# What's the big deal with point buy?



## airwalkrr (Sep 18, 2006)

Seriously. What is the big deal? Every time I talk about starting up a campaign and I make plans for character creation, people ask me how I will be doing ability scores. When they find out I make them roll their ability scores (using the standard 3e method: 4d6, drop lowest, repeat total of six times, must have positive net modifiers and at least one score above 14, arrange as desired) they always complain. Here are the more common complaints.

"I have the worst luck at rolling dice so it's unfair to make me roll my ability scores."
(There is no statistical evidence that luck exists. I recognize bad dice exist, but they aren't as common as everyone thinks. Usually flaws on a die have an unremarkable effect upon the randomness of that die's rolls.)

"Whoever rolls the highest is going to end up dominating the whole campaign. That's not fair at all. I want to be able to have the spotlight sometimes too."
(Ability scores are not the be-all, end-all in 3e. Although they are arguably more significant at lower levels, the higher you get in level, the less ability scores matter because things like magic, skills, class abilities, and feats easily make up for those deficiencies. A well-built character with average ability scores will be better in most cases than a poorly built character with better ability scores, but two equally well-built characters with differing ability scores rarely have an appreciable power difference.)

"That's so horribly broken! You mean if I roll five 18s I get to play a character with five 18s!?"
(The statistical probability of this happening is so ridiculously low that it is hardly worth mentioning. Your character might get a higher than expected roll, but it is unlikely to be THAT good, and as I said above, ability scores aren't everything, nor are they the most important part of the equation.)

"Characters who roll high steal other characters' niches."
(See above. A wizard with an 18 Dexterity is not going to be better at Hide than the rogue with max ranks unless the rogue has a negative Dexterity modifier.)

"If I don't get the ability scores I want, I can't play the character I want."
(This might have been valid in AD&D when there were ability score prerequisites. But no character class is unplayable with any set of ability scores as long as there is some kind of safety net like the PH recommends. As long as you create a solid build, you will be a valuable member of the party. Your character might not be uber-1337, but if that is what you mean by having the character you want, then I find that to be a very spoiled attitude.)

And so on. Quite frankly, I am very disappointed in the attitude most gamers have towards rolling dice. I mean, dice is what the game is about. There is an element of luck in almost every other aspect of the game from height and weight to saving throws to attack rolls to skill checks.

Do you make your PCs roll or do you use point buy? It seems like every other DM I know uses point buy and I cannot help but feel that point buy has spoiled a lot of players into thinking they can create a character with no holes. This isn't chess. It's D&D. There is randomness in the game and I think players need to get over it. Call me old fashioned, but I don't think point buys are as great of an "equalizer" as people seem to think they are. To me, the only advantage to point buy is that you can allow PCs to create more powerful characters if you want to run a more powerful campaign. I recognize the need for point buys in massive campaigns such as living campaigns where it is impossible to police everyone's rolls, but for my home campaign, I think a point buy is needless.


----------



## Victim (Sep 18, 2006)

As you say, there are already a large number of random factors in the game.  Why have one more; isn't the results of the game already random enough without adding so much chance at the very start?  

And most other rolls don't cascade the same way the roll for stats does.  A poor roll on one check may not make a long term difference in the game, but a poor roll on stats does.  

Making up for deficiencies is overrated - sure, you can work to counteract your weaker stats, but characters with high stats can work to leverage their advantages.  In fact, they probably have an easier time of it.  While a disparity in mechanical tricks can make up a disparity in stats - if the more power gamed character has the low stats - its equally likely that you'll end up with a poorly built character with low stats and a well designed PC with high stats.

EDIT: Oh yeah.  Point buy also makes it easier to make characters without the GM present. Whenever possible, our group makes characters between games to minimize the time it takes to start.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Sep 18, 2006)

Personally, I dislike random rolls with no adjustments. 

In our last D&D campaign, I really wanted to play a paladin. Sure, mostly mediocre guy, but I'd pump up his cha with a good stat roll and play the party spokesman who happens to be a pretty decent fighter. I got a 6, a 5, a 9, a 13, a 16 and an 18. The numbers in my head didn't mesh too well with the numbers that I rolled. The character I had invisioned had decent strength and constitution, and a good wisdom and charisma. So, I played a wizard instead. But the game started with a major dissapointment. I couldn't do what I wanted to this game. 

I like point buy because it allows me to mold my character a bit more into something I want. If I want to dual wield, I'd better have a high enough dex. If I want whirlwind attack, I'm going to need a decent int too. 

Here's my question to everyone on this issue. "Do you believe that players have the right to play as the character they want?" Point buy is a tool for allowing that degree of choice.


----------



## Phasics (Sep 18, 2006)

I guess the thing some peopl like about point buy is fact you can garentee you get the right number of scores for your class

e.g.
Take a Paladin, now a Paladin needs a good STR CON WIS and CHA modifer whereas the Rogue really only needs a good DEX and INT score

in a 28 point buy system a Paladin can basically garentee that he'll get 14 14 14 12 10 10 thus can have postivie modifers in all his primary stats (not overly high but positive none the less)

however in a 4d6 drop lowest the paladin might get 1-2 good scores and the rest very average also he may get several odd scores and lose out on that extra +1. he might get 17 13 11 12 10 10. which means he can only cover 3 of his prime stats with pos modifers


Conversly classes like Rogue where as long as you have a good DEX score your doing fine the chances of getting one score above 16 are quite good so you might as well take the chance you could get several good scores.

Another possibilty is the point buy allow the option of getting a garenteed 18, costly but possible. now for a spell caster an 18 in casting stat is a huge boon initally and long term. consider if a player was unlucky enough to roll nothing higher than a 13 and played a spellcaster they wouldnt be able to cast 7th level spells until lv 16 and 8th level spell until lv20, and never see 9th level spells non epic . Assuming low magic campain with no ability boosters

Personally my DM lets us roll 4d6 but lets us pick our class after stat rolling in case we get a particular good or bad set. e.g. you'd hate to roll 4 16's and be playing a fighter instead of a paladin   


So in short point buy can have its place in protecting specific stat demand classes. 

Perhaps you could offer your players to roll 3d6 (reroll 1's and 2's) with a small pool of pointbuy points say 10 so that they can then adjust thier scores if they dont like it too random?


----------



## Phasics (Sep 18, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> EDIT: Oh yeah.  Point buy also makes it easier to make characters without the GM present. Whenever possible, our group makes characters between games to minimize the time it takes to start.




what your DM dosent trust you when you say you rolled 18 18 18 18 18 17 at home before the game session ?


----------



## FireLance (Sep 18, 2006)

People who like point buy have their reasons, and people who like rolling have their reasons, and each side's reasons seem silly, illogical or downright dangerous to the other. It's similar to the way that many people on opposite sides of the political spectrum cannot understand each others' positions. 

For the record, I use point buy, and all PCs in my campaign get the same amount of XP and wealth, too.


----------



## QuaziquestGM (Sep 18, 2006)

In my experince, people who only play the characters that they want to play never really learn to play the game. Steve is always the elf archer or the elf monk.  Jon is always the sneaky guy or the evil fighter.  Sara is yet another Kender. They may become reasonably proficient with one class, or at playing one paticular character, but hand them anything else, even a pregen, and they have no clue what to do.  I'm more impressed by people who can guide the survival and triumphs of a randomly rolled character than I am of people of have to cherry pick.  The best players will occationally make it though a session in such a way that their Stats don't matter, becasue they never have to roll dice.

As for players' rights...the GM decides those.  If everyone is rolling stats, then that is fair.


----------



## Master of the Game (Sep 18, 2006)

I use point buy.  If nothing else, it makes the players _feel_ as though they're starting on equal footing.


----------



## arscott (Sep 18, 2006)

I think the previous posters have some very good points.  Ability Scores are going to stay with the character forever and effect everything he or she does.  I don't think it's unreasonable to want to limit the effectiveness of a bad roll to a smaller portion of the game.

And there's a world of difference between 18 15 12 11 9 6 and 15 14 12 12 11 10, and what those distributions mean for a character.  If you're looking for a particular distribution, then you're going to be out of luck.  And while I'm not going to look fondly on a guy who's whining because he didn't get an 18 str for his barbarian, I'm going to be pretty damned sympathetic if he couldn't manage a 14.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 18, 2006)

ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> In our last D&D campaign, I really wanted to play a paladin. Sure, mostly mediocre guy, but I'd pump up his cha with a good stat roll and play the party spokesman who happens to be a pretty decent fighter. I got a 6, a 5, a 9, a 13, a 16 and an 18. The numbers in my head didn't mesh too well with the numbers that I rolled. The character I had invisioned had decent strength and constitution, and a good wisdom and charisma. So, I played a wizard instead. But the game started with a major dissapointment. I couldn't do what I wanted to this game.




True. That's a bummer of a roll, just technically above the limit for a do-over (+8 in bonuses, -6 in penalties). But you know, I think it would still be workable. Str 16, Dex 5, Con 9, Int 6, Wis 13, Cha 18. True, you'd be kind of slow in thought and action, but very persuasive, with nice saving throws. In the end, numbers are just numbers. Assuming you adventured that long, you could take a Dex increase at level 4 and a Con increase at level 8.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Sep 18, 2006)

I personally have never used point buy.  I am seriously considering it for the next game that I run though, just to see if it's any better or worse than rolling.  Of course a lot depends on what you set the point value at.

I think sometimes the random roll method can result in PC's with very different power levels at the lower levels, especially if one person rolls really well and another rolls really poorly.  I normally allow my players a bit of leeway if they roll poorly or the rolls that they get don't allow them to play the character that they wanted to.  I don't necessarily let them increase their rolls, more likely just move one number up and another one down.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## QuaziquestGM (Sep 18, 2006)

why?  the most important stat for a barberain is WIS, followed by CON.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 18, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> "I have the worst luck at rolling dice so it's unfair to make me roll my ability scores."
> (There is no statistical evidence that luck exists. I recognize bad dice exist, but they aren't as common as everyone thinks. Usually flaws on a die have an unremarkable effect upon the randomness of that die's rolls.)




So? Who cares about statistical evidence? A player who feels he has bad luck isn't going to accept "Well, it was statistics" if he gets a bad character. He's just going to be stuck with a character he doesn't like, and that's simply not fun.



> "Whoever rolls the highest is going to end up dominating the whole campaign. That's not fair at all. I want to be able to have the spotlight sometimes too."
> (Ability scores are not the be-all, end-all in 3e. Although they are arguably more significant at lower levels, the higher you get in level, the less ability scores matter because things like magic, skills, class abilities, and feats easily make up for those deficiencies. A well-built character with average ability scores will be better in most cases than a poorly built character with better ability scores, but two equally well-built characters with differing ability scores rarely have an appreciable power difference.)




