Why do it? I can understand wanting the realism of a bit of randomness, but in Starfinder it's kind of like giving the game designers a big "FU!" after they spent years getting the math so finely tuned and balanced, isn't it?
It also often makes one character a wall closer while another gets to be a rockstar. Why would any player accept that in a game where it is interesting red that everyone have an equal chance at fun?
So why do you roll ability scores in Starfinder? Please help me understand the logic.
Some people just need to be better. Simple as that.
I have been pro point-buy since mid-Pathfinder (after I started playing more White Wolf games), to the point regardless of whether a table would like me to roll or not, I just standard point-buy anyway.
In Starfinder, they really fixed ability score progression with getting +1-2 to 4 different stats every 5 levels, but for the "needs to be the best at everything" player, that's just not good enough. So they insist to roll to start with pure positive modifiers.
My group is all point buy, as well. We prefer all the PCs to be roughly equal, and as a GM I find it helps with encounter design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So why do you roll ability scores in Starfinder? Please help me understand the logic.
It’s not a matter of logic, for me (and definitely no disrespect to the designers - I use their rolling options, after all) but rather comfort as that’s how I’ve always done it.
I roll in all games (I take my six stats in order, too - at least on the initial pass). When I’ve tried pointbuy the resultant character has never seemed to be more to me than a “bag of abilities”. I think the fact I’ve chosen everything emphasises the “playing a game” part in my mind. When I roll I focus more on the “playing a character” part - perhaps because I’m making do with some suboptimal results, as in life (I’m not sure).
I never start a campaign with a PC concept in mind. Rather I start playing with generating my six ability scores and the character idea forms as the stats suggest things to me. I rarely follow some predetermined “build” either once the game begins - I level my characters as seems natural at each point in their career.
I’m happy playing a sidekick, if that’s the way the dice come out and I generally tone my stats down if I roll a superhuman. Interestingly, everyone in our games have followed me in rolling stats for Starfinder (usually, I’m the only one).
|
In the past I've understood why some folks might have preferred rolling. Point Buy systems are usually unintuitive for newer players, with costs that change as you invest points into scores, and encouraging "dumping" stats down to 7 or even 5, which then get roleplayed inconsistently. Many of us had to just go online and find point buy calculators for our characters, especially in 3.5.
Starfinder fixed both of those problems - even if you do try to "dump" your stats below 8, doing so gives you no extra points to spend elsewhere, so there is no longer any incentive to do it. And point assignment is always a very simple 1:1 ratio, which is very easy to explain to newcomers.
So to me, there's no excuse whatsoever not to use point buy. If I want PCs to be more powerful than the baseline, I can just increase the PB amount, without having to introduce the swinginess and cheating potential of stat rolling, or the rigidity and agency loss of array assignment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised cheating is raised as an issue in regard to rolling. We've always created our characters together in a 'session zero' to ensure we have collectively considered all roles and made sure our PCs are going to work together.
That's always included the stat rolling (we even take turns rolling single abilities around the table if there's more than one person rolling). I can't imagine turning up to the session with my stats pre-rolled (especially if they were above average).
Rolling works in certain systems, but Starfinder expects you to have a good score in nearly every stat. The point buy system is just going to get you a better character more often than rolling.
Point Buy systems are usually unintuitive for newer players, with costs that change as you invest points into scores, and encouraging "dumping" stats down to 7 or even 5, which then get roleplayed inconsistently. Many of us had to just go online and find point buy calculators for our characters, especially in 3.5.
My own experience feels like it was the polar opposite of what you describe. I understood the point buy rules instantly, it seemed more intuitive than rolling, I didn't start dumping scores until I saw others doing it online (and even then did so only rarely when it improved the concept), and I didn't need (or want) to rely on online point buy calculators.
That being said, I did start off with rolling in 2nd edition before point buy was really a thing, and I've had to correct enough new player's incorrect point buy arrays over the years that I can totally believe that I'm the exception!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder's point buy system might have problem of being unintuitive with being able to essentially sell scores you don't care about to get better stats you do care about. It's also unintuitive due to the cost scaling as the stat number increases.
