|
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.Utter B.S.
Table 1-3 does not make stat bonuses even remotely as important as class or race choice. You claim you've played the game, so you should bloody well know that. There is absolutely no validity whatsoever to the notion that your PC can't contribute every bit as much as another PC with higher stats. The other player's high stats don't keep you from contributing because you're not playing the same race/class/feat/skill/spell combination they are.
Susan's 16 STR fighter isn't going to keep Jeff's 14 INT wizard from being a useful part of the team, nor is Tom's 18 DEX Rogue going to interfere with either one of the others. To claim otherwise is simply absurd. And it's still not okay to tell people that the way they play is BadWrongFun just because it's not the way you want to play.
Listen, when you've dug yourself in too deep, the first step is to stop digging. In the same way, Pathfinder is not balanced (as you note) divergent stats will, in fact, not trump things like race and class with (for example) Wizards usually trumping Fighters even with lower stats...but rolling uneven stat distributions makes the balance problems even worse. Using point-buy (or another balanced stat-distribution method, like the aforementioned everyone using the same set of rolls) is the act of stopping digging. It doesn't get you out of the hole, but it keeps the problem from getting worse.
Let's reverse some of your stats. What if the guy whose highest roll is a 14 wants to play a Fighter, while the guy who got an 18 plays a Wizard. Or Ranger. Or Paladin. That 14 Str Fighter can easily wind up pretty much screwed and useless. with even stats that gap will be closer, not gone, but closer.
The point is not that uneven rolls can make the party Fighter a much better character than the Wizard (it generally can't...which is another problem entirely), it's that it can vastly widen the gap involved in existing imbalances. And makes two players playing remotely the same thing pretty close to impossible, since one person will almost inevitably be overshadowed.
And I'm not saying rolling is BadWrongFun. I'm saying it's a less than ideal way to do things, IME. That's all.
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.Utter B.S.
Table 1-3 does not make stat bonuses even remotely as important as class or race choice. You claim you've played the game, so you should bloody well know that. There is absolutely no validity whatsoever to the notion that your PC can't contribute every bit as much as another PC with higher stats. The other player's high stats don't keep you from contributing because you're not playing the same race/class/feat/skill/spell combination they are.
Susan's 16 STR fighter isn't going to keep Jeff's 14 INT wizard from being a useful part of the team, nor is Tom's 18 DEX Rogue going to interfere with either one of the others. To claim otherwise is simply absurd. And it's still not okay to tell people that the way they play is BadWrongFun just because it's not the way you want to play.
Listen, when you've dug yourself in too deep, the first step is to stop digging. In the same way, Pathfinder is not balanced (as you note) divergent stats will, in fact, not trump things like race and class with (for example) Wizards usually trumping Fighters even with lower stats...but rolling uneven stat distributions makes the balance problems even worse. Using point-buy (or another balanced stat-distribution method, like the aforementioned everyone using the same set of rolls) is the act of stopping digging. It doesn't get you out of the hole, but it keeps the problem from getting worse.
Let's reverse some of your...
while a good point DMW, the other guy is saying that someone with lower stats can't contribute or contributes less to a party if someone else has higher stats, regardless of the class/race choice or anything else. basically, the other guy is making very strong claims which are pretty much just wrong.
|
|
while a good point DMW, the other guy is saying that someone with lower stats can't contribute or contributes less to a party if someone else has higher stats, regardless of the class/race choice or anything else. basically, the other guy is making very strong claims which are pretty much just wrong.
Where'd Malaclypse say that? I get the impression he's trying to say more or less what I just did...only in a more confrontational way.
No it isn't! It's about a rolled stat array which includes a 4, a 13 and a 19.
"I rolled my race, half orc, and I have a 15 high score, a 17 does sound nice with the +2." No 19's.
Note also that the Op hasn't cared to come back to this discussion and answer any questions or give up more info.
In order to really answer the Op's question we need to know what others rolled and what all his stats are.
If he rolled 4, 15,14,14,14,14- that's different than 4,15,6,7,8,9. I'd happily play the first set- but I think the second set is "hopeless".
