use the point system if you want to keep it even between players.
use the point system if you want to keep it even between players.
This. If you're looking to create a sense of the completely fair playing field, use point buy. I would never play a character that I didn't have a hand in the stat creation. That's just me, though.
I'm no fan of point buy. I want my fighter to be viable for combat and survival in the wilds? Bound to be buck ugly and mildly retarded. Depending on your characters role, other players can benefit from your high stats as well, like tank/rogue combos.
It sounds like you just want to use the array version.
I had a DM once do what you're talking about. He also rolled up a GMPC to use for that campaign. He rolled 10 sets for people to roll on, then rolled for his own character. He landed the best set, which had {18, 18, 17, 17, 16, 15}. I watched him roll all of it.
You can maybe see the issue you might run into - if you normally roll really well, and you roll a bunch of sets in a roll, you are probably more likely to end up with just a balling set. And then if one player gets it and the rest don't.. (or worse yet, all but one player gets it) There just just complications.
I can respect you not wanting to use point buy because of your own compulsions.
My current GM and I have experimented with balancing rolled stats between players. We have created formulas based on total modifiers, based on total stats, and I even took a gander at the point buy value, but the fact is, if you want to maintain what the concept of rolled stats is, then you're going to have to spend a lot of time thinking on it, because we finally decided point buy was a better system for what we wanted as a group, even after a lot of modifying our system.
The concept I used for my last character-generation session was that everyone rolled 4d6 7 times and chose the best 6 stats. If the equivalent point-cost of their stats was below a certain number, I'd have them roll 4d6 and replace their lowest stat. Repeat if they are still below that threshold.
It was a group of newbies, so I didn't mind the possibility of rather high score sets.
An idea I got reading this thread (just throwing it out there) is to have everyone roll 6 or more ability scores and those results go in a pool. Then the players roll (d20) to see who picks first. "Snake" the selection order, so that the person who picks last gets to pick twice in a row then you reverse the order. This way, everyone gets to (potentially) share in the good/bad luck that each individual has, everyone should be about equal in power, and everyone still gets to roll lots of dice (I thought about the possibility of automating it through a spreadsheet, but how exciting is that?). You could also say it fosters a feeling of "We're in this together" right from the moment of character creation ;o)
- Niilo
My current GM and I have experimented with balancing rolled stats between players. We have created formulas based on total modifiers, based on total stats, and I even took a gander at the point buy value, but the fact is, if you want to maintain what the concept of rolled stats is, then you're going to have to spend a lot of time thinking on it, because we finally decided point buy was a better system for what we wanted as a group, even after a lot of modifying our system.
That said, I do still prefer 2d6+6 rolling. It gives a low-end of 8, and still has an average roll of 15 (despite the average of 17 you'd calculate; I see 14s and 15s more than anything); higher overall numbers than average, but no more frequently do I see monster stat arrays than with other rolling methods. Rolling is fun, and point buy becomes an exercise in tedium, because lets face it: we want it all. Once you decide to dump, it starts becoming easier to do so.
When I have rolled stats, I have the player in question roll three sets of those stats and choose from the three.
We moved to point buy because of balance issues with people rolling insane numbers and others not doing so well. Point buy does ensure a more level playing field (for the DM, too!), but not everyone is a fan.
I've been in campaigns where, rather than the scaling cost for higher scores, it stayed 1:1, but you had to start buying from 0 up; point pool starting around 80-85, depending on the challenge level of the campaign. It worked pretty well; everybody had decent stats for their class-specific attributes without having to dump anything.
On random rolling, the best successes I've seen came from the 4d6/drop lowest/arrange as desired rolling 3 sets of stats and choosing one. But random rolls do, no matter how you spin 'em, keep the possibility of really low/really high average scores.
That said, I do still prefer 2d6+6 rolling. It gives a low-end of 8, and still has an average roll of 15 (despite the average of 17 you'd calculate; I see 14s and 15s more than anything)
Average is 13, actually. I agree with you that this method still can produce significant variety between PCs.
An idea I got reading this thread (just throwing it out there) is to have everyone roll 6 or more ability scores and those results go in a pool.<snip>that sounds really fun
Assuming you meant my new idea, I'm thinking the same. I just put it to a spreadsheet to model it a bit (for a 4-person party), and it works really well. Since there is an even number of abilities, the player that chooses first (and possibly gets that single 18) will also choose last (and get that ugly low roll).
If you want to reduce the occurrences of sub-10 scores, you can add one or two extra rolls per person. For example, everyone rolls seven times and adds the results to the pool - then the lowest 4 rolls will be ignored.
I see two problems with this method, one medium and one minor. The minor issue is that there's a lot of number management in one sitting - 24+ numbers for a group of 4. You can use a spreadsheet on a laptop (I'd put it up on my projector) or the GM can just jot each down on paper as they are rolled, and then sort them manually when done.