I have to disagree with your base assertion here. Ability scores stick with you forever, and anything that Bob-With-All-12s can get to bump up his score, so can Joe-With-All-17s. Compare two fighters, for instance. A fighter with 16-18 in Strength and Con is effectively _a higher level_ than a fighter with 12s in both those stats. And I can tell you from personal experience that level makes no difference in this regard. The guy with the high stats will remain an effective level or so above the guy without 'em.

Me? I prefer the best of both worlds. I have the group roll stats, and then everyone gets stats more or less equal to whoever rolled highest.


----------



## Victim (Sep 18, 2006)

Phasics said:
			
		

> what your DM dosent trust you when you say you rolled 18 18 18 18 18 17 at home before the game session ?




Well, the op mentioned that, with the ability to police his player's rolls, he saw little need for point buy in his home games.  But watching people roll isn't particularly practical if character gen occurs outside the normal gaming session.  And considering how long it takes some people in my group to finish up their characters even with the ability to get many things done beforehand.  Forcing everyone to start from scratch in session might be a disaster.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Sep 18, 2006)

QuaziquestGM said:
			
		

> In my experince, people who only play the characters that they want to play never really learn to play the game. Steve is always the elf archer or the elf monk.  Jon is always the sneaky guy or the evil fighter.  Sara is yet another Kender. They may become reasonably proficient with one class, or at playing one paticular character, but hand them anything else, even a pregen, and they have no clue what to do.  I'm more impressed by people who can guide the survival and triumphs of a randomly rolled character than I am of people of have to cherry pick.  The best players will occationally make it though a session in such a way that their Stats don't matter, becasue they never have to roll dice.
> 
> As for players' rights...the GM decides those.  If everyone is rolling stats, then that is fair.




So, in terms of answer to my question, that's a "No, players do not have the right to play what they want." 

Cool. I think that using stat rolls to guide players into trying new ideas out is a good route to take. 

I just also happen to agree with the idea of letting players play what they want.

Depending on the game and circumstance, different approaches work differently. However, *if* there is an increase in the popularity of point buy (something I'm not sure of), maybe it's pointing out somthing about the people who play?

Anyone else? Do players have the right to make the characters they want?

As a point buy fan (I don't play nearly enoug to be low on ideas), I'd just like to throw out some of the things that I've played previously, and would play in the future. I've played a wilds surviving, car driving,  gun toting medic (think ranger cleric in an apolyaptic setting). I've played a stuck up wizard specializing in terrain control magic. I've played a self-centerd bard on the run from his family. I've played a fast handed rogue with no real idea of ownership  (just as likely to give stuff away as steal it--stuff is transient). I wanted to play an over-the hill fighter in the midst of a mid life crisis. I've also wanted to be a shield weilding defender my clan (think defensively specialized barbarian), and a starry eyed youth whos inexpierence is belied by a personal wisdom and inner strength of personality (the paladin). 

So, as a staunch defender of point buy, allow me to be an anecdotal exception.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Sep 18, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> True. That's a bummer of a roll, just technically above the limit for a do-over (+8 in bonuses, -6 in penalties). But you know, I think it would still be workable. Str 16, Dex 5, Con 9, Int 6, Wis 13, Cha 18. True, you'd be kind of slow in thought and action, but very persuasive, with nice saving throws. In the end, numbers are just numbers. Assuming you adventured that long, you could take a Dex increase at level 4 and a Con increase at level 8.




Yeah, that roll was just barely above the limit with a wide spread. I could have made a just playable paladin (easy to hit + lower HP just rankles me), or I could make a pretty awesome wizard. So I went with the awesome wizard.

And to you stats are just numbers. To me they're an integral part of the character and a discreet quantification of who and what he is. It's a personal issue, but the stats I have on paper drastically change the character I play and how I play him. That's why I prefer as much control over the numbers as possible.

However, I'm not saying that random rolls are bad. I played a pretty awesome and fairly memorable wizard from the ashes of the character I didn't get.


----------



## arscott (Sep 18, 2006)

QuaziquestGM said:
			
		

> In my experince, people who only play the characters that they want to play never really learn to play the game. Steve is always the elf archer or the elf monk.  Jon is always the sneaky guy or the evil fighter.  Sara is yet another Kender. They may become reasonably proficient with one class, or at playing one paticular character, but hand them anything else, even a pregen, and they have no clue what to do.  I'm more impressed by people who can guide the survival and triumphs of a randomly rolled character than I am of people of have to cherry pick.  The best players will occationally make it though a session in such a way that their Stats don't matter, becasue they never have to roll dice.
> 
> As for players' rights...the GM decides those.  If everyone is rolling stats, then that is fair.





Now you're arguing against yourself.  Earlier, you were saying that it's perfectly possible to play almost any character with almost any stats--that just because your paladin doesn't have the right distribution of stats, doesn't mean that you can't still play a paladin.  Now you're arguing that rolling wil prevent Mikey from playing a paladin over and over again.

Besides, the variance of point buy can cut both ways.  If I'm someone who always plays blasty wizard, and decide to play a monk just this once, what's going to happen when I roll one 18 and a bunch of 11s?

I'm all for encouraging people to play various character types.  But choosing random rolls just for that reason is a case of 'policy through inefficiency'--That is, structuring a rule in such a way that creates a problem, because one particular symptom of the problem is an effect you find desireable.

Policy through inefficiency is bad design because other symptoms of the problem you create are often less desirable, and either need to be addressed (causing complications and general rules bloat) or simply left to fester.

That's not to say that I view rolled stats as a problem.  I simply disagree with your position that they're the true path, and that point-buy is somehow the easy way and/or too nice to the players.

I think stat generation is an important tool that can be used to set the flavor of the campaign, just as the DMG suggests:  In my Dark•Matter campaign (modern day occult investigators), I intentionally used a point-buy with fewer points than the players were used to.  This helped send the message that D&D style solutions aren't neccessarily appropriate, and that players should consider taking a more conservative approach.  Because of point-buy's diminishing returns, combined with scarce resources, It also encouraged players to create characers that were more well-rounded, rather than excelling in one or two particular areas.

In the Dark Sun game I plan to start next year, players will roll their stats, but without the safety-net reroll.  The world of athas is harsh, and there's little room for concepts like fairness or forgiveness, so a random roll with no room for mistakes is highly appropriate.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Sep 18, 2006)

Welcome to the 'fairness' culture.  Makes you want to puke, doesn't it?


----------



## Melan (Sep 18, 2006)

If you really wish to blow their minds, mention rolling ability scores _in order_. After their jaws have dropped, concede that „okay, okay, you can roll _two_ series”. 

Seriously, this is just another outward sign of the whole „ PCs are significant and precious by virtue of being a PC” school of thought (a.k.a. „protagonism”) - as opposed to the „PCs may become significant and precious by surviving and doing heroic stuff” baseline that used to be dominant. The same is apparent in thinking about PC death, the destruction of equipment (by rust monsters, for example), the shift from splats in the hands of the DM to splats in the hands of the players… a lot of different things.

All that ends in a culture clash. It is hard to say whether you will be able to reconcile the different attitudes in the group. I could easily do it with my former group (as they mostly shared my preferences, at least subconsciously), but had to give huge concessions to the current one... and in the end, I burned out and stopped DMing, because the players weren’t playing the game I was DMing. To tell the truth, I am quite pessimistic right now, but again, who knows.


----------



## Gold Roger (Sep 18, 2006)

It's a simple matter of preferences.

I like point buy because it opens up the ability to truly create the original character you want, ensures that everyone starts at the same powerlevel, scale the power of the game, etc.

Doesn't mean you have to like it, but it seems you think I shouldn't like it :\


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 18, 2006)

I used to dislike rolling, but now I think it's pretty cool.  I could go either way.

Just for kicks, I rolled up (standard 4d6) some stats:

14 11 14 8  4  16 13

I think that could be a fun Barbarian:
Str 16
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 8
Wis 13
Cha 4


----------



## wayne62682 (Sep 18, 2006)

I like point buy for this simple reason:  It lets me create a character concept BEFORE I generate ability scores, and thus choose the scores to fit the concept.  If I want a frail but intelligent Wizard (i.e. Raistlin-type) I can MAKE one without waiting to see how the dice favor me; I have nothing against rolling but sometimes your concept doesn't come out quite the way you want it (for good or ill) and you are then forced to tweak your concept to fit your ability scores.  Point buy lets you tweak the ability scores to fit the concept.



> Do players have the right to make the characters they want?



... Of course they do.  I've run into my share of players who will only play a certain character type.. while I don't agree with it, it's not my place to make them play something they won't have fun with.  As both a player and a DM I'd rather let Suzy play a Wizard for the umpteenth time than let her become bored with the campaign because I'm trying to make her play a Fighter or a Rogue to "broaden her perspective".


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 18, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Seriously. What is the big deal?



Balance and player choice.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 18, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> Seriously, this is just another outward sign of the whole "PCs are significant and precious by virtue of being a PC" school of thought (a.k.a. "protagonism") - as opposed to the "PCs may become significant and precious by surviving and doing heroic stuff" baseline that used to be dominant. The same is apparent in thinking about PC death, the destruction of equipment (by rust monsters, for example), the shift from splats in the hands of the DM to splats in the hands of the players… a lot of different things.
> 
> All that ends in a culture clash. It is hard to say whether you will be able to reconcile the different attitudes in the group. I could easily do it with my former group (as they mostly shared my preferences, at least subconsciously), but had to give huge concessions to the current one... and in the end, I burned out and stopped DMing, because the players weren’t playing the game I was DMing. To tell the truth, I am quite pessimistic right now, but again, who knows.



I generally agree with your analysis, although I am in the happy position of liking "protagonism". My experience with earlier editions of the game is that PCs usually become significant and precious by surviving or doing heroic stuff, because doing heroic stuff simply was not conducive to survival.

In a way, I believe that RPGs have changed in much the same way that computer games have changed. The first computer games had pretty much disposable characters, such as the pellet-guzzling PacMan or the laser platform in Space Invaders. You got caught, or hit, you died, and you started over. Every once in while, you'd get a really good run, and it was immortalized as a "high score" that you'd brag about. Ironically, I think it was computer RPGs like Ultima, Wizardry, Bard's Tale and so on that introduced the idea of the non-disposable protagonist and a plot centered around him (or them).

I believe some of this thinking must have bled back into table-top RPGs because the majority of players I know don't want characters that are "disposible" any more. They have invested a lot in their characters, and want them to succeed and grow in power and influence.

