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.
I know how that goes sometimes. A friend of mine from my first gaming group was the master of the Crit fail. Didn't matter what system it was. Gurps he'd roll 18 after 18, White Wolf and Star Wars he'd get fistfulls of 1's, D&D he'd roll more nat 1's than anything else.
When I have bad rolls though, the RNG are still nasty to my friends, as I cannot count the number of times one of my casters has accidentally torched another member of the party with an off target spell (two of my DM's are really fond of the thrown weapon scatter diagram), somehow though I always manage to avoid the blast.
Say what you want, but not everybody does that, I will admit to min maxing using point buy, but I do it towards the character, if my rogue is designed to be a spy, his dex and charisma is the way to go, same if he's a conman. just because you min max, doesn't mean you're trying to up your combat ability.
Many prefer a high point buy so that no one is punished by the stats they roll. Whether that being statistically weak or not being able to play the character you want to play. Regardless of whether or not rolling is more organic(Whatever that means in a game), it's not fun when someone can't play the game to the full extent when others can in your party. Sure point buy makes optimization more of a possibility but the people that do senselessly optimize will be losing out on half of the game. I suggest a 20 to 25 point buy, this will allow mad classes to keep on pace because more attribute points are more important to a mad class. It will also allow people that don't want to dump to feel as obligated to do so. The point buy system gives you the capability of dumping stats so you can better fit what type of concept you want to play as well. However you don't have to follow my advice because it's your game to play your way.
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.
I actually explained exactly how it's different, if you read the entire post instead of just the first sentence.
|
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.I actually explained exactly how it's different, if you read the entire post instead of just the first sentence.
It will still be a minor variance. Most characters won't be able to tell the difference unless the character gets an abnormally high or low set of scores.
I think random die rolls push better roleplaying. It also simulates reality. Granted, adventurers should be better than normal, hence the 4d6 drop the lowest, plus I add reroll ones, so it's 2-6 for 6 - 18, which is room for a bad stat, but not so bad as to be almost unplayable. Sure, you can possibly roll 1's all the time, but I've never seen that happen even from a random number generator. It's so statistically unlikely it's close to 0.
The point buy system actually encourages min maxing, which I think is the WRONG way for the game to go.
I also think it does away with creative gaming.
So what if the wizard managed to roll stats over 10, with three 17's and all you have as a fighter is one 15 and the rest from 6 to 10. The stats play a part in the game, but they aren't the be all and end all, unless your style of role playing consists of looking up stats and rolling dice, with zero input about character action beyond 'I try to hit the orc with my sword'. You have then successfully reduced the gaming experience to that of a collection of data being number crunched. No wonder no one has fun doing that. That's accountant as player class.
Also, it doesn't take into account that at beginning levels, your risk is slight, so the need for stats is also slight. Even as you progress, the stats start to be less an issue because of augmentations and feats. You can even do away with bad stats to some extent with powerful magic, sometimes permanently.
Why exclude yourself from that game experience (which can include quests to empower the character) by instantly granting above average stats? A lot of magic items only augment if you are BELOW certain thresholds, not above, so high stats then become pointless. It's really just cutting out a LOT of the game experience. It's like playing an MMO then, no stats, just running around and hacking until your health goes down, get the heal bot to top you up, then out for more. Rinse and repeat til your eyes bleed. No wonder some players are getting to constantly rest during adventures to renew abilities, they've made it far too easy IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both systems encourage min-maxing the difference comes down to how much min and max equal.
Heck either the 3e players guide or hero builders guide even told you that if you rolled a 3 pick half orc for your race and put it in int just so you actually wouldn't have to eat a penalty to your stat.
The only way to avoid min-maxing to any extent would be to make players pick class and race then roll stats in order and hope for the best.
Both systems encourage min-maxing the difference comes down to how much min and max equal.
Heck either the 3e players guide or hero builders guide even told you that if you rolled a 3 pick half orc for your race and put it in int just so you actually wouldn't have to eat a penalty to your stat.
