sorry to keep plaguing the board but your conversation gave me another idea what if stats started pretty flat like all 10 (or 12 with a little bit of flex to move around) then certain classes just gave you automatic points as you leveled up in them so like every class level bumped a important stat by one. It would make multi-classing less effective unless you stayed in classes that had the stats you wanted but otherwise could work. I need to just write my own optional rule book.it definitely wouldn't be equal in every respect, but but i'm feeling it's more or less a slight advantage over the fighter than a huge one. you can still stop them just by trying to keep them threatened.PB doesn't mean much if you're just a wizard and can definitely make an 18, but what if you also wanted 18 strength for no reason other than flexing magic at the enemy. etc.
7 10 10 18 12 7 on a wizard is to me equal to 18 16 16 14 12 10 on a fighter, which is ALSO equal to 18 10 10 18 12 7 on a wizard. no PB or rolling is going to handle such a complex system, just like most of the game we decided to let human brains do the balancing instead of a system.
Would you see a big difference if the second 18 was CON instead of STR?
(I'm wondering if a superior pointbuy system would make buying different stats cost more or less based on your class).
lack of diversity, also a bunch of archetypes would need special snowflake stats.
this works best in a "statsless" system, in which you would simply gain inherent bonuses.
25 point buy to me is basically choose your stats with a don't go crazy on the end which is my default.
I think the big difference between a high point buy and a "pick what you want" approach is that dropping a 14 CHA on a fighter who isn't going to invest in any social skills, they just want to RP a naturally likable and good-natured person.
Even with a 25 PB, putting CHA at 14 instead of 7 is a 9 point difference that's going to get in the way of some people's RPing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
25 point buy to me is basically choose your stats with a don't go crazy on the end which is my default.I think the big difference between a high point buy and a "pick what you want" approach is that dropping a 14 CHA on a fighter who isn't going to invest in any social skills, they just want to RP a naturally likable and good-natured person.
Even with a 25 PB, putting CHA at 14 instead of 7 is a 9 point difference that's going to get in the way of some people's RPing.
I see what your saying. It makes me kind of wish there was more of a reward for having that 14 charisma so that you could have the likable fighter and it not be a waste. like option for will save based on charisma so now the fighter is less perspective but strong personality and mechanically doesn't suffer as much. (would be a decent way to make traits work)
Still though I do see an advantage to choose your stats. I don't think my group is quite ready for it but I might try it someday.
sorry to keep plaguing the board but your conversation gave me another idea what if stats started pretty flat like all 10 (or 12 with a little bit of flex to move around) then certain classes just gave you automatic points as you leveled up in them so like every class level bumped a important stat by one. It would make multi-classing less effective unless you stayed in classes that had the stats you wanted but otherwise could work. I need to just write my own optional rule book.it definitely wouldn't be equal in every respect, but but i'm feeling it's more or less a slight advantage over the fighter than a huge one. you can still stop them just by trying to keep them threatened.PB doesn't mean much if you're just a wizard and can definitely make an 18, but what if you also wanted 18 strength for no reason other than flexing magic at the enemy. etc.
7 10 10 18 12 7 on a wizard is to me equal to 18 16 16 14 12 10 on a fighter, which is ALSO equal to 18 10 10 18 12 7 on a wizard. no PB or rolling is going to handle such a complex system, just like most of the game we decided to let human brains do the balancing instead of a system.
Would you see a big difference if the second 18 was CON instead of STR?
(I'm wondering if a superior pointbuy system would make buying different stats cost more or less based on your class).
lack of diversity, also a bunch of archetypes would need special snowflake stats.
this works best in a "statsless" system, in which you would simply gain inherent bonuses.
Yeah that is fair you could account for it by also giving some non-necessary stats as a choice at some levels and having archetypes replace stats given like they do class features.
You are right about the lack of diversity for sure you would have to say fighter hits level x get to choose form x y or z which then might lead to balance issues yeah It would be complex but I think i could still design it as an option to for a different play style.
25 point buy to me is basically choose your stats with a don't go crazy on the end which is my default.I think the big difference between a high point buy and a "pick what you want" approach is that dropping a 14 CHA on a fighter who isn't going to invest in any social skills, they just want to RP a naturally likable and good-natured person.
