|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I admit that my first reaction to point buy was "Oh my god these are awful," Then I had a player point out to me that he could make a combat beast just by dumping his Cha. and his Int. (his reasoning was that he never used skills anyway, and the already mentioned tendency of GMs to not enforce a "play to your character's social skills, not your own," tendencies.
To me the point-buy system feels like it punishes the player who builds a balanced character to his concept and rewards the guy who boosts the hell out STR and CON, at the expense of INT and CHA with relativly minor drawbacks at most tables. (This also works with the Wizard who builds-up INT and CON and drops STR and CHA).
I agree that it's easier to create your min-maxed dream builds with point-buy, but using a standardized amount of points ensures that you can create all sorts of characters. For example, if you wanted to create a defensive fighter (with dodge, combat expertise, and so on) but rolled 18, 12, 10, 10, 10, and 11... yeah, good luck with that. And, as others have already pointed out, point-buy is more balanced and fair to *everyone*. Even if someone dumps a 7 or 8 in two or three stats, you still have the same amount of points invested in your ability scores.
My first 3E character (an elven ranger) had 14 in his prime stat, whilst our human cleric had that as his lowest score (Int). Another time we had an elven fighter who had several 18s and 17s (legally rolled before our eyes), while others had a single 15 or 16 as their best scores. A good DM/GM might make it work, but sometimes it just feels like you're playing a henchman or a non-heroic NPC.
why would anyone use it outside of organized play?
Randomized character stats aren't fun. If I want to play a class that really needs three "good" stats and I randomly roll only two then I can't effectively play the character I want to play.
Which classes need three good stats? If stat minimums for class a la 2nd Ed. I could see this argument. Paladin, Ranger, and Druid all had high minimum requirements. 3rd Ed. did away with these making this argument spurious.
More, in my experience point-buy does away with max/min because players are able to budget and design their characters.Key phrase in that statement has been bolded. As I stated in the OP, my question was based on my experience. Obviously others have had different experiences with character design.
It also encourages people to build to mechanics as opposed to character.You may as well have said "it encourages people to wear blue socks." So what? Why hasn't 32 years of gaming taught you that this game is multifaceted and there's no wrong way to play it.
Chess doesn't have any role-playing. It's 100% about the stats of the pieces. Strangely it's a fun game. Well, surprise... this game can work that way too. Yes, role-play is fun, yes it's a healthy part of the rules, and yes, I personally like a balance between the two. But your point is being BLIND to the fact that some people have fun in different ways than you...
I am well aware that others have fun in ways other than me, I suppose I should have stated in my original post, that I dislike that role-playing games are rapidly degenerating into a mathmatical excercise akin to chess, because although I enjoy chess, I find it lacks the social interaction that is inherent to the nature of an RPG. Put another way to those players in my groups who are more mechanics interested than RP interested, I suggest they join one of the 3 WARGAMING groups I belong to. All the number crunching and strategizing with none of the bothersome character-development.
I'm not into BDSM but what's it to me if someone else is?
Relevance to any of the prior arguments?
the social ability of the system in question has become the "dump-stat" because too few GMs build social challenges into their gamesAgain, tough. This is a condescending viewpoint. Have you seriously never encountered players who don't want, don't enjoy, and won't participate in RP-heavy content? I certainly have. I refuse to tell them they're wrong. Instead I design my game for my audience. There's enough RP content to keep the RP-lovers entertained and there's enough combat to keep the tacticians (or the simply embarrassed-to-role-play) happy.
Responded to earlier in the post. In general, my first question is that if they don't want, don't enjoy, and won't participate in RP-heavy content, then why are they playing the game in the first place because it seems they'd clearly be happier playing something else.
We tried point buy when it was introduced in 3rd Ed. and didn't care for it, finding it far inferior to Method one,
Inferior. Hmmm.
Rephrase, we found it to be an inferior character generation method for our playing style. Better?
and (especially when I am DM, I admit to a certain level of harshness here) a far higher rate of character mortality.And yet.