And if others who rolled got each a couple of 18's with not bad stats- then he might have problems in that group.
|
He didn't get a 19. He got a 15 which he can boost to 17.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.
You're right, DD! I was conflating this thread with the one with a sorcerer with Int 4, Wis 13, Cha 19, where some posters were convinced that because he'd fail a DC 10 knowledge check while taking 10 that this means that he doesn't know his own name 60% of the time.
Still, if an experienced player is given the task of making a viable character, able to contribute to the party in whatever role he chooses, and he has a 4 and a 17 (assuming the rest are unremarkable), then if he can't make a viable PC then he should give up this hobby and spend his days watching daytime soap operas.
That 4 isn't going into a crucial stat for your chosen class unless you put it there of your own free will, and if you do then you can't blame the ability score generation system for that.
If it were me I'd put it to my Con. Get it over with quickly n all that. :P
while a good point DMW, the other guy is saying that someone with lower stats can't contribute or contributes less to a party if someone else has higher stats, regardless of the class/race choice or anything else.
No, that's exactly NOT what I am saying, but what JoeJ repeatedly tried to change the goal posts to.
When talking about stats, class and race choice does not matter. Because class and race are a player choice.
The rolled stats are not.
If we have player A, and player B.
Player A has rolled: Best stat 17, worst stat 10.
Player B has rolled: Best stat 12, worst stat 7.
For choices (class, race, feats, etc), A and B might decide the same; assume both build an Elven Wizard with best stat in Int, second best stat in Dex and worst stat in Cha, and the same feats, spell selection etc.
Clearly, player A can contribute better to the party than B, because he has better stats.
And that's unfair, and no fun.
And any difference because of class and race is based on the player's choice, on a trade off he or she was willing to make.
That is my point, no matter how many times JoeJ tries to twist it into something else.
And from that point follows that rolling naively is bad. Not rolling in general, but rolling in a way that creates unfairness. As already mentioned multiple times above, there are many ways to allow rolling for stats without creating an unwanted disparity between different players, such as: All players get to choose from all the rolled stat arrays.
while a good point DMW, the other guy is saying that someone with lower stats can't contribute or contributes less to a party if someone else has higher stats, regardless of the class/race choice or anything else. basically, the other guy is making very strong claims which are pretty much just wrong.Where'd Malaclypse say that? I get the impression he's trying to say more or less what I just did...only in a more confrontational way.
Yes. Thank you, DMW.
|
|
while a good point DMW, the other guy is saying that someone with lower stats can't contribute or contributes less to a party if someone else has higher stats, regardless of the class/race choice or anything else.No, that's exactly NOT what I am saying, but what JoeJ repeatedly tried to change the goal posts to.
The goalpost moving is being done by you.
Here is the original post:-
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.
So, the player has a stat array, and has to decide where to put the +2, bearing in mind he has a 4 and a 15, with the others presumably being unremarkable (because he didn't remark on them).
The conversation then turned into a succession of posts suggesting that a PC with a 4 is unplayable. The person you are arguing against said that you can easily create a PC with a 4 who can contribute in the same way as a PC without that one low stat. He's right! Whatever class you choose is up to you, not the vagaries of the dice, and you can choose a SAD class and place that 4 where it will have minimal (if any) impact, leaving you with a 17 for your main stat. Point being, that 4 does not prevent you creating a PC who will effectively contribute to the party, excelling in the role you choose.
Then you move the goalposts to theoretical ability score generation systems and their relative fairness. That is the derail.
And that's unfair, and no fun.
That, honestly, is the part I strongly disagree with, at least in general terms, as it is highly dependent on the specific group in question. For a bunch of old school gamers or those that like the challenge that comes with rolling and finding a way to be useful regardless of what you roll, not only is it not unfair, but the alternatives, either point buy or even other rolling methods that remove that aspect, are both boring and harmful to the game they want to play. I understand that the typical rolling method creates potential challenges that many, including yourself obviously, don't like, either as a player or a DM, but that doesn't make it unfair or no fun. It just makes it a different style of gaming than what you enjoy. Many people, however, not only enjoy it, but prefer it. For all that I've toyed around with alternate rolling methods, I've yet to find one that I like as they either end up with far more powerful stats on average than I prefer or are comparatively complicated to explain to new players. While I keep experimenting, 4d6, drop the lowest, is still the best overall scheme for balancing ease of use and power level.