I can definitely see the potential for a culture clash between gamers who think "PCs are precious" and gamers who think "PCs are disposible".


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 18, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> Seriously, this is just another outward sign of the whole „ PCs are significant and precious by virtue of being a PC” school of thought (a.k.a. „protagonism”)




Riiight.  That's why I randomly roll all NPC stats.

Not.

My PCs get +8 in ability modifiers.  Classed NPCs get +8 in ability modifiers.


----------



## arscott (Sep 18, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> If you really wish to blow their minds, mention rolling ability scores _in order_. After their jaws have dropped, concede that „okay, okay, you can roll _two_ series”.
> 
> Seriously, this is just another outward sign of the whole „ PCs are significant and precious by virtue of being a PC” school of thought (a.k.a. „protagonism”) - as opposed to the „PCs may become significant and precious by surviving and doing heroic stuff” baseline that used to be dominant. The same is apparent in thinking about PC death, the destruction of equipment (by rust monsters, for example), the shift from splats in the hands of the DM to splats in the hands of the players… a lot of different things.
> 
> All that ends in a culture clash. It is hard to say whether you will be able to reconcile the different attitudes in the group. I could easily do it with my former group (as they mostly shared my preferences, at least subconsciously), but had to give huge concessions to the current one... and in the end, I burned out and stopped DMing, because the players weren’t playing the game I was DMing. To tell the truth, I am quite pessimistic right now, but again, who knows.




I find it hard to accept the idea that point-buy is a symptom of a "PCs are super special" attitude when point buy and other ability generation methods such as arrays are used more often for NPCs than for PCs.

Emphasis on point buy is certainly evidence of a more _systematic_ approach to the game, but systematic doesn't automatically equate with mollycoddling.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 18, 2006)

3d6 in order. str, int, wis, con, dex, cha


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 18, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> It seems like every other DM I know uses point buy and I cannot help but feel that point buy has spoiled a lot of players into thinking they can create a character with no holes. This isn't chess. It's D&D. There is randomness in the game and I think players need to get over it.




There is player choice in the game, and DMs need to get over it.

Point buy doesn't eliminate holes or character weakness.  I give PCs +8 in ability mods, starting at +0, and they can swap up to 2 points.  Max +4 before racial bonuses.  3 out of 4 characters in the most recent round of creation (after a near TPK on their old point-buy characters) opted for a swap, guaranteeing they started out with at least one negative modifier.

The deathblow for random rolling for me was having to roll 12 sets of stats, until the DM found one that was "acceptable".  That's not random, that's the DM picking and choosing.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Sep 18, 2006)

I am a huge advocate of point buy.  Our group used to roll for stats and I was fine with it at the time.  That was until we started our last campaign where we rolled the stats.

We had a session where we created our characters before the campaign actually started.  We used the 4d6 drop lowest and arrange as desired method.  One of the players rolled a set of stats where his lowest score was a 14.  It took me six tries to even get a viable character (as per the rules, a minimum of a +1 total bonus and high score of at eleast 14 or something like that).  Six tries!  And my highest was a 15 or 16 with my second highest being a 14.  The total bonuses of my character (after taking into account my stats below 10) came out to a +2.  The other player's lowest score was a +2 by itself.  (Everyone else ended with fairly average stats.)

I ended up playing a rogue and the other guy played a fighter type.  With his INT being high, the other player put his extra skill point into rogue style skills (if I wasn't there he would back up the rogue since he has skill points to spare).  If it wasn't for his armor check penalty his character would almost have been as good of a rogue as I was.  (Yes, I maxed out my rogue skills - at low levels the difference between maxed class skills and maxed cross-class skills is NOT that big a difference.)

At least I had a nitch in the group, right?  I could Open Locks better than anyone, right?  Well, after I rolled less than 10 a few times Mr. 14 comes in and rolls a 20.  This happened on more than one occation.  It made me _feel_ like he was a better rogue than my rogue was.  I had lost my nitch when he could come in repeatedly and do my job better than I could (I admit - this was when I rolled poorly.  That happens.  Didn't make me feel any better though).  Why was my character even there?

Inside combat, Mr. 14 dominated.  It wasn't a team based combat style, it was Mr. 14 along with his sidekicks that kept him alive.  I'm sure that over the course of the campaign that others had a chance to get in some cool kills and great shots.  I simply don't recall any.  

I can sneak attack in combat, right?   That would require me to hit, and with my low stats I'm not going to go into melee and flank for that extra +2.  Anything in comabt that would challange Mr. 14 would slaughter me.  Anything built to fight me in combat would have a heart attack after Mr. 14 looked at him cross-eyed.  And you can't have split combats (so Mr. 14 and myself are fighting seporate monsters) all the time.

It also wasn't a case that Mr. 14 was better at everthing than anyone else was.  It was a case that his _fighter_ was almost as good as the runt of the litter that was a _rogue_.  There was such a difference in starting power levels and the character level was so low that the rogue was practically redundant.  If my character had lived to... say... 10th level, he might have been able to get himself out of Mr. 14's shadow.  Even then, 13 skill ranks in something isn't that far off from 6 ranks - but hopefully by then my DEX and magic equipment would hopefully make the gap be larger.

After Mr. 14 and the Runt Rogue - our group started using point buy.  We started in the middle of that campaign after my rogue croaked in a method than would have left him with no equipment had I brought him back.  No gear to help my runt stand out against the big guy in the party?  I'll start over... thanks.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 18, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> 3d6 in order. str, int, wis, con, dex, cha




Are you sure?  Coulda sworn that was str, int, wis, dex, con, cha...


----------



## ranger89 (Sep 18, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, I am very disappointed in the attitude most gamers have towards rolling dice. I mean, dice is what the game is about. There is an element of luck in almost every other aspect of the game from height and weight to saving throws to attack rolls to skill checks.
> 
> ...This isn't chess. It's D&D. There is randomness in the game and I think players need to get over it. Call me old fashioned, but I don't think point buys are as great of an "equalizer" as people seem to think they are. To me, the only advantage to point buy is that you can allow PCs to create more powerful characters if you want to run a more powerful campaign. I recognize the need for point buys in massive campaigns such as living campaigns where it is impossible to police everyone's rolls, but for my home campaign, I think a point buy is needless.



I couldn't have said it better myself.

I believe that players and DMs need to keep in mind that there is a wide range of reasons that people play D&D and a player's attitude towards ability stats, et al. is dependent on what kind of gamer the player is. The power-gamer type is going to obsess with his or her ability scores because they want to have the most powerful character they can build and most likely would like to have the strongest PC in the campaign. In that mindset, it makes perfect sense that the power-gamer would prefer point-buy. Conversely, the role player is not going to fret about random effects of rolling for their ability scores viewing low scores as flaws that make for better character development (e.g., a PC with a STR of 9 could be sickly). There's nothing wrong with either of those types of players or the various combinations of player types in between. It's all about personal preferences and enjoying the game in its many forms.

Personally, I'm a 50-50 power-gamer/role player. I would never consider using a point-buy but when I roll my dice, you'd better believe I'm praying to every deity out there for high scores.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 18, 2006)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Are you sure?  Coulda sworn that was str, int, wis, dex, con, cha...





i'm sure. the switch from con to dex in the order came about due to the introduction of the thief as a core class with Supplement I Greyhawk.


----------



## danzig138 (Sep 18, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Me? I prefer the best of both worlds. I have the group roll stats, and then everyone gets stats more or less equal to whoever rolled highest.



What I tried and liked was having each player roll a stat going around until all the stats were generated, and then having everyone use those numbers, place as desired. Everyone liked the rolls, except for the 7 that one of them rolled. It allowed for my preference for random gen, while keping the scores balanced between everyone, and the customization of placing the scores. 

Normally, I just have people roll 3d6 in order. Maybe 4d6-drop the lowest if it's a tougher campaign. It took some time, but the players have grown to like that method. Or at least not hate it.


----------



## mr_outsidevoice (Sep 18, 2006)

Point Buy


And I run a high power game so 32 points for PCs

I use point buy for NPCs as well
BBEG 32 point
Henchmen 28 point
Minions 25 point
Mooks straight out of book.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Sep 18, 2006)

I prefer point buy myself. I also prefer standardized Hit Points. 

It lets people create characters without the DM being present.
It presents an aspect of 'fairness' to the players as they are not beholden to an unlucky dice roll, nor can they grumble at the lucky player who managed to roll a bunch of high rolls.
It lets a player tailor his stats to better get the character he would like to play.

I dont miss random stats at all.  There's enough randomness in the game as is when they try to do things, I dont see the need to put it into every single facet of the game.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 18, 2006)

Point Buy.

While all characters created through point buy will not be equal due to poor choices on some players part and over specialization on other players parts, they all, in theory, start on the same ground. I know, same arguement can be made for everyone rolling 4d6 since everyone is doing it. The difference though is it gives the players greater control over their ability scores in the end.

If I wanted really random, I'd go with Warhammer and make 'em roll out their starting careers too.


----------



## Melan (Sep 18, 2006)

Firelance: that’s certainly an interesting analogy to think about. Unfortunately, I am firmly in the disposable PCs camp... it is a very important cornerstone of the philosophy with which I approach roleplaying.

Nellisir & arscott: how rules affect NPCs is much less significant an issue than how they do player characters. Usually, the _players_ will see very little of the mechanics behind an NPC (beyond “he was pretty wimpy/tough” or “he used this spell/that feat”), whereas they are going to be intimately familiar with their own character sheets. What happens to the first is a footnote – what happens to the second is a crucial question in the game. Nevertheless, I maintain that there is a philosophical difference even in the case of NPCs. Consider, for example, an NPC whose scores are rolled in order... with maybe the prime requisite rerolled until it gives a positive bonus. On the average, these NPCs are going to be less geared towards effectiveness, and are sometimes going to possess deep “character flaws”. The same principles apply, but to a much lesser extent because their stats are less “transparent”.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Sep 18, 2006)

ranger89 said:
			
		

> The power-gamer type is going to obsess with his or her ability scores because they want to have the most powerful character they can build and most likely would like to have the strongest PC in the campaign. In that mindset, it makes perfect sense that the power-gamer would prefer point-buy.




Interesting.  In our group the powergamers would prefer rolling.  I think tt is because it would give them a chance to get uber-characters which is denied in point-buy.

Or at least is denied in our point-buy of 28 points.