And yet you claim it leads to max/min. Interesting. Interesting and contradictory. How odd that when your players had the opportunity to design their characters in a more optimal fashion they ended up dead more often. Must have been the plethora of social challenges that whittled away their hit-points. Or maybe you were just being a good GM and penalized them to death for role-playing a higher social ability than the characters "should have".
and yes, a large portion of the character deaths are due to social challenges. Logical conclusion to mouthing-off to nobility is execution (example one). Rendering the town guard hostile will also frequently result in early character death (example two). Only an idiot tries to intimidate someone who is clearly stronger than they are, not to mention better equipped, when they are broke from higher prices caused by poor interactive skills (example three). These are not random examples either, all of them happened in a span of 6 sessions.
Something's rotten in Denmark here.Leo... what are you trying to achieve with this thread? You've clearly made up your mind. Your opinion is clearly and strongly stated and I don't see much sign that you're open to being convinced that any other position is valid. Do you really think by posting this anyone else is going to suddenly feel guilty about the way they (allow their players to) generate their characters and start playing the game the One True Way? I'd just like clarification as to your motive/purpose in this post 'cuz I'm kind of unsure.
A) The Hamlet Quote, although not germaine to the discussion, is at least appreciated.
B) You're right, my opinion of the point-buy system is not likely to change. I was merely curious as to the appeal of it, as I have one player (a newer one to our group) who was horrified at the thougth of random rolling. I don't believe that there is One True Way to generate characters, though, as I have stated upthread, the character generation method used is freqently dictated by circumstances.
Viable 20 point buy dwarven sorcerer array
Wis 10 (8+2)
Str 7
Cha 16 (18-2)
Con 14 (12+2)
Dex 14
Int 12
for a 25 point array would raise the Str to 8 and the int to 14.
it may not have the highest DCS, but it's got some sweet defensive boons in the form of hardy, darkvision, and defensive training. if you focus on buffs, summons and battlefield control, you should be fine. it also has an extra skill point per level and can spend a feat to double the bonus of hardy. it's initiative modifer is okay and its not too squishy either.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always detested point buy. It's one of my least favourite things in D&D.
Always struck me as part of the 'World of Warcraft-isation' of D&D, responsible for cookie-cutter characters and blandness.
Forgive me for the derail, because this is a derail. As a World of Warcraft player in a competitive raiding guild, as well as an avid Pathfinder fan, I find this comment extremely offensive. Comparing WoW to Pathfinder is apples to Oranges, cookie cutter character builds are a part of high-end WoW playing because that's how the game was made, it's a design flaw. A blatant one, one which Blizz constantly seeks to rectify, results varying. The entire point of high-end progression is to optimize your performance.
This has nothing to do with Tabletop.
If anything you should be blaming players who insist on using thought experiment characters at the gaming table. Just because Treantmonk and all the other amazing Handbook authors give an optimized, or at the very least efficiency based, take on character options doesn't mean YOU have to. I have played characters using the 3.5 elite array in pathfinder and it works well. It's not about numbers, it's about fun, and using point buy doesn't make the game any less fun.
What I hate most is the "all or nothing" mentality I seem to find on forums a lot, people automatically condemn point-buy as a blatant attempt at munchkin, then camp #1 reminds them that is also makes things fair, while camp #2 chimes in saying point buy should take a trip to the Iron City.
In my personal experience I like to take the best of both worlds, I love making characters with interesting traits, a detailed background, character flaws, etc. and then I let them grow organically as I play them, on the other hand, being a WoW player, I also like numbers. I like making sure my character can perform well in tasks they would be good at, while having obvious weaknesses. Does this mean I like to overshadow my party members by being pun-pun? Hell no. If anything I love giving less experienced players advice that might help them have more fun when dice need to be rolled. There is nothing wrong with a "purist" approach to this game, but a marriage of the love of role play and "number crunching" is what makes this game fun for me.
/end rant. I apologize if I come across as rude but I feel very strongly about this and hope I presented my argument in the most articulate and mature way possible.
Viable 20 point buy dwarven sorcerer array
Wis 10 (8+2)
Str 7
Cha 16 (18-2)
Con 14 (12+2)
Dex 14
Int 12for a 25 point array would raise the Str to 8 and the int to 14.
it may not have the highest DCS, but it's got some sweet defensive boons in the form of hardy, darkvision, and defensive training. if you focus on buffs, summons and battlefield control, you should be fine. it also has an extra skill point per level and can spend a feat to double the bonus of hardy. it's initiative modifer is okay and its not too squishy either.
