The fact they may have chosen to do so because they wanted a +2 for point buy. I'm against grouping everyone who does that into that particular category myself, and I don't see it as being that much of an extreme. It becomes a problem when actions are taken against that person, such as the local PFS group deciding anyone who does so needs to be treated with animosity or purposefully targeting the player's character over it.
Like I always say, "Not your character, not your business."
So i've been working on tweaking point buy a little bit, to lessen the cost of low scores and increase the cost of high scores here is the link if interested
As far as the 'roleplaying the stats' goes, remember that a 7 is only a -2 modifier, a mere 10% greater chance of failure compared to 'average'. That 7 INT doesn't make you an idiot, you're just a little slow on the uptake. Wisdom 7 could mean you're a little impulsive and have self-control issues, not that you're a gibbering fool. Charisma 7 could be rather shy, or a bit of a jerk, not a total foulmouthed jackass.
Statistics, those damn statistics.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
A 7 Int is only 10% better than a frothing barely sentient animal of a human (minimum int of 3). It's only half the brains of an average person (-2 is half of -4, the minimum int for a person).
Statistics, those damn statistics.
That 7 int is a mere 10% better than the stupidest person allowed under the rules.
Statistics, those damn statistics.
That's the thing about Statsitics, they're not really proof of anything. They can be sliced and diced any way you want. You state it's merely 10% worse than average, but by the same token, it's merely 10% better than being a complete and utter moron. What's 10% better than being a moron? Not good. :)
On the upside, since there are no rules for roleplaying, it really doesn't matter.
And here I am sad to see that with all the point buy going on, we almost never see 3, 4, 5, and 6 as ability scores any more. Poor, poor neglected stat numbers. But really here is the odd dichotomy I tend to see:
Point buy: "You bought a score down to 7? Filthy minmaxer!"
Rolled scores: "You rolled a 7? That will be a challenge to play/good roleplaying opportunity!"Why is choosing a 7 any different from having one forced upon you?
Personally I'm very near to trying a game where I just have the players pick their stats - no point buy, no rolling, just make up the character you want to play.
It makes more sense if you look at it from the top side. People don't care about your 7s, not really. BUT if those sevens come with 20s attached, then of course you are a min/maxer. And in the case of point buy they come with 20s attached. For rolling each score stands alone, that 7 on a rolled character only hurts you it doesn't shower you with extra points for your best abilities like point buy does.
A wise poster on these very forums came up with a way to see if the point buy person was buying a 7 for "roleplaying" or for "min/maxing". Don't give them ANY points for buying a stat lower than 10, then see if those same people have all those 7s on their sheets or if those scores are suddenly now 10s.
PS: Last time I let them choose their stats they started with 20,20,18,18,18,16... Be ready in case your players are like this, you will need to seriously amp up monsters.
This is exactly why I let my players just pick their stats.
I'd try this, but I have this twinge that tells me someone would go 18s down the board.
I could understand if two people at the table were trying to play the same character and one had higher stats than the other, but no one EVER plays the same character in a party so what's the big deal? Seriously!?
I wouldn't say no one EVER. It does happen, especially if you make characters 'in the dark' (you make your guy in private, without telling other people what you're making). And there are players out there who do that one-up thing.
I will say that while I wouldn't go "18s down the board" unless I was told to do so, I probably wouldn't have a stat under 12 if asked to pick my own stats.
And I'd have at least a 16 in all of my "needed" stats, which'll be a lot because I like MADness.
|
I will say that while I wouldn't go "18s down the board" unless I was told to do so, I probably wouldn't have a stat under 12 if asked to pick my own stats.
A game where everyone has to take 14 in three stats, and 15 in the other three (basically the 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11 basic stats, modified by the Advanced template) could be interesting. Nobody would have an 18 in anything any time soon, but nobody would have any low stats either.
A harder version of that would have three 12s and three 13s, so that you wouldn't even have a 14 in your primary before your first stat boost at 4th level.
