You seem to automatically assume every character springs fully formed from the mind of Zeus at a level where this s#@& can actually help you.
Detect Evil only really works once you hit about 8th level (when most things will finally be level 5). Handy Haversacks are pretty expensive at low levels too.
Spells are a thing that, you know...not every class has.
well if we're level 1 yes, all my skill points are placed in fully into one or other skill. I assumed we were talking about when you started actually being able to spread points out with 3 skill points per level. (this is assuming a 2+int mod class, with an negative int.)
is everyone having fly cast on them? no i assumed the wizard flew up to tie down the rope.My usual stat array is 16/14/14/12/12/7, so I do like having at least a 12 in Int (and the other 12 then is kinda stuck to Wis).
Some classes just have the fine gift of not needing one stat or another for whatever reason.
when was i not level 10 in this hypothetical discussion? and no i wasn't attacked by zebras and needed to get up a cliff until now. before it's just been up an incline or to get a height bonus in combat or something.
Why are you level 10 all of a sudden?
You have to GET there first. 10 levels with no skills. It NEVER came up before then?
Please.
When were you ANY specific level?
At level 10 Climb is a non-issue because flight. I figured we were, you know, talking about levels where the Climb skill actually MATTERS.
At which point the DC again becomes "non-issue".
I'm just wondering why you're so fixated on Climb. Climb is, hands down, the least useful and most easily trivialized skill in the game besides Appraise.
What if you need to Bluff? Or, more commonly, see THROUGH a Bluff?
See...anything.
Diplomacize or Intimidate a character anywhere near your level?
well if we're level 1 yes, all my skill points are placed in fully into one or other skill. I assumed we were talking about when you started actually being able to spread points out with 3 skill points per level. (this is assuming a 2+int mod class, with an negative int.)You seem to automatically assume every character springs fully formed from the mind of Zeus at a level where this s#@& can actually help you.
Detect Evil only really works once you hit about 8th level (when most things will finally be level 5). Handy Haversacks are pretty expensive at low levels too.
Spells are a thing that, you know...not every class has.
You start to be able to spread around skills really early on.
It just becomes practically useful...almost never.
1. detect evilThat is neither reading their surroundings
i'm saying the non-wise paladin doesn't care because he has detect evil at his side.
3. I do occasionally, seriously don't expect to front line and have escape options, (this is relying on good saves in general as well) then it CAN be left low.You actually do that in real play? Every time I see somebody do that they end up dead.
last character died in a cave-in con didn't help him.
While that might be the game's expectation of a Paladin...
...it certainly isn't mine.
then he's probably wiser than the paladin in question.
stuff
because every time someone says they don't have enough skill points my examples focus in on climb since it's rarely ever used.
fine i'll move on to acrobatics and jumping pits.... wait best not.
Incidentally, 1-for-1 point buy is ridiculous.
Meh, not really. The earliest point-buy systems I remember as house rules back in my 1e days gave players 72 points to spend on their 6 stats, buying up from 0. It wasn't particularly outlandish. If you wanted an 18 in something, you had to lower your expectations elsewhere. And in PF, the issue of steep benefits at the higher stats is evened out, so I don't see it being any worse than PF's standard point buy.
14s generally fine for secondary stats, and then you just need a 16. monks generally never get touched by anythign so they don't really need amazing con either.
A page about the statistical distribution of 4dd drop the lowest.
http://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/
As you can see at the bottom, the chances of rolling even three stats that are at least a 14 are only 36%. Make that two 14s and a 16 and the chances go even lower. The chance of at least one 16, however, is over 50%.
Like I said, people assume they'll be lucky.
i'm saying the non-wise paladin doesn't care because he has detect evil at his side.1. detect evilThat is neither reading their surroundingsUm, just because that guy is Evil doesn't mean he's lying. Just because he's not evil doesn't mean he's not lying his ass off.
Detect evil != Detect truth/lie.
Consequently, having a crappy Sense Motive is not compensated by having Detect Evil.
Same goes for Perception.
7 Wis = -2. 4 extra points to spend elsewhere.
Feat: Skill Focus (Sense Motive) = +3, 1 rank = another +4. Trait for another +1 at sense motive. Total = +6. You can overcome the weakness with some traits and feats.
Whether it's worth it is up to you.
