| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree; "encourages min-maxing" and "because Gary said so" are not valid arguments against point-buy.
Equally, "it's more fair" and "it's faster" have been shown not to be valid arguments for point-buy.
What we're left with is "our group's personal preference is X," which is a valid argument for your group and method of choice.
|
My idea for helping MAD characters in a point buy world is to give one point buy point per level to spend or save as desired. The SAD guys are probably saving points to bump that single attribute every 4 levels like normal while the MAD guys are spending less on their bumps because they are spreading them around more.Does your system cap out at not increasing any stat above 18 that way? If so it's more worthwhile as the SAD classes will almost always have that at the start of play and be focussing in secondary attributes. Otherwise, even for MAD characters getting one stat extremely high is usually more beneficial than spreading it around.
No, 4 points per attribute after 18th.
Another idea would be to give 2 points per level, only one of which could be spent on your highest stat.
Equally, "it's more fair" and "it's faster" have been shown not to be valid arguments for point-buy.
Actually, the fact that when rolling one player can have a better set of stats than another is pretty much taken as read by everyone so far as I know. As for faster, it depends on your group but certainly point buy can be more convenient in some circumstances.
1- If a GM has to work extra elements into her game just to exploit a dumped stat then it's poor excuse to allow stat dumping.
2- This is SO much easier if everyone is on the same page from the start. Having to edit someones background often upsets that player and just creates extra work for the GM.
3- Nothing prevents power gaming... But anything that lowers the unbalances created by power gaming is good. If you can No Longer buy down your Cha to a 7, then that means your high stats are a bit lower than they would have been, especially when you have a table of mixed player types as I am sure many GMs do.
1.That is clearly not what I said. As an example in my games I tend to attack hit points, will saves, ability scores. I will use your lack of speed. I will use aerial opponents. Etc.... In short if a GM can't provide a good variety of encounters that is on him.
2.If I give the player the basic adventure background and he runs off on a tangent that is on him. That is what I was referring to with my last sentence. In my group you would have to not be paying attention to write a background that does not fit.
3.Stats are not that big of deal. If you want to prevent powergaming then it starts with certain feat and spell combinations that make one player heads and tails above everyone else. You can also ask other players to improve their characters. Playing down* is no less of a crime than playing up.
Also go to my first example. You can dump dex or charisma, but when some monster erases your lowest ability score and takes you out of the fight you have nobody to blame, but yourself.
*Melee fighter with an 11 strength as an example
Dabbler ... Wraithstrike...
I am not saying Point Buy is bad. I am saying Stat Buy Downs are bad.
If you live in fear of that one in a million character who has incredible rolled stats... Then nothing I say will convince you rolling isn't bad. But forgive me if I actually like having to think up a new concept to fit my stat rolls. It's fun playing something new each time and not having to see cookie cutter stat builds. This is why I not only like rolling but I also like Rolling In Order.
I don't think they are bad at all. They introduce a weakness to the character.
Another opinion on the subject:
I also think that "never taking a score with a penalty" is just as bad[/b] as dumping a stat.
I mean really all your characters are at least average if not [i]better at everything? Every time? Not once do you have to contend with a deficiency, never have had a guy that is a bit shy and has to think of what to say before putting his foot in his mouth? Never had a character that maybe should have made a trip to the gym (or was too sickly to go)? Never had a smart smartarse that should have known to keep his mouth shut but couldn't (low wisdom) or didn't have the common sense to come in out of the rain (as the saying goes)?
It just strikes me as just as gamist to never have a 'dump' stat at all as to have an extreme dump every time.
Dabbler ... Wraithstrike...
I am not saying Point Buy is bad. I am saying Stat Buy Downs are bad.
...and we are saying they are not inherently bad at all. They are only a bad thing if the DM fails to enforce the rules properly.
