Your post is true, but completely irrelevant to my post. Bandw2 seemed to think that he doesn't need to worry about Sense Motive because his Paladin has Detect Evil. I was merely pointing out that those two abilities are completely unrelated.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.
I know; I was trying to provide another alternative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Theyre not necessarily "assuming they'll get lucky". I understand the premise is controversial, but nonetheless if you want to play a MAD character and you think it "needs" a 22 point buy, you're being rational to choose 4d6, drop the lowest over an 18 point buy - some chance is better than no chance. It's especially reasonable if you play often (so you can play a SAD character when you roll average or worse and wait for the lucky game when you achieve your magic stats to play that MAD character that "needs" 22 points).
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.
Huh. I can see that.
I've always considered character creation to be a part of the game. The entire game itself that involves the books, maybe some dice, figuring it combinations, etc... A different aspect to the game than the storyline, but part of it nonetheless.
Yeah, it's not about getting lucky and having highish stats for everything you want in a MAD character. It's more about the stats being independent variables AND the SAD character is no more likely to have a higher primary stat than the MAD character that helps balance the two types of classes. With point buying stats, the variables are not independent and the SAD character is much more likely to invest in the really high primary stat than a MAD character because his penalty for doing so is more easily contained.
Yeah, it's not about getting lucky and having highish stats for everything you want in a MAD character.
I'm pretty sure MAD chars are more screwed than SAD chars when they roll all 10s and 11s.
The SAD char just gets a +2 racial mod and plays a master summoner. Your monk will still suck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a tangent -
Triune's comments about arrays for MAD PCs reminds me of my own point buy / array system where I allow players to either use a point buy, or show a modest array that is equivalent to a point buy that is 15-20% more points than the point buy - though much more evenly distributed.
Example - a 20 point buy; or an array of 15, 15, 14, 14, 10, 10 - or some such equivalent. Each player decides array or point buy for their PC (MAD classes tend towards array, SAD classes towards point buy).
Another variation is the dice rolling array. Everyone rolls stats. Luckiest roller has just provided the array for the whole PC group.
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.
Theyre not necessarily "assuming they'll get lucky". I understand the premise is controversial, but nonetheless if you want to play a MAD character and you think it "needs" a 22 point buy, you're being rational to choose 4d6, drop the lowest over an 18 point buy - some chance is better than no chance. It's especially reasonable if you play often (so you can play a SAD character when you roll average or worse and wait for the lucky game when you achieve your magic stats to play that MAD character that "needs" 22 points).
I'd be interested to know what character "needs" such a high point buy vs would like to have it but it isn't necessary. If you just want you're far more likely to screw yourself over than get the desired results. And if you're playing such a needy character (and not even monks are that needy), using dice instead of a higher point buy is just silly. Remember, the discussion is why people prefer it, not why they're forced to use it by stingy DMs. I suspect that by your wording and quotations you likely agree.
Subjecting people to the whims of dice to determine whether or not they get to play the character they want is outright stupid.
People confuse need and want, and since they want something they assume they'll get lucky and get it. Same reason people go to casinos. The math says you'll likely lose and should take the safe bet, but people prefer to gamble.
Yeah, it's not about getting lucky and having highish stats for everything you want in a MAD character.I'm pretty sure MAD chars are more screwed than SAD chars when they roll all 10s and 11s.
The SAD char just gets a +2 racial mod and plays a master summoner. Your monk will still suck.
I think that for primary full casters they can just survive really well on terrible rolls (and summoners, because they are even less ability dependent than wizards).
Heck, so long as you end up with an int of 12 or greater, a wizard CAN be made to work. You just have to stick with things that don't care about DCs.
Like buffs, BFC and summons.
Woe is you.
A wizard with the stat array of 5,8,8,10+2,8,5 can still contribute meaningfully in a party. Swap wisdom and int and you get a borderline acceptable cleric. Good luck making a monk or a ninja work on those stats.
My problem with dice rolls for creation isn't low scores - I had a GM do roll 4d6, reroll 1s and 2s, drop lowest, three sets of six, pick your best set... it was nigh impossible to get a bad set out of that.
It's the inconsistency from player to player. Your dice rolls during generation affect your character for the entire game. This isn't like a fumbled attack roll, or even a crappy fort save that can kill you - rezzes happen. This screws up or boosts absolutely all you do for the entirety of the game...and it isn't fair to have an uneven potential between players.
