| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That is a house rule I've had for some time, btw.
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.It's not a bad house rule, but I'd hate to try to balance it as a core rule.
The obvious breakpoint is how to handle multiclasses.I'm already trying to design a Monk 1/Wizard ++ in my head. Would 8 extra stat points make up for a level of wizard? Cleric might be better, since the wisdom helps both, OTOH wizards stay unarmored.
The answer is a level restriction for multiclassing. You can take 1 level of another class for X levels of the chosen class. Imperfect, but it works and helps out the classes that need help.
|
From a personal perspective I prefer point buy because with my player group there is a distinct difference in peoples luck and if everyone has the same amount of points to spend you don't get people feeling "why bother when I'm just above average and this guy is a super-man" Plus as DM its easier then altering a monsters stats dramatically to measure up to a party of PCs with potential absurdly differing stats.
That having been said I do usually let people roll for my homebrew stuff, but for adventure paths I'm hard-set on point buy.
I'm already trying to design a Monk 1/Wizard ++ in my head. Would 8 extra stat points make up for a level of wizard? Cleric might be better, since the wisdom helps both, OTOH wizards stay unarmored.
Not to me, it wouldn't be worth it. Skilfully played, full caster levels are worth more than anything else in the game, by a fairly large margin.
I'm already trying to design a Monk 1/Wizard ++ in my head. Would 8 extra stat points make up for a level of wizard? Cleric might be better, since the wisdom helps both, OTOH wizards stay unarmored.Not to me, it wouldn't be worth it. Skilfully played, full caster levels are worth more than anything else in the game, by a fairly large margin.
True that.
Point buy works for discussions (and arguments) on the intarweb because it lets us have a common ground for discussion.
Its also handy for groups that want to "hit the ground running" rather than taking up a game session to hammer out character creation.
Myself, I really do prefer die rolling.
It isn't so much "min/max" as it is the reason why you have the stats.
It may just be nostalgia but I remember a time when a guy had a 7 stat and everyone patted 'em on the back and wondered how he was going to Rp it. Or the pat on the back with the guy who got a high score or two- also wanting to see how he'd both Rp it and what class he'd end up with, because it was bound to be good.
Now days everyone starts with a 16 or 18 before racials and rather than feeling sorry for someone with a 7 in a stat I just shake my head and wonder which stats they felt were so important they had to ditch another to achieve it.
Its true PB puts everyone on the same footing. half the group running around being the dumbest or least deft or weakest or smelliest person in the whole village.
Is PB bad? Not really.. alot of people adore the heck out of it. I'm just not one of them.
-S
@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. :)
Thank you for the courtesy.
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.
OK, I can see that argument (and there is a reason one of these two no longer GMs), and I suppose that blaming the system was probably a knee-jerk reaction at the time, an holding on to the bias is just bull-headedness on my part I suppose.
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...
Sounds interesting, I've never come across a point-buy player who didn't have a cookie-cutter character so that you for enlightening me to the possibilities on that front at least. I really do like the sound of your skill-monkey rogue, may have to try a similar concept myself at some point.
We tried point buy when it was introduced in 3rd Ed. and didn't care for it, finding it far inferior to Method oneWhy 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.
Never said I was the DM in this instance. Point of fact the DM was the guy who as a player is my groups biggest (now only, after the campaign I referenced above) point-buy advocate. And to, be fair, he is the only other GM who will punish playing above your stats (He's hit my characters on plenty of occasions for playing too smart)
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.
How, exactly were they any more made for min-maxing than BECMI or 1st Ed AD&D? The only Major differences in the are the standardizing of the bonuses and the expansion of the chart down to a value of 0 / up to the infinite.
And on the final comment, to not play is your prerogative.
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.
Spells and combat are different things, that's comparing apples to oranges. Where classes are MAD they generally get compensated elsewhere. The only real exception to this is the Monk, and even the devs acknowledge that the monk needs fixing.
|
For me there are two main reasons to go with Point-Buy:
- Nobody gets stuck with a set of crappy rolls
- Nobody has to put up with having that one useless character in the group who got stuck with a set of crappy rolls.
