|
30 D6, reroll all 1s, sound pretty good.
Sounds a little strong that would give you say . . .
Str: 4d6
Dex: 5d6
Con: 4d6
Int: 8d6
Wis: 4d6
Cha: 5d6
or
Str: 14
Dex: 15
Con: 18
Int: 18
Wis: 13
Cha: 18
I can't see you getting an 8 or even 10 or 11 unless you're really unlucky/minmaxing. I mean just random rolls gave me 3 18's, a 15, a 14 and a 13 as my lowest stat. Even not rerolling 1's would give you very strong stats.
2d6 + 6 could work though as that would guarantee a minimum of 8 and still allow a maximum of 18. However the average stat would be brought up. Maybe 2d + 6 x 3 take the best set of stats and assign as preferred?
If you want to bump the average power up a small amount with the 2d6+6 method it might be better to go 3d6+6K2 rather than to roll the whole 2d6+6 3 times and keep the highest result...it will give the same degree of extra power as 4d6k3 gives over classic 3d6 while not practically guaranteeing 18s across the board...
30d6 is an average of 5d6 on each stat. Obviously it's going to be pretty high, especially with rerolling 1's.
16
14
13
17
15
15
I don't like either of those systems. The first is hardly going to reduce the luck element - compare my totals to Senko's above - and is likely to produce at least one demigod in the group, and the second can produce something truly weak with just a little bad luck.
The system I did like was everyone in the group rolling a set of stats, and everyone being able to pick one of those sets. A bit organic, and balanced against each other at least. Sometimes there'll be two or more different stat arrays, sometimes not, true.
|
|
30d6 is an average of 5d6 on each stat. Obviously it's going to be pretty high, especially with rerolling 1's.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
I don't like either of those systems. The first is hardly going to reduce the luck element - compare my totals to Senko's above - and is likely to produce at least one demigod in the group, and the second can produce something truly weak with just a little bad luck.The system I did like was everyone in the group rolling a set of stats, and everyone being able to pick one of those sets. A bit organic, and balanced against each other at least. Sometimes there'll be two or more different stat arrays, sometimes not, true.
So how do you feel about 3d6+6 Keep 2 and having each person roll a stat till all 6 are done? Could also have each person roll a set of stats then pick one from the pile hmm...
The system I did like was everyone in the group rolling a set of stats, and everyone being able to pick one of those sets. A bit organic, and balanced against each other at least. Sometimes there'll be two or more different stat arrays, sometimes not, true.
It is true that the majority of times I've tried this, one array was generally better than the other arrays. But I found this fine, as it wasn't overpowering to standard APs when using standard 4d6DropLowest. And it's kind of nice that the lucky roller gets to be the hero for the table, instead of the guy who has it easy.
If you want to bump the average power up a small amount with the 2d6+6 method it might be better to go 3d6+6K2 rather than to roll the whole 2d6+6 3 times and keep the highest result...it will give the same degree of extra power as 4d6k3 gives over classic 3d6 while not practically guaranteeing 18s across the board...
A dice pool, you select 3 dice for each attribute and leave the remaining dice on the table.
Honestly, I've found every dice rolling "trick" used to help make the resulting arrays less prone to wild variation achieves little more than to make everyone's stats sky high.
Point buy equivalent of 35.
Point buy equivalent of 31.
Point buy equivalent of 32.
Point buy equivalent of 19. Imagine being this guy at player #1's table?
= 17
= 7
= 15
= 15
= 12
Point buy equivalent of 39
= 10
= 16
= 13
= 12
= 12
= 14
Point buy equivalent of 22.
= 13
= 11
= 15
= 10
= 12
= 11
Point buy equivalent of 14. Imagine being this guy at Mr double 17's table.
Taking: 18, 17, 14, 12, 12, 9
Equivalent point buy of 17+13+5+2+2-1 = 38
Taking: 18, 17, 15, 15, 12, 12
Equivalent point buy of 17+13+7+7+2+2 = 48
Taking: 18, 16, 15, 13, 12, 11
Equivalent point buy of 17+10+7+3+2+1 = 40
Multiple rolls, keep some does a decent job of reducing variance between players, but every time you allow players to throw more dice and keep a subset, the average goes up. Every stat's average improves. Every time you let players reroll low rolls, the average also goes up.