If you live in fear of that one in a million character who has incredible rolled stats... Then nothing I say will convince you rolling isn't bad.I can't speak for Wraithstrike, but I for one am not saying rolling is bad. I am just saying that I prefer point buy as having less inherent problems.
This is my viewpoint also. Now like I said before you can allow someone to reroll, but that defeats the point of rolling. If you have a minimum threshold as a GM I think it is easier to use PB or a stat array. While I do realize I have to do a lot of work as a GM I still don't want to do anymore work than I have to.
Actually, the fact that when rolling one player can have a better set of stats than another is pretty much taken as read by everyone so far as I know.
And, as I keep trying to get explain, some classes need a lot of high stats, vs. others which need only 1 or 2; point-buy is therefore highly biased towards the latter. SAD vs. MAD is a built-in system bug; it requires active steps to overcome.
In other words:
If Mickey the Monk and Wes the Wizard are to be equally-contributing roommates, it is in no way "fair" for them each to have $1,500 (the same amount of money) -- but then you tell Wes to pay $1,000 for rent, and turn around and make Mickey pay $800 for furniture, $200 for utilities, and $750 for maintenance fees.
I've discovered that a higher point buy actually helps. You can only go so high with the stats, and MAD classes tend to appear more when you do so.
Like TOZ said, just give everyone all 18s? My milage does vary; sometimes it's fun for the PCs to all essentially be Princes of Amber, but it's not my preference for a long-term D&D campaign.
Most extreme example of bad roll for stats I've ever experienced:
I once played in what was described as a 'hardcore' campaign.
"Roll 6 sets of 3d6 arrange in what ever order you want. What you get is what you got."
I had 15, 13, 11, 11, 10, 8
For that method I actually did fairly well.
We start playing and I eventually realize that everyone else has multiple abilities that are 16+ and nothing low. I said something about how that was hard to believe that everyone else rolled that well on a throw of the dice. They all got very mad at me, we never said you could only roll them once. Apparently they would sit there and roll 6 sets of 3d6 dozens of times until the got a set of ability scores they like and I was just supposed to know that.
And of course since all the players (except me) had really high stats he would bump the stats of all the NPC's and monsters by at least 2, often 4 or more on every stat. So I found myself trying to play with stats worse than the beggar children.
Typical example of roll for stats:
Usually seems that everyone's stats actually come out pretty close to a point buy build. Except for 1 guy. He either has god like stats and is bored because he outshines everyone and is not threatened. Or he has crap stats and is constantly struggling to survive and feels he is a loadstone holding the group back.
I have seen it work ok. If you have:
Mature players who don't get all upset about it.
Play a fast & short campaign (so your not stuck with a gimped character for a year and a half).
Have a GM who will say "No that is too far above or below everyone else, reroll it."
Very RP heavy / combat light campaign.
I haven't usually seen enough of those factors for it to work well, so I prefer point buy.
Not sure if serious...
Serious that I really don't care for giving everyone very high stat arrays? Yes. I dislike "roll 2d6+8 six times" just as much as I dislike 25-point buys.
Equally, "it's more fair" and "it's faster" have been shown not to be valid arguments for point-buy.Actually, the fact that when rolling one player can have a better set of stats than another is pretty much taken as read by everyone so far as I know. As for faster, it depends on your group but certainly point buy can be more convenient in some circumstances.
I was going to say the same thing.
I was going to say the same thing.
Please do continue ignoring, rather than addressing, the explanations as to what I'm talking about.
I was going to say the same thing.Please do continue ignoring, rather than addressing, the explanations as to what I'm talking about.
I am sorry but your trying to lump us into equally incorrect which we agree that you are wrong in our favor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree; "encourages min-maxing" and "because Gary said so" are not valid arguments against point-buy.
Equally, "it's more fair" and "it's faster" have been shown not to be valid arguments for point-buy.
What we're left with is "our group's personal preference is X," which is a valid argument for your group and method of choice.