14s generally fine for secondary stats, and then you just need a 16. monks generally never get touched by anythign so they don't really need amazing con either.A page about the statistical distribution of 4dd drop the lowest.
http://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/
As you can see at the bottom, the chances of rolling even three stats that are at least a 14 are only 36%. Make that two 14s and a 16 and the chances go even lower. The chance of at least one 16, however, is over 50%.
Like I said, people assume they'll be lucky.
More likely: they don't know the statistics and assume it's higher than it really is.
More likely: they don't know the statistics and assume it's higher than it really is.
Or they know enough that they understand the "drop lowest die" part of the method helps suppress the really low results and prefer rolling with that little bit of insurance.
i'm saying the non-wise paladin doesn't care because he has detect evil at his side.1. detect evilThat is neither reading their surroundingsUm, just because that guy is Evil doesn't mean he's lying. Just because he's not evil doesn't mean he's not lying his ass off.
Detect evil != Detect truth/lie.
Consequently, having a crappy Sense Motive is not compensated by having Detect Evil.
Same goes for Perception.
but he;s not wise, he's going to murder the evil guy regardless of whether he;s lying or not.
14s generally fine for secondary stats, and then you just need a 16. monks generally never get touched by anythign so they don't really need amazing con either.A page about the statistical distribution of 4dd drop the lowest.
http://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/
As you can see at the bottom, the chances of rolling even three stats that are at least a 14 are only 36%. Make that two 14s and a 16 and the chances go even lower. The chance of at least one 16, however, is over 50%.
Like I said, people assume they'll be lucky.
yeah and they assume they'll be even luckier by rolling multiple times.
3 sets will yelied a 73% chance at least 1 will have 3 14s or above.
I think, judging by the plethora of methods that guard against bad rolls, people have a pretty good idea of the odds and like to boost them.
Most of the methods that seem intended to stop the bad rolls really seem to have the side effect of giving another chance at really good ones.
It's not "treat ones as twos", it's "reroll ones".
Good point. I'd never really thought about that before, but it's obvious when you think about it. Treating 1s as 2s and 2s as 3s would actually be a great way to curb the lower end without substantially increasing the upper end.
I'm a fan of rolling and, in my mind, that means being happy with rolling a crap character.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is getting weird.
Am I the only one who generally wants to have at least one low score?
While I always hope for all high scores (one day I will have six 18s!), I don't denounce a character with low scores as unplayable like it seems many here would do. I look at it as something to frame their personality around....how did a character that weak/clumsy/sickly/stupid/foolish/unnoticeable manage to become a adventurer.
|
In 2E having low rolled or used dumps could really hurt characters. Low Con good luck coming back from the dead. Low Dex made it easier for ranged weapons to hit. In third edition and later while annoying their not too much a hinderence imo. I dislike rolling for hit points. Rolling for stats can be fun. for some people who have run of luck it can make for good characters. One player always rolled high no matter the amount of times he changed dice. He was that damn lucky. I prefer point buy as well. So either or for me.
14s generally fine for secondary stats, and then you just need a 16. monks generally never get touched by anythign so they don't really need amazing con either.A page about the statistical distribution of 4dd drop the lowest.
http://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/
As you can see at the bottom, the chances of rolling even three stats that are at least a 14 are only 36%. Make that two 14s and a 16 and the chances go even lower. The chance of at least one 16, however, is over 50%.
Like I said, people assume they'll be lucky.
yeah and they assume they'll be even luckier by rolling multiple times.
3 sets will yelied a 73% chance at least 1 will have 3 14s or above.
Yes, and rolling 1000 times will yield even greater results, what's your point? At that point it's just skewing the numbers intentionally in order to avoid randomness, and if avoiding randomness is your goal, you should just use point buy.
Remember, even a a 73% chance of success is a 27% chance of failure that will adversely affect your character for their entire career, and SAD classes are still much, much less likely to be screwed (and much more likely to get at least a 17 in at least one stat using your method, by the way). A high point buy gives a 100% chance of screwed over avoidance. Can't beat those odds. The whole idea that rolling is more beneficial for MAD classes is a myth that the math simply refutes.
14s generally fine for secondary stats, and then you just need a 16. monks generally never get touched by anythign so they don't really need amazing con either.A page about the statistical distribution of 4dd drop the lowest.
http://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/
As you can see at the bottom, the chances of rolling even three stats that are at least a 14 are only 36%. Make that two 14s and a 16 and the chances go even lower. The chance of at least one 16, however, is over 50%.
