character power tightly restricted, which makes the point-buying sneetches happy, while removing a lot of choice from the players, which is sometimes the whole point of the dice-rolling sneetches.
Let's say you wanted to simulate a 15-point buy, with a score of 10 costing 0 points. Let's say that you allow players to buy stats down to 8, which generate -2 points, with which they can raise other scores. Now, that's really a 27-point buy (15 plus 6 x 2) with 12 points already pre-chosen by default. We're going to look at it as a 27-point buy.
Roll 27d6. Each die that comes up a "1" indicates a point in STR. Each die that comes up a "2" indicates a point in DEX, and so on.
Example 1:
STR: five "1" - a Pathfinder score of 13. (Starting from -2, five points brings you up to a buy of 3, which in Pathfinder is a score of 13.)
DEX: five "2" - a Pathfinder score of 13.
CON: three "3" - a Pathfinder score of 11.
INT: five "4" - a Pathfinder score of 13.
WIS: four "5" - a Pathfinder score of 12.
CHA: five "6" - a Pathfinder score of 13.
That's a point-buy total of 15.
STR: eight "1" - a Pathfinder score of 14 with 1 left over.
DEX: six "2" - a Pathfinder score of 13 with 1 left over.
CON: two "3" - a Pathfinder score of 10.
INT: three "4" - a Pathfinder score of 11.
WIS: two "5" - a Pathfinder score of 10.
CHA: five "6" - a Pathfinder score of 13.
So spend those two left-overs (say, on CHA).
That's another point-buy total of 15. Maybe a paladin.
So in summation...
don't you guys just love all the people bragging about their '30 years of experience' in a game that is (if you count 3.0, 3.5, and PF as different editions of the same game. AD&D and it's predecessors most certainly are not part of the same game) less than 12 years old?
Yeah... that makes a lot of sense.
Well, some of them might mean experience in roleplaying as a PC or being a DM, not necessarily DnD/Pathfinder specific.
I know I first started DMing when i made up games based off of zelda and final fantasy in grade school, a good 6-8 years before i even knew what Dungeons and Dragons was.
So in summation...
don't you guys just love all the people bragging about their '30 years of experience' in a game that is (if you count 3.0, 3.5, and PF as different editions of the same game. AD&D and it's predecessors most certainly are not part of the same game) less than 12 years old?
Yeah... that makes a lot of sense.
Yep, been playing for over 30 years.
What that statement means is rolling for stats is a nostalgic element of why we play Pathfinder in the first place. Hardly bragging, just explaining why our group prefers rolling.
Experience in a plethora of games over 30 years certainly gives you a better perspective of the overall picture, btw.
Maybe in 20 more years, you'll get it.
;)
It's mostly 4d6, reroll 1s, drop lowest; often with the possibility of rerolling the entire set. That will (typically) produce scores substantially higher than most point buys. The stats I gave were not unrealistic for the methods people are using.
Do you see what you are doing? Most rolled methods use 4d6 drop low arranged as desired. You are comparing a method used by those few who support high powered play on the rolled side vs most point buys. If you wanted a more even comparison you would have to use TOZ's 42 point buy as one example.
The most fun I had with point buy was a 10pt PF campaign. But that was mostly because it was a role play heavy game. The epic fight was a single wolf that wandered too close to the village. Most of the time we talked in character with each other. The game never really went past 6th level yet it lasted for a year. This would be similar to straight 3d6 perhaps in power level.
But for the most part I stand by my position that 3e's Organic Method was the best. As it was the funnest to use and the hardest to abuse.
|
|
I'd much rather just place a set of stats in a useful order than starting thinking "I can bump this one more point if I drop these other two..."
Well, it also helps defining a character that is for now just an idea in my mind, and prevents cheese just by making me feel bad about stats under 10.
You may also easily pre-define three kinds of point-buy arrays : fighty, MAD, and SAD, which you then propose to your players ; but I wouldn't like having to choose through three sets of stats which are the same for everyone.
|
So IF your average person has a stat of 10 - 12 and you have a person that plays with lower... Do they FULLY rP THIS?
Example a Person with a 7 or 8 Int... Does he talk as his character would? Some with with the IQ of Forest Gump. Hi I'm Mongo, TMongo Kill orcs? Mongo hate orcs. Mongo smash Orcs. Mongo strong? Mongo not not stupid...
Dex... Do they stumble and fall all the time. Do they have a hard time tying their shoes? Do they trip? Do they fall behind when the party is trying to flee the monster?
Wis... Do they just jump in head first into the room never once thinking of the consequences? Do they fall for buying the magic Widget of do absolutely nothing because it is just that... worthless? Do they down the potion without first thinking of the situation?
Con... Get sick anytime the weather turns fowl? Talk like they have a stuffy nose? Puke when they see the blood and guts of the dead? Puke and gag when they walk into a room of filth?
Chr... Say all the wrong things when talking to the King? Piss off the bar keeper and bar patrons? Get beat up because he is socially inept?
St... Can carry less than 50 pounds on his back all day long?
I'd be curious to know... do they ROLEPLAY their characters like this?
Most likely not
7 or 8 in an ability score really doesn't portray what you think it does.
|
|
I'd be curious to know... do they ROLEPLAY their characters like this?
Most likely not
- First...
7 or 8 in an ability score really doesn't portray what you think it does.
^ This.
- Second, you are assuming people do not play their stats, as a real argument. Powergamers/all those typical disturbances will not.
- Third, yes I do - or yes, we do. My 7 Wisdom and honesty roleplay made me said things the BBEGs shouldn't have known, even though my 13 Int allowed me some restrain. And I can't count the number of times my character lost his cool after only some questions not answered despite being asked politely.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Do you see what you are doing?
