If you often end up being outshined by your party members, yes that can be frustrating. Part of that has to do with game experience/min-maxing, but uneven stats can't help the issue.
Is that so hard to visualize?
What somebody else rolled does not in any way impair your ability to contribute and have fun in the game.
[Citation needed]
In games where people follow the Core Rulebook, stats do have an effect on gameplay. Sure, if you play a game where stats and the mechanics and their underlying math is ignored, then this is not the case.
But not all games are like this.
And anyway, I am sure you can find a DM that will allow you to play with lower stats than everybody else. That is fine.
I am only worried about the case where the player would prefer to have the same stats but cannot because of an inherently unfair system such as naively rolling stats.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you seriously advocating that inherent unfairness is a good thing? Or that not everybody should be allowed to contribute equally? Even if they don't, they should have the chance to.What's not ok about it? You're not competing against the other players, so there's no reason to be jealous that somebody else at the table got better rolls.
That's a very strange idea. It's "unfair" that somebody else's character has better stats than yours. What somebody else rolled does not in any way impair your ability to contribute and have fun in the game. But still it's unfair. Odd.
Uh...fairness in this context is about comparative capability. If one character is vastly more effective than another, the weaker one does indeed feel that their ability to contribute is less, since the more powerful guy could just do everything. And in that case, why is the less powerful guy even there?
Uneven stat distributions aren't the only way this situation can occur but they sure don't help.
The grown-up response to rolling requirements is talking to the DM: "Look, this is not going to work. Can't we use the point-buy method so all players have the chance to contribute and do their part?"
No the "grown-up" response to rolling a 4 is finding a way to make it work as best as possible. Throwing up your hands and saying, "This sucks why can't we do it this way?" is remarkably childish.
For whatever reason the player agreed to roll stats, the time to suggest point-buy has come and gone. Going back after rolling your stats and saying, "Yeah I don't like these can we do Point-Buy?" is not appropriate behaviour.
There's a marked difference between "throwing your hands up and saying it sucks," and maturely asking to have an more equitable character creation method.
I agree it should've been brought up before that, but consider that some people may not be experienced and not know how rolling stats could turn out uneven, or even that 'point-buy' exists. Or, they could have made characters together during the first session, not leaving a lot of time to discuss these kinds of things.
Not everything is as simply as you seem to suggest.
No but it also doesn't sound realistic. I can't think of a single class that becomes completely useless because of a single -3. It's a hurdle, no question, but it in no way cripples any character. Between feats, traits, and clever game play you can overcome it. Heck considering your result is dependent on a roll of 1-20, and and all other modifiers increase as you go up in level while the -3 remains static it becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Given that people in this thread advised to take a wizard with 4 Con... with an expected 0.5 hp gain per level.
Well...
No the "grown-up" response to rolling a 4 is finding a way to make it work as best as possible. Throwing up your hands and saying, "This sucks why can't we do it this way?" is remarkably childish.
For whatever reason the player agreed to roll stats, the time to suggest point-buy has come and gone. Going back after rolling your stats and saying, "Yeah I don't like these can we do Point-Buy?" is not appropriate behaviour.
Obviously, this should have been noticed before, and fixed before it even got to this point. But it wasn't.
Given this situation, it is still better to try to solve it so that no one is unfairly disadvantaged. It's not childish to try to solve a problem once it's identified. And it wasn't before, as this thread shows.
If I were the DM in this case, I would most certainly expect the player to give an honest attempt to play that character well. To be fair, though, I would also allow, and indeed encourage, all players to make up a second character to have waiting in the wings so that when if a character died or an opportunity arose to naturally swap out characters that for whatever reason just weren't working, they would have another character at their fingertips.
If I were the DM in this case, I would most certainly expect the player to give an honest attempt to play that character well. To be fair, though, I would also allow, and indeed encourage, all players to make up a second character to have waiting in the wings so that when if a character died or an opportunity arose to naturally swap out characters that for whatever reason just weren't working, they would have another character at their fingertips.
Sure, it's fine if you play with throwaway characters that players aren' t expected to be invested in. On the other hand, if you play such a pure dungeon slayer campaign without story, the bad stats will hurt the player even more.
But some of my players really like to work on their characters backstory, make him or her fit into the campaign world etc. Doesn't seem to be much fun in forcing the player to do this twice, just because his or her first character was deficient.