The potential for differences in stats can easily be dealt with in game, but then I also am not afraid to make people see the potential downsides of all higher stats either. Just like movie stars today don't always get to choose when they are bothered or how people react to them, so to do exceptional people in my campaign get treated like exceptional people, and they get to deal with more intrusions, outside interest, and generally higher expectations and greater reactions to failure. Lower numbers may mean less effectiveness math wise, but it also means an easier times being sneaky or secretive, because less people care, and makes it easier to control how and when they interact with others and how others will react in many circumstances. So for me at least, the numbers are only part of the equation, and all numbers, both high and low, come with both opportunities and difficulties. Background and how players react to specific circumstances, and how much attention they give to controlling NPC reactions matter just as much. Only if you choose to focus solely on dice rolls and the math does it make a difference if one person rolled low and another high. A good DM using the right techniques makes it possible to run both in the same party without any problems whatsoever.
For all that I've toyed around with alternate rolling methods, I've yet to find one that I like as they either end up with far more powerful stats on average than I prefer or are comparatively complicated to explain to new players. While I keep experimenting, 4d6, drop the lowest, is still the best overall scheme for balancing ease of use and power level.
We like 4d6 but with seven sets, choose six. And/or any rolled 1's =2.
For all that I've toyed around with alternate rolling methods, I've yet to find one that I like as they either end up with far more powerful stats on average than I prefer or are comparatively complicated to explain to new players. While I keep experimenting, 4d6, drop the lowest, is still the best overall scheme for balancing ease of use and power level.We like 4d6 but with seven sets, choose six. And/or any rolled 1's =2.
You're still using the 4d6 as the base, though, which was my basic point. Most methods that try to fully minimize the impact of low rolls end up using a different base, but also end up being much harder to explain than the standard method or the methods you describe.
The goalpost moving is being done by you. Here is the original post:-
But I was not responding to the original post, but to JoeJ's answer.
I thought that was clear, given that I quoted the relevant parts in my posts.
The conversation then turned into a succession of posts suggesting that a PC with a 4 is unplayable. The person you are arguing against said that you can easily create a PC with a 4 who can contribute in the same way as a PC without that one low stat.
And that's just wrong. He can contribute, but he cannot contribute as well, because all player choices could be like the player with better stats and still would be objectively worse.
He's right! Whatever class you choose is up to you, not the vagaries of the dice, and you can choose a SAD class and place that 4 where it will have minimal (if any) impact, leaving you with a 17 for your main stat.
Even what you call 'minimal impact' is not 'no impact'. Therefore, I can only assume you agree with me that this player cannot contribute as well because of the non-zero impact of his lower stats compared to the rest of the players.
Point being, that 4 does not prevent you creating a PC who will effectively contribute to the party, excelling in the role you choose.
But you just stated that it limits his selection from to a subset (namely SAD). How is this fun? Why does this player deserve to have a smaller selection than the guy or girl who sits next to him if he wants to contribute equally and excel at his role?
And that's unfair, and no fun.That, honestly, is the part I strongly disagree with, at least in general terms, as it is highly dependent on the specific group in question. For a bunch of old school gamers or those that like the challenge that comes with rolling and finding a way to be useful regardless of what you roll, not only is it not unfair, but the alternatives, either point buy or even other rolling methods that remove that aspect, are both boring and harmful to the game they want to play. I understand that the typical rolling method creates potential challenges that many, including yourself obviously, don't like, either as a player or a DM, but that doesn't make it unfair or no fun.
But it does. It's not even a question that it's unfair, it's just that some group might accept this unfairness. You miss the point.
While I keep experimenting, 4d6, drop the lowest, is still the best overall scheme for balancing ease of use and power level.
Wait, what? 4d6 drop one is for balancing? There is no balancing. There simply are random distributions that are skewed upwards because of the drop lowest, but that is not balancing.
Lower numbers may mean less effectiveness math wise, but it also means an easier times being sneaky or secretive
So you don't use the pathfinder stealth rules? Because according to the rules, a higher Dex actually does make it easier for people to be sneaky.
how others will react in many circumstances.
