Malachi Silverclaw |
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:All his other stats are identical!Then your example has nothing to do with what I have been talking about.
Okay, this is:-
The Str-based fighter will use his Str far, far, far more often than his dump stat. That's what he's for, to apply his Str to the enemy as often as he can, while minimising exposure of his weaknesses.
Therefore, having +2 on your main stat is more of an advantage than having two stats of 7 (instead of 10) is a disadvantage, when talking about the effectiveness of the character in his role.
Voadam |
Voadam wrote:If you want random but still want overall balance I'd suggest assigning a point buy total for each character and then roll one random stat at a time, leaving the last to be determined by the remaining point buy points after calculating how much the rolled stats cost. This way the exact numbers are random but the distribution is overall balanced even though it is not fully optimized.Compare the following arrays of supposedly equal value.
17 15 13 12 9 7 total mod: +4
16 14 14 12 10 8 total mod: +7
Sure.
The first one can have an 18 primary stat 4 levels earlier than the second. Same for a 20 in the primary stat.
The first set has a one less bonus on its third highest stat and one less on its two lowest priority stats.
People could reasonably choose either set for their character and gain advantages and the differences are not that big.
Roughly fairly balanced in my opinion.
Voadam |
Seranov wrote:@Malachi: And do I want to play Muscles McWizardson? Maybe sometimes, but only when I choose to, not when a completely random mechanic that I have no control over says so.
I won't say you're wrong, but that no amount of your proselytizing is going to convince anyone that your way is superior, if they don't think so already.
Both ways, point-buy and rolling, have advantages and disadvantages regarding personal taste, and it seems there is a roughly even and sharp divide between supporters of each.
I get that. I get that some people can't stand having to make sense of a random (or, more usually, partially random and partially chosen) array. Others can't stand the cookie-cutter results of the evolutionary pressure of total control over each single point.
On the one hand, point-buy is seen as totally fair, despite the fact that it is clearly better for SAD classes rather than MAD classes, but results in totally unrealistic identically gifted people. On the other, random rolls result in more realistic groups of people, but might be unfair if some roll better than others.
So, where is the happy medium? I can't see point-buy providing that, but the vast majority of 'random' rolling for PCs is actually only partly random/partly chosen, possible re-rolls of low stats, minimum scores, various combinations of choosing which 'random' method to use (like the one in the OP). 'Random' rolling does a much better job (in practice) of achieving that happy medium than point-buy ever can.
Pathfinder point buy is weighted so that higher stats cost more, to get a higher stat in your primary it costs overall total mod points.
A SAD character benefits from specializing their stats and will take the overall total mod hit while a MAD character will benefit more from a higher total mod in multiple stats.
If you are not happy with the balance between SAD and MAD end stats this can be tweaked. Point buy could be changed to increase the costs of higher stats, increasing the efficaciousness of putting points into multiple stats.
Say instead of point buy costs increasing by 1 every odd stat bump it increases by 2, and everyone starts with more points, so SAD characters stay the same but MAD characters get better stats (that still don't match the SAD ones).
To avoid the super low stats of point buy those costs could be tweaked as well to decrease the incentive for them. Such as only giving out 1 point to go down to an 8 instead of 2, and 2 points to go to a 7 instead of granting 4.
TriOmegaZero |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Therefore, having +2 on your main stat is more of an advantage than having two stats of 7 (instead of 10) is a disadvantage, when talking about the effectiveness of the character in his role.
Okay, sure. It's more of an advantage.
I don't find that advantage big enough to warrant taking that action.
Malachi Silverclaw |
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:Therefore, having +2 on your main stat is more of an advantage than having two stats of 7 (instead of 10) is a disadvantage, when talking about the effectiveness of the character in his role.Okay, sure. It's more of an advantage.
I don't find that advantage big enough to warrant taking that action.
The disadvantage (to your PC's effectiveness) of having two 7s instead of two 10s (in your dump stats) does not outweigh the advantage of having +2 in your main stat, the stat you use nearly every chance you get to impose your will on the game through your PC's abilities/class features/weapons/spells/whatever.
Whenever you can, you will use your main stat instead of your dump stat, choose strategies that allow you to use your main stat, avoid situations where you have no option but your dump stat, create contingency plans in case your dump stat is in danger of being targeted.