Starfinder remedied both problems by straight up saying you gain no benefit from reducing your score, and having everything be a 1:1 point exchange.
Pathfinder's point buy is burdensome by comparison. I've considered using Starfinder's point buy rules for Pathfinder. Stats will be slightly higher on average (more well rounded) but you actually end up with less high values (since you still couldn't start above an 18 in any stat).
Pathfinder's point buy system might have problem of being unintuitive with being able to essentially sell scores you don't care about to get better stats you do care about.
Can't say I've encountered this in any of my circles. I know quite a few players who were totally thrown by systems that didn't let you sell back scores. *shrugs*
... It's also unintuitive due to the cost scaling as the stat number increases.
Starfinder remedied both problems by straight up saying you gain no benefit from reducing your score, and having everything be a 1:1 point exchange.
Pathfinder's point buy is burdensome by comparison. I've considered using Starfinder's point buy rules for Pathfinder. Stats will be slightly higher on average (more well rounded) but you actually end up with less high values (since you still couldn't start above an 18 in any stat).
I definitely agree with yo on all this though. Starfinder is much simpler than Pathfinder, though you need to watch out for certain trap arrays, such as starting with a 17 at level 1.
Can't say I've encountered this in any of my circles. I know quite a few players who were totally thrown by systems that didn't let you sell back scores. *shrugs*
I suspect that's due to baggage of having used Pathfinder or D&D point buy systems. If you've used those, then you've kind of been conditioned to expect it. I suspect that for people with no real background for point buy, being able to sell back parts of a score is unintuitive. Ultimately though it doesn't matter because...
I definitely agree with yo on all this though. Starfinder is much simpler than Pathfinder, though you need to watch out for certain trap arrays, such as starting with a 17 at level 1.... It's also unintuitive due to the cost scaling as the stat number increases.
Starfinder remedied both problems by straight up saying you gain no benefit from reducing your score, and having everything be a 1:1 point exchange.
Pathfinder's point buy is burdensome by comparison. I've considered using Starfinder's point buy rules for Pathfinder. Stats will be slightly higher on average (more well rounded) but you actually end up with less high values (since you still couldn't start above an 18 in any stat).
We both agree Starfinder is simpler and produces more desirable results (from my view point as a GM). You are right that starting with a 17 is a trap though, which is probably the one important thing to pay attention to. You should never start with a 17, because at level 5 a 16 and a 17 both become 18. That's about the only tricky part to Starfinder's point buy system.
While I'm a big proponent of point buy (especially in Starfinder, with its very tight math), to take randomness (aka "unfairness") out of character creation, I do understand that some groups really enjoy the randomness of rolling, for good or for ill.
One theme I've discovered is that some folks have trouble conceptualizing their character before seeing their stats. They sincerely believe that they can't roleplay a character who starts with an 8 or 10 in each score and is allowed to build stats from there. They think that real life is messy and random, and thus so should their stats be. If one PC is better in every conceivable way, statistically, that just means that it's a more satisfying challenge to match or even out-play that character with lower stats.
These groups often have a blasé attitude towards character death. If they don't like their stats, well, it's easy enough to throw them into the meat grinder and roll up a new character.
I... well I find this style of play completely alien to my style of roleplaying (I generally like for characters to play out their storylines and will bend over backwards to not kill them unless they feel their story is over), but that doesn't make it a bad or wrong choice.
Of course, for Society play you absolutely want everyone on an even level; I'd never allow rolling for something like that.
Good ole' Stormwind fallacy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do it because I like it and find it fun. Games are about having fun.
I already have my character planned, have traits of his that are independent of ability scores. Even though I constantly dump Str, I never make characters in which frailty is part of how I RP them.
I wish they'd spend more of those years finely balancing the math into making so that DC's and saves scale at similar rates. I'll gladly give them a big FU, the same every other Homebrewer/GM gives I expect.
It's a bit baffling that so many think you walk in with 8 18's prewitten on your sheet. No! You roll the stats at the table with the GM.