Oh, so you don't use the Pathfinder Diplomacy and attitude rules? Because according to the rules, a higher Cha...etc.
So for me at least, the numbers are only part of the equation
Oh, sure. If you don't play according to the Pathfinder Core Rules, the stats don't matter. That's what I stated in one of my first posts.
You're looking only at the rules, not how the situations are set up in the first place or how starting attitudes are determined. In a crowd, an average person with average stats is going to have a lot easier time blending in than a famous person with all 18s. They will also have fewer consequences for a failed diplomacy roll because less was expected of them in the first place. In short, the actual rolls may not be as good, but the chances of having to roll is less in the first place in many circumstances because rolls really only come up in exceptional circumstances, and average people are more likely to rely on role played out actions to get things done instead of immediately reaching for the dice. Why roll diplomacy to get the grant from the king when you can pay off the secretary and not risk the consequences of the dice failing? Higher stats means better rolls, but also greater consequences of failure and because they are so high, most players with those stats never think about how to resolve something in ways that don't require rolling the dice, so they end up risking those increased consequences more often. That's where the balance comes in my games. Lower statted characters tend to roll less and for easier things as they need to find other solutions to mitigate the weaknesses in math. Also, I rarely allow a single roll to resolve any major social encounter. Diplomacy is great to have, but there is no way that a single roll is going to convince the king the party needs access to the royal armory, no matter how good the speech is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Wait, so you have this elaborate and opaque system where players are treated differently by you because of how they rolled in the first few minutes before the game began, and players who rolled well get (seemingly) arbitrary punishments because of 'fame' and players who rolled badly get DM pity and can just like that achieve stuff without rolling because their stats suck.
That's certainly one way to do it.
Yet I fail to see the advantage of your approach.
...Wait, so you have this elaborate and opaque system where players are treated differently by you because of how they rolled in the first few minutes before the game began, and players who rolled well get (seemingly) arbitrary punishments because of 'fame' and players who rolled badly get DM pity and can just like that achieve stuff without rolling because their stats suck.
That's certainly one way to do it.
Yet I fail to see the advantage of your approach.
It's hardly elaborate or opaque. If you draw attention to yourself, you get all the results, both good and bad. If you don't draw attention to yourself, you get all the results, both good and bad. Ultimately, it's up to the player to decide the balance of the good and bad. If you roll all 18s and are always reaching for the dice without even trying to control what you are rolling for, you get to deal with the results each and every time, for good or ill. If you roll high and play smart, you get the benefits of it. If you roll low and play smart, it matters less because you are controlling when and why you pick up the dice a great deal of the time. If you roll low and play stupid, that's your own fault.
In the end, player's choices matter far more than the rolled stats, which serve mostly to inform the player of the most effective strategy for that particular character. I am not going to have sympathy for a 5 Cha character that always wants to roll Diplomacy and then gets mad when he consistently fails; there are almost always ways to get around or mitigate the DC of direct rolls, and if players don't want to look for them, I can't force them to. If a DM were to always insist that every character must always use the same solution, than the DM is the problem, but otherwise, it's on the player, and therefore, anyone who tries to tell me it's not fair is being lazy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
anyone who tries to tell me it's not fair is being lazy.
Wait, what? Your houserule is broken because it's unfair and easily abusable. It doesn't even solve the problem of the disparity in player stats. But if I tell you this I am lazy?
anyone who tries to tell me it's not fair is being lazy.Wait, what? Your houserule is broken because it's unfair and easily abusable. It doesn't even solve the problem of the disparity in player stats. But if I tell you this I am lazy?
