Hello again, everyone. I've been dabbling in various systems, and came to realize that I want a point-buy calculator that goes from 3 to 18.
I have yet to find a population better at crunching numbers than this one, so I ask you: how would you go about making such a thing? And what are the potential issues with it?
Thanks in advance.
Pretty sure you can already lower a score down to 3. You just don’t get any extra points for going below 7
Having any score that low is super dangerous in Pathfinder though. There are too many sources of ability damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you expecting an equal, yet inverse, equivalent?
Like to "buy" a 17 in any stat, it "costs" 13 points... do you want to get 13 extra points for dropping a score to 3?
I would punish you with poisons and swarms. I would make sure to keep track of encumbrance to the letter. Whatever it is you thought you got with those extra points will be completely trivial compared to how badly I punish you for dropping any score that low.
Pain! Lots of pain!
-Wat [Knight's Tale]
Pretty sure you can already lower a score down to 3. You just don’t get any extra points for going below 7
Having any score that low is super dangerous in Pathfinder though. There are too many sources of ability damage.
Sure. I would just like to provide a mathematically balanced option for maximum options.
And yeah, of course it's risky. That's neither here nor there, though.Are you expecting an equal, yet inverse, equivalent?
Like to "buy" a 17 in any stat, it "costs" 13 points... do you want to get 13 extra points for dropping a score to 3?
I would punish you with poisons and swarms. I would make sure to keep track of encumbrance to the letter. Whatever it is you thought you got with those extra points will be completely trivial compared to how badly I punish you for dropping any score that low...
I mean, yeah. That would seem reasonable, right? I mean, doesn't a +2 cost the same as a -2 nets you? So it would follow that a +4/-4 situation would be the same, right?
And as for the rest, yeah sure. Consequences for player choices, whole point of ttrpg's, etc. Agreed on all counts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the patern for the point buy that already exists. You start at 10 and anything over costs points, anything under gives points.
Ability Score / total points spent / points spent for another +1/-1
22 / 37 points / +6
21 / 31 points / +5
20 / 26 points / +5
19 / 21 points / +4
---------------------------
18 / 17 points / +4
17 / 13 points / +3
16 / 10 points / +3
15 / 7 points / +2
14 / 5 points / +2
13 / 3 points / +1
12 / 2 points / +1
11 / 1 point / +1
10 - 0 points
09 / -1 points / -1
08 / -2 points / -1
07 / -4 points / -2
---------------------------
06 / -6 points / -2
05 / -9 points / -3
04 / -12 points / -3
03 / -16 points / -4
So you could theoretically follow the pattern down to 1, or up to infinity. This doesn't seem especially balanced though. It basically exaggerates the disparity between single attribute classes and multi attribute classes, but to a ridiculous degree.
A way to balance it might he to have the numbers progress more slowly below the line, eg.
10 - 0 points
09 / -1 points / -1
08 / -2 points / -1
07 / -3 points / -1
---------------------------
06 / -5 points / -2
05 / -7 points / -2
04 / -9 points / -2
03 / -12 points / -3
This slightly lessens the benefit of stat-dumping, but I don't know that it "balances" things. Being able to dump a stat for +12 points is still a huge benefit, and the less important stats you have the higher you can pump your main stat with no real penalties .
I mean, it sounds like this is what you're looking for, so I don't want to tell you not to do it. I'm just warning you that the numbers involved might be more impactful than you expected.
That's exactly what I was looking for. I knew the pattern was out there, I just couldn't find it.
As far as how the numbers might impact the game, I hear you loud and clear. I was interested in offering a more flexible system for 5e, and that system really assumes that you don't have much in the way of weaknesses. Charisma saves (still feels weird to say stuff like that) aren't all that common, but they exist, and a -3 to them would be pretty awful.
It also helps that the people I roll with don't usually want to play characters that are just barely sentient beings. We've had a few super low scores, but not too many. It's a very deliberate choice, and the player is always as interested in dealing with the drawbacks as they are benefiting from the strengths.
No worries, I'm glad I could help.
Also for what it's worth, I don't think there's really a wrong way to play. As long as everyone's having fun it doesn't really matter how crazy you go . It's just important that you have some idea how it will affect things so you can plan and play accordingly.
Charisma saves (still feels weird to say stuff like that) aren't all that common, but they exist, and a -3 to them would be pretty awful.