Besides which even with the 4d6-drop-lowest system you still get people placing the best rolls to min-max, picking a dump stat, etc. Random rolling is more fun and can provide a challenging character to play, but if I have a specific character in mind (and no, I'm not a min-maxer type) then point-buy lets me craft that character. As a DM I prefer to have all my players start with a level playing field, plus it keeps the PCs more on the same power level which makes it easier to build encounters.
it feels angry in here.
I got that vibe as well and that was never my intent. I was honestly stunned by how passionate some people are about point-buy or random roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will use whatever method the GM says is appropriate for the game. I used to hate point buy but now that we use it all the time, I have come to like it more than rolling. Here are my reasons:
1) I like to build characters for online discussions. It's quick to use the elite array and I have found that it isn't nearly as restrictive as I once thought.
2) Everyone starts with the same total value. They can divvy it up anyway they want, but we are all equal.
3) When I am rolling, if I don't get the stats that work for my character, I will just make another character. For some sets of rolls, that means I'm discarding lots of rolls. I would rather just build the character I want. If I'm going to just roll until I get a playable character anyway, I might as well start with a playable character.
Point buy does not encourage min-maxing. Everyone should be min-maxing anyway. You wouldn't play a wizard with a 9 Intelligence because that would be unplayable. You're going to try to get that Intelligence up as high as you can. You aren't going to focus on skills or feats that aren't beneficial, in other words, you will be maximizing your character's abilities. You also will consider taking feats and stats that improve your weaknesses. As a wizard, you may find that a rat familiar gives a nice +2 bonus to Fortitude saves, minimizing your weakness or you might take the favored class hit point bonus instead of the skill point bonus because you have enough bonus skill points from Intelligence.
You would do that if you rolled or used point buy. I would say that anyone who claims they aren't min-maxing (to whatever they are comfortable with) is either lying to themselves or to us. We all min-max.
|
Kins are delicious to munch on.
Now I've got a craving for Dunkin' Donuts. ;)
Here's a question-- has anyone ever used any really "out there" methods of character generation?
I once considered using 5d4 or 3d8 instead of the usual 4d6 drop the lowest. I figured that the higher possible maximum of stats would be balanced out by the lower chance of actually getting them. Never went through with it though.
I kinda liked my 24d6 method. :) Not as bad as it sounds. Roll 24d6, then put 3 dice in each stat. I've never really done any math to properly compare it to other methods though.
Edit: A little math shows it produces some slightly strange probabilities. AnyDice link. Your weakest stat is most likely to be a 6 or a 9. You've also got almost an 80% chance of getting at least one 18, but it's practically impossible to get more than 3 of them (a 0.017% chance of the fourth highest stat being an 18).
If I'm adding it up right, it averages out to around 26-29 points for a point buy, depending on how you price stats below a 7.
Edit again: That's all assuming you put each stat in order. You can easily average your stats out for more reasonable numbers.
How, exactly were they any more made for min-maxing than BECMI or 1st Ed AD&D?
I don't know BECMI and I never liked AD&D and even like it less now (a GM made us play AD&D Ravenloft recently). But there are other systems where I think the stats matter much less than in D&D/pathfinder.
For example Call of Chtuluh or Midgard.I once played in a game where we mixed the rules of midgard with the world of Space 1860 I think it was calles. So to say Steampunk space travel stuff.
There I ended up with a pc who had nearly max in Strength and Charisma and the rest was rather low.No matter, I grabbes my hunting rifle and off I went. And no, we didn't have any real melee weapons to take advantege of the strength
It was great fun and I had now problem with that silly stat array. But in Pathfinder that would be different.
But in my expirience D&D and Pathfinder is just so much more roll-play. Perhaps thats the reason.
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.
Yep. :)
I'll say in my games, someone who comes in with a character solely built for combat is going to get bored and frustrated. I call on the PCs to use skills a LOT--not just Perception and Stealth and Disable Device, but all the Knowledge skills, Craft, Appraise, Survival, and absolutely, definitely the social skills, etc. etc. etc.
For social skills in particular I have the PCs roleplay as much as they can but if either they're not sure what to say, or it's not clear how an NPC would react, THEN I have them make the role. If they did really well in their roleplaying, they get a circumstance bonus to the roll (i.e., if they said something the NPC definitely wanted to hear, they get a boost to the check).
Not to mention there's even useful mechanics for skills in combat -- demoralization with Intimidate, feinting with Bluff, and learning monster weakness with Knowledges. So overlooking them even in a combat driven game can be a mistake.