You do these things whether your dump stats are 7 or 10, so you might as well increase your main stat as high as it can be, because that is the stat you use to affect the world through your class abilities/spells/weapons/whatever.
TriOmegaZero |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The disadvantage (to your PC's effectiveness) of having two 7s instead of two 10s (in your dump stats) does not outweigh the advantage of having +2 in your main stat, the stat you use nearly every chance you get to impose your will on the game through your PC's abilities/class features/weapons/spells/whatever.
So? It's still not that big of an advantage.
Laiho Vanallo |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Point buy all the way.
Dice rolling is not for me or any player I GM, I seen my share of lucky players with arrays like 18,18,16,17,14,15 and people ending up with 10,8,16,14,6,5. It's not fun for anyone to start up a new character and being handicapped when compared to the paragon rolls across the table.
The more tools I give my players to create their characters to their taste the more they will have fun usually.
Malachi Silverclaw |
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:The disadvantage (to your PC's effectiveness) of having two 7s instead of two 10s (in your dump stats) does not outweigh the advantage of having +2 in your main stat, the stat you use nearly every chance you get to impose your will on the game through your PC's abilities/class features/weapons/spells/whatever.So? It's still not that big of an advantage.
'So'? So, in the field of the evolutionary pressures on PFS characters (which is what I was talking about!), small advantages add up over time. That +2 stat is not a +1 to a single roll, but a +1 to nearly every roll you make and every DC you set.
Undeniably, 18 is better than 16 in your own main stat. What your dump stats are is far less important and has far less of an effect on your character, because you seek to use your main stat constantly and seek to avoid using your dump stats at all.
TriOmegaZero |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'So'? So, in the field of the evolutionary pressures on PFS characters (which is what I was talking about!), small advantages add up over time. That +2 stat is not a +1 to a single roll, but a +1 to nearly every roll you make and every DC you set.
I still don't find it that important.
Malachi Silverclaw |
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:I still don't find it that important.'So'? So, in the field of the evolutionary pressures on PFS characters (which is what I was talking about!), small advantages add up over time. That +2 stat is not a +1 to a single roll, but a +1 to nearly every roll you make and every DC you set.
Just like biological evolution isn't about huge differences but about tiny differences over time, so the tiny +1 differences add up for PCs.
In neither case does the preferences of a single individual case prove or disprove anything, but small differences have huge cumulative effects on the behaviours of large groups as a whole.
The problem with point-buy that this illustrates is that the ability to lower one stat in order to raise another doesn't model what real people do. Real people don't need to reduce their IQ in order to build their muscles. But point-buy allows that so minutely that there is evolutionary pressure to do so (whether or not individuals choose not to).
Wanting high scores where it matters means that point-buy encourages us to lower dump stats as much as we can. With rolled stats, you can assign them (usually), but at least they won't have a surfeit of 7s and 18s; they will be a reasonably realistic variety.
Although point-buy is not random at all, this may lead us to assume that rolling must be entirely ramdom. It can be, but it usually isn't. It's usually some combination of random rolling and informed choices.
In the OP, you can choose one of four methods, and in three of those you choose definate scores and can choose where to put them. Rolled scores lower than 8 are raised to 8.
The usual method of (4d6 keep 3, six times, assign as desired) has you choose where to assign the scores after seeing the rolled array.
In my experience, most 'random' methods have more choice than you might think.
The combination of random/informed choice can be achieved in various ways of 'rolling', but not by point-buy. This combination is not strange: biological evolution (survival of the fittest) works by random mutations being tested through the sieve of the pressures of the environment so that the best suited to survive, survive.
Card games like poker or bridge have the random element of shuffled and dealt cards, but these remain games of skill; the winner takes account of the random possibilities and makes informed choices. Better players win more often than poor ones, a kind of 'survival of the fittest' right there!
Scythia |
What I find makes even less sense than people running around with weaknesses are PCs running that are all around better at EVERYTHING that the average guy (i.e. "average" NPC stats)...
If battling hordes of monsters, rescuing hostages, and saving the world were easy, Farmer Joe could do it. Heroes ought to be better at most things than the common people. Except farming, innkeeping, and hiring adventurers to perform tasks.
Kaisoku |
I don't know if the secret fire is still looking, but in case he is, I just thought I'd post my (apparently rather unique) idea I came up with a while ago, when these threads were flying about:
--------------------------------------
Why not pick the best of both worlds?