The only way to avoid min-maxing to any extent would be to make players pick class and race then roll stats in order and hope for the best.
That is EXACTLY how the game was initially designed back in the days of Gary Gygax, and strangely, the game was still popular. I don't know what changed, but for some reason, I don't think anyone who picks up the game now would agree to play a game like they did back when it was created, they'd probably claim it TOO HARD. Which is bunk. I think anyone can successfully run any rolled stats, they just don't want to role play out of their comfort zone.
As GM's can easily grant any stat at creation, if someone needs certain stats due to stat restrictions (which were the norm back in the day, not the exception, and it kept certain classes from becoming over populated, like the Paladin, the Ranger, etc), granting a MINIMUM score to meet a requirement for a BASIC starting class should be simplicity. The rest though should be rolled. But that is just me, I like a challenge.
Seriously, how many muscle bound brutes do you know in real life who can ALSO do complicated math and write and compose a symphony, as well as display harmony and grace in movement? I don't know that many who can, but I gather from responses that characters being created would easily fit that bill a lot of the times.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is EXACTLY how the game was initially designed back in the days of Gary Gygax, and strangely, the game was still popular. I don't know what changed...
I do.
People learned that there was more than just one way to play, and to find the one they enjoyed the most.
That is EXACTLY how the game was initially designed back in the days of Gary Gygax, and strangely, the game was still popular. I don't know what changed...I do.
People learned that there was more than just one way to play, and to find the one they enjoyed the most.
Of course, to each their own. The problems come when people attempt to make statements about the superiority of one version vs. the other, as that is just bald opinion masquerading as fact.
If someone has more fun creating a character with nothing but 18's and who can multiclass any combination, more power to them. Others enjoy the vanilla flavor, and still others like a combination of the two.
Preference is one thing, but superiority? Not at all something that can be claimed, except in reference to the basic design. One mans drink is another mans poison.
Although, what with PFO being on the design table, I think a lot of players are going to be quite shocked when they discover they can't make certain class combinations they way they used to, if Paizo stick to canon rules, which I believe they will be. In that case, everyone is going to be playing canon, if they wish to play the PFO.
In my experience, "rolling your stats" usually means that I start off with a character from 15-point-buy while a couple of other players in the group start off with characters from 80-point-buy. And if the DM makes them roll another set of stats, they just get another set of stats from 80 point buy. It's "amazing" how some people can consistently get "random rolls" so good that the chance of actually getting them by randomly rolling is 0. It's almost as if there's a reason that people who play betting games that use dice make you roll the dice from a cup, not your hand.
I know the people who cheat are a minority, but there are enough of them that I won't roll stats ever again.
I don't know what changed, but for some reason, I don't think anyone who picks up the game now would agree to play a game like they did back when it was created, they'd probably claim it TOO HARD. Which is bunk. I think anyone can successfully run any rolled stats, they just don't want to role play out of their comfort zone.
Back then we hardly bothered naming our characters, let alone role-playing them. Your character's half life was about two sessions, and skill wasn't much of a factor. (Dungeons were SAFE compared to the random monsters you'd encounter if you dared to travel overland.) If you want to continue that type of play style, I believe "Paranoia" still supports it.
Oh, and back then, as now, the game was exactly as hard as the DM wanted it to be. Stats aren't the main factor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, "rolling your stats" usually means that I start off with a character from 15-point-buy while a couple of other players in the group start off with characters from 80-point-buy. And if the DM makes them roll another set of stats, they just get another set of stats from 80 point buy. It's "amazing" how some people can consistently get "random rolls" so good that the chance of actually getting them by randomly rolling is 0. It's almost as if there's a reason that people who play betting games that use dice make you roll the dice from a cup, not your hand.I know the people who cheat are a minority, but there are enough of them that I won't roll stats ever again.
Don't blame the character generation method for cheaters. If you point buy they'll just cheat on their other rolls anyway. It's amazing how many 20s some people can roll. You either roll your eyes and put up with it or just don't play with them.