And I DO run with point buy as I said so if you minmaxed your character toward combat attributes and nothing else, you'd probably be in trouble.
OK, I can see that argument (and there is a reason one of these two no longer GMs), and I suppose that blaming the system was probably a knee-jerk reaction at the time, an holding on to the bias is just bull-headedness on my part I suppose.
You're a much better man than most of us to admit you overlooked something/reviewed your opinion and changed it. I mean that sincerely.
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.
How, exactly were they any more made for min-maxing than BECMI or 1st Ed AD&D? The only Major differences in the attributes are the standardizing of the bonuses and the expansion of the chart down to a value of 0 / up to the infinite.
I've always wondered that myself, and while Umbranus wasn't expressing it per se, I've seen others argue that older versions of D&D had less of an emphasis on needing high stats. And I really have no idea where that comes from. My personal experience is that's it's quite the opposite, for these reasons:
- Prime Requisites. You HAD to have stats at a certain number to play a certain class; for some of the classes they were quite high. Didn't roll well enough? Can't play a ranger or paladin, end of story. These days the only "prime requisite" is that spellcasters need to have their casting modifier over 10 to cast at all and need to eventually have it up to 19 to cast at maximum spell level (for full casters) or 16 (for half casters). Which it's unlikely you're going to play a spellcaster with a low caster stat anyway (unless you're just dipping into a caster level for a low level spell).- Many attributes had no/little value to them until they were 16 or higher. Stats between 9-14 or 15 generally felt like they could have been any number within that range. When playing the AD&D games I did, the many veterans teaching me insisted I needed at least a 17 in my main stat AND Constitution or I would be, and I quote, "useless." And I remember FEELING useless because, say, my half-elven fighter/mage had "only" a 16 Strength and the Paladin with 18/100 Strength out-performed her hugely (whereas a 16 and an 18 is a difference of a modifer of 1 in Pathfinder, and no percentile strengths). While that attitude could have been unique to the players I played with, the groups I played in comprised of different gamers from different parts of the country, so I somehow doubt that. I'm sure there were differing attitudes as well, but that was the one I consistently encountered whereever I went.
Sorry for the off topic rant and I know an AD&D fan will show up and tell me why I am wrong. To the AD&D ranter from the future: I am sure you are right, but I am also sure that the game you will describe will be a game I never played and never will have the opportunity to, even though I played several games of AD&D (1st and 2nd ed). And that will be what it will be.
Anyway, in Pathfinder, I feel I'm much more able to play a class with more varied stats, and for example, I'd be much more willing to do "crazy" things like play a fighter with a even as low as a 12 Strength, which I'd never even try in AD&D (at least in 3.x/Pathfinder, I'd get a +1 to attacks and damage, which I think I'd need something like a 15 or 16 for in AD&D, when THAC0/BAB is basically unchanged).
|
Hmm do classes have defined roles in a game such as this.Personally I dislike rolling because it encourages min-maxing and makes people focus more on mechanics then role playing.which role do you mean the role of your character or the role of the class???
To some degree, the barbarian would suck as a healer and paladins don't do rogue skills too well.
I let players choose between this:
1. Use the heroic array in any way you wish.
2. Roll 1d6 and 1d8. Use the d6 to determine stat. You gain the d8 in bonus there, to a max of 18.
3. Apply racial.
And this:
18 pt buy, no extra points for going below 10.
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?
In my experience (32 years of RPGs ranging from BECMI D&D to AD&D 1st Ed., 2nd Ed., D&D 3.X, Pathfinder, GURPS, White Wolf's Storyteller System, Champions, and Fuzion, among others) point buy systems only lead to Min-Maxing and Munchkinism, with ultimately low-balling of stats to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. It also encourages people to build to mechanics as opposed to character. (I cannot count the number of times when Charisma / whatever is the social ability of the system in question has become the "dump-stat" because too few GMs build social challenges into their games, and/or penalize players for RPing higher social ability that the character should have.)
My group uses Method one (4d6 drop the lowest) from the core rulebook, and has for years. We tried point buy when it was introduced in 3rd Ed. and didn't care for it, finding it far inferior to Method one, and (especially when I am DM, I admit to a certain level of harshness here) a far higher rate of character mortality.