While cheating is a concern for the rolling method, it by far isn't the main thing. Even if you roll those two 18s naturally, at the table, in front of the GM, the fact that you, through no action of your own, have a better character than anyone else tips the balance of the table in your direction. You will arbitrarily do better even though everybody is contributing the same amount of effort to the activity.
The player who rolls two 7s, three 9s, and a 12 might feel like they can't do anything right, and that's not a feeling we want to be giving to our players.
The thing you don't seem to get is that the DCs and saves DO scale properly... if you do the point buy. With the exception of the original starship skill checks and a few of the skill DCs (I'm looking at you, Treat Deadly Wound), the math on Starfinder is tight, IF you use point buy. You can't properly balance a character without point buy, because there's no telling what any character will have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except it isn't, unless by design level 6 spells should be useless. A level 20 Mystic has a Spell DC of 28, assuming he maxed it out from character creation. He has a 35% of landing Will saves, 25% of landing Fort saves, and a 45% chance of landing reflex. CR 19 have a 65-40% chance of saving. Damage spells are also don't hit heavy enough to be worth it the save, the attack roll, and SA when you can just FA with a Longarm or Heavy.
I don't quite have time to look into all of the Mystic to do what I've since learned from Operatives and Mechanics: Look at all their abilities. However I did find one that proves you wrong.
You can spend 1 Resolve Point as a full action to call down a rain of meteorites in a 10-foot-radius vertical cylinder, 40 feet high, at a range of up to 250 feet. The meteorites deal 12d6 damage to every creature in the area (Reflex half). Half the damage is bludgeoning damage; the other half is fire damage. If you are outdoors and can see stars, the meteorites instead deal 12d10 damage.
This is a 15th level ability, but the save DC on a maxed Wis Mystic (+9 as my group's Soldier and I have discovered) would be 10+(1/2Level)+Wis so 29, which cuts 5% from your calculations automatically. They would also have 19 Resolve to spend how they will.
To my understanding you're right, with Spell Focus spell save DC is 10+(Spell Level)+Wis+(Spell Focus), so you're at 28 indeed, however about 50% chance is what the design philosophy is for a challenging opponent, for both attacks and spells. However, the Mystic's spells seem to lean largely towards utility/healing, and those I did find that did damage favored attack rolls. Even so, most save spells still do half on success, so you've got more guaranteed damage than 2 attacks at -4 on a 3/4 BAB class without an emphasis for Dex specifically, and requirement of 2 feats to invest into Longarms.
Now, yes many of the comments are counter-cheating, which should be everyone's opinion: don't cheat. The philosophy behind point buy is to ensure everyone comes to the table with the same power-level whether balanced or specialized. The Starfinder system relies on this, especially with things like Starship combat where every player plays a distinct roll in a unit. If someone rolled low in X and can't contribute there is now an entire section of the game where they are sitting at the table watching everyone else play (something one of our players experienced recently). If one person is too high above the curve then they do everything, something I had to put up with on a Pathfinder table recently (and he did so maliciously, needing to be the best or he wasn't happy). These were instances the first, feeling like you built wrong and were thus redundant, the second a case of inequality leading to redundancy.
In my personal experiences, forcing anyone who wants to play at a table I DM to use point buy, the only ones who oppose it are those who want to be stronger than the curve. Proven further when if they do concede they wind up approaching me with third party class or race choices. On tables where I've played where I lack the control, I generally come with a point buy character for my own, and I find those tables don't last horribly long due to overwhelming players, and frequently it's because the GM has no way of dealing with it.
In Starfinder, it was built around the Point Buy system, not rolling. Between 4 ability score increases every time you recieve them, removing the impact racial modifiers play at character creation by capping stats, and the growth slowing at 17-18, it does the job it's supposed to. They practically outright say they were removing power creep when you read up on the Pathfinder Legacy section of the PRB where it literally says to remove any ability that gives an attack bonus if you want to use a PF class. Starting with a 20 or 22, breaks the early game and violates maximums making success rates ballbark into 30% on the high end when the character is finished. The larger impact however is on the array, not the maximum.