Actually that's fairly close to where the rolled stats ended up (original rolls were in order 13, 12, 16, 14, 11, 18 and were applied S D C I W C). The only real hit was to Str.; the Con loss is negligable (admit I had a luck roll there) and your build reversed his Dex and Int from where they fell in the rolls. I'd probably make getting a Str buffing magic item a priority asap, but I can see it is at least balanced.
I find the only reason people prefer rolling is they want that chance to get high set of stats that you just plain can't get with point buy. How else can you get two 18s.
Yowzah, I forgot how fast these boards move when I'm meant to be working.
The Elite Array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Assigned as you will. With Pathfinders +2 on top it makes for a nice, albiet low-powered, balance. Full casters and high-str meleers can opt for a starting stat of 17, which becomes an 18 at 4th level. MAD characters can place their floating bonus in one of their lower stats, (see: Valeros. In putting his +2 to his 14 he can start with 16 str and 15 dex to two weapon fight.)
This does, however, become a little harsher on those races with a racial penalty. The Dwarf Sorcerers and small-sized characters who want a decent STR score find themselves marginalized and take a lot more work to get off the ground.
It's what Pathfinder and 3.5's PCs and PC-classed NPCs are built on, and until I was running adventure paths we hadn't batted an eye at it. It seemed a little harsh until I realised what even a Basic Array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8) could achieve with a little bit of leg work. Check out Deadmanwalking's NPC thread and take a look at what I mean, it's really something sweet.
well, i come from a background of absurdly generous yet sadistic DMs. some of which gave ridiculous point/trait/wealth allotments
for Rex, the suboptimal unarmed barbarian i hope to play. she has only 1 stat below 10. and upping the point buy would just give me more wis and cha.
her 20 point array
Str 17 (15+2)
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 14
Wis 12
Cha 7
25 points would just be 14 wis and 8 cha
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always detested point buy. It's one of my least favourite things in D&D.
Always struck me as part of the 'World of Warcraft-isation' of D&D, responsible for cookie-cutter characters and blandness.
GURPS came out in the 80s. Point buy has been around for a *long* time.
I just wish I could trade stats for feats. I'd love to play a first level character with stats of 13, 12, 11, 10, 10, 10 -- and 6 feats.
|
If you want to talk about personal experience, here's mine:
Every time I've helped a traditional stat-roller build their first point-buy PC for PFS, they've always been terrified at how "bad" their stats are. And yet, many people (such as yourself) seem to connect point buy with munchkinism.I have my own ideas to reconcile those two observations, but I'd be curious to hear your own theories.
Yes, I admit that my first reaction to point buy was "Oh my god these are awful," Then I had a player point out to me that he could make a combat beast just by dumping his Cha. and his Int. (his reasoning was that he never used skills anyway, and the already mentioned tendency of GMs to not enforce a "play to your character's social skills, not your own," tendencies.
To me the point-buy system feels like it punishes the player who builds a balanced character to his concept and rewards the guy who boosts the hell out STR and CON, at the expense of INT and CHA with relativly minor drawbacks at most tables. (This also works with the Wizard who builds-up INT and CON and drops STR and CHA).
Put another way, can you show me a balanced spread at both 15 and 20 point buys that will allow for the creation of most character types (obviously depending on placement of prime stat and choice of race without sacrificing a stat for purely mechanical reasons (i. e. this doesn't help me in combat ergo it is useless)
Well there's your answer: GMs who don't enforce skill rules and non-combat rules.
In my games there is a solid mix of role-play and rollplay, which means I use either an array, a point buy or if I have 6 players I have them each roll one lot of 4d6 drop the lowest and the players can each place their ability scores as required. I want characters that are balanced against each other and I can take care of balancing the world.
Because, here's the secret it's not fun to play a character lumped with crappy rolls next to a character who has awesome rolls, but it's also not fun to be the superman in a group of poorly rolled characters. The GM constantly has to pull his punches to not tear them to shreds so superman tears through them like paper.
Also isn't it better roleplay to have a character concept that matches the stats and rules than to have a set of stats and then try to shape a concept to it?
the point buy is also murder on mad classes..... or players who character design is of class X that can be done with one ability class but is designed for multiple stats.
also as was stated above.
races with a negative stat deal.