Stats mattered way less in AD&D. For most stats, there's little to no difference between a score of 8 and a score of 14. You likely had only one or two high scores, which went into your prime requisites, and your other four scores didn't matter since they gave no bonus or penalty. Now, the difference between 16 14 14 14 14 14 and 16 14 8 8 8 8 makes many characters unplayable.
Which is a round about way of saying that disparity in ability scores mattered very little in AD&D, while in PF the diference between a 10 and 50 and 10 point buy is closer to the difference between a 1st and 3rd level character.
As for "dump stats", my Fighters have been dumping CHA since the 80's. Where else would I put that 7 I rolled?
Here's how I see it.
Point Buy:
- Fairness between players, and between party and encounters. It means less work for the DM to tweak CRs and encounters when the party is on the expected track. He only has to deal with individual player game mastery, party tactics, and class combinations, etc, etc.
Also it means less mechanics spotlight to deal with (only has to worry about class combinations, individual player roleplaying styles, etc).
The DM has a lot on his plate. Point buy helps in this regard.
- This is a teamwork game. It's rare that I don't join or start a game without seeing what others are playing and deciding before stat generation what I wanted to play. Or simply have a desire to try a specific class (like when a new book is released, I wanted to try Oracle and then Gunslinger).
I mean, sure, a group can function without a key cornerstone (such as healing or arcane magic), but once again it puts more work on the DM.
...
Rolling:
- The Gambler Effect. The thrill of potentially getting a really high set of stats, or a very nice spread of stats. Just like winning at the casino, and oddly enough shopping, it's one of those little moments in D&D gaming that makes you feel like you "won". Crits are up there with that too...
- When you don't know what you want to play, or when you want "life" to hand you your character (the organic feel), you go with rolling. The random factor will make it so you have to work with stats that you would not have handpicked normally. It might give ideas on direction for your character, or simply decide what doors are opened for you instead of others.
Player vs the Game type of gaming likes this. You are handed your set of stats; now see what you can do with it.
...
Both have valid, laudable goals in gaming. However, you can see where they are extremely different in playstyle.
When you have two very different playstyles talking about "which way is the right way", you are going to have some very passionately held viewpoints.
Overall, my gaming style tends to put stat generation on the backseat in favor of character concepts. I have a particular story in mind, with a particular character idea in mind, and I don't get to play that often that it can wait until I get that nice roll.
Also, the character I want might be contingent on what others are playing, and the adventure in question, so "next time" for a particular concept might never come.
...
I do feel that point buy can result in too much number fiddling and min/maxing. I tend to game with a group that I trust (most of the time), so I don't really feel it necessary to curb people.
I tend to give out high point buy, because I like my characters (and my group's player characters) to be more rounded in ability scores.
If I were to group with a bunch of players that I felt needed to be curbed from too much hyper-specialization, or that I felt might get hung up on point buy's math, I'd probably make a couple sets of stat arrays for the players to choose from.
One that gives a decent single high stat (for the classes that don't need high secondary stats), and one that gives a nice spread of 3-4 abilities (for the more MAD classes).
My last game I ran as DM, I had the players each roll a set of stats, then I created a stat fixed stat array based on a high-ish point buy, and finally a lower point buy option (can choose exactly what you want but you give up a point or two to do it).
Anyone could choose any option. Everyone was happy, it was an even footing amongst players, and everyone had an option they liked.
The caveat: the boss NPCs ran with one of those choices as well. What's good for the goose...
No doubt that rolling can be really fun.
But with point buy I can have a pre-gen PC ready to drop into a game within 5 minutes after my PC's death.
I can also work out concepts, without worrying whether or not the rolls will make them work.
I did have a fun 2nd ED PC once with straight 15's- which was actually kinda weak, since little kicked in until a 16 back then. I also did a 3.0 PC with all 14s. Interesting concept characters.
I've seen munchkins built with point buy, I've seen munchkins built by those prefer rolling.
I've played in excellent games with mature players and had a great time with characters generated using either method as well.
At the end of the day, the issue is more about finding a group of players you enjoy playing with who all agree what sort of power level they want to play with beforehand, and then proceeding to enjoy the time spent together 'round the table.
If you have a hatred for one method or the other for building characters, and you are invited to play in a game that uses said method, state your case and come to an agreement or compromise of sorts, or decline to play.