However, I've gotten into game development rant. I should cut myself here, since there's no convincing someone when they think they're right. I can agree to the sentiment some people like to see what they're working with before developing a character idea. I'm the opposite, molding my options to fit an obscure concept and playing it to see how it evolves over the course of a game. I can sympathize though with looking at it that way, and think perhaps a better way may be possible to find the best of both worlds. Maybe rolling to find out which array to use, however Pathfinder kind of prooved with Aasimars and Tieflings that even if you make a random table of 100 things, people want the choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
I can agree to the sentiment some people like to see what they're working with before developing a character idea. I'm the opposite, molding my options to fit an obscure concept and playing it to see how it evolves over the course of a game. I can sympathize though with looking at it that way, and think perhaps a better way may be possible to find the best of both worlds. Maybe rolling to find out which array to use...
I've done this before. I played in a 5E game where the DM didn't like rolled characters but it was easy enough to find an online list of all 59 (or whatever) possible arrays. I randomly rolled 1-59 then rolled 1-6 for Strength, 1-5 for Dexterity, 1-4... etcetera.
That worked out fine for me (though even I might have balked at some of the 13 13 13 12 12 11 possibilities near the end of the list...).
It's a neat workaround if you're a fan of rolling in group that doesn't like it. They probably won't mind you randomising your choices (apart from those who believe all PCs should be "well built", I guess).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The word "cheating" might have been unnecessarily inflammatory. Yes, nobody should play with people who are fudging their rolls, especially rolls that will have an impact for the length of the campaign.
So mentally erase "cheating" from what I wrote and substitute Dracomicron's post instead - rolling for stats can introduce notable inequity through no fault or intention of the playgroup. The guy who rolled 16 16 18 14 10 10 is just going to be that much stronger than the one with 14 12 8 11 13 12, without having to do anything wrong. Point Buy eradicates that possibility and feels much fairer.
The word "cheating" might have been unnecessarily inflammatory. Yes, nobody should play with people who are fudging their rolls, especially rolls that will have an impact for the length of the campaign.
So mentally erase "cheating" from what I wrote and substitute Dracomicron's post instead - rolling for stats can introduce notable inequity through no fault or intention of the playgroup. The guy who rolled 16 16 18 14 10 10 is just going to be that much stronger than the one with 14 12 8 11 13 12, without having to do anything wrong. Point Buy eradicates that possibility and feels much fairer.
I prefer the variance, although I've definitely played with people who hated being the sidekick. My favorite characters have always been the low-stat ones. The single exception being my current Starfinder character (who rolled sensationally and ended up a Solarion). I'm quite fond of him.
To me that's the true question to ask yourself if you're considering rolling - "Will I be happy with a subpar PC compared to everyone else?" if the answer is no, you shouldn't opt to roll.
For the record, I didn't find your term inflammatory, just very different from how we do it. It's kind of an unwritten rule at our table that if you're going to roll your stats, it's with the group (cheering you on, generally).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I acknowledge that for some, starting with noticeably weaker characters than average can be a feature rather than a bug. For me though, I like the idea that I'm playing the way the designers intended, rather than setting up additional obstacles in my path to success (or conversely, with a supernormal character, making the game too easy.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me that's the true question to ask yourself if you're considering rolling - "Will I be happy with a subpar PC compared to everyone else?" if the answer is no, you shouldn't opt to roll.
If I'm the GM, I am the one to ask myself if I'm okay with one of the PCs being subpar compared to everyone else, and the answer to that is "no." The only thing that would sway me is if EVERYONE in my group saying that they wanted to roll... and even then, I'd have to think about it.
If even one person didn't want randomized stats, then everyone is getting point buy, because it isn't the sort of disparity that can survive partial buy-in. If all but one person were to choose point buy, and the last person, who was okay with maybe rolling Gomer Pyle, instead rolled nothing below a 14... and here we are with disparity again. One random PC can ruin the whole show.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is you’re not really a fan of rolling if you throw out “bad” PCs (or suicide them or something). Obviously you also need DM permission.