Everyone rolling an array and then players getting to pick any array rolled at the table goes a long way to removing variance between players, but it also grants very strong arrays since you're effectively rolling 4-6 times and taking the best.
-----
Riffing off the dice pool... I wonder how it'd work if you had a pot of dice for the whole set of players to distribute. For example, you add 12d6 into the pot per player, then roll. Each player starts with 5 in each stat and can add two dice to the stat from the pool on the table. The players negotiate with each other on who gets the double 6s, 6+5, double 5s, etc. You go through the dice this way until people are left assigning double 1s to some dump stat.
I suspect this method is particularly prone to optimization and dump-statting.
Just an idea...a way to have a little bit of actual control over your rolled results without guaranteeing high stats... infact a system that would guarantee atleast 1 low stat....
You get 2 sets of 2d6+6, 1 set of 4d6 keep highest 3, 1 set of 3d6, and 2 sets of 4d6 keep lowest 3. You roll each set of dice and then assign the resulting values to your stats the same way you would normally.
Just for a quick sample here are my results from a few test rolls.
Test 1
2d6+6 = (6,2)+6 = 14
2d6+6 = (5,4)+6 = 15
4d6KH = (5,5,2,1) = 12
3d6 = (6,4,3) = 13
4d6KL = (5,2,1,1) = 4
4d6KL = (6,4,2,2) = 8
Test 2
2d6+6 = (2,2)+6 = 10
2d6+6 = (2,2)+6 = 10
4d6KH = (6,6,4,1) = 16
3d6 = (6,6,3) = 15
4d6KL = (5,4,4,3) = 11
4d6KL = (6,2,2,1) = 5
Test 3
2d6+6 = (4,4)+6 = 14
2d6+6 = (6,4)+6 = 16
4d6KH = (6,5,4,1) = 16
3d6 = (5,4,2) 11
4d6KL = (5,3,1,1) = 5
4d6KL = (5,5,4,2) = 11
the 4d6KL could even be changed to 3d6KL+6 to guarantee a minimum stat of 8
I will note, for informations' sake, that if the system forces me to have a "dump stat", I'm out. I have absolutely zero interest in roleplaying a character who is substantially below average in any capacity.
That's not what I play D&D for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you must have something random, how about: Roll 2d6+5 three times to give x, y and z. Your stats are then x, y, z, 25-x, 25-y and 25-z.
For example, I roll x=8+5, y=7+5 and z=3+5. My stats are then 13 12 8 12 13 17.
So they will always total 75, with 3 odd and 3 even. The total stat bonus will be +6. There's an outside chance of a 7 or 18, but you'll get both if you get either.
Obviously you might get something SAD or something MAD, and the point-buy value isn't the same. If the total is too high, substitute 23 for 25 in one or more stats. You might like to reduce the variation by rolling 2d4+6 instead.
12 / 14 / 9 / 13 / 11 / 16
That seems like a pretty fine array. 2+5-1+3+1+10 = 20 point buy
15 / 10 / 15 / 10 / 15 / 10
This one's not great but not unreasonable. A bit of a clunker to start with though. 7 + 7 + 7 = 21 point buy.
9 / 16 / 11 / 14 / 12 / 13
Not bad either. This method seems to generate a lot of average arrays since it balances good rolling luck. 10-1+1+5+2+3 = 20 point buy.
11 / 14 / 17 / 8 / 14 / 11
This one got a coveted 17, so there's a bit of excitement there. 1+5+13-2+5+1 = 23 point buy.
It avoids extreme outliers between players and gives some randomness to char gen. Seems really quite good to me.
I can't claim that it's my idea. Credit goes to Keith Davies on rec.games.frp.dnd about 15 years ago, though I've altered it a bit.