Even with a 25 PB, putting CHA at 14 instead of 7 is a 9 point difference that's going to get in the way of some people's RPing.
I see what your saying. It makes me kind of wish there was more of a reward for having that 14 charisma so that you could have the likable fighter and it not be a waste. like option for will save based on charisma so now the fighter is less perspective but strong personality and mechanically doesn't suffer as much. (would be a decent way to make traits work)
Still though I do see an advantage to choose your stats. I don't think my group is quite ready for it but I might try it someday.
been thinking about implementing a new save system.
Fort: Str or Con (power through it)
Ref: dex or wis(let's face it, it makes much more sense since it's related to perception)
Will: int or charisma (your intellect is either too large to trick/over power or your force of will is too strong to be moved by the effect)
(i like to think of intellect as making a tower that a spell has to try to breach or topple, while charisma is a river and the spell would need to try to divert that river)
abilities that let you use another stat Z in place of X for Y save instead allow you to use Z for any save of your choice so long as you are not already using that ability score for a save.
sorry to keep plaguing the board but your conversation gave me another idea what if stats started pretty flat like all 10 (or 12 with a little bit of flex to move around) then certain classes just gave you automatic points as you leveled up in them so like every class level bumped a important stat by one. It would make multi-classing less effective unless you stayed in classes that had the stats you wanted but otherwise could work. I need to just write my own optional rule book.it definitely wouldn't be equal in every respect, but but i'm feeling it's more or less a slight advantage over the fighter than a huge one. you can still stop them just by trying to keep them threatened.PB doesn't mean much if you're just a wizard and can definitely make an 18, but what if you also wanted 18 strength for no reason other than flexing magic at the enemy. etc.
7 10 10 18 12 7 on a wizard is to me equal to 18 16 16 14 12 10 on a fighter, which is ALSO equal to 18 10 10 18 12 7 on a wizard. no PB or rolling is going to handle such a complex system, just like most of the game we decided to let human brains do the balancing instead of a system.
Would you see a big difference if the second 18 was CON instead of STR?
(I'm wondering if a superior pointbuy system would make buying different stats cost more or less based on your class).
lack of diversity, also a bunch of archetypes would need special snowflake stats.
this works best in a "statsless" system, in which you would simply gain inherent bonuses.
Yeah that is fair you could account for it by also giving some non-necessary stats as a choice at some levels and having archetypes replace stats given like they do class features.
You are right about the lack of diversity for sure you would have to say fighter hits level x get to choose form x y or z which then might lead to balance issues yeah It would be complex...
there' also still the issue of PB where there's still a systematic best choice, having scarce resources means players naturally need to use them correctly. in a post-scarcity rule system, anything is possible.
Back in first edition AD&D we wanted an 18 four our most important stat it probably varies game to game but you seem to be on some tall steed that players should be more then happy with 16's but really it varies from game to game and person to person. Its not like there is some inalienable absolute that works for everyone. Really what someone calls heroic is probably more of a matter of semantics anyways.
I also played first edition, and while 18s were woohoo, 16s were the more common 'woohoo' moments. 18s were not the standard for heroic play and there was only a 0.46% chance to roll an 18 using the standard of the day (3d6).
Ultimately, I think this idea of 'higher stats = heroic' just escalates the strength of monsters the GM is likely to throw at you to balance things out.
Back in first edition AD&D we wanted an 18 four our most important stat it probably varies game to game but you seem to be on some tall steed that players should be more then happy with 16's but really it varies from game to game and person to person. Its not like there is some inalienable absolute that works for everyone. Really what someone calls heroic is probably more of a matter of semantics anyways.I also played first edition
you played ADnD not first ed., if you actually did play first ed, i'm sorry.
and while 18s were woohoo, 16s were the more common 'woohoo' moments. 18s were not the standard for heroic play and there was only a 0.46% chance to roll an 18 using the standard of the day (3d6).
yeah, i only ever got a 17 once, and it was because the gm wrote a 1 in front of a 7. stat rolling and me didn't mix. i'd roll extremely average with most stuff being 9-13. although there was the time i got 3 4s.