Playing at your table, I’d randomly select an allowable array and then randomly allocate the numbers to the stats. Achieves pretty much the same thing without deviating from the other PCs’ point buy totals.
My point is you’re not really a fan of rolling if you throw out “bad” PCs (or suicide them or something). Obviously you also need DM permission.
You know, it works for some groups to throw their low stat PCs into the meat grinder. I am a bit mystified by it, but I've heard more than one story about idiot PCs that become legendary in how they died (or didn't die, as the case may be). Who am I to say how they should or shouldn't have fun at their own table. I just won't be allowing it at mine unless I get overruled by 100% of the players.
Playing at your table, I’d randomly select an allowable array and then randomly allocate the numbers to the stats. Achieves pretty much the same thing without deviating from the other PCs’ point buy totals.
That's a really clever way of doing it. I approve!
I prefer to roll because random chance is part of the game. If my character is gimped then so be it, I'll play a character with some atrocious stats and see how much roleplaying I can work out of that situation. On the other hand, if I get stellar stats I will most definitely try not to outshine the other players, at least not in situations where they should be the focus of the story. All too often players get into a mindset that they're competing against one another, and they really shouldn't be. This is a cooperative game and when one player succeeds chances are very good the entire party succeeds.
As a DM I have my players roll 4d6 and drop the lowest, which generates above average stats most of the time. If a player strongly objects to this I would have them use a stat array, but I feel this tends to make very vanilla characters, especially if the entire party does it.
This is an interesting take on ability score generation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually try to play the game as the designers intended, and see anyone else doing differently as, well, playing a different game I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to roll because random chance is part of the game. If my character is gimped then so be it, I'll play a character with some atrocious stats and see how much roleplaying I can work out of that situation. On the other hand, if I get stellar stats I will most definitely try not to outshine the other players, at least not in situations where they should be the focus of the story. All too often players get into a mindset that they're competing against one another, and they really shouldn't be. This is a cooperative game and when one player succeeds chances are very good the entire party succeeds.
As a DM I have my players roll 4d6 and drop the lowest, which generates above average stats most of the time. If a player strongly objects to this I would have them use a stat array, but I feel this tends to make very vanilla characters, especially if the entire party does it.
This is an interesting take on ability score generation.
Random chance is a part of the game, but it doesn't have to be a part of character creation. One can make an argument that everyone should start from the same level, and that the random chance of gameplay shouldn't extend to what basic opportunities are available.
It's not about "competing" against each other. It's about feeling that one is contributing to the team. If Superman is out there saving the day, Barely Adequate Man is in the back wondering why he's even there.
Characters are only "vanilla" if you play them that way. When I play in SFS as my main, Zoggy Grav, the animal rights activist who is only barely smarter than a pile of rocks but punches people into next week, they frikkin' notice him! He's not vanilla at all!
My problem for rolling is that my friends do it for mostly stat gain because of the higher average. Not to mention, my two GM that roll for stats are kinda white hat about it and are a bit... lenient when it comes to bad rolls. Sure, it resulted in me getting Beep, the incredible hulk of tengu in pathfinder with two 18's and the lowest of 13, buuuuuut it kinda defeats the point IMO.
And my personal problem is what if we do keep where the dice fall, we often get one or two players that are wildy better/worse than the others and the short stick feels left behind, or the the rest are playing catch up.
I improvised a hybrid buy, where each character gets 10 points to distribute, but they get two +2's to a random score determined by a d6, (1 is STR, and 6 is CHA) so my players can still feel powerful, but still be on level playing field with each other.
It's not about "competing" against each other. It's about feeling that one is contributing to the team. If Superman is out there saving the day, Barely Adequate Man is in the back wondering why he's even there.