If I were the DM in this case, I would most certainly expect the player to give an honest attempt to play that character well. To be fair, though, I would also allow, and indeed encourage, all players to make up a second character to have waiting in the wings so that when if a character died or an opportunity arose to naturally swap out characters that for whatever reason just weren't working, they would have another character at their fingertips.Sure, it's fine if you play with throwaway characters that players aren' t expected to be invested in. On the other hand, if you play such a pure dungeon slayer campaign without story, the bad stats will hurt the player even more.
But some of my players really like to work on their characters backstory, make him or her fit into the campaign world etc. Doesn't seem to be much fun in forcing the player to do this twice, just because his first character was deficient.
Such characters can work out surprisingly well if given a chance, and even if they don't last as a PC, they can often do quite well as NPCs, and the player gets the satisfaction of adding to the world. Either way, making an actual effort rather than simply writing them off adds to the campaign regardless of what ultimately happens, and the player often learns a thing or two along they way they didn't know before. Those players that really like backstory get to do it twice, and those that don't have a back up character with a basic backstory and personality ready if needed.
The sure fire way to lose is to immediately treat it as a problem that can only be solved with better stats. Just because you clearly don't like rolling for stats doesn't mean that other people at the table are going to going to view it as an automatic deficiency.
|
Characters have six ability scores, and each class values some more than others.
We're not talking about having to make do with six fours, but with one 4, one 13, one 19, and three others. Anyone can make a viable character with these (assuming the other three scores are average); the one score of 4 won't cripple any character unless you want it to.
The sure fire way to lose is to immediately treat it as a problem that can only be solved with better stats. Just because you clearly don't like rolling for stats doesn't mean that other people at the table are going to going to view it as an automatic deficiency.
Again you miss the point. Rolling in itself is not the problem; but using a system to roll that leads to different point totals for the different players. Feel free to read the messages above yours for some suggestions on how you can keep rolling stats but still get to a fair result for every player.
No but it also doesn't sound realistic. I can't think of a single class that becomes completely useless because of a single -3. It's a hurdle, no question, but it in no way cripples any character. Between feats, traits, and clever game play you can overcome it. Heck considering your result is dependent on a roll of 1-20, and and all other modifiers increase as you go up in level while the -3 remains static it becomes increasingly irrelevant.Given that people in this thread advised to take a wizard with 4 Con... with an expected 0.5 hp gain per level.
Well...
A character rolling hit dice can't get a result less than one, so expected hp gain per level with just that would be 1.5 per level if rolling for hit points. It cannot be below 1.
That is still low, but the character would also still be able to use their favored class bonus and the Toughness feat to bring hit points per level up to at least 3 per level. In addition Constitution bonuses would still give you more hit points on top of that. This is still not great, but it is a way to play a character with a low Constitution.
A character rolling hit dice can't get a result less than one, so expected hp gain per level with just that would be 1.5 per level if rolling for hit points. It cannot be below 1.
But the CON malus is 3. It's d6 - 3. You have a 50% of not getting any HP.
That is still low, but the character would also still be able to use their favored class bonus and the Toughness feat to bring hit points per level up to at least 3 per level. In addition Constitution bonuses would still give you more hit points on top of that. This is still not great, but it is a way to play a character with a low Constitution.
Oh wait, so not only does this player have sucky stats, but he has to waste his other resources to make up for them. So he will be even less able to help the party, who were able to use their feats etc for cool stuff.
A character rolling hit dice can't get a result less than one, so expected hp gain per level with just that would be 1.5 per level if rolling for hit points. It cannot be below 1.But the CON malus is 3. It's d6 - 3. You have a 50% of not getting any HP.
That is still low, but the character would also still be able to use their favored class bonus and the Toughness feat to bring hit points per level up to at least 3 per level. In addition Constitution bonuses would still give you more hit points on top of that. This is still not great, but it is a way to play a character with a low Constitution.Oh wait, so not only does this player have sucky stats, but he has to waste his other resources to make up for them. So he will be even less able to help the party, who were able to use their feats etc for cool stuff.
any roll of 0 or a negative number gives you 1 hp. Bonuses like toughness and such add on after this. so normally he has 1.5 hp gain per level. as the medium of 1,1,1,1,2, and 3, is 1.5.
oh and first level he would have 7 hp with toughness and favored class.
favored class bumps it to 2.5, and toughness 3.5, which is normal for his class.
you can easily do without favored class, and wizards can easily give up a feat for toughness since they don't need many feats to still be quite powerful.