Also, just a note that a 3 in CHA would give you a -4 to the roll, so yes it would be bad =P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fully encourage players to embrace their character's weaknesses. 3 traits and 1 drawback are my standard arrangement for character creation at my tables. And I try make situations that use each character's drawback enough to make them relevant.
However, I don't allow starting stats below an 8, AFTER racial modifiers are applied... why, you may ask... because it's clownshoes, that's why.
Nobody with a freaking 6 Strength scores wakes up and decides today I will go adventuring. Nobody. Can't pick up your own backpack, but you filled it up on the bed. Squat down facing away from the bed, manage to stand up with the backpack on. Hey you can do this. Gust of wind blows you over, and you drown in a mud puddle because you cannot push yourself up with the weight of your own backpack... the last thing you sense before you die is the sensation of mud going up your nose and the taste of horse p!ss... GTFOH. Not at my table.
99% of the old age modified characters I have seen are pure cheese with some BS backstory trying to hide their murderhobo shenanigans. Not at my table.
You want to dump a stat to 3 to spend 13 points elsewhere? There is absolutely no backstory you can possibly come up with to explain why you are present in my campaign. None. Your character is a freaking mockery of the point buy system. It is pure cheese. And it won't be playing at my table.
This rant is not directrd at anyone in particular, but to everyone who thinks that BS is going to fly.
I don't think there's really a wrong way to play. As long as everyone's having fun it doesn't really matter how crazy you go . It's just important that you have some idea how it will affect things so you can plan and play accordingly.
Agreed. Though that particular subject has been a difficult one for me. The moment I try to talk about making a game better, there is usually a great deal of howling and a gnashing of teeth, and terms like "badwrongfun" get thrown around a lot.
The Angry GM wrote an article defining the 8 types of engagement and how they apply to ttrpg's specifically. It's pretty great, and certainly articulates parts of the hobby well enough that I think I can resolve those conflicts much easier now.Also, just a note that a 3 in CHA would give you a -4 to the roll, so yes it would be bad =P
I wasn't specifically talking about a Charisma score of 3, just anything with a substantially low modifier. One of the unfortunate trends of 5th, in my opinion, is the move away from real, genuine weaknesses. I've met new players that think an 8 is a "terrible" score. And while it's as low as it gets under the usual circumstances, it just...doesn't leave much in the way of portraying a character with serious flaws.
But yes. Difference of score and 10/ rounded down--before the internets, one of my original crew pointed out that pattern to me. It sort of opened my eyes; if ability score Modifiers followed a mathematical pattern, what else did? And if I understood those patterns, could I reverse engineer the game and walk away a better GM than ever? --etc.
I've met new players that think an 8 is a "terrible" score. And while it's as low as it gets under the usual circumstances, it just...doesn't leave much in the way of portraying a character with serious flaws.
In most games a "-1" check IS terrible. It's pretty bad in like every d20 system too. It's...workable with things like Strength, Dex, Int, or Cha, but most of these will get you killed under normal game circumstances.
Plus after you've played a game where someone REALLY wanted to play a physically handicapped person who wilts in a strong gust of wind or a literally dumb as rocks character...you've played them all. Personal Anecdote: My group only ever did this sorta thing when we were still idiots in high school. We outgrew that fast and looking back...it didn't age well.
I think you can portray characters with serious flaws explicitly needing it on their sheet.
<BADWRONGFUN>
I do agree that I think this point-buy system would be quite unbalanced, but that's fine as long as everyone at the table is on board.
I've played a middle-aged Alchemist. His middle-aged stat spread gave him a slight advantage over the regular stats, so I was able to increase his CHA from 13 to 14, which I'm sure you'd agree was absolutely game-breaking. I also gave him a STR of 8, and intentionally kept him at medium encumberance to represent his ... less than Herculean physical prowess.
I give you: WINSTON THIRNBERRY
EDIT: I found the Picture: WINSTON THORNBERRY
...I don't allow starting stats below an 8, AFTER racial modifiers are applied... why, you may ask... because it's clownshoes, that's why.
Sure. I can follow that logic.