I'd argue that the DM is at fault if players are not having fun, regardless of the stats on everyone's character sheets. Since the DM controls everything it is relatively easy to have a situation where Superman is off trysting with Lois Lane and thus cannot save the day, or perhaps is locked in a Kryptonite jail and needs to be rescued by Barely Adequate Man. What a story that makes! We get as much out of this game as we put into it, no more, no less. A DM that molds the story to the players is likely to have a better table than one that ignores the characters' strengths and weaknesses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about "competing" against each other. It's about feeling that one is contributing to the team. If Superman is out there saving the day, Barely Adequate Man is in the back wondering why he's even there.I'd argue that the DM is at fault if players are not having fun, regardless of the stats on everyone's character sheets. Since the DM controls everything it is relatively easy to have a situation where Superman is off trysting with Lois Lane and thus cannot save the day, or perhaps is locked in a Kryptonite jail and needs to be rescued by Barely Adequate Man. What a story that makes! We get as much out of this game as we put into it, no more, no less. A DM that molds the story to the players is likely to have a better table than one that ignores the characters' strengths and weaknesses.
However, as Draco plays SFS, which means premade APs. It is much harder for a DM to mold an AP to players than a home game, and add that "Lois Lane" to the game without breaking the writer's intent.
It's not about "competing" against each other. It's about feeling that one is contributing to the team. If Superman is out there saving the day, Barely Adequate Man is in the back wondering why he's even there.I'd argue that the DM is at fault if players are not having fun, regardless of the stats on everyone's character sheets. Since the DM controls everything it is relatively easy to have a situation where Superman is off trysting with Lois Lane and thus cannot save the day, or perhaps is locked in a Kryptonite jail and needs to be rescued by Barely Adequate Man. What a story that makes! We get as much out of this game as we put into it, no more, no less. A DM that molds the story to the players is likely to have a better table than one that ignores the characters' strengths and weaknesses.
Here's the secret: The GM actually doesn't control everything, otherwise he or she wouldn't need the players at all. Sure, the GM can be a complete authoritarian and declare that Superman suddenly can't tie his shoes and only Barely Adequate Man knows the ancient secret of shoe tying, but it's WAY easier, and better, to have everyone be Good In Their Own Way Man Or Woman (Or Other) with point buy and not artificially mess with the narrative. Let them get into their own trouble.
You can mold a story to players' strengths and weaknesses just as well, if not better, if your players conform to a set of power level parameters. Everybody is still distinct, because they made different choices (and, ideally, the players will get together and make sure that nobody is truly redundant).
Isaac is right, I have been playing SFS where point buy is not only best, but absolutely necessary, but I've been gaming a long time, and I've done plenty of rolling for stats, both as a player and as a GM, and no innovation has been as good for the game as point buy.
As far as I know, rolling stats isn't allowed in SFS, so it seems kinda silly to bring that up in a thread asking why people roll stats. I would have hoped my comments would be read in the context of home games, but I guess I wasn't clear enough.
As far as I know, rolling stats isn't allowed in SFS, so it seems kinda silly to bring that up in a thread asking why people roll stats. I would have hoped my comments would be read in the context of home games, but I guess I wasn't clear enough.
I think we've been discussing home games sufficiently. See my previous post.
As far as I know, rolling stats isn't allowed in SFS, so it seems kinda silly to bring that up in a thread asking why people roll stats. I would have hoped my comments would be read in the context of home games, but I guess I wasn't clear enough.
I should also have been a little more clear, I was more implying it is difficult to adjust an AP without breaking it, as they are constructed for a clear power level. Adding something to it while still trying to maintain its power curve is significantly harder, and also in the theoretical situation where you need to change it due to rolled stat disparity it would be significantly easier to have simply had the characters point by and been even.
As far as I know, rolling stats isn't allowed in SFS, so it seems kinda silly to bring that up in a thread asking why people roll stats. I would have hoped my comments would be read in the context of home games, but I guess I wasn't clear enough.I should also have been a little more clear, I was more implying it is difficult to adjust an AP without breaking it, as they are constructed for a clear power level. Adding something to it while still trying to maintain its power curve is significantly harder, and also in the theoretical situation where you need to change it due to rolled stat disparity it would be significantly easier to have simply had the characters point by and been even.