Maybe powergamers prefer point-buy in groups that go with 32 or 38 or 40+ point buy.  It wouldn't surprise me if the number of power-gamers (however the term is defined in various groups) that prefer point-buy would decrease as the points increase.  But in our group the power-gamers want to roll the dice.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 18, 2006)

I'm a traditionalist who has been drug reluctantly into the world of 3.0 and 3.5 D&D. There are a number of things I don't like. 

Point buy is near the top of the list though. Sure, it has its place right along with pre-gen characters for things like Living Greyhawk, Convention Games, etc. However, in a home game, I'll never use Point Buy and will argue vehemently (but politely) against the DM using it. 

Of course, if the GM does decide to use it, I'll shut up and play, it's not like I'm going to take my toys and go home, I just want to make it clear before hand that I don't like point buy. 

I think it promotes static, cookie cutter, min-maxed character design. Also, at any one, I have concepts for any kind of basic character concept you can play...so the stats I roll help me choose which concept I'll go with. 

If I'm running I use 4d6 drop the lowest, roll 7 times, take the top 6 rolls. Usually you get very playable characters out of that, but I will review people's stats and have them roll again if I deem their character to be 'stillborn'. 

Some of my most beloved characters have had one TRULY abyssmal stat (the rogue with the 5 wisdom, half-orc fighter with the 4 int, etc.). And...some of my most beloved characters have had high stats in an area that didn't make sense for them. Currently I'm playing a Goliath Fighter/Barbarian with a 16 wisdom and 14 int, stats were rolled using the Organic Method. 

I love the dynamic, random nature of rolling for your stats. 

Of course, 3.0 and 3.5 encourage you to map out your entire character progression to 20th level and beyond before you ever swing your sword or cast your first spell. If you are using point buy, its easier to map your character progression all the way. More predictable. 

I'll pass thanks...


----------



## Melan (Sep 18, 2006)

ranger89: I disagree with your post. I can easily imagine a “roleplayer” type who dislikes random stats because he wants to play a specific character with specific strengths and weaknesses - likewise, it is possible for a powergamer to obsess less about raw stats and instead focuses on using them _very_ effectively.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 18, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> If I wanted really random, I'd go with Warhammer and make 'em roll out their starting careers too.




I understand, if I wanted character creation via a static point based system, I'd play Hero 5th Edition (arguably the world's most flexible game system).


----------



## hexgrid (Sep 18, 2006)

I stopped having my players use point buy when got tired of every single character having a charisma of 8.

Now I use the method suggested in the Shackled City hardcover- roll up three sets of "4d6 drop the lowest," and choose the best set.


----------



## Melan (Sep 18, 2006)

Cedric: *personally*, I am on the opinion that high variance in ability scores is a lot more fun than uniformity. I would rather play a character who has glaring flaws and great strengths than one who is average in all respect. That’s why I like to roll my 4d6 in order (although as in my initial post, I allow two series for player types, even if I almost always stick with my first when I am playing). 3d6 definitely has more variance, but I doubt anyone is using that method anymore...


----------



## ranger89 (Sep 18, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> ranger89: I disagree with your post. I can easily imagine a “roleplayer” type who dislikes random stats because he wants to play a specific character with specific strengths and weaknesses - likewise, it is possible for a powergamer to obsess less about raw stats and instead focuses on using them _very_ effectively.



I'm not going to argue that point.  The examples I listed in my first post reflect how players are in my gaming group. I'm sure there's a lot of variance out there.  The point I was trying to make is that players will prefer one character creation system over another based on what they want to get out of the game. There isn't a right-or-wrong or better-or-worse side here.  It seems that there have a been quite a few point-buy vs. dice roll threads in recent months that have broken down into "you're stupid"/"no, you're stupid" discussions (probably due to people like me posting snarky comments  ).  I didn't want to see that happen here.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 18, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> Cedric: *personally*, I am on the opinion that high variance in ability scores is a lot more fun than uniformity. I would rather play a character who has glaring flaws and great strengths than one who is average in all respect. That’s why I like to roll my 4d6 in order (although as in my initial post, I allow two series for player types, even if I almost always stick with my first when I am playing). 3d6 definitely has more variance, but I doubt anyone is using that method anymore...




Yes, sometimes I use the Organic Method of stat generation. 4d6 (drop the lowest) in order, at the end you can swap any one stat's value with another. So if you wind up with 18 int and 12 strength and you want to be a fighter, just swap those.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 18, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> "I have the worst luck at rolling dice so it's unfair to make me roll my ability scores."
> (There is no statistical evidence that luck exists. [...])




That's not really the problem. The problem is that (in my experience) the average created by normal luck is a lot worse than you'd think based on the ability scores of characters that are actually played. Most GMs are a lot more forgiving about allowing rerolls than DMG guidelines would be (every rolled-stats campaign I've played in -- which has been pretty nearly every tabletop campaign -- either allowed 3+ sets of rolls to start with, or allowed 1s on the die to be re-rerolled), and most players are much more inclined to call a low roll "cocked" or "off the table". And when you've pretty much eliminated below-average (for 4d6, arrange to taste) characters by such methods, you also end up with a lot of extraordinary characters (40+-point buy) which tend to throw the game a little out of whack.


----------



## Rothe (Sep 18, 2006)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Interesting.  In our group the powergamers would prefer rolling.  I think tt is because it would give them a chance to get uber-characters which is denied in point-buy.
> 
> Or at least is denied in our point-buy of 28 points.
> 
> Maybe powergamers prefer point-buy in groups that go with 32 or 38 or 40+ point buy.  It wouldn't surprise me if the number of power-gamers (however the term is defined in various groups) that prefer point-buy would decrease as the points increase.  But in our group the power-gamers want to roll the dice.




My experience with point buy as well.   The point buy I use will gaurantee you a slightly above average character but no 17's or 18's unless you really sacrifice somewhere else.  It's an option, you can point buy or roll.  That said, everyone wants to roll and I've found rolling usually gives results the players like better.  

However, if your players really want point buy why not let them use it?  With a reasonable number of points, e.g. 28, it won't unbalance the game nor make the characters more powerful than you seem to want.

The bottom line here, IMHO, is player choice within the agreed upon constraints of the level of power in your game.  Agree on a point buy, 24, 28, 30, whatever you as GM think and put out the option.  If you force rolls, what's to stop someone from just suiciding characters until they get a set of rolls the like?


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Sep 18, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Of course, if the GM does decide to use it, I'll shut up and play, it's not like I'm going to take my toys and go home, I just want to make it clear before hand that I don't like point buy.




That's fair.  As long as a player "shuts up and plays" after logging an inital complaint, that's cool.  We all have differing opinions.  So long as the players understand that in the end the DMs method wins.



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> I think it promotes static, cookie cutter, min-maxed character design.




I think this is a hard point for the point-buyers to argue - and I am a point buyer.  Look at a game with point buy and the vast majority will have all even stats and descending order or importance.  Of course there are a few exceptions - the dwarven cleric with an abysmal charisma being one of my favorite!  But for the most part point buy methods lean to cookie cutter characters.  But ... see my next comment.



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> Of course, 3.0 and 3.5 encourage you to map out your entire character progression to 20th level and beyond before you ever swing your sword or cast your first spell. If you are using point buy, its easier to map your character progression all the way. More predictable.




I do not think the system is what is to blame.  Take driving a porsche in the middle of Montana or some other flat area where you can see for what seems like hundereds of miles.  The gas pedal is right under your feet, there isn't a soul on the road ... do you end up going 140 mph just to see what it feels like?  If you don't it isn't the car's fault.  If you do, it isn't the cars fault.  The human mind is what's to blame.

3.0 and 3.5 make no such advances.  I've read through plenty of books and I don't recall seeing a paragraph on planning your character out to even the next level.  Sure, they do suggest that you have a concept in mind and you make wise choices to allow the future to have possibilities.  But that just makes sense.

Likewise with cookie cutter characters.  Point Buy may lean towards cookie cutter characters, but that isn't the fault of the system, its the fault of the human mind making the character.  Don't crucify a good system because we play with greedy, selfish minds!

Personally, I feel that character generation is like Roleplaying.  It is a process that needs to be taught to be done well.  People who take out their first character ever want everything to go perfectly because it's their fantasy!  But after you've played 10 fantasies you realize that being perfect isn't what it is all cracked up to be.  What does Agent Smith say to Morpheus in the original Matrix?  Something along the lines of the fact that Human beings define their existance in misery, living in it, and struggling to overcome it.  [That's the gist, not an actual quote]  Learning to want to play characters with flaws needs to be taught!

I don't need randomly rolled dice to force me to learn how to play a character with a flaw.  I use point buy method all the time and play characters with even two stats at an 8 just because it demonstrates their imperfection - or lack of skill.  I don't need a set of dice to force me to do that.

ULTIMATE POINT FOR THOSE WHO QUIT READING!   

The system is only a system.  Both rolling and point buy are valid and can be used to create fun, balanced characters.  Our arguments should not be based on exalting one system over the other, it should be looking upon those who manipulate the system with criticism!


----------



## rvalle (Sep 18, 2006)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Interesting.  In our group the powergamers would prefer rolling.  I think tt is because it would give them a chance to get uber-characters which is denied in point-buy.
> 
> Or at least is denied in our point-buy of 28 points.





I agree. Our resident power gamer was most unhappy when I did a point buy for our WLD campaign. I was getting comments of "So you think PC's are average people doing heroic things?". This was with a 28 point buy. 

This is the same player who, with rolling 4d6 and dropping lowest but with no rules in place for having to take any one set of numbers, will fill up a paper front and back with sets of stats. I mean really whats the point? You might as well just pick the numbers you want.

rv


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 18, 2006)

I generally dislike point buy for the main reason that I tend to have very good luck with dice in character generation. The most recent character I did with 4d6 drop the lowest, one re-roll if needed: 17, 17, 15, 14, 14, 13, 12 (I'm human, so no stat adjustments; the lowest roll was an 8 which was re-rolled into a 13). That's like a 55 point buy character. I don't usually roll quite that well, but I can count on at least a couple 15's and nothing less than average.

I doubt I'd much like a campaign that didn't have a very high end point buy (32 or 36 is what we've usually used when we've done point buy) unless the concept was that we are very average people lifted into extraordinary circumstances.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 18, 2006)

rvalle said:
			
		

> This is the same player who, with rolling 4d6 and dropping lowest but with no rules in place for having to take any one set of numbers, will fill up a paper front and back with sets of stats. I mean really whats the point? You might as well just pick the numbers you want.
> 
> rv




I do agree with you here. If my players want a "reroll" button, they need to go back to their computers. You roll for stats once, unless I say otherwise. 