Even if it is just one point difference, it is giving an unfair advantage, no matter how small, to one character over another. They should all have the capability of making the same potential characters, even if (and hopefully) they choose not to. It's not about an even ending, it's about an even starting point.
The only way I would ever consider dice rolls for a group is if they collaboratively rolled one string of dice and each had to share the results as a given stat array.
My problem with dice rolls for creation isn't low scores - I had a GM do roll 4d6, reroll 1s and 2s, drop lowest, three sets of six, pick your best set... it was nigh impossible to get a bad set out of that.
It's the inconsistency from player to player. Your dice rolls during generation affect your character for the entire game. This isn't like a fumbled attack roll, or even a crappy fort save that can kill you - rezzes happen. This screws up or boosts absolutely all you do for the entirety of the game...and it isn't fair to have an uneven potential between players.
Even if it is just one point difference, it is giving an unfair advantage, no matter how small, to one character over another. They should all have the capability of making the same potential characters, even if (and hopefully) they choose not to. It's not about an even ending, it's about an even starting point.
The only way I would ever consider dice rolls for a group is if they collaboratively rolled one string of dice and each had to share the results as a given stat array.
This is part of our culture; recently (in the past couple decades), our culture has moved towards wanting people to have an even starting point. Fighting for fairness, trying to help the poor, etc...
With a slight nod towards politics (and hoping this conversation does not delve into politics), I'm of the mindset to agree. But not everyone is. Of all those that I personally know that also despise point buy systems, all of them also despise the notion of "fairness" and argue that some people are just born better than others - stronger, smarter, what have you. So they prefer to roll dice for stats to represent that some characters are just better than others.
(Please note that there are likely plenty of people who hate point buy that don't feel this way, I just haven't met them yet. And none of this says anything about anyone who likes both or even prefers one over the other; just those I've met who *hate* point buy).
Some people like letting their luck play a factor in their character creation process. Some like a more even Stephen approach.
Your post is true, but completely irrelevant to my post. Bandw2 seemed to think that he doesn't need to worry about Sense Motive because his Paladin has Detect Evil. I was merely pointing out that those two abilities are completely unrelated.stuff
and i'm just pointing out the paladin is an idiot and doesn't need to know who is lying only who is evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of all those that I personally know that also despise point buy systems, all of them also despise the notion of "fairness" and argue that some people are just born better than others - stronger, smarter, what have you. So they prefer to roll dice for stats to represent that some characters are just better than others.
<nods>
And usually, they refuse to play characters with poor rolls (as defined by them)... which means they only play the "better" characters, instead of actually dealing with the variation in the creation method ("Oh, no... I only rolled a 16, a 14, and some 12s and 13s; this character is unplayable!"*).
Considering that 3.x/Pathfinder already starts with the assumption that PCs are "better" than the norm (even the "standard" 15-point buy is significantly better than the "Basic NPC" array in the Core Rulebook), this seems to be more of a "my character is super-awesome, even compared to other PCs/adventurers" type of thing. It isn't enough to be "better" than the "average Joe/NPC," they have to be legendary.
*- Note, I've actually heard this. Some people consider anything less than an 18, a 16, and at least two 14s as "unplayable."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be interested to know what character "needs" such a high point buy vs would like to have it but it isn't necessary. If you just want you're far more likely to screw yourself over than get the desired results. And if you're playing such a needy character (and not even monks are that needy), using dice instead of a higher point buy is just silly. Remember, the discussion is why people prefer it, not why they're forced to use it by stingy DMs. I suspect that by your wording and quotations you likely agree.
Subjecting people to the whims of dice to determine whether or not they get to play the character they want is outright stupid.
People confuse need and want, and since they want something they assume they'll get lucky and get it. Same reason people go to casinos. The math says you'll likely lose and should take the safe bet, but people prefer to gamble.
I don't disagree with you broadly - I think your point about comparing high stat roll methods with low point buys was particularly well made. Nonetheless, I think it's overreach to declare it mathematically proven. I don't agree that those advocating dice rolling as superior for MAD classes are falling victim to the gambler''s fallacy. The world is full of controversial premises and what can appear a foolish conclusion often turns out to be a rational response to an unstated assumption.
With regard to your latter point, I prefer dice rolling (taking the results in order) but that's as a player. As DM, I use whatever method suits my players - I definitely agree that forcing someone to roll who doesn't enjoy it is unlikely to generate fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the game I'm a player in now, we've agreed as a group on a stat array to use. So far it's working out well.