Like I said, people assume they'll be lucky.
yeah and they assume they'll be even luckier by rolling multiple times.
3 sets will yelied a 73% chance at least 1 will have 3 14s or above.
Yes, and rolling 1000 times will yield even greater results, what's your point? At that point it's just skewing the numbers intentionally in order to avoid randomness, and if avoiding randomness is your goal, you should just use point buy.
Remember, even a a 73% chance of success is a 27% chance of failure that will adversely affect your character for their entire career, and SAD classes are still much, much less likely to be screwed (and much more likely to get at least a 17 in at least one stat using your method, by the way). A high point buy gives a 100% chance of screwed over avoidance. Can't beat those odds. The whole idea that rolling is more beneficial for MAD classes is a myth that the math simply refutes.
every, and i do mean every, time i've had gms do rolls, they've allowed full set rerolls if you didn't like them. (because otherwise you'd just suicide teh character 2 minute in)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, even a a 73% chance of success is a 27% chance of failure that will adversely affect your character for their entire career, and SAD classes are still much, much less likely to be screwed (and much more likely to get at least a 17 in at least one stat using your method, by the way). A high point buy gives a 100% chance of screwed over avoidance. Can't beat those odds. The whole idea that rolling is more beneficial for MAD classes is a myth that the math simply refutes.
I don't think it's relevant that SAD classes are "much, much less likely to be screwed" if you roll. I think it's the upside that rolling has over point-buy if you've got your heart set on a MAD class.
I assume the point is that the unusual 'killer rolls' are not that useful to the SAD classes (in that they're no better at their core abilities, they're just broader) but are very useful for the MAD class (who will otherwise struggle to be good at their main schtick). If you roll poorly you're more likely to be screwed as a MAD class than a SAD class - but the argument goes (I presume) that you're just as screwed by the limitations of point-buy, unless it's a particularly high budget.
Hence rolling is better for MAD classes than point buy because if you roll low it's no real loss (you're still as disadvantaged by your class's stat requirements as if you'd used point-buy and the poor rolls dont really impact on the SAD classed character), but there's an upside if you roll high (because the benefit to your MAD class is more significant than that to a SAD class).
every, and i do mean every, time i've had gms do rolls, they've allowed full set rerolls if you didn't like them. (because otherwise you'd just suicide teh character 2 minute in)
14s generally fine for secondary stats, and then you just need a 16. monks generally never get touched by anythign so they don't really need amazing con either.A page about the statistical distribution of 4dd drop the lowest.
http://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/
As you can see at the bottom, the chances of rolling even three stats that are at least a 14 are only 36%. Make that two 14s and a 16 and the chances go even lower. The chance of at least one 16, however, is over 50%.
Like I said, people assume they'll be lucky.
yeah and they assume they'll be even luckier by rolling multiple times.
3 sets will yelied a 73% chance at least 1 will have 3 14s or above.
Yes, and rolling 1000 times will yield even greater results, what's your point? At that point it's just skewing the numbers intentionally in order to avoid randomness, and if avoiding randomness is your goal, you should just use point buy.
Remember, even a a 73% chance of success is a 27% chance of failure that will adversely affect your character for their entire career, and SAD classes are still much, much less likely to be screwed (and much more likely to get at least a 17 in at least one stat using your method, by the way). A high point buy gives a 100% chance of screwed over avoidance. Can't beat those odds. The whole idea that rolling is more beneficial for MAD classes is a myth that the math simply refutes.
Besides doing the one-off 3d6 in order (for fun) game, I've actuslly had one GM state that you're stuck with what you roll. That same GM did also try to come up with ways to help you from getting screwed. Two different methods used were 8+2d6 and 4d6, reroll 1s, drop lowest, and if you get a Yahtzee then it's an automatic 19. You were allowed to roll once and it had to be at the table while everyone watched.
my most often used class is monk (i like having nothing but random trinket magic items on me), and i prefer pointbuy, 16 in str/dex(choose one), 14 in wisdom, 14 in con, put like a 12 in the other stat from str/dex, then derp derp charisma.
stuff
in which case if i got something i didn't enjoy i would walk up to the nearest town guard and attack him until the entire town was dead or i was.
if i lived, i'd keep the character.
my most often used class is monk (i like having nothing but random trinket magic items on me), and i prefer pointbuy, 16 in str/dex(choose one), 14 in wisdom, 14 in con, put like a 12 in the other stat from str/dex, then derp derp charisma.