It looks like we will play Mummy's Mask. I did roll 4d6 drop lowest, man. A 2 1 1 1, right off the bat. I can only think of int or cha, but both seem risky with Mummy's curses and such. I rolled my race, half orc, and I have a 15 high score, a 17 does sound nice with the +2. but should I raise up the 4 to a 6, or keep the 4 and just where would I put the thing.
You should totally put it in CON and play an elf. That way you get to reroll sooner.
A character rolling hit dice can't get a result less than one, so expected hp gain per level with just that would be 1.5 per level if rolling for hit points. It cannot be below 1.But the CON malus is 3. It's d6 - 3. You have a 50% of not getting any HP.
That's not true, you always get one.
and for the matter, is rolling for HP or damage or spell effects or saving throws completely unfair, just like rolling for stats?
I have this Monk, with no bad stats… every time I play him, I can't roll above a 4, literally.
Is he somehow more effective than a character with a 4 stat?
If my character with a 4 dex throws a shurkien and he rolls a 16, he's going to hit a tree trunk.
If my monk, whom I never roll above a 4, has a 17 dex, he might very well MISS the tree trunk.
Tell me more about how rolling stats totally ruins playing a character?
A character rolling hit dice can't get a result less than one, so expected hp gain per level with just that would be 1.5 per level if rolling for hit points. It cannot be below 1.But the CON malus is 3. It's d6 - 3. You have a 50% of not getting any HP.
You apply your character's Constitution modifier to:
- Each roll of a Hit Die (though a penalty can never drop a result below 1—that is, a character always gains at least 1 hit point each time he advances in level).
Which is what I said.
As for the rest, there is a reasonable point in there, but from the general tone of the post I don't feel like discussing it when I there is no chance I won't get snark back for little to no reason.
There's nothing about having lower stats that makes a PC inherently less able to contribute to the adventure.
Yes, there is. Please refer to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook for more details. Or I can also explain it to you, if you would like me to.
There's nothing wrong with using point buy or other variant character creation methods if that's what you prefer. But there's also nothing wrong with using the Standard Method of rolling 4d6.
It's not okay to tell people that they're having BadWrongFun if they use a different method to create characters than you do. Especially if the method they use is straight RAW.
The problem is that it's bad and wrong but not fun. It's a legacy method and has been shown to have many problems, in this thread and in many others.
Really, if someone wants to play a character with less ability scores than every other char, they can just not use up their point budget in point buy...ooh, I wonder why there are no threads on this though.
Even that people suggested to suicide the character here shows that - people rather waste a session, everyone's time and then rebuild a new character, just because they know in advance that playing a character that's inherently and out of their control worse than every other is not fun for them.
Some players want to optimize - others don't care. But that's a choice the player can make. A few seconds of bad luck and being stuck with bad stats is not a choice they can make, it's just a DM punishing their players. Doesn't even need to be malice on the DMs part - maybe it's simply a lack of understanding, or unwillingness to question bad rules they are used to. Still, the effect is the same.
You apply your character's Constitution modifier to:
- Each roll of a Hit Die (though a penalty can never drop a result below 1—that is, a character always gains at least 1 hit point each time he advances in level).
Which is what I said.
As for the rest, there is a reasonable point in there, but from the general tone of the post I don't feel like discussing it when I there is no chance I won't get snark back for little to no reason.
Thanks for the clarification - I wasn't aware of that rule (never came up, as I play with point buy).
Thanks for the clarification - I wasn't aware of that rule (never came up, as I play with point buy).You apply your character's Constitution modifier to:
- Each roll of a Hit Die (though a penalty can never drop a result below 1—that is, a character always gains at least 1 hit point each time he advances in level).
Which is what I said.
As for the rest, there is a reasonable point in there, but from the general tone of the post I don't feel like discussing it when I there is no chance I won't get snark back for little to no reason.
and what never dumped CON? cmon, you need to put hard mode on more.
and what never dumped CON? cmon, you need to put hard mode on more.
Haha, not to a point where the hp delta was negative, no.. Also, because of the same reason as for rolling stats, I also allow players to use the average hp when leveling.
There's nothing about having lower stats that makes a PC inherently less able to contribute to the adventure.Yes, there is. Please refer to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook for more details. Or I can also explain it to you, if you would like me to.