There is diversity, and the stats are well rounded enough to allow multi-classing or gestalt.
We may just do this going forward for all Pathfinder games, no matter who runs.
EDIT: 18, 16, 16, 14, 12, 10 is the array.
Please note that there are likely plenty of people who hate point buy that don't feel this way, I just haven't met them yet.
Well, we haven't actually met in person, but we've "met" on line, and I think I've been clear in why I despise point-buy -- because it pretends to be fair, but in fact it actually exacerbates an existing inequality.
Imagine if we set everyone's salary at $20,000. No more, no less. What could be more fair, right? Next step: a fourth of the people inherit enough that they make an additional $20,000 in dividends every year. If the cost of living is $30,000/year, the people with no inheritance are driven $10,000 further into debt every year, while the people who inherited are saving an additional $10,000/year, making next year's earnings that much higher.
That's exactly how I see point buy working. Higher point buys would be like paying everyone $30,000/year instead -- the non-inheritors at least break even, but the heirs and heiresses still keep pulling ahead of them.
TL;DR: I despise point-buy precisely because I DO value fairness.
Please note that there are likely plenty of people who hate point buy that don't feel this way, I just haven't met them yet.Well, we haven't actually met in person, but we've "met" on line, and I think I've been clear in why I despise point-buy -- because it pretends to be fair, but in fact it actually exacerbates an existing inequality.
Imagine if we set everyone's salary at $20,000. No more, no less. What could be more fair, right? Next step: a fourth of the people inherit enough that they make an additional $20,000 in dividends every year. If the cost of living is $30,000/year, the people with no inheritance are driven $10,000 further into debt every year, while the people who inherited are saving an additional $10,000/year, making next year's earnings that much higher.
That's exactly how I see point buy working. Higher point buys would be like paying everyone $30,000/year instead -- the non-inheritors at least break even, but the heirs and heiresses still keep pulling ahead of them.
TL;DR: I despise point-buy precisely because I DO value fairness.
weird because the system, using you analogy has taxes.
anyone less than 30k is getting tax exempted, everyone getting 30k is getting a small tax, say 20%, and then people above 30k are getting a strong tax, say 40-50%.
this is more of an issue that the only SAD classes are casters.
Yeah, it's not about getting lucky and having highish stats for everything you want in a MAD character.I'm pretty sure MAD chars are more screwed than SAD chars when they roll all 10s and 11s.
The SAD char just gets a +2 racial mod and plays a master summoner. Your monk will still suck.
I think that for primary full casters they can just survive really well on terrible rolls (and summoners, because they are even less ability dependent than wizards).
Heck, so long as you end up with an int of 12 or greater, a wizard CAN be made to work. You just have to stick with things that don't care about DCs.
Like buffs, BFC and summons.
Woe is you.
A wizard with the stat array of 5,8,8,10+2,8,5 can still contribute meaningfully in a party. Swap wisdom and int and you get a borderline acceptable cleric. Good luck making a monk or a ninja work on those stats.
Make that Wizard a Spirit Binder and now you have a BAB=Level with Fortitude and Will as its good saves animal companion (assumption being that your familiar's spirit is that of a Paladin). That garbage roll wizard could probably solo most Paizo publications.
I'd be interested to know what character "needs" such a high point buy vs would like to have it but it isn't necessary. If you just want you're far more likely to screw yourself over than get the desired results. And if you're playing such a needy character (and not even monks are that needy), using dice instead of a higher point buy is just silly. Remember, the discussion is why people prefer it, not why they're forced to use it by stingy DMs. I suspect that by your wording and quotations you likely agree.
Subjecting people to the whims of dice to determine whether or not they get to play the character they want is outright stupid.
People confuse need and want, and since they want something they assume they'll get lucky and get it. Same reason people go to casinos. The math says you'll likely lose and should take the safe bet, but people prefer to gamble.
I don't disagree with you broadly - I think your point about comparing high stat roll methods with low point buys was particularly well made. Nonetheless, I think it's overreach to declare it mathematically proven. I don't agree that those advocating dice rolling as superior for MAD classes are falling victim to the gambler''s fallacy. The world is full of controversial premises and what can appear a foolish conclusion often turns out to be a rational response to an unstated assumption.
With regard to your latter point, I prefer dice rolling (taking the results in order) but that's as a player. As DM, I use whatever method suits my players - I definitely agree that forcing someone to roll who doesn't enjoy it is unlikely to generate fun.