The disparity is as big of a problem as you choose to make it. Smart play and shaping the circumstances to control how, why, and when you roll is not that hard most of the time, and mitigates the problems almost every time. Those who fixate only on the numbers on the character sheet will always have problems regardless of how hard the DM works to make the game balanced and "fun" for everyone. The rules simply say what should happen once the dice are picked up; that is all, no more, no less. Determining when to pick up the dice and what to roll for can only be done by the DM and the players interacting with each other. That interaction is the heart of the game, not the rulebook, which is there for guidance of how to resolve situations once they have been developed to the point you need to start rolling dice. The only time that disparity is ever a real problem is when the rulebook is made the center of the game rather than the interactions between those playing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The conversation then turned into a succession of posts suggesting that a PC with a 4 is unplayable. The person you are arguing against said that you can easily create a PC with a 4 who can contribute in the same way as a PC without that one low stat.And that's just wrong. He can contribute, but he cannot contribute as well, because all player choices could be like the player with better stats and still would be objectively worse.
Not so.
Take two otherwise identical wizards with 17 Int and average other stats, except one has 4 Cha and the other has 10 Cha. It's true that the first will have a lower modifier to his charisma-based skills, but since neither he nor his Cha 10 brother will be the party face then neither will be making these checks for the party anyway! Both are equally effective in their chosen role, and that role is not 'party face'.
They could be fighters instead, with the 17 on strength. Or wizards, but with 4 or 10 strength; which wizard is going to have his Str score be the determinant of whether or not they are an effective wizard?
In effect, having a 4 has no meaningful impact on whether a PC is able to contribute to the party effectively. Unless of course, you choose to put that 4 on a stat which will make an impact, and then it's your choice, not the particulars of the stat generation system, which is at fault.
I could see going with a paladin and dumping either Int or Dex.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My current Kingmaker PC has rolled stats of 18, 17, 15, 15, 13, and 5. I put the 5 in Intelligence and created a paladin, worked out how that 5 Int manifested (bearing in mind his other stats, feats, traits etc.), and got on with it.
I was originally non-plussed with the 5, but when the DM said to roll with it (heh) I did, and created a memorable, and effective, PC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the point is that with a random 4, I can play a trap finding and picklocking rogue by putting the 4 in like wisdom or something. no one's going to freak over the rogue falling asleep or being dominated, and he can just as easily put it into charisma and not be the face.
his ability to do his job or contribute hasn't diminished due to a single 4.
Take two otherwise identical wizards with 17 Int and average other stats, except one has 4 Cha and the other has 10 Cha. It's true that the first will have a lower modifier to his charisma-based skills, but since neither he nor his Cha 10 brother will be the party face then neither will be making these checks for the party anyway! Both are equally effective in their chosen role, and that role is not 'party face'.
I thought we were talking about 4d6 drop lowest. You seem to be talking about an ability score generation method that guarantees only one bad stat?
With 4d6 drop lowest it is very well possible that the highest stat of player A is better or equal to the worst stat of player B.
Every player had the same chance to roll good or bad stats, that one player was unluckier than others is unfortunate but not unfair.
Is it unfair because this one roll has a disproportionate influence. Two minutes of random luck should not have strong effects for the year or more that the campaign lasts.
I could have loads of fun playing around a -3 modifier, working out ways to turn challenges to my stronger stats, or outside bonuses to negate it. That's fun to me, that's puzzle solving and creative roleplay.
If it's so much fun, did you ever ask your DM if you could play with lower stats? Or if you could roll 4d6 drop highest? Or anything else that helps your goal to maximize your fun by playing characters with bad stats?
All the time, as I said I don't enjoy point-buy games but sadly it's all I've got to work with at the moment, so when I do I'm the one suggesting lower point totals and/or intentionally running a non-optimized character. I've even proposed running a quick one off using 2d6+3; a kind of Call of Cthulu, Tomb of Horrors, you are in all ways outclassed and have to be smart, kind of adventure.
No. Everyone playing with lower point totals is not the same. I was asking explicitly for an example where your character is strictly worse, i.e. has a lower point total. So everyone would get 25 points and you would build your character with 15. Or something like that.
The problem is not the total stats, but the disparity between players.
Also, I do not believe that you run non-optimized characters. Probably, you just optimize your characters for something else than the Pathfinder rules, such as optimized for adherence to a concept, optimized to copy a specific literary character or optimized to force the rest of the party to carry you.
I've already shown that several rolls can have a disproportionate influence on the rest the campaign, the example I gave was someone being killed. With out resurrection, that player is going to be playing a new character, that's a big change.
also, the disparity isn't as great as you think it is.
in that dice thing you gave me a while ago, every player has a 50% chance that any given roll will at least be a 13.