I don't know what changed, but for some reason, I don't think anyone who picks up the game now would agree to play a game like they did back when it was created, they'd probably claim it TOO HARD. Which is bunk. I think anyone can successfully run any rolled stats, they just don't want to role play out of their comfort zone.Back then we hardly bothered naming our characters, let alone role-playing them. Your character's half life was about two sessions, and skill wasn't much of a factor. (Dungeons were SAFE compared to the random monsters you'd encounter if you dared to travel overland.) If you want to continue that type of play style, I believe "Paranoia" still supports it.
Oh, and back then, as now, the game was exactly as hard as the DM wanted it to be. Stats aren't the main factor.
We always named our characters :) We didn't build huge backstories for them given the mortality rate. But when they "clicked" and you survived low levels they had incredible stories written in game. And then you went outdoors and felt like you were first level again :D
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gary Gygax had a lot of ideas that are now generally considered bad RPGing. One of those being the instant death with no warning or save. You are faced with an intersection. If you turn left, you die. No spot chance. No save. You are dead.
A lot.
He did like the style of play that involved having a big stack of prerolled characters and expect to chew through half the pile before the end of the adventure.
So saying 'Gygax did it' is not always an encouraging thing.
I managed not to kill off my characters like that, but then I guess a lot of the R in RPG comes from the player. And I am fine with perma death even. If you do something stupid, you should pay the price. Like not using something to find out if the hole in the wall is really a hole, and not a void that destroys anything that comes in contact with it.
Seriously, a group walking into a large cavern that happens to have treasure strewn all over the floor, and everyone makes a bee line to snap it up, without checking the roof first for the hovering dragon that knew they were coming long ago, deserves a quick death. Spot assumes a normal point of view, and up is not something normally done casually. That requires an active Search skill.
I just can't enjoy a good RPG without the ultimate risk that comes from it. That whole never die thing is a product of MMOs, not RPGs.
Four pages of fun, this discussion would go Great with a long talk about how every sample build is human.
I just can't help but agree with the opinion that everyone who builds their fantasy character as a specialized and trained individual whose physical condition biases them towards a certain adventuring career is a munchkin! It in no way reflects personal choices by the player.
On the counter-argument, I can't help but disagree with the opinion that everyone who builds as a (usually) Very powerful superhuman is Not the best role player and only good way to make a loveable fantasy character.
(4d6 averaging 13 in every stat and regardless of in-game bonuses representing how incredible someone is exponentially, not linearly, for an example see dragons and how they are not just 4x stronger or smarter than the average human)
I am not fond of all of the talk of cheaters because some people roll well. In my experience, you can buy some Chessex dice that just rolls extremely well. It's not intentionally weighted, it just ends up averaging very high and the player holds onto it. I am known as a player (And especially as a GM) for rolling big numbers in front of my players constantly and I attribute it to perception. They remember the dread of my crit rolls and forget the fumbles.
I always roll my dice on hard surfaces and I always give them good rolls instead of dropping them, this allows me to find a truer average in my dice compared to the person who grabs their d20, always sets it down 20 side up, and drops it on the table the same way, never thinking why they roll so poorly.
Also, for reference since someone days ago asked for balanced and working point buys, before racial adjustments; 14/12/14/13/14/10 is a 20-point buy with an amazing amount of versatility, is a +2 just not good enough to deal with equal CR encounters? (Disclaimer: If Monk with no mage armor, disregard this point buy and use the Monk only approved brand. 13 AC Front Line is Goblin Fodder).
I think random die rolls push better roleplaying.
This is a fallacy. My proof is that there have been dice-less roleplaying games for over 20 years. All that a random roll means is that the decision isn't up to you, it does not make the decision better or worse.
Using random methods to create your character does not inherently mean you are doing "better roleplaying" than people who don't roll dice. If you would like some more proof, I'll provide two lists, one of completely diceless games and another list of games that use no randomness in character creation. These lists will be quite long.