Now, I've been pretty forgiving in the past. If someone has had a CLEAR character concept, I've adjusted their stats after they've rolled so they could feasibly play it...or I've allowed rerolls, etc. 

But no, no filling up stacks of paper with 4d6 six times until you get the 18, 18, 17, 15, 14, 12 you were hoping to get.


----------



## Asmor (Sep 18, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> 17, 17, 15, 14, 14, 13, 12




Wow! So might you need _seven_ stats! I'm impressed! 

I've only skimmed the thread, but I'm surprised that I haven't noticed anyone saying they let their players choose.

I'd be happy to let my players use whatever method they like. In fact, they always roll, which I find kind of annoying because I prefer point buy. But it really doesn't matter to me. Oh, and I also don't supervise their rolls. I trust them, or at the very least, like to think I can trust them. Sometimes it's like you're a paladin in a party with an evil person, and you just gotta make sure not to use detect evil on him for the sake of party cohesion.


----------



## Gargoyle (Sep 18, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Seriously. What is the big deal?




I use point buy now (25 points), but I don't think it is a big deal.  Rolling is fun too, in a different way.  In the past I've made up my mind about all sorts of character backgrounds, personalities, classes, and feats just from looking at what I rolled. It's interesting.

Some of those complaints about rolling are just whining, but some are valid concerns, IMO.

Overall, I think point buy works better, if you don't give them too many points.  My problem with rolling is that I don't want one player to have a big advantage at low levels over the others, and rolling seems to do that sometimes.  

Another reason for using it is that it makes character generation away from the gaming table more fair.  I am convinced that my players do not cheat, but sometimes they are not so certain about each other, and requiring them to use point buy prevents any suspicions from arising in the first place.  The game is about rolling dice, but for my campaign we don't roll them away from the table.  As some would say, locks keep honest people honest.  Having them roll in front of the DM slows down character generation, and isn't always possible.

Finally, I do think of player characters as special, and would prefer that they be exceptional.  Players only get one character to control; it should be one that they like.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 18, 2006)

Asmor said:
			
		

> I've only skimmed the thread, but I'm surprised that I haven't noticed anyone saying they let their players choose.





i think that is Crothian's normal stance


----------



## Cedric (Sep 18, 2006)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> 3.0 and 3.5 make no such advances.  I've read through plenty of books and I don't recall seeing a paragraph on planning your character out to even the next level.  Sure, they do suggest that you have a concept in mind and you make wise choices to allow the future to have possibilities.  But that just makes sense.




With the onslaught of available choices in terms of Feats, Prestige Classes, Class Abilities, etc...it is very rare these days that I see a 3.x character grow organically based on what has occurred in game. More often than not the character's entire progression is rigidly planned before hand so the player can make sure they qualify for XX Presige Class or YY Feat Chain by # level. 

Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with this...I tend to fall for it myself ot a certain degree. But somewhere in the back of my mind, I don't care for it. 

There should be room for a chararcter to grow organically based on what's actually happened in game. 

Of course, in large part due to this, I limit my players to one 10 level prestige class and one 5 level prestige class.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 18, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I understand, if I wanted character creation via a static point based system, I'd play Hero 5th Edition (arguably the world's most flexible game system).




Don't forget GURPS!

Or Mutants & Masterminds!

Or BESM/TristatX!

Lots of good options out there.

But I take the breaks that my game group prefers. (Of course I try to take as much randomness out as possible for no rolling for hit points either. If hit dice are an indicator of how tough a character class is, randomly rolling those hit points seems to work directly against that theory.)


----------



## arscott (Sep 18, 2006)

I dunno, though.

I play with people who will plan their characters up though 15th or 20th level.  But then they'll play three sessions and totally revise their plan.

Sort of reminds me of real life, where people make complicated plans for education, careers, relationships, and so on, and then may or may not change them based on what's happening in their lives.  I certainly wouldn't call that inorganic.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 18, 2006)

arscott said:
			
		

> In the Dark Sun game I plan to start next year, players will roll their stats, but without the safety-net reroll.  The world of athas is harsh, and there's little room for concepts like fairness or forgiveness, so a random roll with no room for mistakes is highly appropriate.




If the world of Dark Sun is so harsh and unforgiving, how would a character with low stats survive as an adventurer? Historically, tougher settings like Dark Sun and Oriental Adventures have suggested the favorable ability score generation methods.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Sep 18, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> With the onslaught of available choices in terms of Feats, Prestige Classes, Class Abilities, etc...it is very rare these days that I see a 3.x character grow organically based on what has occurred in game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There should be room for a chararcter to grow organically based on what's actually happened in game.




Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you at all.  My assertion is that it isn't the tool's fault, so don't blame the tool.

I'm sure that you've heard the expression "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."  Like it or hate it, it is true.  A gun is not going to stand up and demand that it be used to kill someone.  A person picks up the gun and uses it for their own purpose.

So, I would assert that "3.x doesn't plan characters out to 20th level, people do."  Sure, the tool (3.x) makes it easy to do this.  But the book never stands up and demands to be used in this manner.  The people do that.

My point above is that teaching people to roleplay is an art.  Teaching people to design organic characters is an art.  In a word where greed and immediate gratification are two of the largest motivators for life ... if we want people to do something different they need to be taught how and shown why it is a better system.  It isn't about trashing the system and limiting choices.  It is about teaching people how to play with an organic mind.  It is about teaching people to resist the lure of the Dark Side and roleplay rather than rollplay and plan out to the 20th level.

From a DM's perspective, I dislike people who honestly plan out to the 20th level - with no chance of deviation.  I don't mind people looking ahead and saying that they've got a few options and avenues they'd like to go down.  But when a player says "this character is going to be a W/X with levels Y/Z" then I wonder why I should even game before that point?  If they already know what's going to happen, why play through it?  In that case it isn't about interacting with the world and being changed by it while you change it as well.  That kind of gaming is about the numbers.

I agree with you in principle.  I disagree that it is the systems fault.  The system is a tool and cannot help how people use/abuse it.  Focus on changing how people approach the game and you'll be much happier than limiting choices.  Teaching people how to approach the game organically allows them to limit their choices naturally without having to be the power-weilding DM.


----------



## Tiberius (Sep 18, 2006)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Wow! So might you need _seven_ stats! I'm impressed!




Pfft! Any true AD&D player knows that Wizards made a ginormous mistake in abandoning Comliness as a core stat.


----------



## ehren37 (Sep 18, 2006)

I never use random aspects in character generation (or leveling up. Fixed HP for the win). I dont particularly liek a system that encourages inequality, but what really annoys me is the idiots who choose to use dice, then actually complain that a PRC/spell/item is overpowered. HELLO. You threw balance out the window to begin with.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 18, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> I never use random aspects in character generation (or leveling up. Fixed HP for the win). I dont particularly liek a system that encourages inequality, but what really annoys me is the idiots who choose to use dice, then actually complain that a PRC/spell/item is overpowered. HELLO. You threw balance out the window to begin with.




Um. No. The system is balanced using dice, quite balanced indeed. I make my players roll stats, I make them roll hit points. And I roll the dice for NPCs and their hit points too. The system is quite balanced in that regard. And the more hit dice they all get, the more their total number of hit points tends to conform to the expected value.
Sure, there are variances between individuals in the system, but that does not cause imbalance, certainly not like the frenzied berserker (arguably) casues imbalance. And as characters advance, particularly in skills, the effects of variation in stats diminishes. Any claims of really substantial inequality really is a tempest in a teapot.


----------



## tzor (Sep 18, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> "I have the worst luck at rolling dice so it's unfair to make me roll my ability scores."
> 
> "Characters who roll high steal other characters' niches."
> 
> "If I don't get the ability scores I want, I can't play the character I want."




First of all, I do have the worst luck at rolling dice.  But then again the law of averages only works on a large number of rolls, and I've got this selective amensia that only reminds me of the times I've hated my rolls.  Still I would rather roll dice than do point buy unless I have a specific idea in mind.

Second of all, most of my rolling experience as a PC and DM has come from the AD&D days.  If I were to convert my experiences into d20 speak I would suggest that high attributes really do give a character a CR advantage that can warp the encounters for everybody.  I would not say it would "seal other character's niches" but it can have a drastic impact.

Finally there is, even in 3.5E a notion of class prerequisites.  I was pondering a campaign once and suggested the average point buy.  One of the players (and they are all good players by the way) commented "well I guess I can't play a paladin then."  Yes technically he could play a paladin with low stats but you really need better ones to get the character to be any good.  While there are no longer prerequisites there are different quantities of "important stats" for each class.  Some classes only need one or two important stats, some three or more.

Still I like rolling for stats, even though I'm probably not going to get an 18.


----------



## ehren37 (Sep 18, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Um. No. The system is balanced using dice, quite balanced indeed.




No, its not. Its balanced using the standard array. If a character gets all 18's, and another gets all 10's and a 14, they arent balanced. So since you want to encourage them to be unbalanced, why complain when someone takes a PRC that makes them more powerful than someone else... when that was your intent in using dice to begin with? And yes, having one player get an extra 2-4 on all rolls DOES matter.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 18, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> I never use random aspects in character generation (or leveling up. Fixed HP for the win). I dont particularly liek a system that encourages inequality, but what really annoys me is the idiots who choose to use dice, then actually complain that a PRC/spell/item is overpowered. HELLO. You threw balance out the window to begin with.




I actually think the overall trend towards this necessary 'balance' is one of the things wrong with current RPGs...and I think some of it stems from computer games influencing RPGs. 

Look at 1e...I love 1e, have had a great time with it for years, but there isn't the slightest semblance of class balance in 1e. 

So they keep building up some classes and watering down others to achieve this elusive 'balance' and all they manage to achieve in me usually is boredom. 

Take a fictional example...I loved the Fellowship of the Ring. Great story, great characters, very moving. However, it should be crystal clear that balance did not, in any way, exist in that group...yet they still had fun. 

If every person in your group needs to feel that they are just as powerful as every other in the group, then do whatever works for your group (I always encourage that). 

But if you want me to play the plucky, but useful, comic relief rogue that is very capable, but nowhere near the most powerful character...SIGN ME UP! I'd love that role.


----------



## ehren37 (Sep 18, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I actually think the overall trend towards this necessary 'balance' is one of the things wrong with current RPGs...and I think some of it stems from computer games influencing RPGs.
> 
> Look at 1e...I love 1e, have had a great time with it for years, but there isn't the slightest semblance of class balance in 1e.




And the game sucked. There were only a few character classes that actually contributed anything to the success of the group. If you werent a wizard or cleric, you may as well not even show up past 10th level. Believe it or not, something might actually benefit from years of research and experience behind its design, as opposed to what gygax and company cranked out one night after a bunch of stiff drinks.