Negative Stat Deal?
most of the races who have a negative stat deal (Net gain of +0 or lower on ability scores) tend to have one really maxed out stat. 2 core examples are the goblin and the orc. who have +4 in thier primary offensive attribute and other bonuses synergistic to thier role.
goblins are a fast small sized race with +4 dexterity before you factor thier +8 racial bonus to stealth. a rogue who puts a 14 in dexteirty for the 18 and spends a skill point in stealth has a stealth bonus of +16.
an orc who dumps int and cha anyway can afford a massive boost to strength and constitution and likely play a fighter. they take a -1 to will saves, big deal, they can walk with an 18-20 strength cheaper than any of the core races and they get diehard for free.
kobolds are just plain weak, unless you go the tucker route with npc kobolds.
races with positive stat deals (+4 or better) tend to be built around one harder to utilize build of a specific class. the aasimaar might look like a good cleric race, if you intend to overemphasize channeling. and the suli might work as a martially oriented oracle. but those 2 builds need the points.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate rolling. I have seen too much inequality that results from rolls, too much cheating, and too many munchkins. I am to the point where I wont play in a game that uses random character generation. I find non-random methods superior in every way.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many folks don't get to play in as many campaigns as they might like. They may have some characters that they would very much like to play.
These players often have to wait for a chance to play, and then they might have to wait for the right campaign to bring in the character they really want to play.
Requiring them to roll those characters can make that an even longer wait.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a curiosity, but why do so many people swear by the Point-Buy system? I understand that it is THE system used in Pathfinder Society, but why would anyone use it outside of organized play?
I'll see your complaint about min-maxing with a complaint about 'lucky' stats.. and raise you a complaint about intrinsic power level-disparity between characters of wildly different stat values.
Has anyone ever tried using 1 roll for an entire group? The GM rolls 4d6 drop lowest 6 times, and everyone uses the same array of stats that generates? Might be an interesting experiment...
That is the standard for our group lately. We generally have 6 players so each rolls 4d6 and drops the low once, with everyone using the same array. Been working well for the past couple of years. Sometimes the group is pretty average, other time...well, my RotRL group stomped through the campaign with 17, 16, 15, 14, 11, 11.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone ever tried using 1 roll for an entire group? The GM rolls 4d6 drop lowest 6 times, and everyone uses the same array of stats that generates? Might be an interesting experiment...
No, but I've seen a similar character generation method called "The Big Bang". The GM rolls 18d6, and each player assigns 3 to each of his stats.
It's effectively point-buy, where the number of points is randomly generated. It's as fair as point buy because everyone uses the same dice rolls, and it's still got the "adrenaline moment" of rolling stats.
|
But I think the question's basically irrelevant, because you're coming at it backwards. No one is arguing you can't develop a concept to fit a random roll. The issue is that, with a random roll, you can't develop a concept until after you see the rolls...This.
What if I want to play a Barbarian, and get an 11, 13, 8, 14, 16, 12 (in that order)? Yes, that's technically 19 pb, and I can use it to make a decent Dwarven caster-Cleric (or Empyreal Bloodline Sorcerer)...but what if I hate playing full casters, and prefer melee characters as a rule? If so, why should I be forced to play something I don't enjoy? How does that make the game better or more fun for me or anyone else?
Rolled stats, in order, can work if you don't already have something to play in mind (and, indeed, can inspire ideas fairly readily)...but you can't go in with a concept you've been wanting to play (not even something as simple as Barbarian or Paladin...never mind something like Monk) and expect to get stats that let you play it effectively.
Why not? Even Conan in the TSR CONAN RPG starts with 13 or less strength. Its something developed over time. While your guy isn't Conan he might be that other Kid...the one who thinks Conan gets all the girls. I assume that's Str(11), Dex(13), Con(8), Int(14), Wis (16), Cha(12)? And you are right he would make a good Cleric but I would Play the Barbarian. There isn't a problem with your Barbarian being the weakling surrounded by 10' tall ogres.
I find the only reason people prefer rolling is they want that chance to get high set of stats that you just plain can't get with point buy. How else can you get two 18s.
Then your experience has been sadly limited.
(I find it amusing that both "sides" in this issue accuse the other of min-maxing/munchkinism, since it's pretty clear that whatever method you choose, someone out to power-game will find a way)
I, for one, enjoy rolling because, having been gaming for well over sixteen years, I have created all manner of "concept" guys in my time, and I'm no longer horribly hung up on a given archetype. These days, I let the rolls influence the direction of a character. Instead of going, "I want to run a charismatic cleric," I go, "I've got a 6, an 8, a 10, two 11s, and a twelve? Who can I make out of this..."