There's one other benefit to point buy that I like. The player gets maximum control available over how their character is built. I enjoy the theory of "roll in order", making a stat line work in odd ways can be interesting. I have no problem role-playing in the moment. But rolling (any method, except those with extremely narrow ranges) can rule out certain concepts.
18, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 makes a pretty poor monk IMO. I'd rather use 14, 14, 12, 12, 10, 10. I'd rather use a method that lets me play the character I want, instead of forcing me to use someone else's idea, or a random idea.
I agree, point buy does have an inherent bias towards SAD characters. But as a player, that is still the choice I get to make, and is not made for me.
People enjoy different styles of gaming, different styles of character sheets, different brands of dice, different classes, etc. Why should stat generation methods not follow this trend? It's personal taste. There is, of course, no harm in explaining why you like or dislike something, but what's the point in all the "you're wrong/stupid/insane for liking X instead of Y?" Even if you blast Captain Stubborn into the nether with your profound argument and literary genius, it's not likely to change which method he/she prefers.
For myself, I've always preferred rolling stats to other generation methods, for the same reasons I enjoy having to roll dice when I make attacks or skill checks. There's a certain level of excitement (for me) that comes with the luck of the roll, and I see no reason to separate character creation from that vein. That being said, I'm not opposed to point-buy and I understand completely why it might be attractive to some.
The USUAL rolling method is 4d6 (drop lowest), the brutal method is 3d6 in line with the stats by order, however, there's also another method I read about. Roll 2d6+6, this insures that your lowest score will AT LEAST be 8, and you can still have 18. It ought to be more profitable than 15pt buy system (which is what I'm telling the group to go with if they don't want this method).
Another possibility is 4d4+2 (range of 6-18). it's worth noting that 2d6+6 will produce significantly more 18s (like 6 times as many as the 3d6 method, not quite that multiple with 4d6, drop 1). 4d4+2 produces less extremes (fewer 17-18s and fewer 6-7s) than 3d6 but the averages are significantly skewed higher.
I prefer rolling but prefer the "6 stats in order, exchange one pair" method. It means you get quirky characters, but can at least ensure that your prime stat is your highest (if you have your heart set on a particular character before rolling).
Players that want to optimize will optimize no matter what you do. Just because some players prefer mechanics to imagination is not anyone's fault but their own. In my experience rolling does not make these players any more imaginative, and as I've said before, point buy allows you to design the character you want. What some players want is optimized min/maxing, that's just the way it is. Is the way that they play the game wrongbadfun? It's not my cup of tea, but that doesn't make it bad, and it doesn't mean the point buy system is bad.
I'm NOT saying any way is wrongbadfun, but if most of the group does not optimize and one player does, that difference in play style can lead to a bad game for the other players (just like how one non-optimizing player in a group of optimized characters can be an issue).
And while players might still optimize, game design affects how much they will or can optimize. I'll make a reference to computer games now - while many things differ, in this case I think it's relevant.
In D&D-based Neverwinter Nights, a player has complete control over their stats; they use point buy, can choose all feats, basically all equipment can be bought in stores and so on. This generally leads to an attitude of optimization as the right way - if you look at forums, it's a lot of talk about perfect builds and frankly, when playing it, I find myself trying to scrunch out that extra +1 Cha bonus for my bard.
Compare this to a game like ADOM, a roguelike that's inspired by D&D but not based on it's ruleset, where stats are randomly generated, a random birth month gives effects of a power level basically between a trait and two feats, and few pieces of equipment are guaranteed. Players still do some basic optimization - pick good race/class combinations for their birth month, choose good feats for their character, and go hunt for equipment they need, but few sit around rolling up characters until they get "perfect stats", and it has created a culture where unoptimized characters are not only accepted but actively encouraged. For new players, "easy" race/class-combinations are recommended, but if you post a win post on your dark elven farmer, that does give you some respect.
I play both games, and know a fair amount of people that do, and all optimize in NWN (though they might test some class that's seen as "weak" some time) while none go to that great extents in ADOM.