It makes more sense if you look at it from the top side. People don't care about your 7s, not really. BUT if those sevens come with 20s attached, then of course you are a min/maxer. And in the case of point buy they come with 20s attached. For rolling each score stands alone, that 7 on a rolled character only hurts you it doesn't shower you with extra points for your best abilities like point buy does.A wise poster on these very forums came up with a way to see if the point buy person was buying a 7 for "roleplaying" or for "min/maxing". Don't give them ANY points for buying a stat lower than 10, then see if those same people have all those 7s on their sheets or if those scores are suddenly now 10s.
PS: Last time I let them choose their stats they started with 20,20,18,18,18,16... Be ready in case your players are like this, you will need to seriously amp up monsters.
Yes, and oddly they NEVER pick CON as their dump stat "for roleplaying purposes", and very rarely DEX.
Not to long ago, I asked for all 14s and got it, even those the default was a 20 pt buy (or rolling).
I saw a guy dump con once. He didn't last long. There's a reason you don't dump con. That said, I've seen people do it in low op games for roleplaying purposes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dumped Con and Str on a cloistered cleric once, but that was due to the DM refusing to kill any characters ever. They always ended up "unconcious" instead of dead.
I'd try this, but I have this twinge that tells me someone would go 18s down the board.
This is exactly why I let my players just pick their stats.
Just remind them that whatever they pick for stats will reflect in what you pick for the NPC stats. ;)
The existence of this thread (and similar ones) bugs me, 'cause I seriously don't get it (int 7?). Not trying to hijack the thread, but could someone please explain why min/maxing of stats should be limited and specifically why this limitation should be applied to all players in a group, regardless of each player's char-op/tactical interest/skill and even PC class?
I believe it would take a DM with a rather severe case of LSM to suggest this, besides a group of players with wildly different levels of char-oping/munchkinery in addition to their poor insight into game balance and/or lack of respect for fellow players and the DM. And as I think (hope?) very few of the posters here fit this description, what am I missing?
I wouldn't be winning at craps as much...
or losing less.
It makes more sense if you look at it from the top side. People don't care about your 7s, not really. BUT if those sevens come with 20s attached, then of course you are a min/maxer. And in the case of point buy they come with 20s attached. For rolling each score stands alone, that 7 on a rolled character only hurts you it doesn't shower you with extra points for your best abilities like point buy does.A wise poster on these very forums came up with a way to see if the point buy person was buying a 7 for "roleplaying" or for "min/maxing". Don't give them ANY points for buying a stat lower than 10, then see if those same people have all those 7s on their sheets or if those scores are suddenly now 10s.
PS: Last time I let them choose their stats they started with 20,20,18,18,18,16... Be ready in case your players are like this, you will need to seriously amp up monsters.
Yes, and oddly they NEVER pick CON as their dump stat "for roleplaying purposes", and very rarely DEX.
Not to long ago, I asked for all 14s and got it, even those the default was a 20 pt buy (or rolling).
Why is that bad?
The existence of this thread (and similar ones) bugs me, 'cause I seriously don't get it (int 7?). Not trying to hijack the thread, but could someone please explain why min/maxing of stats should be limited and specifically why this limitation should be applied to all players in a group, regardless of each player's char-op/tactical interest/skill and even PC class?
I believe it would take a DM with a rather severe case of LSM to suggest this, besides a group of players with wildly different levels of char-oping/munchkinery in addition to their poor insight into game balance and/or lack of respect for fellow players and the DM. And as I think (hope?) very few of the posters here fit this description, what am I missing?
People will argue about "inter-party balance," "unfair advantages/stealing limelight," and "not Role-playing it right." All issues that are easily solved by a competent DM that clearly defines her expectations at the beginning of the campaign. One of which is typically unspoken, but should absolutely be assumed: Don't be a douche-bag.