Please do. You can use my example of a wizard with 14 as his highest stat vs. a fighter lucky enough to have rolled a 16. Show me how stats trump race, class, feats, skills, spells, and player choices during the game to force the wizard to contribute less.
You are shifting the goal posts. Don't do that, please.
The discussion is about players having a different amount of points, or different stat arrays - not about different classes.
A player can choose their class, they cannot choose their stats when rolling.
Therefore, instead of your strawman, a fair comparison might be:
Wizard with Int 14 vs. Wizard with Int 16.
Fighter with Str 14 vs. Fighter with Str 16.
Assuming such a non-misleading comparison, do you still need my explanation or is Table 1-3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells enough?
And yes, even if using point-buy, one player might choose to max the main stat, while others might have a more balanced array. And that's perfectly fine, because it's their choice. They are not disadvantaged compared to other players, who might make the same choice, or a different one. But they CAN make the same one if they want to. And that's a very good thing for the game - and in general.
The sure fire way to lose is to immediately treat it as a problem that can only be solved with better stats. Just because you clearly don't like rolling for stats doesn't mean that other people at the table are going to going to view it as an automatic deficiency.Again you miss the point. Rolling in itself is not the problem; but using a system to roll that leads to different point totals for the different players. Feel free to read the messages above yours for some suggestions on how you can keep rolling stats but still get to a fair result for every player.
I've toyed around with other rolling methods, but there's still nothing wrong with the traditional one. The problem with people having different point totals is overblown as far as I'm concerned. DM's figured out how to handle it before point buy, and the methods for doing so still exist. I can certainly understand some groups or individuals may not like having to deal with it, but personally, I've seen more problems with minmaxers and difficulties with low stats from point buy than any system of rolling that could be devised. In the end, it is as big of a problem as you choose to make it; learn to deal with it from the start, and it's not that big of an issue. Insist on the vague concepts of fairness and balance, and every single imbalance, no matter how tiny, gets amplified. That, I think, was one of 4E's biggest difficulties; because of the sheer focus on getting every detail right, even the smallest of details could lead to major headaches. If you back off and find a middle ground where there are several streams of input informing the game and it's outcome, with the stats and the math of the game being just one, and differences in stats don't matter as much in actual play.
|
|
You are shifting the goal posts. Don't do that, please.
The discussion is about players having a different amount of points, or different stat arrays - not about different classes.
No it isn't! It's about a rolled stat array which includes a 4, a 13 and a 19.
No-one is denying that a -3 modifier is worse than a modifier of -1 or +2. What is being said is that a character who can assign that nasty 4 to any ability he likes is able to make a character who is easily able to contribute just as effectively as any other.
If you're stupid enough to use that 4 on the main ability of your class, then don't blame the luck of the dice or the stat generation method; you chose to put that 4 in intelligence and you chose to play a wizard.
If you don't expect your PC to be the party face (for example), then it doesn't matter if your charisma is 10, 8 or 4; you aren't going to be the one using Diplomacy anyway.
If you don't expect to be the go-to guy for knowledge skills, it doesn't matter if you put that 4 in intelligence.
Any gamer worth their salt can make an effective PC who contributes fully to the party in their chosen role, while putting that 4 in an ability where a low stat isn't a disadvantage. Even a newbie will get good advice from the guy teaching him.
Really, if you are unable to make any effective PC with a single 4 in their array, then may I suggest snap as an alternative? It's much less challenging.
IOW, your point is only valid when the two players with different stats both try to create the same character. But in actual non-theory gaming, that doesn't happen too terribly often.
It doesn't matter. Class choice is a choice, a player decision. Bad stats are not.
A campaign might last a year or more. The player will have negative consequences of his first two minutes during the whole campaign. Those first few rolls have an disproportional influence.
That's why it is a bad system.
I know that there's a certain old-school perspective that feel it's a DMs job to make sure that players are punished. If you adhere to that, please just state it clearly. Because as you noticed, my point only makes sense if the goal is for players to have fun, to allow players to start off equally and to build a campaign where the consequences they have to endure follow from their actions and decisions, and not from some early rolls with way too much weight.
So lets try again with dice I just rolled: Player 1 rolls 13-8-10-15-15-16. Player 2 rolls 12-7-13-11-15-16. Player 1 has a higher average (12.8 vs. 12.3) and a higher minimum score. Both have the same maximum. Both players are free to create any character they want using only the CRB. If you claim that, regardless of what they choose, player 1 will be able to contribute more to a party, then show how that's necessarily the case. Otherwise, my point is supported: lower rolled stats do not prevent a PC from contributing just as much to the party.