If you go Concept-> Execution, then the randomness of rolling isn't going to make you happy.
Conversely, since I like to go from Random Stats-> Concept I might not have thought of? I have a ball rolling stats. I don't even pick a character race until I've got some numbers to kick around.
So as far as the OP goes, why do some people like Point Buy? Because they like it. Good enough answer for me.
I normally don't do that, but... I'll just link to another post of mine in a somewhat corresponding thread.
TL;DR: Look at Mornaura's stats. Rolled (standard method) by the DM. Scores are worth 70 points. Imagine having one character like this and another one with rolled stats worth 20 points in the same group. I'll never play rolled characters again.
There are different methods of having fair random score generation, where everyone effectively gets scores worth the amount of points.
Just a curiosity, but why do so many people swear by the Point-Buy system? I understand that it is THE system used in Pathfinder Society, but why would anyone use it outside of organized play?
I prefer to create my character concepts myself, rather than have my dice create them. Somehow, they always insist that I play commoners. :/
(Incidentally, I do like rolling stats in games such as Dark Heresy, where the potential for being completely unfit for your role is part of the charm. Stupid bureaucrats.)
In my personal experience I like to take the best of both worlds, I love making characters with interesting traits, a detailed background, character flaws, etc. and then I let them grow organically as I play them, on the other hand, being a WoW player, I also like numbers. I like making sure my character can perform well in tasks they would be good at, while having obvious weaknesses. Does this mean I like to overshadow my party members by being pun-pun? Hell no. If anything I love giving less experienced players advice that might help them have more fun when dice need to be rolled. There is nothing wrong with a "purist" approach to this game, but a marriage of the love of role play and "number crunching" is what makes this game fun for me.
this is my thoughts exactly (minus the part about playing WOW)
Which classes need three good stats? If stat minimums for class a la 2nd Ed. I could see this argument. Paladin, Ranger, and Druid all had high minimum requirements. 3rd Ed. did away with these making this argument spurious.
Monk? Sorry, had to be said. Current game I am playing in, the DM liked dicing for stuff and I rolled 17, 16, 15, 14, 14, 14 before modifiers. I decided a monk would be perfect for that set of scores.
In any event, I have played various kinds of random stat roll and point buy for many years. Both have their pros and cons.
Sometimes I have a clear idea of a character I want to play, and point buy lets me make that character. It's fair, it allows us to make characters away from the table, and it works out just fine.
Sometimes I like to be surprised and challenged. I like to have to think on my feet to create a character I will both enjoy and will fit an unforeseen set of circumstances. Rolling creates this.
In short, by preference I will go with point buy, every time - not because I min-max, but because it's the best way of getting a good, playable character with no nasty surprises. But if a DM says 'roll' then I will and I will still have fun with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
to use the scores organically in the order they were rolled.another example of a concept killer.I've generally found it to be just the opposite in fact. Then again I tend to go into character generation with no preconception before stats are rolled. I frequently get my best ideas from a single low roll in an odd place, or a truly exceptional stat on one roll and a couple moderately low ones. I suppose it depends on whether you "just have to play" one specific type of character.
Fair point, but many people have a character in mind before they even roll stats. Another is what happens if class X nor any class than can perform its job reasonably be played because of the way rolls turned out for everyone.
Yeah I know the game can be played in such an event, but it does make things more difficult, especially if the skill level of the players is low.
Challenge to those who say random rolls organically is a concept killer. I rolled the character's stats in order and didn't develop the concept until after rolling (warning sub-optimal race class combo), give me a stat array (20-pt buy) for a Dwarf Sorcerer,.
(I'll give the rolls after I've seen a couple)
That is too easy. What happens when your charisma is an 8 or 9 before the dwarf's penalty comes into play? This is assuming the organic roll where you take the rolls in the order received. What happens if your constitution is also low?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to talk about personal experience, here's mine:
Every time I've helped a traditional stat-roller build their first point-buy PC for PFS, they've always been terrified at how "bad" their stats are. And yet, many people (such as yourself) seem to connect point buy with munchkinism.I have my own ideas to reconcile those two observations, but I'd be curious to hear your own theories.