A thought just crossed my mind to start a thread talking about how to improve the Point Buy system, but I realized it would just devolve into another thread where people would say exactly what is being said here.
A thought just crossed my mind to start a thread talking about how to improve the Point Buy system, but I realized it would just devolve into another thread where people would say exactly what is being said here.
Most people would say you should edit your post instead of responding to yourself. ;D What do you think could be improved or is wrong with point-buy? I would love to up my home-games player-friendliness.
I always think about how it's not a competition when people talk about unfair situations. You can have huge power imbalanced with point-buy and rolling alike. Albeit one being the result of choice and the other of chaos and math (Dice averages)
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.
I like being able to build the PC I have envisioned for the campaign. With random rolling I have *never* gotten rolls that allowed me to do this. I usually have to change my character into something I don't want to play as much or abandon the idea entirely and play a PC I don't have any investment in.
In addition in every instance of random rolling for stats I have been a part of either as DM or player you always (that's 100% of the time) get one PC with really fantastic stats and another with crap. This also has *never* failed to happen in my experience.
So that's why we use point buy. The clearly superior choice.
Both systems encourage min-maxing the difference comes down to how much min and max equal.
Heck either the 3e players guide or hero builders guide even told you that if you rolled a 3 pick half orc for your race and put it in int just so you actually wouldn't have to eat a penalty to your stat.
The only way to avoid min-maxing to any extent would be to make players pick class and race then roll stats in order and hope for the best.
That is EXACTLY how the game was initially designed back in the days of Gary Gygax, and strangely, the game was still popular. I don't know what changed, but for some reason, I don't think anyone who picks up the game now would agree to play a game like they did back when it was created, they'd probably claim it TOO HARD. Which is bunk. I think anyone can successfully run any rolled stats, they just don't want to role play out of their comfort zone.
As GM's can easily grant any stat at creation, if someone needs certain stats due to stat restrictions (which were the norm back in the day, not the exception, and it kept certain classes from becoming over populated, like the Paladin, the Ranger, etc), granting a MINIMUM score to meet a requirement for a BASIC starting class should be simplicity. The rest though should be rolled. But that is just me, I like a challenge.
Seriously, how many muscle bound brutes do you know in real life who can ALSO do complicated math and write and compose a symphony, as well as display harmony and grace in movement? I don't know that many who can, but I gather from responses that characters being created would easily fit that bill a lot of the times.
1. Some campaigns take a long time. If you have to play for years or even months you might as well play what you enjoy.
2. Any rolled stats won't work, not unless the GM is fudging dice or adding in house rules. The wizard with an int of 9 is not casting any spells.
3. The PC's are above the masses with regard to ability in most games. If I wanted to play myself I would not bother with the game. Many NFL players are big, and quick, and at least of average intelligence. Even college players could qualify.
I managed not to kill off my characters like that, but then I guess a lot of the R in RPG comes from the player. And I am fine with perma death even. If you do something stupid, you should pay the price. Like not using something to find out if the hole in the wall is really a hole, and not a void that destroys anything that comes in contact with it.
Seriously, a group walking into a large cavern that happens to have treasure strewn all over the floor, and everyone makes a bee line to snap it up, without checking the roof first for the hovering dragon that knew they were coming long ago, deserves a quick death. Spot assumes a normal point of view, and up is not something normally done casually. That requires an active Search skill.
I just can't enjoy a good RPG without the ultimate risk that comes from it. That whole never die thing is a product of MMOs, not RPGs.
I do think people should die for stupid decisions, but it that last part about MMO's is not true. I have some old school(1st edition) players that whined like little kids when I pushed them, and would not allow a lot of rule bendign.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My absolute worst experiences with the game came from early editions being run with some hardcore Gygaxisms and featured more of the problems people often blame on MMOs than most of my experiences with the game post-Everquest.
MMO's get a lot of flak for crap that was already going on in the game well before they rolled around.
I've had more enjoyable roleplaying experiences in Team Fortress 2 than I did in those early sessions.