I just draw the line elsewhere, I guess. As you said yourself, having super low scores makes for pretty glaring weaknesses regarding ability damage and other things. It's never really been an issue for me at our table. A Str3 halfling who's unusually small, even by his own people's standards, a Cha3 druid who was stranded in the wild from a young age and is more animal than sentient being, an orc raider who's hanging onto sanity by the thinnest of threads. They were all interesting and unique characters, and none of them broke the game. But that's because none of the players were trying to cheat the system. If anyone was trying to do that at our table, regardless of how, they'd be asked to stop.I consider a variety of things that you seem to be in favor of as "clownshoes", myself. Traits, variant multiclassing, gestalt.
But that's just table variation and a difference in play style. I like games that revolve around characters that are well-rounded, that don't have much in the way of super-specialized tricks and that utilize a simplified, streamlined system. If that system could be abuse, I just make sure that it isn't. It's just what works for me and mine.
In most games a "-1" check IS terrible. It's pretty bad in like every d20 system too.
Maybe, I guess. But to go from 12 (above average) to 10 (average) to 8 (below average), in terms of verisimilitude and all that, it feels rather stifling. That's one of the things I struggle with in Chronicles of Darkness and the other White Wolf/Onyx Path games. 1 is as low as you can get, 2 is average, 5 is the height of human ability. Not a lot of room to move in that scale.
...My group only ever did this sorta thing when we were still idiots in high school. We outgrew that fast and looking back...it didn't age well.
I think you can portray characters with serious flaws explicitly needing it on their sheet.
I'm going to assume that wasn't meant to be as insulting as it could be read, and that the second part is a typo.
I certainly don't expect to see characters like this at every turn if I use an alternate system like this. I probably don't expect to see them much at all. In two decades of running games, I've seen less than a dozen of these characters. As others have said, they tend to be too vulnerable to be worth the trouble in terms of mechanical viability. And the concept of "I want to be absolutely terrible at X" isn't one that comes up a whole lot.I just want to give people the option to play a character like that, if they so wish.
And if they are clearly using the option to try and twist the rules in some goofy way, then that's a whole different problem.
But for my first foray into 5th, I really don't want to be houseruling too much from the start.
*being based*
Some people don't want to play the game as much as game the system.
I fully encourage players to embrace their character's weaknesses. 3 traits and 1 drawback are my standard arrangement for character creation at my tables. And I try make situations that use each character's drawback enough to make them relevant.
However, I don't allow starting stats below an 8, AFTER racial modifiers are applied... why, you may ask... because it's clownshoes, that's why.
Nobody with a freaking 6 Strength scores wakes up and decides today I will go adventuring. Nobody. Can't pick up your own backpack, but you filled it up on the bed. Squat down facing away from the bed, manage to stand up with the backpack on. Hey you can do this. Gust of wind blows you over, and you drown in a mud puddle because you cannot push yourself up with the weight of your own backpack... the last thing you sense before you die is the sensation of mud going up your nose and the taste of horse p!ss... GTFOH. Not at my table.
99% of the old age modified characters I have seen are pure cheese with some BS backstory trying to hide their murderhobo shenanigans. Not at my table.
You want to dump a stat to 3 to spend 13 points elsewhere? There is absolutely no backstory you can possibly come up with to explain why you are present in my campaign. None. Your character is a freaking mockery of the point buy system. It is pure cheese. And it won't be playing at my table.
This rant is not directrd at anyone in particular, but to everyone who thinks that BS is going to fly.
Exactly so. One of the best DM's I have ever gamed with stated that all Character classes are a Sub-Class of the HERO class, and as such, you should be above average in almost all stats, because quite frankly, Heroes are above average individuals. When you take this into consideration and then look at Raistlin from the Dragonlance series, who was sickly and coughed up blood and even had to be carried from time to time, none of this stats were below 10, so an 8 (or lower) in a stat is beyond what most PC's should have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno. Nowhere is that written. That can be your take on it, sure. Interpret away, and define a "hero" as whatever you think is best for you and your game.
I would define "hero" as a mindset, not an ability. And I enjoy a well-played character with a serious weakness or flaw.
They're not Conan or Superman or anything, but I never found characters like that to be all that interesting or compelling.
I don't think a discussion about preferences or what "feels right" to one person versus another will get us anywhere or be useful to anyone. I was looking for the numbers, and any consequences of those numbers that people may be concerned about. But like. Hard, quantifiable consequences. Not "this isn't what fantasy is supposed to be!"-type consequences.