I just rolled the roller I got 8, 11, 16, 17, 6, 14. I actually like this roll since I have a 16 and a 17.
next roll: 12, 15, 12, 14, 12, 12, which is good for any non-spell caster(though I could use it for a 1/2 caster too).
roll 3: 16, 11, 15, 15, 11, 11, really good barbar I could make out of this. also could make a melee focused summoner.
roll 4: 11, 12, 17, 14, 16, 14, pretty much the same as above. I need 3 good stats for a barbar or a melee summoner.
roll 5: 18, 11, 14, 12, 11, 16, feels like a wizard or druid to me. 18 in caster stat, with 16 in dex or maybe con if I decide to not use rays much.
roll 6: 12, 9, 15, 17, 14, 14, maybe a paladin, paladin's like 4 good stats.
Now, I don't know about you, but at first glance I don't see much disparity, but here are the totals all calculated after the fact.
roll 1:72
roll 2:77
roll 3:79
roll 4:84
roll 5:82
roll 6:81
so from 6 characters the largest disparity is between 8, 11, 16, 17, 6, 14, and 11, 12, 17, 14, 16, 14. both of which have a 17, 16, 14 and an 11. the difference being a 6 and 8 vs a 12 and 14. this is actually very oddly symmetrical. but yeah, you could easily have both of these rolls end up on a character that didn't need to use the 6 or 8, aka could be wisdom and int on a paladin, could be strength and charisma on a wizard. the characters don't lose much to their effectiveness by having those stats lowered from 12 or 14(or 11 as the case may be).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take two otherwise identical wizards with 17 Int and average other stats, except one has 4 Cha and the other has 10 Cha. It's true that the first will have a lower modifier to his charisma-based skills, but since neither he nor his Cha 10 brother will be the party face then neither will be making these checks for the party anyway! Both are equally effective in their chosen role, and that role is not 'party face'.I thought we were talking about 4d6 drop lowest. You seem to be talking about an ability score generation method that guarantees only one bad stat?
No wonder your posts are catching so much flak! You're having a different conversation than the rest of us!
We, strangely enough, still bear in mind the OP, in which he has to make decisions with one 4, one 15, one +2 to add and four unremarkable stats. Our point is, despite posts to the contrary, that this single 4 in no way prevents the OP from making a character as effective in his chosen role as he could have if that 4 had been a 10.
If it turns out that your posts are not about the OP's situation, but are about your dislike of 'rolling for stats', then just say so!
(...)Our point is, despite posts to the contrary, that this single 4 in no way prevents the OP from making a character as effective in his chosen role as he could have if that 4 had been a 10.(...)
It's worth noting that having a 4 in an ability score can be absolutely unplayable, depending on how the GM views low ability scores.
A post about a character with 4 INT who's unable to figure out how belts work springs to mind.
If it turns out that your posts are not about the OP's situation, but are about your dislike of 'rolling for stats', then just say so!
I did exactly that, in my previous response to you:
Here is the original post:-But I was not responding to the original post.
I get the feeling you are just trying to evoke some kind of emotional response, and are not interested in discussion the topics that were raised and discussed in the last two pages of this thread. Not very paladin-like, that behavior.
|
|
If it turns out that your posts are not about the OP's situation, but are about your dislike of 'rolling for stats', then just say so!I did exactly that, in my previous response to you:
I get the feeling you are just trying to evoke some kind of emotional response, and are not interested in discussion the topics that were raised and discussed in the last two pages of this thread. Not very paladin-like, that behavior.Here is the original post:-But I was not responding to the original post.
Now that we've established that you aren't saying that a PC with a single stat of 4 is unplayable, which I honestly thought you were, then I don't need to respond to your posts which I thought were saying that.
'Point-buy verses rolled stats' was not the topic of this thread, but I've engaged in a derail or two myself in my time so I don't hold it against you. I've never been cheeky enough to chastise those who went back to the original topic with accusations of 'moving the goalposts' though.