Yes, I admit that my first reaction to point buy was "Oh my god these are awful," Then I had a player point out to me that he could make a combat beast just by dumping his Cha. and his Int. (his reasoning was that he never used skills anyway, and the already mentioned tendency of GMs to not enforce a "play to your character's social skills, not your own," tendencies.
To me the point-buy system feels like it punishes the player who builds a balanced character to his concept and rewards the guy who boosts the hell out STR and CON, at the expense of INT and CHA with relativly minor drawbacks at most tables. (This also works with the Wizard who builds-up INT and CON and drops STR and CHA).
Put another way, can you show me a balanced spread at both 15 and 20 point buys that will allow for the creation of most character types (obviously depending on placement of prime stat and choice of race without sacrificing a stat for purely mechanical reasons (i. e. this doesn't help me in combat ergo it is useless)
Why can't one do a concept, and make it mechanically viable. Define sacrificing a stat? If you mean put the lowest score in the least needed stat, that is just good character design. If you mean dumping a stat then sure it can be done. Of course "dumping" might need to be defined also. It could be dropping it to a 9 or dropping to a 5 after racial modifiers.
Why not? Even Conan in the TSR CONAN RPG starts with 13 or less strength. Its something developed over time. While your guy isn't Conan he might be that other Kid...the one who thinks Conan gets all the girls. I assume that's Str(11), Dex(13), Con(8), Int(14), Wis (16), Cha(12)? And you are right he would make a good Cleric but I would Play the Barbarian. There isn't a problem with your Barbarian being the weakling surrounded by 10' tall ogres.But I think the question's basically irrelevant, because you're coming at it backwards. No one is arguing you can't develop a concept to fit a random roll. The issue is that, with a random roll, you can't develop a concept until after you see the rolls...This.
What if I want to play a Barbarian, and get an 11, 13, 8, 14, 16, 12 (in that order)? Yes, that's technically 19 pb, and I can use it to make a decent Dwarven caster-Cleric (or Empyreal Bloodline Sorcerer)...but what if I hate playing full casters, and prefer melee characters as a rule? If so, why should I be forced to play something I don't enjoy? How does that make the game better or more fun for me or anyone else?
Rolled stats, in order, can work if you don't already have something to play in mind (and, indeed, can inspire ideas fairly readily)...but you can't go in with a concept you've been wanting to play (not even something as simple as Barbarian or Paladin...never mind something like Monk) and expect to get stats that let you play it effectively.
Different system, different mechanics, and just because some game developer named that statblock "Conan", that does not mean it will work in an actual game.
What do ogres have to do with anything?You might play the barbarian because your GM might allow it to work, but such a character would be below the threash hold of average, and likely die in many people's games, which is not fun to most players.
Personally I dislike rolling because it encourages min-maxing and makes people focus more on mechanics then role playing.
lol :P
The solution i've come up with for evening things out in a fair manner while still allowing for rolled stats is to habe everybody roll a set of stats. Then pick the set that comes out with the highest point buy total, and everyone can use it and use the point buy to adjust the rolls to fit thier character concept. It'll still get the potentially high powered characters that make the game truly somehting to talk about, while not having one or 2 players end up with craptastic stats and struggling to keep up.
Asta
PSY
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
(I find it amusing that both "sides" in this issue accuse the other of min-maxing/munchkinism, since it's pretty clear that whatever method you choose, someone out to power-game will find a way)
It's an easy way to dehumanize people you don't agree with. They become 'dirty munchkins' and therefore wrong.
I've always maintained that a munchkin will be the same regardless of stat gen method.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Tri said. There will always be people who completely misread the point of the game and think they can "win" by min-maxing, munchkinry and fudgery. It doesn't matter what method of character generation you use, they will find a way to break the game, because it is in their nature.
I have a preference for point-buys and arrays so that character concept and player skill can have a greater impact than dice rolls. I've played in 4d6 drop the lowest, and 5d6 drop the lowest two. I've played in array. I've played in 3d6, swap two. I can have fun in practically any game because I love the game.
That said though I have been frustrated in games where I've had too much power or too little power to affect the story relative to my team-mates. I still had fun, but I suspect not as much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Tri said. There will always be people who completely misread the point of the game and think they can "win" by min-maxing, munchkinry and fudgery.