> Take a fictional example...I loved the Fellowship of the Ring. Great story, great characters, very moving. However, it should be crystal clear that balance did not, in any way, exist in that group...yet they still had fun.




Well, theres a difference betwen a novel and a game. If a group is going to play a superheroes game, and someone gets handed superman, and the other player gets handed gleek the space monkey, they'll probably complain.



> But if you want me to play the plucky, but useful, comic relief rogue that is very capable, but nowhere near the most powerful character...SIGN ME UP! I'd love that role.




Why cant you play the comic relief rogue who is just as useful as another character?


----------



## Christoph the Magus (Sep 18, 2006)

I don't like point buy.  It's just doesn't feel like D&D to me.  The method I use in my games is 3 sets of 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange as you wish.  You get one floating point that you can assign anywhere, but you cannot use it to raise an ability above 18.  It works for us.


----------



## Kormydigar (Sep 18, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I actually think the overall trend towards this necessary 'balance' is one of the things wrong with current RPGs...and I think some of it stems from computer games influencing RPGs.



Amen. Back in my day we didn't have this fancy schmancy game balance. The thief was usually always at least a level or more higher than the fighter and two or more levels higher than the magic user and we liked it!!!!


----------



## Cedric (Sep 18, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> And the game sucked. There were only a few character classes that actually contributed anything to the success of the group. If you werent a wizard or cleric, you may as well not even show up past 10th level. Believe it or not, something might actually benefit from years of research and experience behind its design, as opposed to what gygax and company cranked out one night after a bunch of stiff drinks.




That's your opinion, many of us loved it and embraced the lack of balance. And regardless what character I've played in high or low level 1st ed D&D, I've contributed to the overall success of the party because of my skill as a player. I may not have thrown down as many dice as the Arch Mage standing next to me...but I contributed and was pleased with my effort. 



			
				ehren37 said:
			
		

> Well, theres a difference betwen a novel and a game. If a group is going to play a superheroes game, and someone gets handed superman, and the other player gets handed gleek the space monkey, they'll probably complain.




Why does their have to be a difference between a novel and a game? In the end, you are telling a story of companions surviving against the odds and obstacles of a war-torn world. I understand that some people feel each companion needs an equal voice, I'm just not one of those people. 



			
				ehren37 said:
			
		

> Why cant you play the comic relief rogue who is just as useful as another character?




I can, I've happily played 3.0 and 3.5 since release. Why can't you play the 'less capable' character who has to contribute in ways that go beyond their stat block?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 18, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Why can't you play the 'less capable' character who has to contribute in ways that go beyond their stat block?




Lots of people can. But some people prefer not to, and the ultimate point is that the game shouldn't _force_ them to do so. Rolling stats doesn't _always_ force someone into the inferior position, but it certainly can, and often does. Point-buy, for those who choose to use it, eliminates that.


----------



## ehren37 (Sep 18, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> That's your opinion, many of us loved it and embraced the lack of balance. And regardless what character I've played in high or low level 1st ed D&D, I've contributed to the overall success of the party because of my skill as a player. I may not have thrown down as many dice as the Arch Mage standing next to me...but I contributed and was pleased with my effort.




Some of you do. We didnt, our 1e and 2nd e games were a mess of house rules and such that helped ensure that a single class human fighter was a character that helped the group as much as the mage, or multiclass abomination.




> Why does their have to be a difference between a novel and a game? In the end, you are telling a story of companions surviving against the odds and obstacles of a war-torn world. I understand that some people feel each companion needs an equal voice, I'm just not one of those people.




And I'd say you're in the minority. But guess what, you're in luck. You can still intentionally make a sub par character even WITH balanced rules. 



> I can, I've happily played 3.0 and 3.5 since release. Why can't you play the 'less capable' character who has to contribute in ways that go beyond their stat block?




Like problem solving? You know, the thing the wizard does between cups of coffee using scry and contact other plane? If your rogue did anything worth mentioning in 1st edition, it was because the wizard player had passed out, or the DM just handed you the opportunity. There was a reason the class advanced fast, it sucked. Gygax and company in their terrible "wisdom" decided that its a good idea to make a system that punishes certain players the longer they are involved. Thats right fighter, you get more marginalized as you play! What great insight!


----------



## Mercule (Sep 18, 2006)

I can go either way.  

For a "serious" game, I prefer point buy.  Why?  I'm putting in a lot of time and effort, as GM, to make the game interesting and tailored to the PCs.  I want them to have characters they like and who are appropriately powered to working as an ensemble.

For a "beer-n-pretzels" game, I'm fine with dice.  Why?  Because it's about making the best of what you've got, trying to survive crappy situations, and the occasional need for a new PC.  But, if we're going for randomness in stats, I want to do 3d6 (or 4d6, for slightly higher powered PCs) *in order*.

Basically, I think one should pick a school of thought.  Either plan and choose your stats, or get a random set.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Sep 18, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Why does their have to be a difference between a novel and a game? In the end, you are telling a story of companions surviving against the odds and obstacles of a war-torn world. I understand that some people feel each companion needs an equal voice, I'm just not one of those people.




As both a writer and a gamer I can say that there is a difference.  When I write, I want things to happen so they do.  Sure, occasionally I do model the characters off of actual builds and occasionally I even allow dice to randomize my writing by indicating the speed a conflict is resolved or to what level a story character is successful.  But the difference is that if I want to write about a fighter or thief that rules the world, I can.  In D&D the game, it is far less likely to happen.

Having said that, I do prefer a game that has an attempt at balance.  I don't demand nor expect perfect balance because my RL experience tells me that it isn't perfectly balanced.  But I do want a guarantee that I can meaningfully contribute.  It could happen in 1e, but its more likely to happen at all levels in 3e.

Besides, as it was pointed out.  In an unbalanced game, you can't always play a character that is great.  In a balanced on, you can.  In both games you can choose to sub-optimaly play.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Sep 18, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I've contributed to the overall success of the party because of my skill as a player. I may not have thrown down as many dice as the Arch Mage standing next to me...but I contributed and was pleased with my effort.




And that is great.  Going back to my Runt Rogue, I'm trying to recall what I did contribute and I'm coming up fairly dry.  I'm sure I opened locks and disabled traps but there aren't any that stand out in my mind (the fact that this character was 5 years old or so doens't help, I'm sure).  I recall the times the fighter rolled high on the Open Locks check after I rolled a few 5s and 6s.  I didn't have the hp to spend much time in melee so sneak attack didn't happen very often.  If I had something solid to contribute in combat (out-of-combat wasn't a problem.  I recall quite a few enemies I contributed with my back story) I probobly wouldn't have been so upset about the rolls.



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> Why does their have to be a difference between a novel and a game?



One has an author.  The other doesn't (or at least, shouldn't).  In one, a select group (usually one) has complete control over what happens to every character.  In the other, there are many who have control and most of those involved only have control of one character (or two with cohorts and such).  In one, the creator knows - most of the time - who is going to be alive at the end of the story when they start writing it.  In the other, no one knows who will survive when they start.



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> In the end, you are telling a story of companions surviving against the odds and obstacles of a war-torn world.



And... in theory at least... each should have an equal chance of survival.

Don't get me wrong - I will willingly go out like Borromir.  A self-sacrifice to try and protect others.  I don't need to survive to have fun here.  But I want to actually make a difference in my last stand.  If the the big bad is designed to challange the big stats person in the party I'll be lucky to land a single attack.



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> I've happily played 3.0 and 3.5 since release. Why can't you play the 'less capable' character who has to contribute in ways that go beyond their stat block?



Like a sidekick?  At least Robin was able to contribute to Batman's adventures.  I want to be able to contribute something.  I want to _remember_ that I was able to contribute something.  

I didn't have the stats to be the faceman of the party.  I'm sure I had to be the best at locks and traps - but that isn't what I remember.  I don't demand the spatlight or require that I be the best at everything. Heck, I'm currently playing a bard (and enjoying it)!  I don't have the biggest bodycount when it comes to combat but I know that I am helping the others when the weapons come out; I know how I am helping the others when the blood starts to spill and I _feel_ that I am able to help the others when their lives are on the line.

I know what my character is capable of and what I can help with.  I know, going in,  what I bring to the group.  That is what can be removed if a one character completely outmatches another character.  I recall the background and the rogue's storyline.  I recall a couple of cool fights that had villains from my rogue's storylline (I don't recall what I did in those fights - although I'm sure that in one of the fights I went unconcious very, very quicly.  Again - that happens.  Doesn't make me feel better though.).  I don't recall what my rogue added to the party.

I don't feel like I added anything to the party and THAT is the problem.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 18, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Do you make your PCs roll or do you use point buy? It seems like every other DM I know uses point buy and I cannot help but feel that point buy has spoiled a lot of players into thinking they can create a character with no holes.




I give them a choice. There are some players that believe that they're incredibly unlucky with dice, so I give them a choice: 25 point buy, or 4d6 drop lowest. It works great. about 30% of my players choose point buy.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 18, 2006)

Asmor said:
			
		

> I've only skimmed the thread, but I'm surprised that I haven't noticed anyone saying they let their players choose.




That would be my calling card.  THis thread is about point buy and I didn't see a need to derail it.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2006)

So far, I pretty much agree with Cedric.

A few things to keep in mind: 

Unless your campaign is going to be one of those awful "PC's will never die and the PC's that start the campaign must finish it" set-ups, the character you roll up now is not by any means going to be the only character you play!  So, if you get a bad one, play it into the ground (as entertainingly and memorably as possible), decline to be raised, and try again.  How simple is that? 

Stats don't make the character.  The character, and the player, make the character.  Sure, some people like to brag about their all-18 character, but the stories that last longest are those of the derring-do - or derring-don't - of various PC's ("remember that time we lined ourselves up in perfect order of ascending height and then opened the door with a medusa behind it?") that nobody remembers the stats of.

Lane-"give me the dice and stand back!"-fan


----------



## Cedric (Sep 18, 2006)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> I don't feel like I added anything to the party and THAT is the problem.




And I agree completely, that's a problem. If you feel that way, then something needs to change because, honestly, that's just not fun. 

As to my thoughts on balance. Eh, I'm old and stuck in my ways. I didn't like the fact that 2e watered down mages...and I didn't play mages back then. 

So I totally understand that most people playing now disagree with me, and I'm fine with that. I try to do the best I can, within reason, to optimize my character, I like being effective at what I do.

I just prefer that there be a random factor involved in that creation process when I'm playing D&D. If I wanted static points to spend, again, I'd play Hero. So basically, when I want a different style of play, I play a different game system. 