...I have absolutely zero interest in roleplaying a character who is substantially below average in any capacity.
That's not what I play D&D for.
Alright, I'm curious. Why and what is, then?
I've been using a pretty simple method for about a decade now, and it's worked pretty well: three even, three odd, total modifier of +6 after racial modifiers, max of 16/18/20 and min of 3/5, depending on racial mods.
Min-maxing and over specialization are not typically rewarded at my table--my players tend to want to be ready for anything or deliberately make a character with interesting weaknesses in exchange for crazy strengths--so 20/18/18/7/7/5 hasn't come up yet, and characters tend to be well-rounded, believable and balanced.
Alright, I'm curious. Why and what is, then?
I don't think I'm too far off the mark in saying that Pathfinder is a power fantasy for the majority of its players-- this is a major part of its appeal, and a major part of why level-based systems are so popular.
Tell me, what is Conan the Cimmerian's dump stat? Which of his ability scores is below 10? Hell, which of his ability scores is below 13?
I'm not familiar with Golarion's iconics and other NPCs, but if you look at the official statblocks of practically any main character from any of the novels... they don't have dump stats. They don't have arrays you can legally purchase with point buy, or have any hope of rolling on any official rolling method.
I'm interested in playing the equals of those characters-- the main characters of the stories that me and my friends are playing out at the table, not their sidekicks.
Hm. Interesting.
In my experience, it's the characters with significant flaws that often prove to be the most memorable, the most interesting.
One of my last players wanted to run a waifish, absent-minded, social inept and obsessive character. Something like 9/16/15/20/8/7. She was at once the most amusing character in the group as well as the most dramatically compelling.
By the third session or so, her personality was so well-telegraphed that the other players were able to guess how she'd react to given stimuli pretty consistently. Her strengths made her admirable, while her weaknesses made her relatable, even pitiable at times.
But that's a very character focused story, versus the plot-focused Conan-esque stories seem to be.
Alright, I'm curious. Why and what is, then?I don't think I'm too far off the mark in saying that Pathfinder is a power fantasy for the majority of its players-- this is a major part of its appeal, and a major part of why level-based systems are so popular.
Tell me, what is Conan the Cimmerian's dump stat? Which of his ability scores is below 10? Hell, which of his ability scores is below 13?
I'm not familiar with Golarion's iconics and other NPCs, but if you look at the official statblocks of practically any main character from any of the novels... they don't have dump stats. They don't have arrays you can legally purchase with point buy, or have any hope of rolling on any official rolling method.
I'm interested in playing the equals of those characters-- the main characters of the stories that me and my friends are playing out at the table, not their sidekicks.
Bilbo Baggins and the hobbits in LotR are nothing special by their ability scores, but are unarguably the heroes of their stories. It's precisely the fact that they do incredibly heroic things *despite* their humble beginnings that makes them such heroes.
Raistlin is one of the most iconic, famous, and powerful wizards in not just the Dragonlance series, but all of D&D, and he has a 5 Con. In fact, it's fair to say that he's such a well-known fantasy character *because* of his low Constitution.
The Ohmsfords of the Shannara series are often simple, humble folk who would have one or more dump stats.
John Ross in Running With the Demon is physically crippled, with an extremely low Dex, which is the price he paid for incredible magical ability.
The heroes of the Wheel of Time series all have critical flaws, many of which can be interpreted as low stats (Matt Cauthon certainly has a low Wisdom, for instance.)
In my opinion, power fantasy has no relation to playing characters with no critical weaknesses, and my friends and I far prefer playing flawed characters to "Mary Sues".
All of which is just my long-winded rebuttal to your hunch that most players prefer playing such characters.
In my opinion, power fantasy has no relation to playing characters with no critical weaknesses, and my friends and I far prefer playing flawed characters to "Mary Sues".
There's a huge difference between having the kind of character flaws and personal weaknesses that make a character interesting and having the kinds of physical and cognitive disabilities that low ability scores represent.