I believe the math is quite conclusive on the subject. However, that is admittedly using a set of premises (such as 4d6 drop the lowest being the standard, and thus, assumed method). The math is quite simple. Assuming your point buy equivalent method is sufficient to play a MAD character, statistically you will roll worse than that point buy ~50% of the time, leaving you worse off by default in those cases. The other half of the time you will roll better, but of the times you roll better there is a nonzero percentage of times the roll will be better because of one or two outlier stats, still leaving you unable to play your MAD character. This means that over half the time, you have screwed yourself by choosing rolling.
Given particularly low point buys and their equivalent rolling methods, I will concede the point, you are absolutely correct. However, given that I don't believe the majority of players play at such meager levels, I don't believe that to be a concern. Not to mention the fact that at such levels the chances of rolling a stat array suitable for a MAD character are so vanishingly small as to not be worth considering. Atthat juncture it is a DM issue, not a method one.
I'm by no means trying to say that people should be forced into point buy, though I do consider it the superior method personally. To each their own. I do however believe the argument that rolling favors MAD classes is incorrect in most, and definitely the most common, circumstances.
The difference is that if you do think that a given point buy isn't sufficient to play a good MAD character, you can roll. If you get good MAD stats, you play that character. If you don't, play a SAD one.
Do this enough times, eventually you'll get the MAD character you wanted. It might take a few games. Over the long haul, you'll get to play more of the high-stat dependent MAD characters you want.
The math indicates "a few games" is statistically more likely to be "a few hundred" in cases where point buy can't get you there. And in a game where games can take years to complete, that is a serious problem.
The difference is that if you do think that a given point buy isn't sufficient to play a good MAD character, you can roll. If you get good MAD stats, you play that character. If you don't, play a SAD one.
Do this enough times, eventually you'll get the MAD character you wanted. It might take a few games. Over the long haul, you'll get to play more of the high-stat dependent MAD characters you want.
I feel like this is stupid for some reason(not you thejeff, just the scenario). like it's ignoring the fact that you're playing characters with bad stats while your allies are playing characters with good stats. you're just waiting to die or just watching. the overall net result is the same. you're more bored on other characters but you get more fun out of others.
I'd prefer my players just all having fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR: I despise point-buy precisely because I DO value fairness.
Different definitions of fairness make a huge difference around this topic.
The difference is that if you do think that a given point buy isn't sufficient to play a good MAD character, you can roll. If you get good MAD stats, you play that character. If you don't, play a SAD one.
Do this enough times, eventually you'll get the MAD character you wanted. It might take a few games. Over the long haul, you'll get to play more of the high-stat dependent MAD characters you want.
I feel like this is stupid for some reason(not you thejeff, just the scenario). like it's ignoring the fact that you're playing characters with bad stats while your allies are playing characters with good stats. you're just waiting to die or just watching. the overall net result is the same. you're more bored on other characters but you get more fun out of others.
I'd prefer my players just all having fun.
Even in the theoretical that I'm the player that rolled well playing with someone who rolled like crap... carrying a crippled character is not fun for me. "Woops, Bob fell unconscious again, better go revive him" isn't a situation I want to be in when Bob is supposed to be part of the adventuring party.
I'm having the most fun when everyone is contributing as a unit.
Even in the theoretical that I'm the player that rolled well playing with someone who rolled like crap... carrying a crippled character is not fun for me. "Woops, Bob fell unconscious again, better go revive him" isn't a situation I want to be in when Bob is supposed to be part of the adventuring party.I'm having the most fun when everyone is contributing as a unit.
In my experience, that depends a lot more on what the player does with his PC than on the modifiers he rolls with.
@Arachnofiend - I mostly agree with Bill Dunn that except in extreme cases the way the PC is played probably makes more difference than the way the ability scores were generated. Would you consider somebody playing a limited class like Fighter to be a crippled character who impairs your fun? What about somebody who just has a suboptimal build? I'm not trying to tell you how to feel. I'm just curious about your thoughts.
My post was specifically a rebuttal to the "well, maybe I WANT to play a commoner who has no excuse to be out adventuring" argument, which given which posts I chose to quote may not have been entirely clear. I think this is an incredibly selfish way to play what is supposed to a team game. I do think that ability scores mean more than you're giving them credit for for anyone other than a full caster (the difference between a 12 strength and an 18 on a Barbarian is pretty significant), though.