I don't have any experience with Starfinder, but in Pathfinder this was sometimes advanced and I think it's an appealing but misguided argument (at least in PF).
Variables such as player skill at character building, choice of classes within the party and so forth are far more significant than the spread one generally gets from rolling, in my opinion. I think if you have a party of rolled PCs you will need to tweak a pre-written adventure for the best results. However, I think you'll have to do that anyway for your group and Point-buy vs Rolling is the least of your concerns there - I don't think adding that into the mix significantly increases the strain of DM preparation since such tweaking is not an algorithmic process but more an artistic one.
As I say, I'm extrapolating from PF (I don't run APs until they're all out, so we haven't started Dead Suns yet). But I don't think Starfinder is so keenly balanced that player skill at building and party composition won't require a significant amount of re-working anyhow.
I quite enjoy rolling for stats - it is fun to have to design my character around a randomised element. Ending up with having to assign a 7 to one of my ability scores creates a very quirky character with a matching mechanical flaw I have to build my concept around. Roleplaying an obscenely charismatic character or an academic genius with very little wisdom or a exasperatingly stupid bruiser is a lot of fun.
Roleplaying an obscenely charismatic character or an academic genius with very little wisdom or a exasperatingly stupid bruiser is a lot of fun.
I agree. I wish Starfinder had a bit more point buy flexibility for lowering stats, but they were avoiding the munchkin min-maxing that Pathfinder suffered from.
My two favorite PF characters has a 7 Wisdom and a 6 Cha, and they were enormous fun to play (the 6 Cha actually came from having point bought an 8 Cha thinking my racial choice gave me a Cha bonus. I was wrong about Tieflings in Pathfinder, but that came from making the concept before knowing the stating of my choices). I've also played around Str scores of 8 or lower which makes the most fun when you have to meticulously plot what equipment you absolutely need on an adventure.
However, there are better ways to achieve that, since rolled stats can lead to huge disparities in power between party members, and in a linear system with an important emphasis on skill bonuses from things like Starship combat, one character being 2 points higher in a few different stats can make people feel obsolete. We had this even without rolled stats when comparing our Hacker Operative to our Mechanic. Anything the Mechanic could do, the Hacker did better when you cut out the benefits of their unique class abilities (most of which are only gained by level 5).
You mean the hacker operative that you complained was cheating on the other thread that you created.
-Beta
The same, yes. Even without the cheating though, as an Operative Ysoki, his racial and class bonuses far exceeds what the Mechanic Android can achieve at early levels. This is part of what makes the cheating such a blow, because not only is he on paper better, but he lies about rolls, which leads to literally pushing the mechanic out of everything.
But you could end up with a situation where someone who is rolling says "But I should be apply my racial modifier to my rolled score and go above 18!"
Better to curtail that kind of behavior before it happens in the first place, IMO.
This is an interesting take on ability score generation.
Apologies for being late to the party as I was out of town.
I wrote the above tool you're referring to more or less on a whim, trying to find a way to satisfy both worlds: randomness without significant inequities between characters. I also try to solve another problem that people don't talk about much which is "flat" arrays. A character of all 13's and 14's, for instance, looks good in the point buy system, but is not particularly playable except for very specific race and SAD class combinations.
It's an imperfect approach but I view it as a start.
Another approach I've wanted to implement since I first heard it is brought up in this thread as well: roll to choose among a set of arrays with a pre-set point buy value (or one within a range of values). One would obviously have to put some constraints on that, too (maybe make them configurable. e.g., no scores above X, no scores below Y, and reject flat arrays).
These techniques aren't for everyone, obviously, and they lack the tactile satisfaction of rolling dice and adding up results. There are people who find that an integral part of the gaming experience. But for those who want both random and equity, they are viable compromises.
But you could end up with a situation where someone who is rolling says "But I should be apply my racial modifier to my rolled score and go above 18!"
Better to curtail that kind of behavior before it happens in the first place, IMO.
The rules for rolling in the book specifically state that theme/race modifiers can't take a stat above 18.
Does one need anything more than that? (Or am I misunderstanding your point?)