FWIW, there are substantial sections of our community who favour each and who despise each method. Personally, I hate point-buy, and enjoy seeing the array I rolled and use them to construct a cool PC, perhaps one that I would never have even thought of otherwise. It gets my creative juices flowing.
also, the disparity isn't as great as you think it is.
It is. According to these statistics, the expected largest difference betweeen two players is more than 16 points.
That could be a whole +8 in modifiers, or the difference between two 18s and two 10s.
so from 6 characters the largest disparity is between 8, 11, 16, 17, 6, 14, and 11, 12, 17, 14, 16, 14. both of which have a 17, 16, 14 and an 11. the difference being a 6 and 8 vs a 12 and 14. this is actually very oddly symmetrical. but yeah, you could easily have both of these rolls end up on a character that didn't need to use the 6 or 8, aka could be wisdom and int on a paladin, could be strength and charisma on a wizard. the characters don't lose much to their effectiveness by having those stats lowered from 12 or 14(or 11 as the case may be).
Even in your example, you have a disparity of 12 points or 6 modifier points.
That's more than the worst player has modifiers in total (5).
That's just really horrible for the worst player, and it clearly shows why rolling for stats naively is such a bad idea.
I know which of those two arrays I would pick if I had a choice.
But I have to try this.4d6 drop the lowest for 5 characters:
Character 1:
,,, = 9
,,, = 16
,,, = 15
,,, = 15
,,, = 16
,,, = 8
Character 2:
,,, = 15
,,, = 14
,,, = 9
,,, = 14
,,, = 15
,,, = 11
Character 3:
,,, = 11
,,, = 16
,,, = 15
,,, = 14
,,, = 11
,,, = 13
Character 4:
,,, = 11
,,, = 16
,,, = 16
,,, = 15
,,, = 11
,,, = 16
Character 5:
,,, = 14
,,, = 6
,,, = 12
,,, = 14
,,, = 13
,,, = 15
Edit: I find the difference between character 4 and 5 quite telling. That is a 39 point buy vs. a 16 point buy. (If I did my math right.)
also, the disparity isn't as great as you think it is.It is. According to these statistics, the expected largest difference betweeen two players is more than 16 points.
That could be a whole +8 in modifiers, or the difference between two 18s and two 10s.
so from 6 characters the largest disparity is between 8, 11, 16, 17, 6, 14, and 11, 12, 17, 14, 16, 14. both of which have a 17, 16, 14 and an 11. the difference being a 6 and 8 vs a 12 and 14. this is actually very oddly symmetrical. but yeah, you could easily have both of these rolls end up on a character that didn't need to use the 6 or 8, aka could be wisdom and int on a paladin, could be strength and charisma on a wizard. the characters don't lose much to their effectiveness by having those stats lowered from 12 or 14(or 11 as the case may be).Even in your example, you have a disparity of 12 points or 6 modifier points.
That's more than the worst player has modifiers in total (5).
That's just really horrible for the worst player, and it clearly shows why rolling for stats naively is such a bad idea.
once again, not as bad as you think it is. The linked sight has all of them compared to each other with the top of the graph as 13-14%, the difference between two players can be great, but on average not crippling and not going to make you whole handedly worse or better as a character or as part of the party.
Stat modifiers don't really reach into things and make or break a system, except if you need like 13 int for combat reflexes, or 18 charisma for spells(even then by the time you cast 8th level spells you probably have well over 18).
as mentioned before it's fair because everyone has exactly the same odds for anything, I have never gotten an unsatisfactory roll out of 4d6d1, however arrays and point buy I sort of dislike using. I feel limited with a point buy (and pressured to get an 18 and a 7 somewhere) and entirely disinterested in any stat arrays. a stat array is basically when I just put points in randomly with my eyes closed to keep my self interested.
once again, not as bad as you think it is. The linked sight has all of them compared to each other with the top of the graph as 13-14%, the difference between two players can be great, but on average not crippling and not going to make you whole handedly worse or better as a character or as part of the party.also, the disparity isn't as great as you think it is.It is. According to these statistics, the expected largest difference betweeen two players is more than 16 points.