@Arachnofiend - I mostly agree with Bill Dunn that except in extreme cases the way the PC is played probably makes more difference than the way the ability scores were generated. Would you consider somebody playing a limited class like Fighter to be a crippled character who impairs your fun? What about somebody who just has a suboptimal build? I'm not trying to tell you how to feel. I'm just curious about your thoughts.
I don't expect optimal, just viable. I find that people who don't build viable characters are either beginners at the game or doing it deliberately; I am more than happy to help and give advice to the former, and I try to avoid playing with the latter as much as possible.
Ok, I'd imagine that people's opinion on what's viable probably varies a lot. There can also be some real variations from game to game. I've personally found returning to homebrew games after playing in APs rather jarring since the bar for viability shot up suddenly at the same time when I decided it might be fun to try some Fighters. Whether they're superstars or dead weight depends pretty much on the mix of encounters the DM chooses. Only one of those PCs is point buy, and he's the least viable of the lot (at least in his particular game)
I agree there's a pretty wide gradient there, but there are some decisions that you can see from the outset are bad news regardless: Barbarians who don't pick Power Attack, Sorcerers who refuse to learn any spells that aren't enchantments, etc. etc.
I agree there's a pretty wide gradient there, but there are some decisions that you can see from the outset are bad news regardless: Barbarians who don't pick Power Attack, Sorcerers who refuse to learn any spells that aren't enchantments, etc. etc.
unchained barbarian could get piranha what's it.
Piranha Strike is just Power Attack for dexterity builds, that's not a counter to my point. :/
Piranha Strike is just Power Attack for dexterity builds, that's not a counter to my point. :/
yes it is.[/joke]
A Barbarian who rolls a 12 Str can't take Power Attack! More seriously, we once had a DM in 3.5 run what would be around the equivalent of a 0 point buy game in Pathfinder. Everybody who wasn't a caster was pretty pathetic.
It is tough to argue the effectiveness of Power Attack on a full BAB class which gets other bonuses to hit though I've had some success in the past running mid BAB characters who eschewed Power Attack in favor of accuracy and defense. I guess you could also focus on combat maneuvers though that's always risky especially if the DM might change encounters to avoid your area of competency (most stuff is pretty susceptible to "whack it with an axe", but a lot of things can't be tripped or grappled, and for monsters CMD can often far exceed AC)
A Barbarian who rolls a128 Str can't take Power Attack!
correction, their ability to rage does boost their ability to take feats.
Please note that there are likely plenty of people who hate point buy that don't feel this way, I just haven't met them yet.Well, we haven't actually met in person, but we've "met" on line, and I think I've been clear in why I despise point-buy -- because it pretends to be fair, but in fact it actually exacerbates an existing inequality.
Imagine if we set everyone's salary at $20,000. No more, no less. What could be more fair, right? Next step: a fourth of the people inherit enough that they make an additional $20,000 in dividends every year. If the cost of living is $30,000/year, the people with no inheritance are driven $10,000 further into debt every year, while the people who inherited are saving an additional $10,000/year, making next year's earnings that much higher.
That's exactly how I see point buy working. Higher point buys would be like paying everyone $30,000/year instead -- the non-inheritors at least break even, but the heirs and heiresses still keep pulling ahead of them.
TL;DR: I despise point-buy precisely because I DO value fairness.
I like ya, Kirth, but your analogy baffles me.
Everyone having the same point buy is about as fair as you can get - right up there with everyone having the same stat array.
Everyone having the same salary does not work as an analogy - how hard you work in life doesn't determine your point buy, your point buy isn't taxed, you can't make more or less point buy throughout your life, you can't inherent more points from family, having a low point buy vs higher point buy doesn't determine your status or limit you in life. It's just a bad analogy all around.
If you don't like point buy because of a lack of fairness, can you try to explain again? Maybe try a different approach to explain it? I'm just really baffled here.
(We can talk about taxation and wages in the off topic forums if you want to go into details about that; I can talk for hours on the subject - but I prefer to avoid such topics here).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the argument is that point buy allows SAD classes to maximize the one stat they need without consequences while MAD classes do not have enough points to get all of their stats as high. The better analogy would be if everyone got the same salary, but you didn't account for cost of living. So even though everyone has the same dollar amount available, the people in the SAD community where the cost of living is low are still coming out better than the people in the MAD community where the cost of living is much higher.
I definitely understand the argument but I think it's effectively solved with a higher point buy. SAD characters don't have anything useful they can do with those extra points (especially if you cap stats at 18 post-racials) but with a 25 point buy you can reasonably afford to have charismatic barbarians or wise paladins.