What a nice example. Unfortunately it does not support your argument at all. Even if it should be properly randomly generated, it is simply a single data point; if you want to make an argument, you should (for example) investigate the expected difference in total points when 5 players roll 4d6 drop lowest as well as the expected highest and lowest boundaries for such their arrays. Also of interest might be the probability that given 5 players, one has a highest stat that is lower than the lowest stat of another player. And so on...
So while I appreciate your display of excellency when it comes to knowledge and application of statistical methods, I am not sure it is a sound basis to continue this discussion.
IOW, your point is only valid when the two players with different stats both try to create the same character. But in actual non-theory gaming, that doesn't happen too terribly often.It doesn't matter. Class choice is a choice, a player decision. Bad stats are not.
A campaign might last a year or more. The player will have negative consequences of his first two minutes during the whole campaign. Those first few rolls have an disproportional influence.
That's why it is a bad system.
I know that there's a certain old-school perspective that feel it's a DMs job to make sure that players are punished. If you adhere to that, please just state it clearly. Because as you noticed, my point only makes sense if the goal is for players to have fun, to allow players to start off equally and to build a campaign where the consequences they have to endure follow from their actions and decisions, and not from some early rolls with way too much weight.
>_>, right because a person is being punished because 12 is +1 and 14 is +2, so he must not be having fun because it's lower by 1 on the mod scale. In that case, I guess the array you use is all 18s?
I mean if you let anyone have an score be lower than any other player, they must be having less fun.
for the serious bit (just ignore the bit above if you want an actual discussion), the choice as mentioned is how to deal with your cards, many of which can easily be overcome or otherwise ignored, if you hate randomness, then you might as well get rid of the whole rolling for things mechanic.
The enemy attacks a player, rolls to hit, hit's and does enough damage to knock him unconscious. He stays dead down long enough that he died. woo, a punishment that is not directly tied to any player choice, but still part of the game, and was caused by randomness.
So lets try again with dice I just rolled: Player 1 rolls 13-8-10-15-15-16. Player 2 rolls 12-7-13-11-15-16. Player 1 has a higher average (12.8 vs. 12.3) and a higher minimum score. Both have the same maximum. Both players are free to create any character they want using only the CRB. If you claim that, regardless of what they choose, player 1 will be able to contribute more to a party, then show how that's necessarily the case. Otherwise, my point is supported: lower rolled stats do not prevent a PC from contributing just as much to the party.What a nice example. Unfortunately it does not support your argument at all. Even if it should be properly randomly generated, it is simply a single data point; if you want to make an argument, you should (for example) investigate the expected difference in total points when 5 players roll 4d6 drop lowest as well as the expected highest and lowest boundaries for such their arrays. Also of interest might be the probability that given 5 players, one has a highest stat...
the expected difference is 0, as they are rolling the exact same thing. Are you talking about best case examples that can happen some % of time, and then worse cases in the same %?
we'd have to pick an adequate % to check against which obviously widens the gap if higher and lowers is lower, so this wouldn't really lead to anything.
worst case is 6 3s vs 6 18s, a difference of 7 points in mod value. which is a 35% change is chances. The average roll is 13, with something like a 10-13% chance according to a test I did a while ago.
I did a point buy based on 4d6d1 and I got this due to their ratios.
7: cost : -9
8: cost : -6
9: cost : -4
10: cost : -3
11: cost : -2
12: cost : -1
13: cost : 0
14: cost : 1
15: cost : 2
16: cost : 3
17: cost : 6
18: cost : 12
9-16 has almost exactly the same % with only a slight advantage as you went in-ward. so I added a +1 per distance away from the middle.
Note: my computer created those values with the predefined rules of
find the most likely: set 0
(Most likely's %)/(X's %) = X's point buy value (positive or negative as appropriate)
distance from 0, add/subtract the distance as appropriate
if(X's point buy value > 18's point buy value) make X's point buy value = NULL
the %'s were calculated from 1 million rolls of 4d6d1
Personally I would play a dwarf and put it in Charisma for a score of 2. Then be totally disgusting and inappropriate. Just have fun playing it up. >.<
the choice as mentioned is how to deal with your cards, many of which can easily be overcome or otherwise ignored, if you hate randomness, then you might as well get rid of the whole rolling for things mechanic.