That could be a whole +8 in modifiers, or the difference between two 18s and two 10s.
so from 6 characters the largest disparity is between 8, 11, 16, 17, 6, 14, and 11, 12, 17, 14, 16, 14. both of which have a 17, 16, 14 and an 11. the difference being a 6 and 8 vs a 12 and 14. this is actually very oddly symmetrical. but yeah, you could easily have both of these rolls end up on a character that didn't need to use the 6 or 8, aka could be wisdom and int on a paladin, could be strength and charisma on a wizard. the characters don't lose much to their effectiveness by having those stats lowered from 12 or 14(or 11 as the case may be).Even in your example, you have a disparity of 12 points or 6 modifier points.
That's more than the worst player has modifiers in total (5).
That's just really horrible for the worst player, and it clearly shows why rolling for stats naively is such a bad idea.
I would say that it does, objectively, make your character worse. Maybe not to the level of unplayable, but it will be a detriment to your effectiveness for whatever that stat controls and therefore limit the options that you might try. Some see this as a challenge, others see it as "not fun".
Stat modifiers don't really reach into things and make or break a system, except if you need like 13 int for combat reflexes, or 18 charisma for spells(even then by the time you cast 8th level spells you probably have well over 18).
as mentioned before it's fair because everyone has exactly the same odds for anything, I have never gotten an unsatisfactory roll out of 4d6d1, however arrays and point buy I sort of dislike using. I feel limited with a point buy (and pressured to get an 18 and a 7 somewhere) and entirely disinterested in any stat arrays. a stat array is basically when I just put points in randomly with my eyes closed to keep my self interested.
I find it interesting that you have never had unsatisfactory rolls with 4d6 drop 1. I have had very bad rolls and don't like the random method. I wonder if that is related. ;-)
As for point buy, I have never been pressured to put an 18 in a stat. Actually it can be quite a bit less than optimal to spend so many of your points in one stat, even if it is primary.
I know which of those two arrays I would pick if I had a choice.
But I have to try this.4d6 drop the lowest for 5 characters:
I took the ability scores you came up with, then ran them through a PB calculator. This is the PB budget for each character's ability score array:
Char 1: 31
Char 2: 24
Char 3: 27
Char 4: 39
Char 5: 18 (would actually be 15 or 16, but PB caps at 7 so I'm not sure what kind of deduction you get for dropping an ability score to 6)
Frankly I'm surprised by how well you rolled. I'm reasonably sure most of those characters are above average. Sucks to be player 5 though. :(
stuff
I got a 3 and 2 4's once.
I know which of those two arrays I would pick if I had a choice.
But I have to try this.4d6 drop the lowest for 5 characters:
I took the ability scores you came up with, then ran them through a PB calculator. This is the PB budget for each character's ability score array:
Char 1: 31
Char 2: 24
Char 3: 27
Char 4: 39
Char 5: 18 (would actually be 15 or 16, but PB caps at 7 so I'm not sure what kind of deduction you get for dropping an ability score to 6)Frankly I'm surprised by how well you rolled. I'm reasonably sure most of those characters are above average. Sucks to be player 5 though. :(
point buy is based on 3d6, 4d6d1 always or at least usually get's you high point buys.
point buy is based on 3d6, 4d6d1 always or at least usually get's you high point buys.
No, I'm pretty sure pointbuy is based on 4d6d1. The average roll of 4d6d1 is roughly 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9 - or PB 20.
point buy is based on 3d6, 4d6d1 always or at least usually get's you high point buys.No, I'm pretty sure pointbuy is based on 4d6d1. The average roll of 4d6d1 is roughly 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9 - or PB 20.
but 20 points isn't the de jure thing, I mean the actual values for all the numbers is based on a 3d6 curve.
+1 for CON. Really, people should stop rolling for stats.Throw in racial -2 by playing an elf. Look at the GM in the eye and DARE him to call you on it.
Laughed so hard. +1 to this
|
|
but 20 points isn't the de jure thing, I mean the actual values for all the numbers is based on a 3d6 curve.point buy is based on 3d6, 4d6d1 always or at least usually get's you high point buys.No, I'm pretty sure pointbuy is based on 4d6d1. The average roll of 4d6d1 is roughly 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9 - or PB 20.
If point-buy were based on 3d6 then you'd have 3 points to spend, not 15.