Not a bash on old editions so much as a knock on the assertion that MMOs have somehow infected the game with badwrongfun/entitlement/no-RP-hack-n-slash/whatever else gets blamed on MMOs or videogaming in general. The truth is that it ultimately depends on the people you're gaming with.
Forcing random die rolls in character creation on players that might have wanted to play a certain kind of character for that campaign doesn't inherently improve the quality of their roleplaying experience.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having read about Gygax's GMing style, I doubt I would have been able to tolerate playing with him.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having read about Gygax's GMing style, I doubt I would have been able to tolerate playing with him.
And before someone goes off on a rant: Acknowledging that you wouldn't enjoy playing with someone is not a personal slight against that person.
It's perfectly possible to be grateful to Gygax and Arneson and any other game developer, like them as people, respect what they've done for the game, and say "But I wouldn't enjoy having him as a GM." And that's okay.
In the case of Gygax, I wouldn't either really.
What do you think could be improved or is wrong with point-buy? I would love to up my home-games player-friendliness.
The value of some stats is so minimal for some classes that it's too obvious a decision to buy them down. I'm not sure that it's a good idea to allow bonus points for reducing stats below 10, because it gets silly when EVERY wizard has lower than average charisma. Yet it's still desirable to have some reason for some characters to have below-average stats. Instead of build points, buying down a stat might give you an extra feat, for example.
It would also be nice if you could use points for other things besides stats. For example, some of the optional racial abilities in the Advanced Player's Guide might be purchasable with stat points.
It's not obvious what a good solution would be. But the existing system doesn't work very well. There's too few good things to buy.
Having read about Gygax's GMing style, I doubt I would have been able to tolerate playing with him.And before someone goes off on a rant: Acknowledging that you wouldn't enjoy playing with someone is not a personal slight against that person.
It's perfectly possible to be grateful to Gygax and Arneson and any other game developer, like them as people, respect what they've done for the game, and say "But I wouldn't enjoy having him as a GM." And that's okay.
In the case of Gygax, I wouldn't either really.
Precisely.
It will still be a minor variance. Most characters won't be able to tell the difference unless the character gets an abnormally high or low set of scores.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.I actually explained exactly how it's different, if you read the entire post instead of just the first sentence.
Exactly.
Bottom line is that some people will create interesting characters with odd stats regardless of what generation method you use, and others will optimise, and that's just how it is. When you have dice rolling, you also have the prospect that some players inevitable will cheat at character generation where it is easier than when gaming with all eyes on them, in my experience.
That is EXACTLY how the game was initially designed back in the days of Gary Gygax, and strangely, the game was still popular.Both systems encourage min-maxing the difference comes down to how much min and max equal.
Heck either the 3e players guide or hero builders guide even told you that if you rolled a 3 pick half orc for your race and put it in int just so you actually wouldn't have to eat a penalty to your stat.
The only way to avoid min-maxing to any extent would be to make players pick class and race then roll stats in order and hope for the best.
Yes, because the very first thing every single group did was start house-ruling methods of character creation and play. The game was popular because it was the ONLY FRPG out there, not because it was, by current standards, a good game - as attested by the fact that we do not use that character generation system any more.
For myself, if I have a specific idea for a character or I have an idea as to what I want to play, I will far and away prefer point-buy to make sure I can get what I want. If I want pre-genned characters ready to rock, point buy works.
But that doesn't mean I won't dice for my stats, or that I can't take a random set and create an interesting character from it. It's just that it would quickly get old for me if I had to do that all the time.
If there is one thing I have learned in RPGs in 30+ years, it is that players play best when they play what they want. The only way of absolutely guaranteeing that they will get to play what they want is point-buy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In regard to "turn left and die," I used to love those games -- because if you moved those 10 ft. without prodding ahead with your 10-ft. pole, Gygax' rationale was that you DESERVED to die because of your carelessness. His logic was that if you let 'em live anyway, you were encouraging bad habits and denying the players a chance to develop better skills. Hell, even an augury or summon monster I spell or an orc servant would have kept that group alive.