Yeah, I think an assumed premise in the "rolling is better for MAD classes" argument is that you can't build a decent MAD character with the usual point-buy methods.
Hence, an "equivalent" rolling method means a little more than half the time you still can't build a decent MAD character but sometimes you will get a lucky streak and a MAD class is possible.
stuffin which case if i got something i didn't enjoy i would walk up to the nearest town guard and attack him until the entire town was dead or i was.
if i lived, i'd keep the character.
I too have been known to suicide charge things when I'm pissed that my dice rolls end up a much lower average than the rest of the party.
(...or much higher, frankly. That's not fair, either, but to others)
The key is to make it look unintentional, and play it off as if your character is foolishly brave. The rest of the party just thinks you're a tactical idiot, but a quick sly grin when only the GM is looking gets the message across.
It's amazing how effective that tactic is at getting GMs to reconsider arbitrary restrictions on characters that aren't equally distributed amongst the party, or nerfing, or really any other GM power pull chest puffing alpha display.
Their only recourse is to either kick you out, let you rebuild, or make you invincible. 1/3 chance you just find a GM you get along with anyway, 1/3 chance your problem is solved without leaving, and 1/3 the rest of the party gets pissed at the GM for Deus Exing you out of every potential problem.
I don't recommend it out of hand - it is, admittedly a dick move (which I have only used on two GMs, one who put restrictions on me that nobody else had, and one time with a GM that made me stick with a dice roll that was about 20 points below party average), and not really good form.
...but it really works every time.
this is what happens when i don't put [/joke] at the end of my sentences.
*shrug* Well, it's been quite a few years, if that helps. It's not exactly something I still practice.
..but yeah it is kinda a dick move.
Remember, even a a 73% chance of success is a 27% chance of failure that will adversely affect your character for their entire career, and SAD classes are still much, much less likely to be screwed (and much more likely to get at least a 17 in at least one stat using your method, by the way). A high point buy gives a 100% chance of screwed over avoidance. Can't beat those odds. The whole idea that rolling is more beneficial for MAD classes is a myth that the math simply refutes.I don't think it's relevant that SAD classes are "much, much less likely to be screwed" if you roll. I think it's the upside that rolling has over point-buy if you've got your heart set on a MAD class.
I assume the point is that the unusual 'killer rolls' are not that useful to the SAD classes (in that they're no better at their core abilities, they're just broader) but are very useful for the MAD class (who will otherwise struggle to be good at their main schtick). If you roll poorly you're more likely to be screwed as a MAD class than a SAD class - but the argument goes (I presume) that you're just as screwed by the limitations of point-buy, unless it's a particularly high budget.
Hence rolling is better for MAD classes than point buy because if you roll low it's no real loss (you're still as disadvantaged by your class's stat requirements as if you'd used point-buy and the poor rolls dont really impact on the SAD classed character), but there's an upside if you roll high (because the benefit to your MAD class is more significant than that to a SAD class).
If you've got your heart set on a MAD class, rolling is the worst possible method to generate a character, as it opens the very real possibility of you being utterly screwed. Because of the way the statistical distribution works, you are in fact far more likely to be far more screwed than if you chose an equivalent level point buy. Screwed is not a binary condition, it comes on a spectrum, and equivalence in method is important. Comparing, say, 15 point buy against 4d6 drop the lowest try three times is nowhere near a fair comparison.
The only way rolling comes out ahead is if you're comparing it against a point buy of lesser equivalence. Or if your method produces such low average stats that your only possible hope of playing a MAD character to any degree of effectiveness is to get super lucky, in which case you're correct, but at that point playing a MAD class is a pipe dream you should probably give up on, or talk to your DM about ruining everybody's fun :).
The only way rolling comes out ahead is if you're comparing it against a point buy of lesser equivalence. Or if your method produces such low average stats that your only possible hope of playing a MAD character to any degree of effectiveness is to get super lucky, in which case you're correct, but at that point playing a MAD class is a pipe dream you should probably give up on, or talk to your DM about ruining everybody's fun :).
Sure. However, I think that is when people make the argument - when they think that whatever pointbuy method is on offer is prohibitively harsh on MAD characters.