(Or maybe worst? Something I made up on a lark a while back :P)
ROLLING POINT BUY
_______________
The basic premise is that each roll you make is dependent on how many points you have remaining. What your roll is determines if it removes or adds points from your remaining points. The odds on the roll is intended to include the entire range of stats in point buy (7 to 18, etc), up to how high your remaining points would allow.
Chart: What to Roll
17+ points (7-18): 1d12 + 6 (avg 12.5)
13-16 points (7-17): 2d6 + 5 (avg 12)
10-12 points (7-16): 3d4 + 4 (avg 11.5)
7-9 points (7-15): 4d3 + 3 (avg 11)
5-6 points (7-14): 1d8 + 6 (avg 10.5)
3-4 points (7-13): 2d4 + 5 (avg 10)
2 points (7-12): 1d6 + 6 (avg 9.5)
1 point (7-11): 2d3 + 5 (avg 9)
0 points (7-10): 1d4 + 6 (avg 8.5)
If you finish with points leftover, you may add them to whatever stats you rolled to increase them (point buy style).
The result is that you gain stats you didn't completely plan out (might not get that 18, etc), but it's entirely balanced next to normal point buy.
*Note: I'd probably go with a rule that if you got nothing but 7s and a ton of points to spend, to just reroll. But the odds of that are pretty slim. Maybe something like "Reroll if you have more than 15 points leftover", etc.
_______________
Enjoy rolling those d3s! ;)
This is entirely unused so far. No idea how players or DMs would enjoy it in practice, heh.
--------------------------------------
Still haven't tried it yet. Next time I game, I want to give it a shot (as a player, if not as a DM enforcing it, muahahaha).
Dustin Ashe |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We do the standard method: 4d6, drop the lowest die.
Assemble as you like.
It certainly makes some players more powerful than others. And I'm currently playing a bard with a 5 in Wisdom.
But, meh. I like it because it creates great variety and more closely mirrors real life. Besides, if you roll so poorly as to make an unviable character, he/she won't survive long and you can always roll up another.
That sounds pretty realistic too. Survival of the fittest adventurer.
PIXIE DUST |
PIXIE DUST wrote:What I find makes even less sense than people running around with weaknesses are PCs running that are all around better at EVERYTHING that the average guy (i.e. "average" NPC stats)...If battling hordes of monsters, rescuing hostages, and saving the world were easy, Farmer Joe could do it. Heroes ought to be better at most things than the common people. Except farming, innkeeping, and hiring adventurers to perform tasks.
Except that it would make no sense for the studious wizard who spends weeks to months locked away in his tower busy with research to STILL have a higher str than Joe Farmer who works on fields all day...
Dice roll can very easily end up with situations where you are pretty much a walking Deity or you are barely competent...
Lakesidefantasy |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:Or you could, y'know, roll your stats, and avoid the problems about lowering your IQ point by point to increase your carrying capacity(!)Except that now your stats are all up in the air and you can end up with no good stat to put into str...
I know your comment is directed at Malachi specifically, but I would point out that Secret Fire's method above does not put all of your ability scores up in the air. With his method you are assured to get a good score if you feel like you need it.
Scythia |
Scythia wrote:PIXIE DUST wrote:What I find makes even less sense than people running around with weaknesses are PCs running that are all around better at EVERYTHING that the average guy (i.e. "average" NPC stats)...If battling hordes of monsters, rescuing hostages, and saving the world were easy, Farmer Joe could do it. Heroes ought to be better at most things than the common people. Except farming, innkeeping, and hiring adventurers to perform tasks.Except that it would make no sense for the studious wizard who spends weeks to months locked away in his tower busy with research to STILL have a higher str than Joe Farmer who works on fields all day...
Dice roll can very easily end up with situations where you are pretty much a walking Deity or you are barely competent...
I'm fine with a strong wizard. There's no system for stat atrophy, so if a physically fit person displayed magical aptitude and spent a decade living in a tower reading, they would exit with as much strength as they went in with. If you feel like a justification is needed, keep in mind that old dusty tomes can be heavy. Try carrying around a stack of gaming books.
Besides, not every wizard needs to be Raistlin, weak as wet paper.
Malachi Silverclaw |
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:Or you could, y'know, roll your stats, and avoid the problems about lowering your IQ point by point to increase your carrying capacity(!)Except that now your stats are all up in the air and you can end up with no good stat to put into str...