Agreed, hence my question why there's even a discussion here among (supposedly) mostly non-douche-bag experienced players.
I guess it wouldn't always be a bad thing to apply class/player dependent stat limitations, for example if you have a group of inexperienced players who wants nothing else than to play a fighter, a cleric, a gunslinger and a summoner. But I think there are several clearly superior ways to deal with unintentional inter-party balance issues, so why put such a damper on RP and mechanical (min/maxing) creativity?
Why is that bad?
It makes more sense if you look at it from the top side. People don't care about your 7s, not really. BUT if those sevens come with 20s attached, then of course you are a min/maxer. And in the case of point buy they come with 20s attached. For rolling each score stands alone, that 7 on a rolled character only hurts you it doesn't shower you with extra points for your best abilities like point buy does.A wise poster on these very forums came up with a way to see if the point buy person was buying a 7 for "roleplaying" or for "min/maxing". Don't give them ANY points for buying a stat lower than 10, then see if those same people have all those 7s on their sheets or if those scores are suddenly now 10s.
PS: Last time I let them choose their stats they started with 20,20,18,18,18,16... Be ready in case your players are like this, you will need to seriously amp up monsters.
Yes, and oddly they NEVER pick CON as their dump stat "for roleplaying purposes", and very rarely DEX.
Not to long ago, I asked for all 14s and got it, even those the default was a 20 pt buy (or rolling).
It isn;t bad. Aranna was saying many players would want super stats. I didn't. Mind you, point wise, straight 14's is pretty good, however.
I have no problem with 7s. The stat bonuses go -2 to +5 so I say let the players do what they want if you go with point build. If you don't like people dumping a stat then roll your stats.
When I first started playing, it was possible to roll up stats where some PCs could have a "3" or "5". How does that make the game anymore or any less fun?
I'm guessing the omission of 7 would mean more 8s and less upper end optimization.
Personally, I like it when players pick "7"s for their PC stats, because when I'm running a home game I'm going to take that into consideration, and it adds a little more character to the PC as well.
|
Not to be too blunt, but if there were no 7's there would be 8's. If there were no 8's there would be 9's. If no 9's there would be 10's.
You can't really stop power gamers from powergaming through mechanical things. You have to ask them not to do it.
What if the DM is the power gamer? What then? Are the PC's the only ones that generate characters?
Not to be too blunt, but if there were no 7's there would be 8's. If there were no 8's there would be 9's. If no 9's there would be 10's.
You can't really stop power gamers from powergaming through mechanical things. You have to ask them not to do it.
It can also be said that stats min maxing doesn't make you a power gamer. I think people need to not forget how bad the worst can be so that they can appreciate what we actually have.
Of course, even in the old days there were people who generated stats some other way. Like Gary Gygax, for one.Ahhhhh, those were the days. Roll 6 stats (ability scores) in order and don't apply any modifiers. THEN you can try to choose a class, but every class has minimums, so if you really wanted to play a magic-user but your INT was too low, better forget it because the RAW says you can't.
So, after seeing how lucky or unlucky you get to be, and which class you're STUCK with based on that luck [etc.]
Surprising read, thanks for the link.
Non Sequiter incoming...in games I play/ run int almost never goes below 8 , usually it's at least 10. Cha seems to be the more common victim with 8 being quite common and 7 only slightly less common.
|
|
Good note on the rolled stats.
Same people who froth madly, over a 7 in point buy, will light up and talk about how awesome a roleplaying challenge a rolled 7 is.
The whole thing is a pretentious act of superiority, that has no factual basis.
I still find the idea of the "most interesting man in the world" as a stat array of 10's and 13's to be silly.
I just don't buy it.
To clarify, I was referring to "dump" stats, as the kids call them nowadays. To add, 20s are exceedingly rare, generally only a wizard or HIGHLY focused martial will have one. Generally it's only the former though.
Honestly, this much restriction can create a number of bland NPC style characters.