Again, I will see your hobbits and Raistlin and I will raise you a Conan and a Drizzt. (Maybe Drizzt is a bad example, but Bruenor and Wulfgar aren't -exactly dullards, either, despite being a Fighter and a Barbarian.)
I think it depends on if you are looking for “power fantasy” or not. Frankly, I’m cool either way, but I know plenty of people who find “power fantasy” to be immature.
There's a huge difference between having the kind of character flaws and personal weaknesses that make a character interesting and having the kinds of physical and cognitive disabilities that low ability scores represent.
I see what you're saying, but statistically, a score of 7 is as common as a score of 15. 4 to 5 is just as likely as 16 to 17. A 7 may seem really low, but a 15 is...what, good? Solid? Pretty decent? Certainly not amazing; a character who's highest score was a 15 would be considered pretty lame at most tables, I think.
And beyond that, there's the mathematical impact of these scores. Roughly speaking, a 3 in Dex would make you 20% slower/clumsier than an average person, or 45% more so than someone with a Dex of 20. On one hand, 45% is a lot. But on the other, it's not nearly the disparity most of us seem to associate with it.Finding real-life comparisons for ability score values, especially the intangible ones, is pretty difficult. Determining what a score of X actually signifies outside of the system is subject to a lot of conjecture.
...I will see your hobbits and Raistlin and I will raise you a Conan and a Drizzt.
They're very different sorts of stories. Apples to oranges. The only thing I can think of in terms of comparison is that we're probably comparing best-selling and literaturally more well-crafted apples to oranges, but even that's a stretch.
The only thing I can think of in terms of comparison is that we're probably comparing best-selling and literaturally more well-crafted apples to oranges, but even that's a stretch.
I love Margaret Weis, I really do, but are you really going to sit here and claim that her work is more powerful and influential than Robert E. Howard's?
I think it depends on if you are looking for “power fantasy” or not. Frankly, I’m cool either way, but I know plenty of people who find “power fantasy” to be immature.
I can not think of any single thing less mature than thinking that your aesthetic preferences in boardgames about elves make you more sophisticated than anyone else.
I love Margaret Weis, I really do, but are you really going to sit here and claim that her work is more powerful and influential than Robert E. Howard's?
Goodness no. I was referring to Tolkien; my experience with any and all of game-based novels is extremely limited. I've read a smattering over the years, but none of it really grabbed me enough to pursue a specific author or series.
Goodness no. I was referring to Tolkien; my experience with any and all of game-based novels is extremely limited. I've read a smattering over the years, but none of it really grabbed me enough to pursue a specific author or series.
Oh, that's fair. We could argue their respective weight within the fantasy genre and the RPG community... or we could just agree that they are both titans far beyond their all too short bibliographies.
Worth pointing out, though, for all of the foibles of the hobbits... none of the Fellowship's human or elven allies share them. I would even be hard-pressed to say that Gimli had any specific "dump stat".
I stopped reading the D&D iconic series when a character was killed by an artifact rod that killed her dead dead. Nobody survived it so I don't think there was a saving throw. None of the victims was even reachable via speak with dead. So she was the fighter's love interest. That's no reason to trash everything about the game that makes it fun.
I think that writer went on to design Living Keoland and 4th edition.
Nothing in fiction is going to help you design a PC generating system.
So to those who don't like die rolls how would you feel about upping the point buy?
All my posts in this thread were made under the presumption that the GM is not an idiot and thus does not use a point buy under 20. I've been an outspoken critic of even 15-point-buy, and to put it blantly, a GM who uses 10-point-buy is either extremely ignorant of fundamental parts of the game, a dick, or both.
The arguments against PB you and others brought forth are indeed valid, when the point buy is low. High point buy removes most problems point buy has.
Instead of 10, 15, 20, 25 making it 15, 20, 25 and 30?
Why multiple numbers? I know the CRB gives you those numbers for "low/standard/high/epic fantasy", but that's the writers not understanding these concepts. Low/high/epic fantasy have nothing to do with point buy. The "level" of fantasy is defined by two things: How unreal the world is, and the impact the characters have on the world. That means a low point buy high magic campaign where the fate of the world is at stake is high fantasy, while a high point buy low magic campaign that only deals with treasue hunting is low fantasy.