Needless to say, I have a lot of sympathy for that attitude sometimes, especially when I hear people go off about how the DM should fudge rolls to prevent PC deaths, and how anyone without a bunch of 18s off the bat would quit the game. Hell, I often miss playing a game in which, if you played poorly, you died; in which a bad roll could potentially kill you; and in which, if you made it to 10th level, it was a major accomplishment and tribute to your skill and luck.
I know that style of play has become extremely unpopular, but the flat-out assertions that it's "worse" are constant reminders that a lot of people don't have the faintest clue of the difference between "fact" and "opinion." Indeed, I try not to, but when I see things like "That's why we use point buy. The clearly superior choice," I picture a six-your old posting it and looking all smug and proud of himself.
Point-buy and dice rolling each have advantages and disadvantages -- or, more accurately, they each have points which some consider a bug, and others a feature. That's OK. When you find a group, TALK to them. Find out their playstyle and make your choices accordingly. Don't agree to play and then stomp off in a huff because they don't all agree with what you decide is the "right" way to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Point-buy and dice rolling each have advantages and disadvantages -- or, more accurately, they each have points which some consider a bug, and others a feature. That's OK. When you find a group, TALK to them. Find out their playstyle and make your choices accordingly. Don't agree to play and then stomp off in a huff because they don't all agree with what you decide is the "right" way to play.
^ This I agree with completely ^
f there is one thing I have learned in RPGs in 30+ years, it is that players play best when they play what they want. The only way of absolutely guaranteeing that they will get to play what they want is point-buy.
This argument is factually incorrect -- rolling dice and playing a wizard with a 14 Int instead of an 18, for example, is quite possible. Or the DM could just tell everyone to pick whatever stats they want. Or hand out 18s in everything to everyone. Or whatever.
All this talk about "THE ONLY WAY" gets us nowhere.
You prefer point-buy, and have reasons for doing so. That's fine. Others prefer rolling, and have reasons for doing so. That's OK, too. One group is not "better" than the other; nor is one doing it "wrong."
All this talk about "THE ONLY WAY" gets us nowhere.
Bad choice of words on my part - what I meant was: "The best way that I have found of doing this is point buy."
It also forced an OOC approach. Your next character was expected to learn from the mistakes of the dead one. If the GM came up with a new clever way of hiding traps, once you figured out how to look for it, often by dieing to it, you'd just add it to the list of things future characters would look for.
Old-school DM for "Spire of Long Shadows" -- two parties killed. The third got through by casting speak with dead on their fallen predecessors' scout, to find out what to expect. For me, it was absolutely and without question one of the most fun gaming experiences I've ever had, even though my "sissy elf cleric" was one of the casualties.
I'm very, very glad the new model of "fudge it so they live, and forgive all their mistakes" wasn't followed. YMMV.
And I really hate the idea of driving orc (or whatever) slaves ahead of the group to trigger traps. Serious evil-points and that's not what I'm usually interested in.
In some of the old modules, not only was this encouraged, it was expected.
I'm arguing against the old-school way of handling traps in particular, where you describe in exquisite detail every thing you do to see if there is a trap in a particular spot and if you miss something you die. And you do the same search regardless of your character's training or skills, because it's the player's skill that's being developed.
Sure, there are places where the game has improved for me, too -- that's why I don't play 1e anymore. But that doesn't mean the general sensibility of rewarding cautious and smart play is automatically bunk for everyone, just because you find a specific nitpick in the way it was originally handled.
In regard to "turn left and die," I used to love those games -- because if you moved those 10 ft. without prodding ahead with your 10-ft. pole, Gygax' rationale was that you DESERVED to die because of your carelessness. His logic was that if you let 'em live anyway, you were encouraging bad habits and denying the players a chance to develop better skills. Hell, even an augury or summon monster I spell or an orc servant would have kept that group alive.