I'm not saying one way is inherently _better_ than the other, just that rules design matter and affect how people think of the game and it's characters.
Why do people imply that there is no Min/Maxing in Rolled stats?
Putting that randomly rolled 18 to INT and that randomly rolled 7 to CHA in a wizard build is just as munchkiny as choosing to have a 18 and a 7.
Sure. The difference is, with point buy, ALL wizards will have 18 int 7 cha, with rolled stats, some will have that, some will have 16 int 12 cha (because they rolled no higher/lower) and so on.
I don't think anyone is implying that there is NO min-max in rolled stats, just that there isn't AS MUCH because you don't have as many variables you can min-max (just where to put the 6 stats, not how high they will be).
But my issue with point buy isn't so much "min-maxing" as "cookie-cutting".
In my own games, I have never seen the 'cookie-cutter' effect with point buys.
|
My issue with point buy isn't so much "min-maxing" as "cookie-cutting".
I don't see point buy as that much of a problem. While I think the "26 points, no dropping anything below 10" system would prevent the worst dump-stat excesses, there's enough variety in the options for archetypes, traits, feats, etc. to build a whole lot of different characters even if you only have an initial choice of one or two sets of attribute values. Of course if everybody then builds their cleric (or rogue, or barbarian ...) with exactly the same selections you will end up with cookie-cutter characters, but to avoid that you'll have to change a lot more than just the first part of the build process.
My issue with point buy isn't so much "min-maxing" as "cookie-cutting".I don't see point buy as that much of a problem.
Me neither. As said, I use a point buy variant myself currently. I do think that all methods have strengths and flaws, have yet to see a perfect method. Knowing these flaws can prevent them from becoming actual issues.
While I think the "26 points, no dropping anything below 10" system
26 points is very high powered though, even with "no dropping". We use 18 pt buy with no extra points for dropping below 10 (it's still allowed for RP purposes but gives nothing extra mechanically). That gives roughly the same as 15 pt buy with a dump stat.
Again, nothing wrong with playing high-powered games if you want to, but it's above the basic assumptions and you'll probably have to put at least +1 cr to all enemies.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I think the "26 points, no dropping anything below 10" system26 points is very high powered though, even with "no dropping". We use 18 pt buy with no extra points for dropping below 10 (it's still allowed for RP purposes but gives nothing extra mechanically). That gives roughly the same as 15 pt buy with a dump stat.
Sorry about that - I trimmed away a bit too much in the editing.
I meant "26 point, no drop" was preferable to a 25-point build.
I'd agree that 25 points is a a bit high. My current (Jade Regent) GM used that, and I did in fact end up with one 9 "dump stat". But my favourite PFS character (20 point buy, of course) has nothing below 10, and my most recent one has but a single 9.
I'd think an 18-point buy with nothing below 10 would end up being considerably better in play than a 15-point buy with a dump stat; you will eventually end up having to make a roll against that attribute.
In my own games, I have never seen the 'cookie-cutter' effect with point buys.
I agree. This is nothing but a myth. I have played/made the same classes several times, and the builds vary. Even if you sit at a table with cookie cutter players the issue is the players, just like if players min-max it is the players.
i have a bard i set up to apply for a kingmaker game who has a 7 strength and 7 consitution. she dumped 2 stats, but one of them is the one stat no one should dump. she has a bunch of chronic illnesses and seeks a cure. might become a lich one day.
Actually, the fact that when rolling one player can have a better set of stats than another is pretty much taken as read by everyone so far as I know.And, as I keep trying to get explain, some classes need a lot of high stats, vs. others which need only 1 or 2; point-buy is therefore highly biased towards the latter. SAD vs. MAD is a built-in system bug; it requires active steps to overcome.