The other issue is that you have to decide what to do when you have someone new join the group, or if someone's PC dies and they have to make a new character, or if you are a GM playing with only one or two players. However, I think there are acceptable resolutions, such as having everyone in the group join in the dice-rolling again to artificially fill the pool. The new player selects results from the pool in the same sequence they would if the other players were also selecting them (e.g., if the new player picks first, they would get the 1st, 8th, 9th, 16th, 17th, and 24th rolls).
In general terms, this is a method of evening out the die rolls to avoid vast discrepancies between PCs, the problem identified by Foghammer and many others. I'm going to try using it for my next campaign, actually. Thanks for starting the discussion thread that helped me finally figure out a rolling system I like!
- Niilo
P.S.: If you want to play around with it, too, I uploaded my spreadsheet to Google Docs. It assumes 4 people, with each rolling 7 times. After re-rolling a bunch of times, a common result is for player #1 to have the only 18 or 17 and also the only sub-10 roll, with everyone else ranging from 10 to 16/17.
To get a new set of "rolls", click on top-left cell with 1 (green square), press delete (this should zero all rolls), press 1, press enter - I couldn't figure how to do it more simply in Google Docs...
ugh, i can't do point by as a player. my own fault, I have to min/max. its a compulsion :)
I'm no fan of point buy. I want my fighter to be viable for combat and survival in the wilds? Bound to be buck ugly and mildly retarded. Depending on your characters role, other players can benefit from your high stats as well, like tank/rogue combos.
This gives me an idea. A vague one so far... well really not an idea but something that could push someone in the direction of an idea.
Why not do point buy with more points to start with but make the higher scores more expensive while taking penalties returns less points to the pool, or have a limitation on how far apart the highest and lowest ability scores can be?
Something like that.
That said, I do still prefer 2d6+6 rolling. It gives a low-end of 8, and still has an average roll of 15 (despite the average of 17 you'd calculate; I see 14s and 15s more than anything)Average is 13, actually. I agree with you that this method still can produce significant variety between PCs.
Doh. What an ass I've made of myself. 8 + (3.5 * 2) = 15. Not 17.
Thanks for the correction.
Average is 13, actually.Doh. What an ass I've made of myself. 8 + (3.5 * 2) = 15. Not 17.
Hah! Now I think you're playing with me :o)
ugh, i can't do point by as a player. my own fault, I have to min/max. its a compulsion :)I'm no fan of point buy. I want my fighter to be viable for combat and survival in the wilds? Bound to be buck ugly and mildly retarded. Depending on your characters role, other players can benefit from your high stats as well, like tank/rogue combos.This gives me an idea. A vague one so far... well really not an idea but something that could push someone in the direction of an idea.
Why not do point buy with more points to start with but make the higher scores more expensive while taking penalties returns less points to the pool, or have a limitation on how far apart the highest and lowest ability scores can be?
Something like that.
I also prefer randomness but also see the appeal of the natural balancing of point-buy. At one point, my solution was to give players points to spend on their abilities, with an added bit of randomness applied to their abilities once they were done. For example, randomly select two abilities (with d6) and add 0-3 points (d4-1) to them. That way the players get what they want, plus they may find that their Fighter isn't such a ugly idiot after all.
- Niilo
Hah! Now I think you're playing with me :o)Average is 13, actually.Doh. What an ass I've made of myself. 8 + (3.5 * 2) = 15. Not 17.
OMG, I f'ed up AGAIN.
[/facepalm]
6 + (3.5 * 2) = 13. As you said.
Feel free to revoke my posting license.
|
While I prefer using pt buy (particularly in a group which doesn't have problems with excessive min-maxers), I think there are several useful cures for the min-maxers that can be applied--
1. Limit the amount of stats you can dump. I haven't seen anyone go with more than 1 stat below 10, before race mods, anyway from the PF, 3E & 3.5 pt buy games I've been in, and no-one's gone lower than 8 for any stat (yes, I've been in a lot of different games-- been playing a long time, in groups that have been rather stable since before the advent of 3E-- just seems like no-one I game with has felt the need to min-max to extents that would go past that). I'd make those hard-fast house rules for character creation, if I were running and I thought someone might try to push those limits.
2. Maybe creating a few sets of arrays (all based on the same point value), and let players pick which array they want to use-- would be a more secure solution for preventing overboard min-maxing; while having several different options (all of which the GM finds acceptable) to give players a little more variety in what they build (as well as having builds suitable for reasonably but not excessively optimized single-attribute and multiple-attribute class builds).
3. Also, in many games (but apparently not in many others)-- any stat you heavily dump in order to get more points to spend elsewhere-- is a weakness that can and will be used against you in game play. When that is a regular feature of the experience for stat-dumping character builders, it tends to limit their enthusiasm for going for rock-bottom stats in a few areas. Min-maxing has its distinct limits, if you don't want to be a one-trick pony who doesn't know the right trick for the current scene.
One way to avoid unfair player discrepancy while still having the fun of rolling is to let every player roll 3d6 six times and let them choose from amongst the resultant arrays. Different philosophies can be utilized but nobody is forced to take inferior stats to anyone else.