16 didn't really give you much It has been a long while but you needed at least a 17 to get +1/+1 If i'm remembering correctly 18 was +1/+2 unless you were a fighter and got the % a 15 or anything below was worthless unless you needed them to play a class. So yeah 18 str was kind of a nice thing for a fighter to have so you could at least get something from stats. If you didn't have that high stat having something lower didn't really do anything for you game wise so why celebrate it?
Don't get me wrong now 16 is respectable in pathfinder and the difference is not nearly the same as it was but some people want to play a character that is the best they can be and when stats go up to 20 that is the goal you consider as best they can be. I don't know how I got into this argument the real thing i'm trying to say is that people play differently and have different vision of what is right for them. Accept what means heroic to you doesn't for someone else. If the game designers didn't want 18's they could of changed how stats were determined heck they made it possible to get 20's If that is to high for your game cool no problem enjoy.
Back in first edition AD&D we wanted an 18 four our most important stat it probably varies game to game but you seem to be on some tall steed that players should be more then happy with 16's but really it varies from game to game and person to person. Its not like there is some inalienable absolute that works for everyone. Really what someone calls heroic is probably more of a matter of semantics anyways.I also played first edition
you played ADnD not first ed., if you actually did play first ed, i'm sorry.
yeah, i only ever got a 17 once, and it was because the gm wrote a 1 in front of a 7. stat rolling and me didn't mix. i'd roll extremely average with most stuff being 9-13. although there was the time i got 3 4s.and while 18s were woohoo, 16s were the more common 'woohoo' moments. 18s were not the standard for heroic play and there was only a 0.46% chance to roll an 18 using the standard of the day (3d6).
We played 1st edition AD&D not original D&D nor AD&D 2nd edition. I didn't play second at all actually I've only glanced through some of their books.
Pst... Bandw... 1st Ed = AD&D First Edition.
You're thinking of OD&D, the Original Dungeons and Dragons.
hmm everyone i knew called it 1.5d
Back in first edition AD&D we wanted an 18 four our most important stat it probably varies game to game but you seem to be on some tall steed that players should be more then happy with 16's but really it varies from game to game and person to person. Its not like there is some inalienable absolute that works for everyone. Really what someone calls heroic is probably more of a matter of semantics anyways.I also played first edition, and while 18s were woohoo, 16s were the more common 'woohoo' moments. 18s were not the standard for heroic play and there was only a 0.46% chance to roll an 18 using the standard of the day (3d6).
Ultimately, I think this idea of 'higher stats = heroic' just escalates the strength of monsters the GM is likely to throw at you to balance things out.
I think it was in the Unearthed Arcana but I could be wrong but we used the charts that had different dice rolls for each class. So the fighter would have dice rolls like (close as best I can remember)
str 9
int 3
wis 5
dex 7
con 8
chr 6
com 4
those were dice rolled so an 18 str wasn't terribly unlikely.
hmm everyone i knew called it 1.5dPst... Bandw... 1st Ed = AD&D First Edition.
You're thinking of OD&D, the Original Dungeons and Dragons.
I mean That is not necessarily Inaccurate I suppose but we always just called it first edition.
com 4
you didn't
you didn't
com 4
Well I meant to each other I was specifying here for clarity's sake. I guess that back fired. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before there is a huge argument as to what is what here you go.
I have played every edition of D&D/AD&D except for the following: OD&D, 4th edition, and 5th edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i mean, i can't believe you actually used comliness.
LOL I see now what you mean. We had it on our sheets to say we actually used it is kind of a stretch I can't think of a single roll or deed that we ever did that used it.
it really only matters when you get like 30-40 of it, or negative of it, then you can like mind control people with how awesome you look.
or scare them with how hideous you are ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but that' just your common commoner.I am curious how '18' became equal to 'heroic' and <18 is not heroic (hero).
Commoners have a 13 in their highest stat (pre-race). Based on that a 16 is plenty heroic.
I think this is the disconnect between the roll (with adjustments to remove "poor" results)/high PB and "standard" PB camps. It's in the expectations.
It's not that 16 is "un-heroic," it's that the roll/high PB camp conceives their characters as "Hall of Fame" material or even someone who could be considered "the Greatest" (of their time, if not all time). They want a character that is markedly superior to (all/almost all) others of the same type.
