|
We use the 4d6 roll and re roll any 1's once. (if you get another 1, to bad). And we roll two sets of stats and have to take one of them no matter how good or bad they are. This is fair as everyone rolls infront of the GM and the other players.
I have had very good stats (Rio, a human monk from Second Darkness 16,16,16,14,18,11) (Hayman, a beta rules human bard from Rise of the Runelords 9,16,16,15,13,20)
And a not so great stat as compared to those above... (Cornelius, a dhampir Crusader/Ruby red knight from Carrion Crown 16,16,11(yes an 11 con),13,13,16
All these are after racial modifiers. I did not calculate what these would be in point buy, but they are way to high for 25 that is for sure.
Even with all these sets of rolls, I still don't have a 17 and only (1) 18 (yes, I put the +2 human bonus in wisdom on my monk).
I think the main reason I am so happy with all of these is that this system gives 2-3 (+3) modifier stats, insuring multiclass options are possible and giving the character great survivability. I have found a great group of people that share my perspective, so the games roll well.
Yeah, that's what I said. Maybe getting past first level would have helped, but a 1st level monk with only bonuses in Dex and Wis was pretty blah all around.Meanwhile my characters 10, 16, 10, 10, 13, 10 made him boring as hell.Really? I find that low stats make characters less interesting.
I misread you then. I thought you were encouraging low stats in the name of make characters more "interesting." Sorry.
|
|
...but...I wouldn't be able to play my halfling Dawnflower Dervish...! I couldn't get 5/20/8/7/7/20 under those rules. : (If that was directed at me...
You could get Str 6 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 10 Cha 18 if you liked. That seems sufficient to manage the concept. ;)
It was directed at you, but is was in jest. : )
People follow the path of least resistance. They follow whatever the rules are, then make the most out of that.
The stats I posted are those of my second PFS character, Niamh Snowmane. I spent a lot of time understanding what a person with those stats and abilities was like, and gave roleplaying a lot of game time in the scenario in which I played her; she was enormous fun, and effective too. She was far more than those six ability scores. I felt that the extra +2 to Dex and Cha gave her more than she lost with the other abilities being lower. And there was also something about demonstrating my frustration with point-buy.
I hate point buy. I only did it because them's the rules in PFS.
|
It was directed at you, but is was in jest. : )
I figured. Hence the winking smiley face. :)
People follow the path of least resistance. They follow whatever the rules are, then make the most out of that.
This is true to some degree, and why my rules are so specific.
The stats I posted are those of my second PFS character, Niamh Snowmane. I spent a lot of time understanding what a person with those stats and abilities was like, and gave roleplaying a lot of game time in the scenario in which I played her; she was enormous fun, and effective too. She was far more than those six ability scores. I felt that the extra +2 to Dex and Cha gave her more than she lost with the other abilities being lower. And there was also something about demonstrating my frustration with point-buy.
Yeah, I couldn't manage the low-Int, personally, but low stats can be fun...they just often aren't. Especially when it's all the mental stats (a sadly common sight some places).
I hate point buy. I only did it because them's the rules in PFS.
I really like point-buy, actually. I despise having my character be inherently weaker than my friend over there's just because he rolled better one time, and I suspect a lot of people feel the same way (and will all wind up on that side of that divide sometimes)...but I admit point-buy can result in some very unfortunate things, which would be why I use the system I do and strive to minimize such unfortunate behavior.
|
|
I tend to test any system to breaking point. I remember when we played 3.0 and started the campain at lvl 4, I was determined to make a viable PC who was 1st lvl in four classes, and succeeded with Clr/Ftr/Rgr/Pal.
Yeah, I've been known to do the same. I still remember my 3.5 character designed to do unarmed combat as a non-Monk. Goliath Fighter/Barbarian with the right feat choices proves surprisingly viable...I think he was TWF with 2d6 fists and full BAB by level 5 or 6.
I once saw a player roll 5 18s and one 17 using the three dice method. We even made him change to our dice, not his. Darndest thing I ever saw.
7 CHA means your character will rarely contribute meaningfully to RP.Wat.
Let me get this straight: if you don't contribute meaningfully to social interactions you're not RPing? Sorry, but that's bull. You can fully RP (and have fun at it) failing at social interactions as much as being the most suave person in the world. Stats have minimal impact on your RPing. If you can't make 7 Cha work then you're just not trying hard enough or simply suck at RP in general.
A little mean, I think. What I meant was the inherent stat penalty of 7 CHA and what that means for your character makes changing anyone's mind difficult. Wanna haggle a merchant? Wanna convince your questgiver to up the reward? Wanna bluff your way past some guards? You can but the penalty makes it really difficult to do so.