It should be noted that point buy only has an impact on the flavor of the campaign if you run something pre-written and don't adjust encounters. You can challenge a 50-point buy and you can have a 10-point-buy steamroll through every encounter; both I'd expect most GMs to be able to do.
|
|
So to those who don't like die rolls how would you feel about upping the point buy?All my posts in this thread were made under the presumption that the GM is not an idiot and thus does not use a point buy under 20. I've been an outspoken critic of even 15-point-buy, and to put it blantly, a GM who uses 10-point-buy is either extremely ignorant of fundamental parts of the game, a dick, or both.
The arguments against PB you and others brought forth are indeed valid, when the point buy is low. High point buy removes most problems point buy has.
Instead of 10, 15, 20, 25 making it 15, 20, 25 and 30?Why multiple numbers? I know the CRB gives you those numbers for "low/standard/high/epic fantasy", but that's the writers not understanding these concepts. Low/high/epic fantasy have nothing to do with point buy. The "level" of fantasy is defined by two things: How unreal the world is, and the impact the characters have on the world. That means a low point buy high magic campaign where the fate of the world is at stake is high fantasy, while a high point buy low magic campaign that only deals with treasue hunting is low fantasy.
It should be noted that point buy only has an impact on the flavor of the campaign if you run something pre-written and don't adjust encounters. You can challenge a 50-point buy and you can have a 10-point-buy steamroll through every encounter; both I'd expect most GMs to be able to do.
Fair enough mine where made based on the rulebook pointbuy where I suspect my feelings are much the same as yours on their value. So given that what would you consider a nice middle ground for point buy for characters? Not to weak, not too strong?
Fair enough mine where made based on the rulebook pointbuy where I suspect my feelings are much the same as yours on their value.
Sorry about not making cleared what exactly I was talking about from the get-go. Discussions on these boards usually tend to presume 20PB as the default, probably because PFS uses that. Confer this thread where a 15PB is described as "low".
So given that what would you consider a nice middle ground for point buy for characters? Not to weak, not too strong?
It does depend a bit on what GM and players want, and what the players are like: Pre-written or homebrew campaign, how fast the PCs are wanted to level-progress, and how much the players strife for optimization.
The direct impact of point buy on the overall power level of the group is actually not that big - at least for the types of characters that most affect the GM's work. The classes and builds that can easily warp entire encounters are also the classes least affected by ability scores (not a coincidence!).
Overall, 20 points works well enough in my opinion, and thus makes a good "middle ground". Note that there is no actual reason to limit yourself on 5-point-steps. As I've said before, if you want to prevent dumping for optimization purposes, the simplest soltion is to remove the negative point buy values on stats below 10 (or maybe below 8 or 9, whatever you prefer). A 24 point buy under that rule produces about the same character as a regular 20 pount buy, only without that 7. On the other side, you could easily ban all stats above 16 (pre-racial), which limits the power of SAD classes a bit (and prevents glass cannons).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, it's a lot of rigmarole just to make the stat generation technically random but effectively ensuring high stats in some (if not most) abilities. Point buy with tighter limits, or choosing from arrays, accomplishes the same thing faster, easier, and without the chance that one player gets a monster statline under a generous rolling scheme.
Frankly, it's a lot of rigmarole just to make the stat generation technically random but effectively ensuring high stats in some (if not most) abilities. Point buy with tighter limits, or choosing from arrays, accomplishes the same thing faster, easier, and without the chance that one player gets a monster statline under a generous rolling scheme.
The whole deal with point buy is that it prevents characters from having ability scores that are unexpectedly low for their classes. You pretty much need to guarantee this, or else the character doesn't pull their weight in combat or exploration.
The main draw to rolled abilities, for people who complain that point buy is "inorganic", is that it causes characters to have ability scores that are unexpectedly high for their classes-- surprises that don't affect their party role, but make them feel more individal and well-rounded.