I will say this, using rolling was the only time I had to play a character with this garbage and got to play a character with this awesomeness
is that a 4?
I suppose, really just want to know the appeal. I see no point in playing if I'm literally worth less then the goblin we fought two levels ago.I like it because it's fun and interesting (and because it's from a bygone era which I quite enjoyed and want to hold onto as long as I can). Different strokes and all that - I dont find "character power" to be a significant part of whether I enjoy a game or a specific PC - so ending up as a superhero or a sidekick doesnt really bother me (most of the time, of course, you'll end up a little bit better than average).
I agree it should be part of a game's 'advertising spiel' - it's a very different thing.
Worthless is as worthless does. My motto, since 1981, has been, "roll me up a little girl with a butter knife and I'll slay you a dragon with her."
I think the difference is whether you are playing the game or letting the game play you.
I call it a challenge, but I understand challenge to be a difficult concept for some people nowadays.
is that a 4?
Yep. 2 1 1 1. Drop lowest still leaves you with 2 1 1, or 4.
Not QUITE the worst, but close.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose, really just want to know the appeal. I see no point in playing if I'm literally worth less then the goblin we fought two levels ago.I like it because it's fun and interesting (and because it's from a bygone era which I quite enjoyed and want to hold onto as long as I can). Different strokes and all that - I dont find "character power" to be a significant part of whether I enjoy a game or a specific PC - so ending up as a superhero or a sidekick doesnt really bother me (most of the time, of course, you'll end up a little bit better than average).
I agree it should be part of a game's 'advertising spiel' - it's a very different thing.
Worthless is as worthless does. My motto, since 1981, has been, "roll me up a little girl with a butter knife and I'll slay you a dragon with her."
I think the difference is whether you are playing the game or letting the game play you.
I call it a challenge, but I understand challenge to be a difficult concept for some people nowadays.
Maybe if you got down from that high horse of yours you would be able to see that Pathfinder involves a lot of numbers. Numbers that determine what happen. Numbers that, if they are too low, say that whatever you were trying to do didn't happen, no matter how much you believe in your small child with a butter knife.
I suppose, really just want to know the appeal. I see no point in playing if I'm literally worth less then the goblin we fought two levels ago.I like it because it's fun and interesting (and because it's from a bygone era which I quite enjoyed and want to hold onto as long as I can). Different strokes and all that - I dont find "character power" to be a significant part of whether I enjoy a game or a specific PC - so ending up as a superhero or a sidekick doesnt really bother me (most of the time, of course, you'll end up a little bit better than average).
I agree it should be part of a game's 'advertising spiel' - it's a very different thing.
Worthless is as worthless does. My motto, since 1981, has been, "roll me up a little girl with a butter knife and I'll slay you a dragon with her."
I think the difference is whether you are playing the game or letting the game play you.
I call it a challenge, but I understand challenge to be a difficult concept for some people nowadays.
The challenge should be part of the game itself, not the character creation process.
If your GM is so bad that the only way a fight with a dragon is difficult and interesting is if you're Gimpy McNoTalent then I wouldn't be so proud.
Maybe if you got down from that high horse of yours you would be able to see that Pathfinder involves a lot of numbers. Numbers that determine what happen. Numbers that, if they are too low, say that whatever you were trying to do didn't happen, no matter how much you believe in your small child with a butter knife.I suppose, really just want to know the appeal. I see no point in playing if I'm literally worth less then the goblin we fought two levels ago.I like it because it's fun and interesting (and because it's from a bygone era which I quite enjoyed and want to hold onto as long as I can). Different strokes and all that - I dont find "character power" to be a significant part of whether I enjoy a game or a specific PC - so ending up as a superhero or a sidekick doesnt really bother me (most of the time, of course, you'll end up a little bit better than average).
I agree it should be part of a game's 'advertising spiel' - it's a very different thing.
Worthless is as worthless does. My motto, since 1981, has been, "roll me up a little girl with a butter knife and I'll slay you a dragon with her."
I think the difference is whether you are playing the game or letting the game play you.
I call it a challenge, but I understand challenge to be a difficult concept for some people nowadays.
I was going to say something along these lines too but I used up my quota of high horse references earlier this week.
The challenge should be part of the game itself, not the character creation process.
I'm interested in this comment. Do you mean that character creation isn't part of the game? Or do you perhaps consider it a separate, quarantined part of the game - set apart from the "what's your guy going to do?" part?