Actually most MAD classes don't need super-stats to work. For example, if you compare a paladin to a fighter: The fighter may point-buy 18 strength, and the paladin only 16, but if the paladin has 16 charisma as well he's going to surge ahead of the fighter quite considerably when he smites his foes. Most MAD classes reward the lower expected stats in some way - the only exception is the monk, which the devs have admitted has problems they want to fix, but that's a problem with the class, not the point-buy system.
I'm NOT saying any way is wrongbadfun, but if most of the group does not optimize and one player does, that difference in play style can lead to a bad game for the other players (just like how one non-optimizing player in a group of optimized characters can be an issue).
Players that want to optimize will optimize no matter what you do. Just because some players prefer mechanics to imagination is not anyone's fault but their own. In my experience rolling does not make these players any more imaginative, and as I've said before, point buy allows you to design the character you want. What some players want is optimized min/maxing, that's just the way it is. Is the way that they play the game wrongbadfun? It's not my cup of tea, but that doesn't make it bad, and it doesn't mean the point buy system is bad.
This is not a problem with point-buy though, it's a problem with playing styles. Sure, point buy allows him to create an optimized character, but would it be any the worse than if he rolled three 18's for his character instead? Rolling will only undermine the optimizer if he is unlucky, if he is lucky it will just make it worse, and the greater side of optimizing - feat and spell selection when levelling up - will be unaffected.
In fact you could argue that at least with point-buy the optimizer will stand out like a sore thumb at the start of the game, and your group can have chat with him and deal with the problem there and then in the only way that it can truly be dealt with - between DM and players.
In my own games, I have never seen the 'cookie-cutter' effect with point buys.I agree. This is nothing but a myth. I have played/made the same classes several times, and the builds vary. Even if you sit at a table with cookie cutter players the issue is the players, just like if players min-max it is the players.
I agree. Cookie cutter characters are a symptom of poor imagination, and nothing else. The player that makes them is not going to play any differently if dice-rolling gives them a little variance in their attribute array.
[edit again] - ignore all this, see below!
Point taken there, but the odds of rolling a 7 on 4d6 drop the lowest are remarkably low (average roll on 4d6 drop lowest is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10.5, as opposed to the average of 8.66 on straight 3d6).Nitpick (but in support of your point): Average of 3d6 is 10.5. Average of 4d6 drop lowest is about 13. This is why 10 costs 0 points in point buy.
Average roll of 1d6 = 3.5, so multiply that by 3 for 3d6 and you get 10.5.
Not sure if anyone else has corrected this, but to nitpick your nitpick: Average of 4d6 drop lowest is the same as the average of 3d6.
It's counter-intuitive and I didn't believe it at first, but it's true.
I wanted to know what the actual average is for 4d6 drop lowest. I wrote a program to simulate rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest 100,000 times and I was surprised when it came out to 10.5 so I checked the code. Then I thought about it and realised that dropping the lowest dice has no effect on the average roll of the other 3 dice.
[edit] I just found a fatal flaw in my code, but even allowing for that, I can't see a flaw in my logic so the answer should remain the same
Yeah, I just re-wrote my code and found the answer to be 12.25. My head is now exploding though! Your 2 dice answer makes a lot of sense.
The next puzzle is for me to figure out how my original flawed code came up with the answer 10.5!
I think the use of the word (let alone the shaming of) "optimising" at all when referring to rolling stats is flawed. (I'm not saying that optimisation begins and ends at ability scores, just speaking purely in the context of this thread.)
Has anyone experimented with using different stat arrays that deviate from the core? I'm considering allowing a 16, 13, 12, 12, 10, 8 array where the 16 can only be placed in a stat that doesn't recieve a racial bonus (Perhaps needlessly restrictive, but it's a nice patch to one of the weaknesses of the elite array, which is heavily penalizing these already unappealing race/class combos, without letting the "SAD" classes have too much of an advantage.
As for a 20-point buy array, I'm a little more stuck. Would you say 20 point buy expects 16s/18s all party round?
Yeah, I just re-wrote my code and found the answer to be 12.25. My head is now exploding though! Your 2 dice answer makes a lot of sense.