Problem solved.
Another problem I have with point-buy which I just realized after looking through the binder of the dead. Some of my favorite characters had a 4 or 5 in a stat, which although it can be excellent RP hook, I understand sucks mechanically. This is an impossibilty in a point buy system. Am I weird in that I find low stats a good hook?
@Moro: Yeah, I've seen munchkins built by rollers as well. It just seemed that I have seen more of them in point buy systems than in random roll systems.
I agree with the other points you make though.
What about the cookie-cutter effect for casters, in point buy? For example, given a 20-point buy, I'd expect every single PC wizard to do this:
Str 7 [-4 pts], Dex 14 [5 pts], Con 14 [5 pts], Int 18 [17 pts], Wis 11 [1], Cha 7 [-4 pts].
Dex, Con, and Wis might vary by 1 or 2 points, but other than that, I'd be very surprised if every wizard PC didn't purchase pretty much the exact same array. It's like there was one original wizard and all the others are simply clones of that one. When rolling stats, yes, the wizards will still all put their highest score in Int, and their lowest scores in Str and Cha, but there will be far more variability in each score.
For martial characters there will be more variability, of course, because of their general MAD and the various minimum attribute scores for different feats.
|
Another problem I have with point-buy which I just realized after looking through the binder of the dead. Some of my favorite characters had a 4 or 5 in a stat, which although it can be excellent RP hook, I understand sucks mechanically. This is an impossibilty in a point buy system. Am I weird in that I find low stats a good hook?
If you use 3.5 point buy, you can leave a score at minimum and use a race with a penalty to that score to push it down. Doesn't work with PF point-buy, since scores start at 10.
Or you could just say 'I have a 5 Dex, and no I'm not getting extra points from it'.
If you use 3.5 point buy, you can leave a score at minimum and use a race with a penalty to that score to push it down. Doesn't work with PF point-buy, since scores start at 10. Or you could just say 'I have a 5 Dex, and no I'm not getting extra points from it'.
Racial mods in PF apply after point-buy is done, so you can sell down a score to 7, then take a -2 racial mod to it and end up with a 5.
Another problem I have with point-buy which I just realized after looking through the binder of the dead. Some of my favorite characters had a 4 or 5 in a stat, which although it can be excellent RP hook, I understand sucks mechanically. This is an impossibilty in a point buy system. Am I weird in that I find low stats a good hook?
It can be fine. I'm playing a dwarven druid in a Kingmaker campaign (used point buy) and I have a 5 Charisma. It amuses me that my animal companion, a bear, has a higher Charisma than I do (6). People get along with the bear better than they do me. I haven't shied away from social situations though. I usually volunteer to go talk to people, be our envoy, convince people of stuff. It almost always goes horribly wrong. Because the character is one of 2 original PC's in the group (just starting book 6), he's also 3rd in line for the throne, even though his Charisma makes him the worst choice in the party to be King.
The one stat I wouldn't bother with at a 5 is Constitution though. You might as well just say the character died on the way to the tavern.
What about the cookie-cutter effect for casters, in point buy?
No different to the cookie cutter effect in rolling, where you would put you best roll in your casting stat, next best roll in say, Con, etc.
The one stat I wouldn't bother with at a 5 is Constitution though. You might as well just say the character died on the way to the tavern.I did that with a DM who refused to kill characters. Elven Cloistered Cleric with a 6 Con.
Some DMs just ask for abuse.
Sometimes, it's just not fun to leave the usefulness of your character up to random chance.
The RNG is particularly spiteful to me and my group of friends.
Some people like differing levels of 'deadliness'. I started a shadowrun game for some new players the other week and I had to go with that routine for the first combat. Now they've learned their lesson, when the assault helicopter starts to target you, if you don't take cover you're going to die.
|
|
Because you can have stats and character sheets ready before the session starts, avoiding spending time on character gen.
Tangent: I find part of the fun of getting friends together, especially new players, is the character generating session and thus get to know what people want to do with their PCs -- basically an ice breaker to start a new campaign. It is also a good time to discuss house rules, if any, and help each other with rules questions. All it takes is one session, and many uncertainties can be cleared up, plenty of laughs and stories of past games can be shared, and it helps to set a tone for the group which can be really helpful for the GM.