The challenge should be part of the game itself, not the character creation process.I'm interested in this comment. Do you mean that character creation isn't part of the game? Or do you perhaps consider it a separate, quarantined part of the game - set apart from the "what's your guy going to do?" part?
Character creation is pre-game work, like creating the basic setting and idea for what the campaign is going to be about it.
An important part to be sure (the game couldn't go on without it), but not a part of the game itself in the same sense as everything else.
Cheers.
Maybe if you got down from that high horse of yours you would be able to see that Pathfinder involves a lot of numbers. Numbers that determine what happen. Numbers that, if they are too low, say that whatever you were trying to do didn't happen, no matter how much you believe in your small child with a butter knife.I suppose, really just want to know the appeal. I see no point in playing if I'm literally worth less then the goblin we fought two levels ago.I like it because it's fun and interesting (and because it's from a bygone era which I quite enjoyed and want to hold onto as long as I can). Different strokes and all that - I dont find "character power" to be a significant part of whether I enjoy a game or a specific PC - so ending up as a superhero or a sidekick doesnt really bother me (most of the time, of course, you'll end up a little bit better than average).
I agree it should be part of a game's 'advertising spiel' - it's a very different thing.
Worthless is as worthless does. My motto, since 1981, has been, "roll me up a little girl with a butter knife and I'll slay you a dragon with her."
I think the difference is whether you are playing the game or letting the game play you.
I call it a challenge, but I understand challenge to be a difficult concept for some people nowadays.
you don't know challenge til you beat someone to death with a ladle in dark souls. skerb[/joke]
You can use a ladle as a weapon in Dark Souls?
Clearly I need to rent that game again and create the Iron Chef.
You can use a ladle as a weapon in Dark Souls?
Clearly I need to rent that game again and create the Iron Chef.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking from a lofty equestrian position, yes, Pathfinder involves numbers. Pathfinder also involves playing a role. If your numbers are "low" you play to those numbers. Does winning equal a valid experience? Is finding every combat a chore because you fail at everything from saves to attacks to skill attempts somehow less valid? How about less enjoyable? I do get frustrated when my character's DC for an ability is so low it almost never works, or to find my point buy spread or random array so thin I'm kind of...extremely average with a sharp spur in maybe one ability. Happily, I'm able to enjoy the personality of the character just as much as I do with a character with sooper-awesome stats whether it be point buy Epic or randomly determined. Hitting every time or succeeding everytime would be even worse - at least with the subpar character you get surprised and gratified when you succeed at something. ;)
I really think this is less about approach and more about gamestyle - for some folks the character needs to be more than competent or they suffer from increased frustration as their "heroic" hero is less than stellar and perhaps doesn't "contribute" meaningfully numberswise - in combat or dice related social encounters. For others, a flaw or five is merely ammunition for a fantastic and nuanced roleplay experience surrounding a hapless weakwilled lackwit who can't contribute their way out of a combat-sack. As long as the two groups don't play together they should be fine.
As to where point-buy vs random fits into that, I'll let others decide.
The only way rolling comes out ahead is if you're comparing it against a point buy of lesser equivalence. Or if your method produces such low average stats that your only possible hope of playing a MAD character to any degree of effectiveness is to get super lucky, in which case you're correct, but at that point playing a MAD class is a pipe dream you should probably give up on, or talk to your DM about ruining everybody's fun :).Sure. However, I think that is when people make the argument - when they think that whatever pointbuy method is on offer is prohibitively harsh on MAD characters.
Exactly, and at that point, they always assume they'll get lucky. Always. The math just doesn't bear that out. Even 4d6 drop the lowest, equivalent to about an 18 point buy, gives a less than 40% chance of playing a well rounded MAD character, and the math only gets worse from there. I'll take the 18 point buy at that point, thanks, I can work with that.
People may feel that way, but the fact of the matter is that at the stat points people almost always play at, they're wrong.
Yeah, you need a table because it is so convoluted.
If it were a one to one ratio point buy then that would be simpler.It's certainly more complicated than just rolling three dice and adding them up.
More complicated than adding 3 numbers does not make it convoluted. That table is there because it is faster than reading words, and if you play enough games it is definitely not needed since memorizing how it works without trying is not hard.
To say it is the reason characters take a long time to make is a stretch. I am sure most of us are not having a hard time with it.