The enemy attacks a player, rolls to hit, hit's and does enough damage to knock him unconscious. He stays dead down long enough that he died. woo, a punishment that is not directly tied to any player choice, but still part of the game, and was caused by randomness....
I actually answered this exact point in the post you were replying to, but here it is again:
A campaign might last a year or more. The player will have negative consequences of his first two minutes during the whole campaign. Those first few rolls have an disproportional influence.
That's the problem. Using dice as RNGs is not.
Also, your statistics example is broken too. I am too tired now for a statistics course, but really...
worst case is 6 3s vs 6 18s, a difference of 7 points in mod value. which is a 35% change is chances. The average roll is 13, with something like a 10-13% chance according to a test I did a while ago.
No, 6x3s vs 6x18s is actually 42 mod points difference. You have 6 stats.
But even assuming the difference is 7 mod points, that is, 5 equal stats and one 3 for player A and an 18 for player B. This 7 mod points of difference are already about as many mod points as most characters get. Iconic Wizard and Iconic Fighter get 8, for example.
Also, this: http://anydice.com/program/429c.
the choice as mentioned is how to deal with your cards, many of which can easily be overcome or otherwise ignored, if you hate randomness, then you might as well get rid of the whole rolling for things mechanic.
The enemy attacks a player, rolls to hit, hit's and does enough damage to knock him unconscious. He stays dead down long enough that he died. woo, a punishment that is not directly tied to any player choice, but still part of the game, and was caused by randomness....
I actually answered this exact point in the post you were replying to, but here it is again:
A campaign might last a year or more. The player will have negative consequences of his first two minutes during the whole campaign. Those first few rolls have an disproportional influence.
That's the problem. Using dice as RNGs is not.
Also, your statistics example is broken too. I am too tired now for a statistics course, but really...
so dying as consequence of a roll is not a very important and consequential thing rolled from RNG? that was my point, there are other very critical rolls that can arise through gameplay.
worst case is 6 3s vs 6 18s, a difference of 7 points in mod value. which is a 35% change is chances. The average roll is 13, with something like a 10-13% chance according to a test I did a while ago.No, 6x3s vs 6x18s is actually 42 mod points difference. You have 6 stats.
But even assuming the difference is 7 mod points, that is, 5 equal stats and one 3 for player A and an 18 for player B. This 7 mod points of difference are already about as many mod points as most characters get. Iconic Wizard and Iconic Fighter get 8, for example.
Also, this: http://anydice.com/program/429c.
while I get your point with 42 mod, my point is on any given even the tow players have a 35% difference between their chances(this is with absolute difference not ratio obviously, so if mr 18 had a 0% chance mr 3 would still effectively have a 0% chance, and dice versa for 100%).
also the ratios use integer math due to point buy using integers. so a difference of 6% (absolute) was not enough to garner an additional point difference. aka 16 -> 13 were still very close overall 100%, the graph you show, is good for showing that they have about a 82% difference compared to each other.
Of course class is a choice. As are race, feats, skills, and spells. Choices so powerful that together they basically negate the effect of stats on relative PC effectiveness. Which means that there's nothing unfair about using the default system and rolling for basic stats.
No, they don't negate the effect. Yes, it is unfair. I am not sure how you can even discuss this, given the aforementioned table 1-3: Ability scores and bonus spells. The core rules themselves contradict your statement.
A campaign might last a year or more. The player will have negative consequences of his first two minutes during the whole campaign. Those first few rolls have an disproportional influence.Completely untrue. The choices the player makes have the overwhelmingly dominant influence.
What exact choice (except for character suicide or whining to the DM to allow rerolls) can the player make so his stats aren't worse than those of the other players? Please elaborate. And don't switch the goalposts again.
It's not a bad system. It's a system you don't like. The two are not the same thing.
Ok, again: It is a bad system because it promotes unfairness and randomly disadvantages some players.
Keep your personal attacks to yourself. I'm not going to be baited by silliness.
Don't generalize from yourself to others.
There was no personal attack in my statement, I merely asked you because I am confused: You advocate a system that promotes unfairness and randomly disadvantages some players, and I don't understand why.
Be my guest. Show all the statistics you want. You're the one claiming that the standard system in the rules is unfair; a claim that you have so far completely failed to support.