Nobody below 10, and no one above 16.
A group of cardboard cutouts, each painted up, to look unique.
By the way, I am thinking I will build this "Vanilla Man".
Like a super hero, who has the power, to be average, at everything.
I want your average ass to make babies so that I can give birth to the above average vanilla man. Next generation for our future!
That aside, no 7's? Wouldn't have a -2? Or a -3 maybe depending on what you are?
|
|
Honestly, this much restriction can create a number of bland NPC style characters.
Nobody below 10, and no one above 16.
A group of cardboard cutouts, each painted up, to look unique.
By the way, I am thinking I will build this "Vanilla Man".
Like a super hero, who has the power, to be average, at everything.
I want your average ass to make babies so that I can give birth to the above average vanilla man. Next generation for our future!
That aside, no 7's? Wouldn't have a -2? Or a -3 maybe depending on what you are?
Is this some kind of personal slam?
Are just throwing out a "well, you are a doody head" remark?
None of those?
if you two are going to start making out then I can cover my eyes, no worries
just pretend I am not here
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
in 1972 we all rolled 3d6, but later when AD&D made the stats more meaningful, players would keep rolling until they got more viable numbers, so then we switched to various systems--roll seven or eight times with 3d6 and keep the six best totals or roll d4d and throw out the lowest die.
After all, the object of the game is to have fun, and weak PCs aren't much fun for most players. Even fine role-players want characters with at least one or two redeming stats...
The point is players aren't in the wrong for wanting better stats, and I don't think it overpowers them to have an 18 at the start of the game. After all this is a game, it's their character, and if we ignore possibilities for them we limit how much fun we really can have, and the point of the tabletop game vs a video game is to get rid of those limits.
Sure, if everyone at the table agrees to play a low powered game, then by all means ban 7's and 16's, but don't do it because you're trying to punish someone for having a different opinion on what fun is.
I know a lot of folks claim they put a 7 in CHA or INt or STR for “roleplaying reasons’ but I notice they never dump CON down to 7, ala Doc Holiday or Elric.
Too true. It's funny how the dump stats are never anything "important" for the specific character class or overall survival.
This is one change I am pushing. You get no points for reducing stats below 10. You can if you want to.
I already do this in my campaigns. Almost like magic in the game I started after this rule was implemented, all the "its for roleplaying" folks suddenly stopped dumping stats and more balanced arrays (in my opinion) were produced.
This is one change I am pushing. You get no points for reducing stats below 10. You can if you want to.I already do this in my campaigns. Almost like magic in the game I started after this rule was implemented, all the "its for roleplaying" folks suddenly stopped dumping stats and more balaned arrays were produced.
To be fair, it went from a tiny perk to a punishment. Are your players not masochist? Personally, I might consider it, but I'd probably weight it as a punishment and just not.
Define balanced. Do you mean less 18's? Becuase those weren't overpowered and people take a hit to use those anyway in point buy. Or do you mean closer lowest numbers and highest numbers because there's less range in between?
This is one change I am pushing. You get no points for reducing stats below 10. You can if you want to.I already do this in my campaigns. Almost like magic in the game I started after this rule was implemented, all the "its for roleplaying" folks suddenly stopped dumping stats and more balaned arrays were produced.To be fair, it went from a huge perk to an inconvenience. Are your players not masochist? Personally, I might consider it, but I'd probably weight it as a punishment and just not.
Define balanced. Do you mean less 18's? Becuase those weren't overpowered and people take a hit to use those anyway in point buy. Or do you mean closer lowest numbers and highest numbers because there's less range in between?
There fixed that for you.
Because lets face it buying down stats was never about the roleplaying. And yes removing a huge perk that you are expecting can be a bit of an inconvenience.I am going to guess he meant since there are fewer valleys (7s) and fewer peaks (18s) it produces a more balanced array.
The forums would find something new to whine about within a few hours.