My 7 CHA character was a Magus and the only person with an INT over 14 in my party. As such, I was able to contribute to RP but solely as a lore monkey or in assisting others. For example, we needed to sneak into a fancy party. The rogue used her ungodly charisma and stealth to sneak in and pretend to be a dancer. Her charisma was so high that with only one skill rank in perform (dance) she was still able to catch the eyes of everyone in the room. The rest of the party was disguise by the rogue to bluff our way in. The sorcerer had to do all the talking while the fighter and I had to pretend to be his servants. I still had some fun especially since the Sorcerer was terrific at pretending to be a pompous, mean nobleman. I was his scribe and had to pretend to be subservient. My low CHA meant I couldn't bluff or even just mingle very well. I had to take a backseat.
Though my character had many skill points, it would have been a waste to max out bluff or diplomacy because even with all those skill ranks I couldn't brute force my way to being good at unless I also spent money on a bunch of stat-boosting items.
It'd be even worse for a fighter or barbarian who doesn't get many skill point and has no need for CHA.
Failing at social interactions can be fun but it's better for a one-shot. I'd rather be able to help the party succeed than be an albatross around their neck. If I roleplay my 7 CHA and no ranks in diplomacy and walk up to the king and fart in his face, it'd be funny but it'd also hurt the group. To give a fairer example, some games have important diplomatic talks as a RP event. If I offend someone with my lack of manners, accidental outbursts, or awkward flirting, it could put the whole event in jeopardy.
Imagine a character like a wizard trying to charge at the dragon with his greatsword with 7 STR and no martial feats. It'd be really funny and could be memorable but he'd be a momentary distraction at best and an obstacle for the actual martial classes at best. Having 7 STR just prevents you from going into melee with a greatsword. The same is true for 7 CHA and social interactions.
"Stats have minimal impact on your RP?" No. You can't roleplay a big, strong barbarian while have 7 STR and be taken seriously. It could be a funny joke but no one would think you're a real fighter. Stats matter.
Also notice I said "rarely." It's not impossible to contribute with 7 CHA, just really difficult.
Being unpleasant in social situations isn't contributingNegative contributions are still contributions.
Well yeah but the full sentence was "Being unpleasant in social situations isn't contributing any more than fireballing your own party to kill one half-dead wolf is contributing."
Atarlost was saying that contributing negatively hurts the whole party and isn't very fun for anyone in the group.
If you're the DM, it's your table. Your player is going to take his marbles home if you make him point-buy but that doesn't mean you need to use the same method to generate any other statblocks. You can use the elite array, or point-buy as you see fit. The goal is simply to make the game fun.
First reply nailed it.
That said, there's nothing wrong with using the stats you rolled, either. Even if your player finds out what stats you rolled, well, he wanted rolled stats and he got them!
A little mean, I think. What I meant was the inherent stat penalty of 7 CHA and what that means for your character makes changing anyone's mind difficult. Wanna haggle a merchant? Wanna convince your questgiver to up the reward? Wanna bluff your way past some guards? You can but the penalty makes it really difficult to do so.But that's not "not meaningfully contributing to RP". That's "not meaningfully contributing to my team's success". The former is what you said and what I argued against. It's also not that big of a problem, because then someone else will handle that instead of my character's. My character is, I would assume by the low Cha, not payed or trained to talk to people, at least not on important matters.
Being unpleasant in social situations isn't contributing any more than fireballing your own party to kill one half-dead wolf is contributing.Being unpleasant isn't the only way to fail at social stuff. That's also a very limited idea of low Cha.
A boor is not fine. Why would anyone want to adventure with a boor too stupid or arrogant to keep his mouth shut when the polite party members are trying to negotiate with or bamboozle someone? No thank you, any reasonable character would show you the door and find an NPC that knows how to keep quiet to do your job. Any roleplaying that requires other players to not roleplay is bad roleplaying.Cool opinion. Not something I'd agree with, because I personally play to have fun RPing and not necessarily "winning" (although having fun is winning for me).
You say "winning;" I say coming to a good end. I build a character based on the idea of coming to a satisfying conclusion. This doesn't mean a "happy" ending either (Oy! Quit your snickering, back there! This is serious.) I don't mind a tragic or comedic ending as long as that's what's intended.
"My character is, I would assume by the low Cha, not payed or trained to talk to people, at least not on important matters."