I cannot teach you statistics in order to show you that the system you promote is unfair. Wikipedia and the wider internet have enough resources that will help you understand the problem, should you want to. I merely tried to point you into the right direction.
What exact choice (except for character suicide or whining to the DM to allow rerolls) can the player make so his stats aren't worse than those of the other players? Please elaborate. And don't switch the goalposts again.
I feel like replying to just this. have low charisma but need to get past some guards? kill them.
well, now that that is settled. :P
so dying as consequence of a roll is not a very important and consequential thing rolled from RNG? that was my point, there are other very critical rolls that can arise through gameplay.
Sure, but there are multiple factors that soften the problem when it's an attack. First off, one hit kills are rare, so it's generally multiple failures that lead to death. Secondly, even after a one-hit kill you can resurrect the player, and because of XP / level disparity he will close up quickly. There are rules for that.
There are no rules for "player A is inherently worse that player B for the whole campaign because he rolled bad stats". RAI is maybe DM pity, but that should not be the solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You rolled a 4. Congratulations! You just received the inverse of rolling a 17. Honestly, too bad.
Push for your group to use Point Buy or just deal with it.
Though, this thread seems to have just devolved into petty squabbling about how a system built around imbalance is imbalanced, and how arbitrary this is to arbitrary and unrelated that.
If you want to avoid stupidly low attributes then demand to be allowed to use Point Buy. The average point buy of 4d6 drop 1 is around 12 - 14. Using point buy 10 or 15 should be more than sufficient to give you a character that you feel is capable of being playable, albeit weaknesses define a character more than strengths when it comes to RP.
It depends on the DM. At worst if you get screwed over by attributes then let the character die and bring him back, completely unchanged, but with new statistics if you feel he was not allowed to be played to an extent you believe he should have been. Its just doing a Bob 2 after Bob 1 dies, but if Bob 1 had sub 10 in every attributes and Bob 2 has reasonable attributes then they are not the same character.
so dying as consequence of a roll is not a very important and consequential thing rolled from RNG? that was my point, there are other very critical rolls that can arise through gameplay.Sure, but there are multiple factors that soften the problem when it's an attack. First off, one hit kills are rare, so it's generally multiple failures that lead to death. Secondly, even after a one-hit kill you can resurrect the player, and because of XP / level disparity he will close up quickly. There are rules for that.
There are no rules for "player A is inherently worse that player B for the whole campaign because he rolled bad stats". RAI is maybe DM pity, but that should not be the solution.
actually... he can just wish himself new stats if we're bringing up resurrection. there's also an artifact that allows you to do a full rework of your character(aka roll for new stats or anything else really).
also, even on the same stat array, I would say that a paladin with higher strength and charisma is a better paladin who wanted a high will save and more skill points(wisdom and int).
while I get your point with 42 mod, my point is on any given even the tow players have a 35% difference between their chances(this is with absolute difference not ratio obviously, so if mr 18 had a 0%...That's a 35% difference for a single roll. But in a campaign, this player will make many, many rolls. Even for a single combat, this player will make multiple rolls; if you consider the probability that a player survives a fight, you will see a notable difference already a with only few mods points...
hmm? everything beyond the first section was me just throwing out facts. i wasn't arguing anything other than the validity of the facts i put forth, for others to use.
anyway, i was more interested in the difference between the standard point buy and one based on 4d6d1 showing that 4d6d1 is on average more favorable than point buy.
You rolled a 4. Congratulations! You just received the inverse of rolling a 17. Honestly, too bad.
Push for your group to use Point Buy or just deal with it.
chance of rolling a 4: 0.31%
chance of rolling a 17: 4.17%your statement is invalid. :P
You rolled a 4. Congratulations! You just received the inverse of rolling a 17. Honestly, too bad.
Push for your group to use Point Buy or just deal with it.chance of rolling a 4: 0.31%
chance of rolling a 17: 4.17%
your statement is invalid. :P
Your statement is invalid. =P
Could be worse, he could roll a 3.Reminds me when I made a Tiefling Synthesist that never slept, but had a CON of 1 due to venerable age and all physical stats dumped to 7 (Venerable ages is -6).
He never left fused Eidolon form until he died, and he died gloriously: from losing HP when he was slumbered by a witch when he had 6 hp left.
So why 6 hp?