Because lets face it buying down stats was never about the roleplaying. And yes removing a huge perk that you are expecting can be a bit of an inconvenience.
I am going to guess he meant since there are fewer valleys (7s) and fewer peaks (18s) it produces a more balanced array.
My words are not yours. Its a punishment because I get nothing out of it, but I take all the suffering. Its a perk because I get a tiny benefit, but if its going to go towards something over 14 those 1-4 extra points aren't going to go very far. Mind you that's my opinion, things being relative.
I know plenty of people who'd still put a 17/18 into their casting stat. On the other hand, the classes that tend to enjoy more points like monk still suffer. I feel like i'm beating a dead horse though.
I am going to guess he meant since there are fewer valleys (7s) and fewer peaks (18s) it produces a more balanced array.
That's precisely what I meant.
We use a point buy of 25, Base stat of 10.
While I have a complete list of every possible array using this method on my home computer, I'm at my office and it's not available here. It can be reproduced with any number of online calculators.
I will, however, list a brief and not entirely complete summation of my house rules which affect these stats (including the removal of ability boosting items and items which provide natural armor - Anti-Xmas Tree Effect reductions):
Each race in my setting has a list of attributes or traits under a heading of "Race Advancement". Each of these charts has additional attributes and traits a race may select over the course of their career and each attribute is assigned a "Race Point Value" based on the ARG. Players gain an additional race point at each even level (for our low-powered games) or one race point at every level (for higher powered games).
Many of the traits available in the individual race chart for each race are traits that improve upon existing racial traits in some form or fashion. Other traits may fill in gaps in the races design based flavor which would not "fit" due to point costs in the original design of the race.
Additionally, the ability score entry for character advancement and level-dependent bonuses was altered:
At 4th level, a character can increase two separate ability scores by +1. This is a typeless, nonmagical bonus that cannot be changed once selected.
For example, a fighter with Dexterity of 14 and Intelligence of 11 could use this bonus to increase his Dexterity to 15 and his Intelligence to 12.
A character can also increase two ability scores at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level; it does not have to be the same ability score as the one chosen at an earlier level, and stacks with all other bonuses.
My words are not yours. Its a punishment because I get nothing out of it, but I take all the suffering. Its a perk because I get a tiny benefit, but if its going to go towards something over 14 those 1-4 extra points aren't going to go very far. Mind you that's my opinion, things being relative.Because lets face it buying down stats was never about the roleplaying. And yes removing a huge perk that you are expecting can be a bit of an inconvenience.
I am going to guess he meant since there are fewer valleys (7s) and fewer peaks (18s) it produces a more balanced array.
Perhaps if I explain it...
Since your reason for buying down the stat to a 7 was "role play" it ISN'T a punishment, You WANTED that result. AND since you don't seem to think the extra points are worth much then it is merely an inconvenience that you can't have that tiny little boost to your top stats to go along with the stat you WANTED. The only way it is a punishment is IF you didn't really want a low stat anyway but felt the improvement the points gave was too HUGE to avoid having the low stat anyway. Your own reasoning just with words that better express the rational you give.
I have a character with nothing but 7's across the board ready and rearing because my gm has been wanting a more balanced array.
Its a wizard that two hands a greatsword. I couldn't manage to wrangle myself aging penalties. The whole roleplaying idea is that he's a decrepit old man that's gone senile and thinks he was a great heroic fighter at one point.
Should be fun if the no points for dumping rule ever comes up.
Thankfully, I typically read a handful of an individual's posts before responding to them, just to get an idea of what sort of person I'm dealing with.
Plainly put, that character would be allowed at our group's table for a "one-shot" game with a comedic or very Terry Pratchett tone (which we've done several times).
As far as something like that for a campaign with a serious tone, it would be looked at as an antagonistic, ludicrous creation with the obvious intent of making a point instead of discussing things like an adult and wouldn't be permitted.