It isn't the harshness of that style that I dislike, it's that I get bored. I have no interest in describing in minute detail how I'm searching for traps. I would rather engage in some action or roleplaying.
I'm perfectly okay with being executed for misspeaking in front of the king. But I'd rather do that than roll to find traps for every 5 foot section of a dungeon.
The point buy, the spawn of video games, so much wrought! *faints*Au contrare
You have obviously forgotten the Point Buy system of the original Blue Book edition of 1978 which pre dates video games significantly
The first CRPG based on D&D (it was unauthorized) was programmed in 1975-6.
A thought just crossed my mind to start a thread talking about how to improve the Point Buy system, but I realized it would just devolve into another thread where people would say exactly what is being said here.Most people would say you should edit your post instead of responding to yourself. ;D What do you think could be improved or is wrong with point-buy? I would love to up my home-games player-friendliness.
I always think about how it's not a competition when people talk about unfair situations. You can have huge power imbalanced with point-buy and rolling alike. Albeit one being the result of choice and the other of chaos and math (Dice averages)
Kirth was talking about giving some classes bonus points. You could base it on class, so Monks get more points than Fighters or Wizards. The downside to this is the problem of multi-classing. Is taking a level dip of Monk worth it for a Fighter just to get the extra stat bumps? You'd lose your Favored Class bonus, but if you get a free +2 Con and +2 Int, who cares?
You could weight the stats differently. A 16 Str might cost 10 points, while a 16 Cha costs 7. Also lowering Cha, would net you fewer points.
There could be 3 "types" of stats, Primary, Secondary and Tertiary. Primary cost full, Secondary cost 1 less and Tertiary cost 2 less, each class having a different set of stats designated as each type.
|
In the other thread related to this topic I stated I thought PB is best for convention play and competitive games between players who are strangers, while rolling seems to fit a more relaxed game between friends in home games... But that is just my general feeling about this.
While I love the rolling method I also see some merit in PB. As a GM I have struggled to find a compromise:
I looked at the frequency of results of the 4d6 drop lowest method, and made an array of the 6 most frequent results (the 6 most likely outcomes): 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, and 10. Next I asked what would be the PB cost for this array in Pathfinder? It is 18.
Thus, my compromise, under consideration, to players in my home games in the future, is as follows:
Choose one of the three:
A) Use the array [15 14 13 12 11 10].
B) (Roll 4d6 drop the lowest die) X 6.
C) Use the PF PB method with a budget of 18 points.
Someone a while back suggested 2d4+10, 2d4+9, 2d4+8, 2d4+7, 2d4+6, and 2d4+5, average is 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, and 10 -- very convenient for my purposes, so I might throw that in either to replace B or add as choice D. As long as methods are statistically a close match to each other, and players are adequately informed, I see no problem with players choosing the method that serves their current PC plan.
You know there are so many methods out there, nonetheless I am quite keen on finding a mix such that PB is an option alongside rolling.
EDIT: I just want to remind folks that the default 15 point array in PF is [15 14 13 12 10 8] as opposed to the array in A above, in case people were wondering about the difference.
The elite/heroic array is a 15pt buy anyway and since its used by the iconic and almost all npcs everyone is buggered equally.
Kirth was talking about giving some classes bonus points. You could base it on class, so Monks get more points than Fighters or Wizards. The downside to this is the problem of multi-classing. Is taking a level dip of Monk worth it for a Fighter just to get the extra stat bumps? You'd lose your Favored Class bonus, but if you get a free +2 Con and +2 Int, who cares?
How about instead of changing the point allocations at start, giving bonus attribute points from levelling at a faster or slower rate? That way you get rewarded for sticking with the class which is MADest.
Totally MAD characters (monk) +1 per 2 levels, no more than +5 to any one attribute.
Somewhat MAD characters (bard, paladin, ranger) +1 per 3 levels, no more than +5 to any one attribute.
Fairly SAD characters (cleric, fighter, barbarian, rogue, sorcerer) +1 per 4 levels
Very SAD characters (wizard, druid) +1 per five levels.