From D&D, I want random character generation and I am not particularly concerned with balance is it relates from one character to another.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 18, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> "Whoever rolls the highest is going to end up dominating the whole campaign. That's not fair at all. I want to be able to have the spotlight sometimes too."
> (Ability scores are not the be-all, end-all in 3e. Although they are arguably more significant at lower levels, the higher you get in level, the less ability scores matter because things like magic, skills, class abilities, and feats easily make up for those deficiencies.




I think you underestimate the effect of this. As other people have said, at any given level the character with the good luck of rolling better is ALWAYS better than the other players - by a significant margin too. It can make a lot of unfun for the less well endowed PCs.

My group tend to use point buy now because there are no concerns about how 'lucky' someone got when rolling up a character at home - we know that everyone is on the same footing.

The big downside of it is that all the classes that rely upon a single big attribute tend to start off with an 18 - Ftrs with 18 str, wizards with 18 Int, rogues with 18 dex, clerics with 18 Wis for instance.

I quite like Mouseferatus suggestion that everyone rolls and then the best set of rolls is used by everyone (presumably rearranged to suit each players personal preferences). That would give a nice level of randomness while still remaining 'fair' between players.

Cheers


----------



## werk (Sep 18, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Um. No. The system is balanced using dice, quite balanced indeed.




I agree, except that with regard to stats, your sample size is one.  With a sample so small, statistical variation does not have the opportunity to blanace everything out. 

If you roll poorly for stats (provided you don't reroll unitl you get acceptable stats) that character will be penalized for it's entire life, likewise good stats will benefit a character it's entire life.

Dice are balanced in an appropriate sample.  Since characters don't reroll their stats every level, it's a a fixed value, and therefore...not balanced by the laws of random variance in any way.

Point buy, it's the only fair way.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 18, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> If you roll poorly for stats (provided you don't reroll unitl you get acceptable stats) that character will be penalized for it's entire life, likewise good stats will benefit a character it's entire life.




Not one's entire life.  At low levels haveing a fighter with a 14 strenth verse an 18 is going to show.  But at 20th level with all the bonuses from class, magic, feats, and other things it really doesn't matter a lot when one fighter gets +40 to attack and the other guy only gets +38.


----------



## Agamon (Sep 18, 2006)

My players hate point buy.  Not a single one of the six in the group I DM would rather point buy over roll.  I'm pretty lenient with mulligans, though.  No stat over 13 or a net bonus of +2 or less allows a reroll.  I also use the floating reroll method.  So there is little chance of having an unlikable PC.

Also, with HP, when a level is gained, every level's HD is rerolled.  If you roll less than your previous total (with bonuses), you only gain 1 hp.  But this means if you have bad HP one level, you'll have a good chance of alleviating the problem next level.

I want my players to like their PCs and not be disapointed in a bad roll that affects the PC throughout its existance.  The game is supposed to be fun, not frustrating.


----------



## werk (Sep 18, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Not one's entire life.  At low levels haveing a fighter with a 14 strenth verse an 18 is going to show.  But at 20th level with all the bonuses from class, magic, feats, and other things it really doesn't matter a lot when one fighter gets +40 to attack and the other guy only gets +38.




He's still -2 modifier compared to the other character for their entire life.  That's not balanced to me.

One character having an 18Str and a 14Con, while the other has a 14Str and a 18Con, that's balanced.  It is their option to elect to have a lower strength in exchange for a high stat elsewhere.

The last time I had players roll stats, the highest character counted out at almost 70 point buy, while the worst rolls were around a 20 point buy.  Putting those two in the same party really illustrated the un-fairness of random rolling.  (again, ignoring rerolling for desired stats, as that assumes that random rolls are inherently not fair/not fun)

Edit:  Crothian, would you mind giving me $500 out of every paycheck that you make?  As you earn more money, that $500 will become a smaller percentage of your total revenue, so it's really not a big deal...in the long run.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 18, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> He's still -2 modifier compared to the other character for their entire life.  That's not balanced to me.




So, in your mind there is only perfect balance or no balance?  What if the guy with the -2 modifier is msarter then the other player so actually is more effective?  Does that still make his character weaker?  



> Edit:  Crothian, would you mind giving me $500 out of every paycheck that you make?  As you earn more money, that $500 will become a smaller percentage of your total revenue, so it's really not a big deal...in the long run.




You are right it is not that big of deal.  I do give away a small percentage of my paycheck and doesn't bother me.  I just don't give it to you


----------



## an_idol_mind (Sep 18, 2006)

Balance schmalance. Rolling for attributes is fun. Rolling for hit points at new levels is fun. It feels good as a player to get lucky rolls, and there's much more uncertainty and variance that way. The few times I've used point buy, my characters' stats are basically always the same. If god doesn't play dice, he doesn't know what he's missing.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 18, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> "I have the worst luck at rolling dice so it's unfair to make me roll my ability scores."
> "Whoever rolls the highest is going to end up dominating the whole campaign. That's not fair at all. I want to be able to have the spotlight sometimes too."
> "That's so horribly broken! You mean if I roll five 18s I get to play a character with five 18s!?"
> "Characters who roll high steal other characters' niches."
> "If I don't get the ability scores I want, I can't play the character I want."




In my current campaign I used the following system, cribbed from these boards:
Each player rolls 4d6, drop lowest (in the case of having too few players, the DM rolls the extras).  We collect these to make a set of ability scores.  The group then votes on whether to keep the scores.  If they do, great.  Everyone makes a character from the same set of scores.  If not, they reroll.  However, whatever the first player's roll is gets fixed.  That roll will no longer be rerolled.  The players vote on that set, and if they reject it, the second player's roll gets fixed.  Every time they reject, they get stuck with a roll, whether it's good or bad.  After 6 rerolls, all the stats are fixed, and that's what you play with.

It solves all the above problems, except perhaps the last.  But it's generally not a problem, since lame stats get vetoed.  The current group went to five rerolls because they had some early success: the fixed numbers were pretty high, so they could gamble with the remaining few to see if they could bring them up.  They actually ended up with pretty good scores.  Of course, that didn't save them from several deaths and a couple of almost-TPKs.


----------



## QuaziquestGM (Sep 18, 2006)

This argument seems to stim from the misconception that the PCs are supposed to usually win and that winning is the only fun.

The most fun games are the ones where the PC's know that they are going in over thier heads, and often have to come up with imaginitive retreat stradigies, and spend a week trying to survive random enocounter checks on anaverage of 3 hp while they wait for the cleric to recover from -9.....

Taking randomness out of the game is taking most of the challenge out of it.

Point buy is for tournaments, not "real play".  Tournaments are a test of players' if given characters of equal potential.  

As for the example of the supers game, hell yes I would complain.  Geek is much better than SuperMan.  Did you ever actually watch the cartoon?  Geek is the one who shows up at the last minute and saves everybody's @$$ cause the villians didn't notice him or couldn't catch him.  Kryptonight has no effect on monkeys! (and Wonder Woman was much cooler when she couldn't fly...now she is just an underpowered Superman who barely ever uses her tradmark magic lasso)


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> He's still -2 modifier compared to the other character for their entire life.  That's not balanced to me.
> 
> One character having an 18Str and a 14Con, while the other has a 14Str and a 18Con, that's balanced.  It is their option to elect to have a lower strength in exchange for a high stat elsewhere.
> 
> The last time I had players roll stats, the highest character counted out at almost 70 point buy, while the worst rolls were around a 20 point buy.  Putting those two in the same party really illustrated the un-fairness of random rolling.  (again, ignoring rerolling for desired stats, as that assumes that random rolls are inherently not fair/not fun)



What's this huge hang-up on everything being fair, and balanced, and even?  It's very possible that the 20-point-buy guy will end up being as useful (or more so) to the party than the 70-point guy; you can't know until you drop the puck and play.  Never mind they'll advance at different rates, end up with different items and abilities, and so on...

Enforce a rule that only the DM can toss out a set of rolls; otherwise, play what you roll.  Your players will be more creative for it, either in how they play "sub-optimal" characters or in how they get them killed...

Lanefan


----------



## Alceste (Sep 18, 2006)

Master of the Game said:
			
		

> I use point buy.  If nothing else, it makes the players _feel_ as though they're starting on equal footing.




QFT. All characters start off with equality in stats. How good the character becomes is up to the player. Having a character dominate the game because somebody got hot at character creation is immensely boring for the other players. A character with an array like 18, 18, 17, 16, 10, 8 will dominate the game. Btw, that was someone's starting stats in our last die generated game. We have been using point buy for a long time now, it just works better for all players.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 18, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> So, in your mind there is only perfect balance or no balance?  What if the guy with the -2 modifier is msarter then the other player so actually is more effective?  Does that still make his character weaker?




This is an important point. There's a question of balance with respect to ability scores (where the relative effect of the difference tends to decline over the life of the character when it involves important stats), and general balance between PCs getting a chance to shine with the same relative frequency... something more dependent on what the DM plans for and how the player uses the character than on the result of stat rolls.
If you've got a PC in the party, even if he's got awesome stats, he still can't be the best at everything. If he starts to horn in on your territory, either suggest he spend his skill points/feats more wisely or carve out a more exclusive niche for yourself.
If you are a DM and the characters have some notable variation, make sure you have stuff for the other characters to do and no "Mr. 14-is-his-lowest-stat". But then, that's a good thing to do even if all the characters are generated through point buy, one of the players is a community theater star, or most of the players are shrinking violets.

By the way, in all the games I've run using dice for stats, large differences have very rarely been all that noticeable around the table except for some very specific cases (such as the half-ogre's strength) or when someone has specifically been bragging about what they can do.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 18, 2006)

Alceste said:
			
		

> All characters start off with equality in stats.




But all points buys are not equal.  Even if the point buy everyone starts with the same.  The only way point buy is balanced is if the players all can take advanatage of it the same way and if all races and all classes and everything else is balanced.  It does no good for everyone to have the same stats if bob's class and race combo out does fred's.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 18, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> But all points buys are not equal.  Even if the point buy everyone starts with the same.  The only way point buy is balanced is if the players all can take advanatage of it the same way and if all races and all classes and everything else is balanced.  It does no good for everyone to have the same stats if bob's class and race combo out does fred's.




QFT

If the DM says, we're doing 28 point buy, have characters ready by Friday.

I guarantee you, I'm going to get more mileage out of my Sorceror's stats than you're going to get out of your Monk's stats with that point buy. 