It's mostly 4d6, reroll 1s, drop lowest; often with the possibility of rerolling the entire set. That will (typically) produce scores substantially higher than most point buys. The stats I gave were not unrealistic for the methods people are using.
Well, in case I don't, let's look:
Most rolled methods use 4d6 drop low arranged as desired.
As I showed in my links, lots of people are also rerolling 1s. I was just going by what's in the thread.
You are comparing a method used by those few who support high powered play on the rolled side
Feel free to do some research to the contrary, but I saw more people saying they rerolled the 1s than saying they used a straight 4d6-drop-lowest method.
But even if I accept your premise that "most" people don't automatically reroll the 1s, that still leaves you with higher average stats than the normal point buy. But again, most people who bothered to mention their methods were using a more generous system - whether by rerolling 1s, getting a total reroll as a safety net, rolling big pools of stats for everyone to pick from (or for the whole group to use the best of), or some combination thereof.
Thus, even IF the most common single method is 4d6DL, it might still represent a small minority of players with most players using more generous rolling methods.
And you keep mentioning TOZ's 42pt buy, without mentioning the "5d6 drop lowest reroll all ones and twos" that he references in the same sentence. Seems a bit selective of you, doesn't it?
Life is NOT Equal so why should ALL Characters be equal.And you can't choose your race and gender so why should your character?
Maybe he has an 18 int but could not afford training as a wizard so you can be a sucky but smart rogue.
Though we use the 'all players equal' rolling method, I equate the all players should be equal, so use the point buy system to ninth place ribbons. Not everyone should be equal and good players know this is a role playing game and turn it into a positive.
I recall a post along the lines that if Gary had not devised D&D using the dice generation system, then us 'die rollers' would be using the point buy without issue. Well, Gary created D&D with accurate simulation in mind knowing full well not everyone is created equal, and it was an inherent part of his plan. I happen to agree with it.
|
|
So in summation...
don't you guys just love all the people bragging about their '30 years of experience' in a game that is (if you count 3.0, 3.5, and PF as different editions of the same game. AD&D and it's predecessors most certainly are not part of the same game) less than 12 years old?
Yeah... that makes a lot of sense.
???
OK 1st you had the Pre-Chainmail D&D played mainly with minis in a wargame like setting - 1974
Then 1st Ed - 1977
Then 2nd Ed - 1983
Then 3.0 - 2000
Then 3.5 - 2003
Then 4.0 and PF - 2008
Is Chess not chess just because it is a slightly different game now than it was a 1000 years ago?
Is American Football not American Football even though the game of the 1930's is so far different than what it is in 2011? Or Collage Football not Football because Pro Football rules differ?
D&D has gone through changes just like every game. Those changes have to do with rules. Just because it has changed versions and even a slight name change to Pathfinder, it is in all ways the same basic game started in 1974
If it where not for those original rules, you'd not have PF or any other game like it.
So yes... some of us have been playing the game in some form of it's rules set for 30 or more years. Even with those changes PF is still D&D, and 3.5 is still D&D on down the line.
Well, Gary created D&D with accurate simulation in mind knowing full well not everyone is created equal, and it was an inherent part of his plan. I happen to agree with it.
???
What
???
All along I didn't know that rolling stats was a comment on how us humans are all different. If only simulation of reality was my goal during character creation..
Do you see what you are doing?
It's mostly 4d6, reroll 1s, drop lowest; often with the possibility of rerolling the entire set. That will (typically) produce scores substantially higher than most point buys. The stats I gave were not unrealistic for the methods people are using.
Well, in case I don't, let's look:
Most rolled methods use 4d6 drop low arranged as desired.As I showed in my links, lots of people are also rerolling 1s. I was just going by what's in the thread.
You are comparing a method used by those few who support high powered play on the rolled sideFeel free to do some research to the contrary, but I saw more people saying they rerolled the 1s than saying they used a straight 4d6-drop-lowest method.
But even if I accept your premise that "most" people don't automatically reroll the 1s, that still leaves you with higher average stats than the normal point buy. But again, most people who bothered to mention their methods were using a more generous system - whether by rerolling 1s, getting a total reroll as a safety net, rolling big pools of stats for everyone to pick from (or for the whole group to use the best of), or some combination thereof.
Thus, even IF the most common single method is 4d6DL, it might still represent a small minority of players with most players using more generous rolling methods.
And you keep mentioning TOZ's 42pt buy, without mentioning the "5d6 drop lowest reroll all ones and twos" that he references in the same sentence. Seems a bit selective of you, doesn't it?
Well I omitted that intentionally. But I was just pulling a random example. I guess I could have used the 30+ pb or 56 pb others have brought up. But I have found I am beginning to like poking TOZ (in a friendly manner) from time to time.
I think you can see what I am trying to point out, right? It's that you can't take a power gamed set from one side and compare it to a normal set on the other side. It completely invalidates any point you needed to make. {That and I needed to rescue the other two from the logic trap you artfully walked them into}.
Point buy keeps everything honest and consistent. To meet the same goal with dice rolling, then most the time the system is tweaked to get the same results of point buy, or better, by removing bad rolls etc. See how many players agree to roll a set of abiltities for a character once and will accept the results, unless the they are above average. At the end of the day all that trouble and anguish is resolved with a point buy system.
So yes... some of us have been playing the game in some form of it's rules set for 30 or more years. Even with those changes PF is still D&D, and 3.5 is still D&D on down the line.
Doesn't validate anything you brought forward so far regarding the superiority of rolling stats or that a 7 is supposedly a debilitating curse making you unable to function.