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I want to participate in roleplaying. Standing in the back and out the way of the "faces" is not good roleplaying; it's not roleplaying at all. It's not losing; it's not playing at all. I don't want to be irrelevant in roleplaying just like I don't want to irrelevant in combat either. This doesn't mean I begrudge the rogue doing the big bluff or coming up with the heist plan. I just don't want "the big, dumb, ugly fighter stands in the corner and avoids talking to anyone important" to be the default option for my character.
I'm playing a CHA 12 fighter now. The bard, oracle, and rogue all have better CHA, bluff, and diplomacy than me but I can say things and people listen to me. I'm not ugly and dumb. I do what I'm supposed (lots of damage in combat) and I can do something in social encounters. Why would I want to play a 7 CHA monstrosity that everyone hates?
"Only if the group defines fun as winning. Instead of including 'failing in a hilarious fashion' in that definition."
Like I said, fun enough for a one-shot. I played a All Flesh Must Be Eaten one-shot that was fun even though no one could fight and one player decided to be a useless load that ran away from every fight (her pre-gen character had no morale or whatever the equivalent was.) It was dumb but we all had fun.
Being a socially repugnant, ugly, mean-spirited jackoff could be funny too for a while but the charm quickly wears off. Imagine having a long campaign filled with epic struggles and great roleplaying all around. Then, as you meet with the king of a foreign country to secure a critical alliance against the evil empire, your ugly-as-sin wizard starts roleplaying his 7 CHA and acts like a "hilarious" jerk. He clumsily propositions the princess in front of her father, spits in the wine the queen was drinking, slaps the prince on the mouth, pulls the duke's pants down on the dance floor, and insults the entire nation in front of its nobility. This is obviously going to tank the RP and ruin the campaign. Is that fun?
I understand that 7 CHA could mean a plain-looking wallflower but that just ties back into the "not participating" problem I mentioned before.
"And what is stopping you from talking to important people? You won't be the teams spokes-person, sure. They won't stake all their hope on your diplomacy or negotiating skills. But you'd have to really dumb down your social skills/Cha to actually make things worse for the actual Face by trying."
What's stopping me from talking to important people? Because I have to dumb down my social skills and Charisma.
"You roleplay when you fight. You roleplay when you sneak. You roleplay when you cast utility spells. Social interaction is only one part of roleplaying."
Yes that is a part of D&D. But unless it's a dungeon crawl then roleplaying is almost half the game. And half of roleplaying is talking and interacting with NPCs. So yes by roleplaying I meant talking with PCs or NPCs. Playing your character. Do in-character actions. This can be done in combat but it's usually done by talking. You're right about sneaking or casting utility spells. These things are definite roleplaying. It's still very specific. Maybe it's my GMs (I've only ever had three) but they used talking a lot more than sneaking and utility spells are for combat or aiding in RP. I hope that clears up that misunderstanding.
Your solution of talking with less important people isn't terrible but it's usually irrelevant to the larger plot and more strain on the GM. Hell, it's a strain on the other players when the plot is put on hold for something unimportant. Though, I suppose in could work if everyone is having a small RP encounter with a bunch of different people. Still not participating in the war council or the big treaty negotiation.
Besides, you can do well in RP and in combat. That's pretty much the point of the bard. I'm not even asking to be a super fighter and also have 20 CHA. I'm just arguing against having no CHA and no interacting with any NPCs at all. Just interacting with lesser NPCs is limiting because you're cutting yourself off from the real plot. That's only playing half the game unless it's a pure dungeon crawl campaign which is fine as well.
Yeah I'm not good with the selective quoting. Sorry.
I don't see how defining roleplaying as social interaction is a strawman. I have said that combat is another valid part of the game. It's just as important. And yes you can RP in combat. I also said that. But combat isn't the only part of the game. You also can RP in a dungeon crawl true but it's not nearly as important as combat.
Just because you can RP with the important while having 7 CHA doesn't mean you necessarily should. What's stopping a 7 CHA fighter with no ranks in bluff or diplomacy from RPing with the king is what's stopping a 7 STR wizard from picking up a greatsword and charging the dragon: effectiveness. Sure, it'd be funny but it won't solve the problem.
Sarcasm aside, if a DM can't handle DMing he should just pass it to someone else. I don't take on the role of DM with the hope that my players will treat me like a baby. I know what I'm signing up for and I either make an effort or say "Sorry, it's too much, can someone else take over?"
And my fun is not "unimportant".