The "standard" PB camp, on the other hand, conceives "more typical" "pro-level" characters that require a bit more effort, planning, and teamwork. They want/are OK with a character that is "above average," but are comfortable with not necessarily being "the Greatest."
Yeah, most of this angst is from the "I CAN'T be worse than the others at the table or I quit, I can ONLY be better than them." And the fastest way to outgrow that is to learn what it is you really love about the game and stop worrying about what the other guy likes.
Yeah, most of this angst is from the "I CAN'T be worse than the others at the table or I quit, I can ONLY be better than them." And the fastest way to outgrow that is to learn what it is you really love about the game and stop worrying about what the other guy likes.
now let's frame this in reallity
"I can't be bad at what i'm trying to be good at, i'll be useless otherwise".
RIP all fighters who partied with a wildshaping druid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"can't be bad"
...
Presumably they used the same build regardless of stats. Is a couple of lower stats equal to "being bad"? No it isn't. So it really IS about boy 1 being upset cause boy 2 has a couple +1's in different areas he doesn't. Hypothetical boy 1 HAS to have the highest numbers or it ALL isn't worth it. They may BOTH be masters of hack and slash. Boy 1 slaying dozens per fight... but it is ash in his mouth if he can't beat out boy 2 and his dozens +2 kills.
(I have no idea if I am sounding harsh... I lost my cat and I don't seem to be able to feel good right now. Heck it's been a rough few weeks, maybe I have been harsh for that long?)
It isn't a matter of a couple +1s, back in ye ole days of rolling up ability scores I regularly saw (as both player and as GM) people playing characters with barely legal stats playing with superpowered characters who happened to roll very high in a number of areas.
It wasn't just a matter of 'well this sucks but oh well'. It was a matter of balance. If the GM balanced things for the barely legal guy the super-powered character was on easy mode most of the time. Reverse that and the barely legal guy couldn't do anything.
Even without the balance issues watching your friends do everything while you can barely do anything is not most people's idea of fun.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, most of this angst is from the "I CAN'T be worse than the others at the table or I quit, I can ONLY be better than them." And the fastest way to outgrow that is to learn what it is you really love about the game and stop worrying about what the other guy likes.
The thing about this is that generally, at least two people in any group will like the same sorts of things. And if one is flatly superior at, say, combat the person who is flatly inferior feels useless.
Feeling useless sucks.
Hence, wanting characters to be on par in terms of their effectiveness.
Yeah, most of this angst is from the "I CAN'T be worse than the others at the table or I quit, I can ONLY be better than them." And the fastest way to outgrow that is to learn what it is you really love about the game and stop worrying about what the other guy likes.
Bugger that attitude... I'm playing in a D&D5 campaigne where we had a player like that, he was a johnny come lately too and didn't like his dice rolls he was a bother until the DM downgraded all of us players who'd had better die rolls on generating our atts by suddenly making us take a PB... in the end, that guy was a disruptive influence and had to be thrown out of the table... first thing I did then was to reinstate my old attribute scores that were just better than the crummy PB we'd had.
We use 33 point buy, with no buy back for scores lower than 10 (if your character concept calls for a strength of 6, go for it, but you don't get any points for it). This is functionally equivalent to 25 point buy, with 2 stats at 7. Helps the MAD characters, while the those high Int wizards are going to have 10 strength, 10 charisma instead of 7 strength, 7 charisma.
For lower power games, I'd use 23 point buy for the same reason, but there are campaign reasons behind the high scores.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, most of this angst is from the "I CAN'T be worse than the others at the table or I quit, I can ONLY be better than them." And the fastest way to outgrow that is to learn what it is you really love about the game and stop worrying about what the other guy likes.
now let's frame this in reallity
"I can't be bad at what i'm trying to be good at, i'll be useless otherwise".
RIP all fighters who partied with a wildshaping druid.
^
Which has absolutely nothing to do with rolling for stats or high or low PB.Keep on topic and don't make this another "casters vs. martials" argument.
geez someones a downer.
look as gauss's post for a detailed explanation.
It isn't a matter of a couple +1s, back in ye ole days of rolling up ability scores I regularly saw (as both player and as GM) people playing characters with barely legal stats playing with superpowered characters who happened to roll very high in a number of areas.