Insert obligatory Chevy Chase quote here:
"I won Dungeons and Dragons. And it was advanced!"
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I have seen several interesting ideas, for the most part, this thread is the same old WRONG responses.
Wrong, you say? Yes, wrong...
Folks are posting bizarre Opinions (As if they were set in Adamantium, and indisputable) about how their view is right, the opposing view is wrong, and doesn't allow for fun/promotes Min/Maxing/ruins their characters.
This thread feels like it belongs in a Politics forum (Please, nobody equate Pt Buy with the GOP, Rolls with the Dems,or vice-versa etc...Ach).
I am almost always the DM in our games (My nickname since '92 or so has been The Eternal GM...), btw.
Honestly, I like both systems (I haven't used Array much, to be honest).
As a player, I am perfectly happy using Pt Buy, rolling, whatever...
I even like the 'organic' method', rolling in order, and then deciding what the character would be like, then choosing his race/c;ass etc...
I have played at a lot of tables in my 30 years of RPing, and seen a lot of powerfully-statted characters, as well as some pitifully dice-cursed ones as well. I understand the frustrations of being on one end of a spectrum,or having a concept killed by bad dice rolls. To this end, I go for compromise, and going to lengths to make sure that everyone as my table is having a good time.
In our current game (Kingmaker, almost through Book 5, about 2 years into the Campaign...we should be done, but went on hold for one player's health reasons), I offered both options.
Either 25 Pt Epic Buy or roll 4d6,drop lowest (Re-roll 1s).
One player went Pt Buy, 3 rolled, and one (Dave always does this...) rolled in order, then picked his character.
The Pt Buy guy died, later used the rolling method for his new character.
One other character died, and used Pt Buy for his new character.
My point is: You are all right in your opinion that your preference works for you. However, not everyone plays the same style of game, campaign,characters... They are not wrong simply for liking a different method.
I respect each method, and the passions with which you all espouse your preference, but please try to keep from belittling the preferences of others as Min/maxing, lacking in RP or whatever. I don't like dumping stats down to 7 or lower...but some might enjoy the RP aspect (My group is big on humor). Want to dump a 6 in your Cha? I will make it matter as the DM, trust me. I'm not going to go out of my way to screw you just to 'teach you a lesson;, but it's go come up. I once DMed a half-orc barbarian who had dumped his Cha down to 6 and his Wis to 7 in order to Max his Str/Con. He roleplayed is well, rudely threatening to eat any folks smaller to himself, as well as playing up the hilarious combo of a really crappy Sense Motive, When his goading and 'Tharg eat little faeries' comments (Complete with taking out a loaf of bread and some mustard) drew the ire of a Pixie Caster, while the actual NE character who deserved said ire skated through the situation with his Cha 16 and some inoffensive RPing... The Player laughed and went with it.
Sure, he got hit by a Geas and had to travel halfway across the Kingdom to make amends, but he agreed that Tharg deserved it. Min/maxer? Well, yeah...as far as trying to make a great damage-dealer. RPer/ You bet your last can of mountain dew, my fellow nerds. One can be/do both...and either system allows for both options.
-Uriel
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Leo_Negri: I haven't read the other 50-some-odd posts since I last peeked in here, but since you took the trouble to reply to me, I wanted to make sure I replied back. :)
Yes, I admit that my first reaction to point buy was "Oh my god these are awful," Then I had a player point out to me that he could make a combat beast just by dumping his Cha. and his Int. (his reasoning was that he never used skills anyway, and the already mentioned tendency of GMs to not enforce a "play to your character's social skills, not your own," tendencies.
This, it seems, is a matter of misplaced blame: a GM is running a game where you can either roleplay your way out of your dump stats or just don't need noncombat skills at all, or both.
That's not the fault of point buy. That's the GM.
Here's a rule of thumb: if someone could roll the same stats and you'd end up with the same issue, then it's not point-buy's fault. In the scenario above, you could roll a couple of low scores (potentially even lower!) along with some high ones, put the high ones in the combat stats and the low ones in INT and CHA, and the problem would still be there.
If the problem persists regardless of whether the stats were rolled or bought, then you can't (with any honesty) blame the system.