DMs have a difficult task. Giving them a new RP task on the fly and effectively putting the game on pause for everyone else unless there's multiple DMs. Your "fun" is not more important than everyone else's. A one-on-one RP isn't bad if you arrange it in advance but you're advocating for this to happen at every social event. And you're suggesting actually roleplaying the 7 CHA which means either shy or surly all the time. Since being shy would mean you don't talk to people, that means surly and unpleasant all the time. It's not really that "fun" when it's all the time. Even if you are nice in real life, when you character is a jackass all the time, it's grating. It gets old fast.
This is why I accept something like Kreia in KOTOR 2. Despite actually having 16 CHA, she describes herself as though she has low CHA. To paraphrase: "I speak with a voice unheeded. I cannot inflame the passions of others. I sway no one with my opinions." You don't have to be ugly or mean; you just can't convince anyone to your side. Hell, in D&D terms can't even convince someone through reverse psychology because that would be a bluff check. Note this option still cuts you off from NPCs but at least your party members will like you better.
When you get down to it roleplaying is really just playing a character. If he's socially awkward (which is but one of many interpretations of a character with a negative charisma modifier) then he's not going to be a very smooth talker. That certainly doesn't mean you don't get to roleplay him.
One of my favorite RP characters ever was a savant (borderline autistic) cleric of Boccob. Trying to get inside the mind of a man with 20 intelligence, 17 wisdom and 7 charisma... It was exhilarating. I certainly didn't hold back from interacting socially with NPCs or other PCs just because I wasn't a very smooth talker - if anything I reveled in it.
Come to think of it, he was somewhat similar to Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory.
Coincidentally I think Kreia says that as (4th wall breaking) comment on how her charisma modifier has no effect on the player, and by extension the player's character. However if you consider how the storyline develops I certainly think Kreia has an influence, as well as the ability "to sway others with her opinions".
If the goal is interesting characters I don't think you can get much better than split point buy.
15 PB for physical stats 10 PB for mental because there are two must have physical stats (con and dex) but only one must have mental stat (wis, except for paladins who substitute cha).
So, of what use is Wis to an Arcane Caster? What use is Dex to a Two-Handed Sword wielding fighter in Full Plate Armor?
Unless you are JUST talking about saving throws, but that doesn't mean much because saving throws aren't the only thing that matters. If you are a wizard, then you have two must have stats, Int for being an effective wizard and then the Wis sure for saving throws. But, if I saw a player make a wizard with an 18 Wis and a 7 Int and he said "High Will save, bro! Nobody is gonna charm me!" I'd think his character is going to be so utterly useless as a wizard, it won't matter that he can't be charmed.
One interesting point about rolling vs. point buy is that you can generally handle ONE player rolling up his character randomly. If he rolls seriously underpowered stats, you can easily nudge him to make extra rolls until the stats are high enough. If the stats are where you want them or higher, then you have set the point buy for everyone else to use.
Since you have only one player, there is no worry about his character being unbalanced relative to those of the other players. You just need to decide the relative power of the supporting NPCs and adjust from there.
The real issue would occur if you had two or more players who insist on rolling their stats and you cannot get their ability score rolls to be anywhere close to each other.
My first thought was that you are the GM so you set the rules. If the player doesn't like it you can find another player.
The different ways to create a character are endless. When I first started gaming we rolled 4d6 drop the lowest and didn't start recording until we rolled a 16. That wasn't a guarantee of getting decent numbers after the 16 and there was a lot of whining and whimpering to get the DM to declare the character died at an early age and let us reroll the stats.
Over the years I've used different techniques from rolling to buying. Personally, I prefer rolling. I feel like I have a better chance of getting a decent to a really cool character. Of course, that could be a player superstition like lining up your dice with high number on top to get better rolls (well it works for me....sometimes). I also feel like I have less control when I have to buy my stats from a set number.
Another way to limit the stats is what a recent GM did in a new adventure my group started. He declared that no stat could be above 18 after racial adjustments.
My preferred method for my players is to have them roll a set of six numbers, 4d6 drop the lowest, and make six sets. They can then choose which set they want. Just make it clear that a set is a group of six numbers and that they can't pick and choose the numbers from the different sets - I had a player who didn't understand and did that. This gives the players a feeling of being more in control of their character's fate.
But it comes down to what you prefer as the GM. The player may not like what you like, but if they want to play they'll go along with it because it is, after all, your game. I think the hardest part of GMing is to stand up to players who want to have it their way all the time and tell them NO, not this time.
This is why you don't roll for stats. It causes nothing but problems. If your player can't handle it then have him roll 3d6 down after picking race and class. He/she can either take the roll or do the point buy.
Players tend to have less problems with point-buy when you make it a choice.