It wasn't just a matter of 'well this sucks but oh well'. It was a matter of balance. If the GM balanced things for the barely legal guy the super-powered character was on easy mode most of the time. Reverse that and the barely legal guy couldn't do anything.
Even without the balance issues watching your friends do everything while you can barely do anything is not most people's idea of fun.
The LOWEST stat you can roll for your primary is 14 (if you use the 3.5e reroll guidelines as everyone I know does)... the HIGHEST is 18 (the dice don't go higher). The difference is +2 modifier. Stop and think about that. The lowest unluckiest almost literally worthless dice number IS +2 modifier away from the greatest most amazing godlike stat you ever did see. +2 is the most extreme example. Usually the difference between boy 1 and boy 2 is +1 modifier. +1. Think about that. "My character is worthless" is a +1 modifier difference. How is the difference between needing an 11 to hit versus a 12 equal to "worthless or bad"?
~looks at it a moment~
The ONLY way to make boy 1 happy is to give him a method he can use to reliably match or beat boy 2 with. His entire enjoyment of the game is based on "being the best" NOT vs the enemies they face but rather "the best" vs his own team. Envy drives his enjoyment. This is probably the same boy who will whine if he doesn't get first pick of all magic items as well, because if you stop and think about it the first boy to get a higher bonus weapon has the SAME advantage that the boy who rolled better did.
Envy is a demon. Envy wants you to be unhappy.
Having lost a dear old friend kitty of 13 years not too long ago, I deeply sympathize.(I have no idea if I am sounding harsh... I lost my cat and I don't seem to be able to feel good right now. Heck it's been a rough few weeks, maybe I have been harsh for that long?)
Thank you.
Aranna,
First, I didn't state which edition. I said 'ye ole days of rolling up ability scores' which could be anything prior to PF.
Second, yes, the lowest single score you can roll in 3.5 was a 14. But that is not relevant. 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 is still a legal array and frankly, compared to someone with 3 18s (which I have seen) and not a single negative number the difference was night and day.
I have seen a person roll using the 4d6 drop the lowest method not produce a character that was legal..three times in a row. Finally he had got a roll of 14 that had a total score of +1...even though the other guys in the group had total ability score modifiers in excess of +12.
It is not a matter of making 1 person happy. It is a matter of balance and having a character that can participate in the same arena as the other characters.
Sure, the "to hit" number isn't that different, only +2. But what about the AC? How about HP? Will saves? They all add up to a +1 (total mod) character that cannot play in the same arena as the guys with +12 (total mod) characters.
The fact that you don't seem to recognize that might indicate a need for you to look more closely at how characters and groups are balanced. Those kinds of disparities are no fun for the players, nor for the GM.
Frankly, back in 3.X, as a GM I got tired of telling people to keep rolling up stats until they got legal characters only to see the disparity between characters and realize the challenge I was going to have to balance that out.
Envy is a demon. Envy wants you to be unhappy.
Envy is a natural emotion arising out of anger. It's largely a sign that the person feels threatened(not necessarily physical violence) and is there so that the person will try to better their position. Envy wants you to be happy.
I don't believe you Gauss. I have been gaming for a couple decades now and I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen 2 18s on a sheet. The number of times I have seen more than 2 18s? Once. There is on occasion a guy a the table with one 17 or 18. But usually the high roll for a 4d6drop1 is 16. It isn't rare to bounce off the reroll buffer, it typically happens to someone on there first stat set. But the number of times I have seen 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 is ZERO times in two decades. Yes that unlucky guy at the table will have a 14 or 15 high stat while most of the group has a 16... and every once in a while you might get captain extreme with a 17 or 18. BUT a 12 or 13 is the most common stat rollable on 4d6drop1 it is like spotting a unicorn to not have a few of these in your set. So sure he feels left out because he has +1 less in his primary (or +2 on rare occasions) and boy 1 might have an 8 as his low value vs captain extreme with a 10 or 11 as his low. Again +1 (although the low stat doesn't matter in character power). You most likely both have some 12 or 13 stats heck it isn't uncommon for the boy who rolled well to have both a 16 AND a 14... so we are up to a couple +1s in a couple stats... So how again is this "worthless or bad"? Your typical good roller has a +1 better chance to hit and 1 point better AC over that guy who can't roll to save his own hide. And Captain Extreme has a couple +2s difference...