You play the hand you're dealt. Card games are no less fun for that.
You see what you've rolled, and see what you can make of it.
The vast majority of actual rolling for stats is not totally random. You get choice, methods to get better than 10.5 average per stat, all sorts of homebrew ways to deal with that randomness while still keeping the essence of chance and variety.
Point-buy is sterile, unsurprising, leads to cookie-cutter arrays and favours SAD classes.
It would be a poorly imagined world where every farmer is stronger than every wizard.
Kaisoku |
That's really interesting, K, but I don't quite understand how you determine how many points are added or subtracted based on what is rolled. Do you just add or subtract points at the standard point-buy value after a particular stat is rolled?
Love those d3s.
Yeppers.
Basically, this would be a rundown of how it would work:
DM says we are making 20 pt buy characters.
Since you have 17+ pts: 1d12 + 6 ⇒ (8) + 6 = 14.
14 is worth 5 pts, leaving 15 left: 2d6 + 5 ⇒ (6, 1) + 5 = 12.
12 is worth 2 pts, leaving 13 left: 2d6 + 5 ⇒ (1, 2) + 5 = 8.
8 gives 2 pts back, giving 15 left: 2d6 + 5 ⇒ (3, 3) + 5 = 11.
11 is worth 1 pt, leaving 14 left: 2d6 + 5 ⇒ (1, 2) + 5 = 8.
11 is worth 1 pt, leaving 13 left: 2d6 + 5 ⇒ (5, 3) + 5 = 13.
13 is worth 3 pts, leaving 10 points.
Stats rolled are 14, 13, 12, 11, 8, 8, and 10 pts left to distribute.
Yikes, bad rolls. Gives a pretty big chunk of modification leftover, it'd probably be my limit before reroll (half the original pt buy).
Hope that clears up what I meant by the process. :D
*Edit*
Alternatively I might retool the rolls to bump up the bottom roll from 7 to 8 or 9, as many folks dislike players having such a low dump stat (and it'd potentially boost leftover points a lot).
Or perhaps have the first roll or two have a 10 bottom roll, allowing higher stats on the first rolls, eating through points quicker.
Ideas to tweak this... hmm.
Malachi Silverclaw |
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:It would be a poorly imagined world where every farmer is stronger than every wizard.Luckily, they're not. No matter which method is used.
I was replying to Pixie Dust, who said:-
Except that it would make no sense for the studious wizard who spends weeks to months locked away in his tower busy with research to STILL have a higher str than Joe Farmer who works on fields all day...
She's right, in the sense that it 'makes no sense' that a wizard should be stronger than a farmer, and taking these two demographics as a whole then it's almost certainly true that most farmers are stronger than most wizards. When making a wizard character with point-buy, you have total control over how to spend your points, and since it makes no sense to waste points on Str, then the evolutionary pressures of creating wizards most fit to survive adventuring, then the wizard will benefit from a higher Int more than he will be disadvantaged by a low Str.
So, these pressures evolve PC wizards. But does this model a population of wizards and farmers that makes sense? No, because although point-buy actually rewards low Str by giving more points to spend on Int, reality doesn't! In reality (and any system trying to be realistic), being weaker doesn't make you more intelligent.
With random rolls you can assign scores as you wish, but you can't then lower your Str to increase your Int. This means that the resulting array is more realistic.
I'm not accusing you of saying this next bit, just making a point: just because 'dragons', doesn't mean we stop trying to be as realistic as we can when modelling our fantasy worlds.
Stephen Ede |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Point-buy, but for the next campaign I run everyone will roll and have the option of taking the rolls of the player that rolled the best. If more than one rolled well they can choose which set to take.
I really don't like rolling, but one of the players wanted to roll, and I was only going to do it if everyone had the same access to good rolls.
The 2 current Campaigns I'm running the players all rolled 4d6 - take best 3 for 6 rolls. Do that twice and put the results on the table.
All players can use any set of 6 rolled. Assign them to stats as you wish.As it happened both times 1 set of 6 rolled was better than the others and all players took it, but this gave them stats that could and was used to make a variety of characters well with everyone distributing their stats differently and no one could complain that someone had better rolls.
At the same time it avoided the min-max allocating of point buy.
Only one player didn't like it. The player tends to roll better stats dice than others and as it happened the group he was in all used a stat set he rolled. :-)