I'd argue that's false, a 16 is only 58% of the cost of an 18, and a 14 is only 50% the cost of a 16.
to get an 18 with pb 15, you need to dump a stat to even get an 18(total modifier ~3), in that you can get 3 14s(total modifier ~ 6) without dumping.
likewise mathematically 4d6d1 as mentioned has a 36% chance or so of having at least 3 scores be at least 14s. It also only has a 9% chance or so to have at least a single 18.
Maybe kirth was trying to say that there is an unuequal distribution of power between the classes and point buy helps to propogate it in some way. I'm really not sure, but maybe the important part is making the point buy vs rolling discussion more politically charged. Vote against Point Buy! Stop the oppression of randomly rolled adventurers!
I'd generally rather see lower than higher point buys and less rather than more powerful PCs. On the other hand, I wonder whether it might be easiest to just give people straight 18's and tell them that if they want to lower a score for roleplaying reasons that's OK but they'll have to suffer the mechcanical consequences (kind of like picking less optimal classes, feats, spells, weapons, etc)
I don't buy an 18, I buy a 16 and play a race with a stat bonus. Very easy to do on a 15 point buy. MAD classes want their main stat (usually strength) to be as high as SAD classes want their casting stat, the problem is that the MAD classes also want most of their other stats to be positive as well.
I also dispute your use of probability and find it highly misleading. Probability is basically meaningless in this situation because the sample size is so small. You'd likely get results that reflect your math if you rolled for stats a few thousand times, but the chances of getting three 6's in one roll of the die isn't any less likely than any other arrangement of numbers.
It sounds like Kirth would be happy if SAD classes were allowed, say, a 15 point buy and MAD classes a 20 point buy to offset the reduced demand for high stats on the SADs. That's basically what you end up with when you roll for stats anyway. Good rolls mean a MAD class is more viable, bad rolls mean you are better of going SAD.
On the whole, it's not a terrible idea but it might be tough to convince your SAD casters to agree to it.
If I'm not mistaken, Kirth is an advocate of arrays - rather than point buy or rolled stats.
I've thought of stuff like variable point buy before, but I wonder how you'd deal with multiclassing. I've also just been struck by the idea of bringing back different XP charts for different classes like in the so called "good old days". Basically you'd use XP to buy each level, but different classes would be priced differently.
Arrays might be pretty sensible in some ways, but I think most groups would really dislike the idea of using them. Come to think of it, no group I play with has used an array for even a single game.
I've thought of stuff like variable point buy before, but I wonder how you'd deal with multiclassing. I've also just been struck by the idea of bringing back different XP charts for different classes like in the so called "good old days". Basically you'd use XP to buy each level, but different classes would be priced differently.
Arrays might be pretty sensible in some ways, but I think most groups would really dislike the idea of using them. Come to think of it, no group I play with has used an array for even a single game.
I never have, but I'm strongly considering it based on this thread.
I don't buy an 18, I buy a 16 and play a race with a stat bonus. Very easy to do on a 15 point buy. MAD classes want their main stat (usually strength) to be as high as SAD classes want their casting stat, the problem is that the MAD classes also want most of their other stats to be positive as well.
Want but don't need, the SAD class is 9 times out of 9 a caster and it's problem originates there.
I also dispute your use of probability and find it highly misleading. Probability is basically meaningless in this situation because the sample size is so small. You'd likely get results that reflect your math if you rolled for stats a few thousand times, but the chances of getting three 6's in one roll of the die isn't any less likely than any other arrangement of numbers.
it actually does matter with the inclusion of D1 or drop 1, a 3 is a significantly less likely outcome than an 18, a 3 requires 4 1s, while an 18 only requires 3 6s and doesn't care about the fourth.
individual rolls of the dice have the same odds, however the effect of those dice is malleable due to the drop 1. so while individual rolls are constant the actual resulting effects of those rolls is not.
Want but don't need, the SAD class is 9 times out of 9 a caster and it's problem originates there.
Well, Zen Archer is a SAD martial.
...
Actually, considering everyone needs Con, the only truly SAD class is the scarred witch doctor.
The rest of the supposedly SADs are DADs (dual-attribute dependent).
Well, Zen Archer is a SAD martial.
Want but don't need, the SAD class is 9 times out of 9 a caster and it's problem originates there.
dex for initiative and AC, strength for damage on composite bows, con to not die...