Well, his con is 1, but his eidolon's con is 13. When he goes into eidolon form he gains 5hp per HD. He had 2 HD. When he was knocked how he essentially took 10 damage since he was level 2. So -3 or so, with 1 con.
XD Best death ever. Everyone was confused as to where the dead tiefling came from.
Your statement is invalid. =P
Could be worse, he could roll a 3.
anyway, the system isn't inherently unfair since everyone has the ability to gain the same thing at the same chance.
plus, it's always fun to roll like 24 dice at once.
Your statement is invalid. =P
Could be worse, he could roll a 3.anyway, the system isn't inherently unfair since everyone has the ability to gain the same thing at the same chance.
plus, it's always fun to roll like 24 dice at once.
I never stated the system was unfair, but instead I stated that it was imbalanced--the two are very different.-- One suggests built in favoritism while the other suggests asymmetrical gameplay to some extent.
Point buy is balanced since it can be exploited to make someone who is fantastic at something to the exclusion of other things or used to make a balanced and more universally viable character.
Allowing an Either Or situation works fantastically, as if my choice is roll 24d6 or use 10 point buy, and I can choose which to do after rolling 1 set of 24, I can come to a decision as to what is best for my character. This also eliminates situations where there are people with -3 wondering what they are going to be atrocious at.
Giving people choices and options, even if they are both relatively bad, offer better results and player moral than one choice and you're stuck.
Unfair
1.
not fair; not conforming to approved standards, as of justice, honesty, or ethics: an unfair law; an unfair wage policy.
2.
disproportionate; undue; beyond what is proper or fitting: an unfair share.
Imbalance
1.
the state or condition of lacking balance, as in proportion or distribution.
Balance
1.
a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc.
2.
something used to produce equilibrium; counterpoise.
I believe this covers the difference between "Unfair" and "Imbalance".
Rolling 4d6 drop lowest, reroll one 1, is completely fair all around, but it can lead to rampant imbalance.
Using point buy is fair all around as well, but it forces balance within a character's statistics. However, it emphasizes player knowledge as people with more mastery over the system will know how to exploit it to get better character effectiveness.
Both systems are fair. Both are imbalanced for different reasons: the former is randomly imbalanced while the latter is purposefully imbalanced. At the same time the advanced player could use his point buy to make a character on par with the new players so he does not outshine them so easily.
wasn't talking to you, but the thread in general. :P
one hell of a backlash though.
basically, 4d6d1 is fair, it's results however are not when they've been made static. is a good way of looking at it. I still enjoy having the randomness, and I simply reroll stuff I don't like, as if you force me to play a number I don't like I'll just retire him as soon as possible.
wasn't talking to you, but the thread in general. :P
one hell of a backlash though.
basically, 4d6d1 is fair, it's results however are not when they've been made static. is a good way of looking at it. I still enjoy having the randomness, and I simply reroll stuff I don't like, as if you force me to play a number I don't like I'll just retire him as soon as possible.
English major backlash caused by putting quotes in wrong locations thereby causing accidental confusion.
Either way, stay awesome. ^_~*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put it in intelligence! Just avoid belts, locks, buttons and other examples of technology.This is the right answer.
Everyone expects you to dump Charisma because it is easy to just shut the hell up and stay at the back.
THAT IS THE COWARD'S WAY OUT!
Be bold. Punish your party for your terrible rolls. Put it in INT and never operate anything more complicated than a chain shirt. Put it in WIS as a Fighter and just go ahead and hand the character sheet to your GM now. Put it in STR and demand to be carried everywhere.
If you do put it in CHA, be actively obnoxious. Fart and burp and pick your nose and wheeze. Squeeze the pus from your face sores during a big meeting. Scratch your crotch in front of the king. Have no concept of personal space. Chew with your mouth open at the druid circle's festival. Violently spit out the lobster while exclaiming that you "Don't eat bugs!" Deliver either no eye contact or entirely too much. Tip your fedora at the womenfolk and say "M'lady." Never let anyone finish a sentence without you piping in with "well actually..."
Make sure the entire world feels the wrath of your cringe inducing obnoxiousness. Don't let up. Don't stop. The only acceptable end game is the party sneaking out of the inn before you rise, abandoning you to seek a replacement.
No no, you want to put it in Wisdom, then get your STR as high as possible and take feats and abilities that make your Single Target Damage Insane! That way when you fail that dominate check from the evil spellcaster you 1-shot your smart wizard friend.