So in the extreme case a 12 to hit vs a 10 to hit IS "worthless or bad". This IS what you're saying... right? Maybe coupled with a 10% better chance for the monsters to hurt boy 1. 10%. BOTH boys are effectively killing monsters. The unhappiness is from inside the team. It is envy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
envy :a feeling of discontented or resentful longing aroused by someone else's possessions, qualities, or luck.
This conversation has gotten a little weird btw^
Envy, if you strip my dramatic prose away, is a negative emotion. And doesn't usually come from anger but far more often from greed or pride. And no it definitely wants you unhappy. Just look at a greedy person. They get the "best" treasure pick and they are happy... till the next treasure pick and then they turn green again. It is a cycle of peaks and valleys with FAR more valleys than peaks. It wants suffering. Over a couple +1s typically.
Heck the fickleness of the d20 has a FAR greater impact on play than stat generation. I have seen the poor player who can't seem to roll double digits on his d20... he is FAR more incapable than the guy who had really bad luck in stat generation. YET I hear NO calls for elimination of the d20.
Seriously if your players are like this go with "choose your own stats" and save yourself the angst.
I don't believe you Gauss. I have been gaming for a couple decades now and I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen 2 18s on a sheet. The number of times I have seen more than 2 18s? Once. There is on occasion a guy a the table with one 17 or 18. But usually the high roll for a 4d6drop1 is 16. It isn't rare to bounce off the reroll buffer, it typically happens to someone on there first stat set. But the number of times I have seen 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 is ZERO times in two decades. Yes that unlucky guy at the table will have a 14 or 15 high stat while most of the group has a 16... and every once in a while you might get captain extreme with a 17 or 18. BUT a 12 or 13 is the most common stat rollable on 4d6drop1 it is like spotting a unicorn to not have a few of these in your set. So sure he feels left out because he has +1 less in his primary (or +2 on rare occasions) and boy 1 might have an 8 as his low value vs captain extreme with a 10 or 11 as his low. Again +1 (although the low stat doesn't matter in character power). You most likely both have some 12 or 13 stats heck it isn't uncommon for the boy who rolled well to have both a 16 AND a 14... so we are up to a couple +1s in a couple stats... So how again is this "worthless or bad"? Your typical good roller has a +1 better chance to hit and 1 point better AC over that guy who can't roll to save his own hide. And Captain Extreme has a couple +2s difference...
So in the extreme case a 12 to hit vs a 10 to hit IS "worthless or bad". This IS what you're saying... right? Maybe coupled with a 10% better chance for the monsters to hurt boy 1. 10%. BOTH boys are effectively killing monsters. The unhappiness is from inside the team. It is envy.
You are welcome to disbelieve all you want, I have seen it and it is statistically possible.
And again, you ignored the crux of it. It is not a single stat, it is the entire total mods that make life difficult. +12 vs +1 is not only possible, I have seen it a number of times. Perhaps you haven't and that is fine, but calling me a liar does us both a disservice.
Rather than being insulting perhaps you should try to view things from the POV of someone who has actually seen this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I've seen similar distributions to Gauss.
In the first Pathfinder game I ever played, we rolled stats. I believe one person rolled 18, 16, 16, 14, 14, 10. I know all his stats were 14+ except for that one ten and he had an 18 and a couple of 16s. In the same game, I got 18, 16, 14, 14, 14, 12, or something close to that (I know none of my stats were below 12, and I had a Str 14, Dex 20, Int 18 on an Elf). Both using standard 4d6-drop-the-lowest.
Rolls like this happen.
Now, in that particular game, nobody rolled low, but that was sheer luck, not it being impossible or anything.
And rolling is still a terrible idea which I argued against at the time. The fact that I rolled well doesn't change that at all, so, Aranna, I'd really appreciate you not assuming that everyone who dislikes rolling hates it because they rolled badly and are whining.
25PB: I can play my str based kitsune bladebound without being crippled. Still not optimal, mind, but not crippled. I like high point buys, not because I want easy mode, but because I like off the wall character concepts that would be terrible to try and play under a lower pointbuy.