The next puzzle is for me to figure out how my original flawed code came up with the answer 10.5!
If your code was always dropping the same die, then you were effectively rolling 3d6 drop none. That would yield you the 10.5 average.
Alternatively, if you were simulating random rolls and not enumerating the actual results of 4d6 drop low, you could get quite a variety of answers depending on how the luck turns out. With 100,000 rolls, you're highly likely to get an experimental average that is very close to the theoretical one, but sometimes random gets a little weird. Your observed average could vary from the theoretical. I wouldn't expect a nearly 2 point difference though.
Well, Twigs, I can see that array really punishing the players that like to play MAD classes or think outside the box for their ideas (like having elf paladins - missing a bonus on either of the key scores, Strength and Charisma).
I wouldn't say 20 point buy expects 18's, it merely permits them. The thing with point buy is that it makes your character what you want of it.
|
I didn't bother writing code. First if all, I know the average is different after over 20 years of rolling dice :). Second, there are online tools like Anydice to handle such mundane tasks.
I did misread the results, however. 4d6 drop the lowest averages to 12.24.
In my experience 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.Then your experience does not reflect reality. People were dumping stats long before point buy came about. Putting a rolled 7 into CHA is no less "munchkiny" that putting a point-bought 7 there.
There is a big difference between butting a 7 that was roll in a stat verses making the choice to lower your 10 in point buy to 7 in the same stat.
Not to mention that when you roll a 7 your stuck with it, but the person who lowers there stat to 7 made that choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is an idea for a hybrid system: part point buy, part die roll.
1. Design a character with 20 or 25 point buy, no stats allowed below 10. Choose a race and class.
2. For each attribute at 10, roll 4d6 keep 3. No swapping is allowed - you get what you get.
All characters won't be equal, but they will differ in the power of their secondary stats rather than their primary stats. Race and class is chosen during step 1 so you can't take advantage of a good random roll (though it might make multi-classing more attractive).
Example: 20 point fighter with (pre-racial) 16 Str, 14 Con, 14 Dex. Int, Wis and Cha determined by 4d6 keep 3. Whatever you get for the rolled stats, you will have a capable fighter with the point-buy physical stats.
It certainly sounds interesting Thac20. More balanced than the card method (which can produce an 18,16,14,12,10,8 next to a 13,13,13,13,13,13)
I would recommend 15pt buy or 20 for more high powered play. 25 would just be crazy powerful.
Another thing to try might be to use 4d6 drop low In Order and allow the player to swap in a 16 (before modifiers) onto the primary stat of their class. I will call it the Rolemaster method. This guarantees a good primary stat if the character is wanting a certain class.
One thing a friend of mine once did was to get everyone to roll their stats, then map them onto a point buy and allow everyone to adjust their stats to match the point limit.
Ultimately it's what people prefer, though, and which is 'better' is really just a matter of personal opinion.
In my own games, I have never seen the 'cookie-cutter' effect with point buys.I agree. This is nothing but a myth. I have played/made the same classes several times, and the builds vary. Even if you sit at a table with cookie cutter players the issue is the players, just like if players min-max it is the players.
I'd say it depends on the players; most of ther people I play with see immediately which side their bread is buttered on, so to speak, and given a point buy won't waste points on stats that aren't doing them any good. If your players engage in any level of practical optimization at all, point buy gets very cookie-cutter very quickly -- most especially for the SAD classes/builds. But this is starting to veer into "ROLE-playing, not roll playing!" territory, and we're probably better off leaving that argument in the hundreds of dead threads already littered with it.
Ultimately it's what people prefer, though, and which is 'better' is really just a matter of personal opinion.
I agree, but try telling that to Captain Sir Lord Duke Prince Marshal Hexen Man (assuming I parsed his gibberish response correctly, which seemed to read "No, they're not equal, PB is better because you're wrong about everything").