Put another way, can you show me a balanced spread at both 15 and 20 point buys that will allow for the creation of most character types (obviously depending on placement of prime stat and choice of race without sacrificing a stat for purely mechanical reasons (i. e. this doesn't help me in combat ergo it is useless)
I've never done a 15pt buy, but I'm currently working on a PFS character (20pts) who has no stats under 10, and is a halfling who doesn't use Weapon Finesse.
Additionally, my (now 9th level) fighter has INT almost as high as his STR, and his 1st-level stat array was about as close to the Heroic NPC array as you can get when you have an extra 5pts: 16/14/13/12/12/8 (before racial adjustment) as compared to 15/14/13/12/10/8. So basically the 15 became 16 and the 10 became a second 12.
Furthermore, my rogue rarely gets off a sneak attack, and mostly shines with his skills: he's the quintessential "action man" - by next level he'll be the guy who can always reach his quarry (be it an enemy to defeat or a relic to retrieve) whether by climbing, jumping or swimming. But his combat ability? Not the greatest.
Need I go on?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We tried point buy when it was introduced in 3rd Ed. and didn't care for it, finding it far inferior to Method one
Why did you think it was inferior?
And why was char mortality higher? Because you as the DM disliked the point buied chars and killed them for that?Sounds a bit like it.
Systems like D&D 3.x and pathfinder are minmax systems. They are made for minmaxing and thus nobody wants to play a pc with low stats.
So having point buy makes sure that nobody feels the need to have his pc killes as fast as possible to get one with less crappy stats, because you choose the stats yourself and don't depend on luck during chargen.
I never had problems with rolling stats in other games. But I wouldn't play in a pathfinder game where I had to roll my stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because you can have stats and character sheets ready before the session starts, avoiding spending time on character gen.
This, and probably some illusions of stat rolling being inferior. We're all human, and humans don't make much sense usually, wouldn't you agree?
it causes me physical pain to see 7 Wisdom paladins in Pathfinder...
My 7-Wis Paladin (pictured!) was one of my favorite characters ever, partially because of that abysmal stat and the quirks it created. Don't dismiss it so casually. =)
~ Orthos
As mentioned above, I give my players the choice of two 25 pb arrays:16, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10 and 16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8.
I've allowed a 16, 14, 14, 14, 12, 8, as well. Or other slightly divergent 25 point arrays with the key restrictions being no stats over 16 or below 8, and only one below 10. Works fine for making, well, just about anything actually. And has the advantage of keeping the PCs balanced about right to deal with things designed for slightly more optimized 15 pb characters (APs come to mind).
I like the concept but I'd cry for having not a single array with a 15 in it.
When using pb I'm a big fan of odd numbers because I like it to get something of the level 4 stat increase.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like I've said this an awful lot, but...
First, as a preface, I don't think anyone "swears by" point buy any more than they do by die rolling.
Different gamers have different preferences and play style. And that's the really real answer to the OP's question.
I will note however that as a GM I prefer point buy because I have struggled too often or seen other GMs and players struggle too often with too-disparate stat arrays produced by die rolling. Even with methods used to mitigate where you fall on the bell curve, there still is a bell curve, and everyone has to fall somewhere on it, and generally I've seen a lot of outliers. When you get a party member who has all 17s and another who has nothing over 10, it becomes hard to devise encounters that are fair, fun, and challenging to both.
Point buy eliminates this dilemma. Everyone falls on the same area of the bell curve more or less, and it becomes much easier to design challenges. This is also why point buy is used for statblocks and example builds--and thus why you see it on message boards a lot--because it uses a baseline rather than randomness. I'd say more gamers still roll dice than you think, but point buy gets used on message boards for the evenness of it.
I certainly see the benefits of die rolling from a roleplay perspective, and even enjoy the challenges of being handed a set of stats and seeing what I can do with them. And I certainly don't think anyone who uses die-rolling is "Doing it wrong"--play the game as you like, of course!
But as a GM I much prefer the certainty and fairness that comes with point buy. That's just my personal preference.
I would like point-buy better if there were different numbers of points depending on your class. For example, a wizard might get a 12-point buy, a cleric 14 points, a fighter 16, a bard 18, and a monk 20.
See, I disagree with the much-touted "fairness" of point-buy. The fact that combat feats have stat requirements that are all over the board (Int for Combat Expertise, Dex for TWF, etc.) and spells have only a single stat requirement (casting stat) makes point-buy inherently UNfair.