Cedric


----------



## Cor Azer (Sep 18, 2006)

I prefer point buy myself - as a DM I like it because I often work on my NPCs during my lunch at work where it is conspicuous to be rolling a bunch of dice, and as a player I like because I can work on my characters when the DM isn't around, and tailor him to my vision or concept - while I have numerous concepts I want to eventually try, I don't want one picked randomly due to the fall of the dice, mostly because I want it to mesh with the other characters (again getting to the making the character before the game starts - each player tends to pipe up with what he/she wants to play and then we go off to make the PCs; there's enough conversation to coordinate options, but we don't all sit down together).

I'm not a big fan of rolling because in my experience, no matter how smart the player is, no matter how good the character is in any other situation, I always and inevitably have one or more players complaining about a badly rolled attribute. For the entire campaign. Even if it never comes up to hurt the character. Worse though, in some ways, are the players who use it brag... (ie, _"Come on, even I challenged the Black Knight, and I only have a strength 8!"_)

As a DM though, I usually allow the players the choice - 4d6, drop lowest, and arrange, or point-buy. That said, my point-buy is pretty flexible (I believe I yoinked it from someone back on Eric Noah's old boards) where the PC is given a base 22 points or somesuch, but up to 10 extra points can be earned through a detailed background. Most of my players develop a background anyways, so opt for the point-buy to (I, and they, admit) power-game a little.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> What's this huge hang-up on everything being fair, and balanced, and even?  It's very possible that the 20-point-buy guy will end up being as useful (or more so) to the party than the 70-point guy; you can't know until you drop the puck and play.  Never mind they'll advance at different rates, end up with different items and abilities, and so on...
> 
> Enforce a rule that only the DM can toss out a set of rolls; otherwise, play what you roll.  Your players will be more creative for it, either in how they play "sub-optimal" characters or in how they get them killed...
> 
> Lanefan




Hrm, a 70 point buy compared to a 20 point buy is effectively about 50k gp worth of stat boost items (and quite likely considerably more).  So, it's perfectly fair that one PC starts off with the wealth of a 9th level character at 1st level?

Sure, the difference between an 18 and a 14 isn't huge at higher levels, but, the difference gets much larger when EVERY stat is higher.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Sep 19, 2006)

I won't play in a game that forces rolled stats for the same reason I won't play in a campaign starting at first level and often won't play in a game with significant multiclassing restrictions: I come to the table with a character concept and do not expect to have to trust to luck, or worse yet time, to get to the point where I'm playing the character I want.

If the roll for stats culture didn't annoy me, I suppose I should stick around and see if the stats I roll happen to come out somewhere around what I imagine the character having.  If so, huzzah, I really should stay if that's my only objection.  If not, I can always walk after rolling too high or too low, and good riddance.

From my perspective as a player, it has nothing to do with balance (although it is, in fact, probably the single most important consideration when it comes to balancing the game) and everything to do with concept.  As a GM, I insist on point buy because a) it is balanced and, more importantly, b) it forces players to decide on a concept rather than coming up with one on the fly.

To be fair, this is also why I prefer 100% point buy games like M&M, HERO and SilCore to any version of D&D.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Sep 19, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> But all points buys are not equal.  Even if the point buy everyone starts with the same.  The only way point buy is balanced is if the players all can take advanatage of it the same way and if all races and all classes and everything else is balanced.  It does no good for everyone to have the same stats if bob's class and race combo out does fred's.




But the number of class and race combos that can possibly outweigh a significant difference in stats are miniscule, particularly if you're sticking to late 3.0 and 3.5 material.  Not many classes give a flat 'same at everything except you have +1 skill point/level, +2 to hit and damage (+3 with a 2h weapon), +2 hp/level, +1 AC, +2 Fort, +1 Will and +1 Ref saves.'  Yet that's not even an unusual result with rolled stats.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Hrm, a 70 point buy compared to a 20 point buy is effectively about 50k gp worth of stat boost items (and quite likely considerably more).  So, it's perfectly fair that one PC starts off with the wealth of a 9th level character at 1st level?



Assuming all things equate to wealth...which they don't...and assuming the stat boosts would make that much of a difference in how the character is played...not always likely...then perhaps.  But just because Darrien (our recently-deceased Barbarian) was 6 points stronger than Bjarnni (my heavy-ranger) did I thus see Darrien as being x-thousand g.p. richer?  Never!

An example I've used elsewhere here: (numbers from memory; the bonus totals are correct)

18-16-15-13-13-11 = +11 total bonus, no idea of point buy cost.
15-12-11-10-10-7 = +2 total bonus, no idea for point buy (but 7's don't happen there).

These were the stats for the first two 3e characters I rolled up and played, for the same campaign.  Three guesses which one is still going...and recently became longest-serving PC in that game.   (hint: she's still the same Wis. 7 she always was!)  And I sure don't see her as being many tens of thousands of g.p. poorer than the other guy whose stats average is 3.5 higher.  Why?  Because _the stats don't make the character_!

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2006)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I won't play in a game that forces rolled stats for the same reason I won't play in a campaign starting at first level and often won't play in a game with significant multiclassing restrictions: I come to the table with a character concept and do not expect to have to trust to luck, or worse yet time, to get to the point where I'm playing the character I want.



Where I come to the table to play, and sometimes the characterization just makes itself up as I go along.  It's called being chaotic... 

I'm just not that hung up on playing *that* character *now*...I can wait, and a better idea might well rear its ugly head in the meantime...

Lanefan


----------



## Crothian (Sep 19, 2006)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> But the number of class and race combos that can possibly outweigh a significant difference in stats are miniscule, particularly if you're sticking to late 3.0 and 3.5 material.  Not many classes give a flat 'same at everything except you have +1 skill point/level, +2 to hit and damage (+3 with a 2h weapon), +2 hp/level, +1 AC, +2 Fort, +1 Will and +1 Ref saves.'  Yet that's not even an unusual result with rolled stats.




That's because balance is much more complicated then this.  Many times one is trying to compaire apples and oranges to determi8ne if things are balanced.  I'm just saying you have to look at everything and not just one minor area for balance.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> 18-16-15-13-13-11 = +11 total bonus, no idea of point buy cost.
> 15-12-11-10-10-7 = +2 total bonus, no idea for point buy (but 7's don't happen there).
> ...




Two things.

One, I've seen sevens and even three sixes in a point buy character.  The Orc barbarian in my WLD game has them.  Not too bright, not someone you'd bring home to mom, and definitely short sighted, but, built for the beating.   

Secondly, if you are playing a character beyond its abilities, how are you actually playing the character?  Does your Wis 7 character frequently make very poor choices?  She should be.  But, then again, most people tend to ignore that end of the stats.

Look, if I have 50 points over your character, then I am effectively two or three levels higher than you are.  That might not bother you, but, I'll guarantee it bothers lots of people.  When you look at all the complaining that this or that is broken the first culprit is almost always the point cost of the character.


----------



## Altalazar (Sep 19, 2006)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> I am a huge advocate of point buy.  Our group used to roll for stats and I was fine with it at the time.  That was until we started our last campaign where we rolled the stats.
> 
> We had a session where we created our characters before the campaign actually started.  We used the 4d6 drop lowest and arrange as desired method.  One of the players rolled a set of stats where his lowest score was a 14.  It took me six tries to even get a viable character (as per the rules, a minimum of a +1 total bonus and high score of at eleast 14 or something like that).  Six tries!  And my highest was a 15 or 16 with my second highest being a 14.  The total bonuses of my character (after taking into account my stats below 10) came out to a +2.  The other player's lowest score was a +2 by itself.  (Everyone else ended with fairly average stats.)
> 
> ...




I apologize in advance for qutoing this all, but I wanted to capture the sentiment.  THIS is the reason why point buy is superior to dice and always will be.  The difference in power level you can have between characters can, by randomness, be HUGE.  My very first 3.0 campaign that I played (DMd actually) I did the 4d6 method.  One player ended up rolling well enough to be the equivalent of a 49 point buy.  Another player rolled the equivalent of a 21 point buy.  The difference was enormous.  Anything that even barely challenged the 49 point character would slaughter the rest of the party.  Anything that was a good match up for the rest of the party, as soon as mr 49er got in range, was toast within a round or two.  

This sort of problem persisted even as they approached 9th level.  So...
Stats are ALWAYS important.  Even at higher levels.  

The problem is differences between PCs.  If all PCs roll 49 points worth, fine, if they all roll 21, fine - they are even and you can adjust accordingly.  But then if you are saying it is only ok when they roll close to each other, you effectively have point buy by accident.  

So that is why point buy is superior to dice.  Any games where you have found dice work out ok were probably games where, by chance, the players rolled reasonably close to one another.  Which is just point buy by accident.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 19, 2006)

There's a simple three-part test that could be done 'as a tie-breaker' if people felt so inclined:

a) What kind of stat adjustments are worth LA+1?
b) Would you, the hypothetical DM/GM of a campaign about to start at level 1, allow one PC to have those kinds of stat adjustments over the others in the same party, at chargen time, regardless of how the stats were generated?
c) Would you, the same hypothetical DM/GM of the same campaign, allow one PC to start at 2nd level?

I'm sure there are a number of interesting whys / why nots and such that could come from that, too.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 19, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> There's a simple three-part test that could be done 'as a tie-breaker' if people felt so inclined:
> 
> a) What kind of stat adjustments are worth LA+1?
> b) Would you, the hypothetical DM/GM of a campaign about to start at level 1, allow one PC to have those kinds of stat adjustments over the others in the same party, at chargen time, regardless of how the stats were generated?
> c) Would you, the same hypothetical DM/GM of the same campaign, allow one PC to start at 2nd level?




a) we'll give +4 to one stat, +2 to another, and -2 to something plus other cool abilities based on what the race is.

b) Of course because I trust my players and know our game.  We will have fun regardless.

c) Of course and I've done that (allow normal races for everyone but one guy who had an ecl+1 character), 

I beleive there is more to a character then the numbers and I run my game that way.  It's worked for many years and I hope it will continue to work.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Sep 19, 2006)

I think players' point buy expectations are just a sign of the times. The expectation today is that you can do whatever you want and tailor (aka min/max) your character exactly the way you want.

I use point buy IMC simply b/c I usually don't meet new players face to face until game day and it's easier to start character generation with point buy.

That being said, were it possible, I'd make everyone roll together. It's part of the game. If someone rolled horribly worse than the others, I'd either make up for it in other ways (e.g., magic items) or I'd let them reroll.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 19, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> a) we'll give +4 to one stat, +2 to another, and -2 to something plus other cool abilities based on what the race is.



Nope. That wasn't the question. No race involved here, so no "cool abilities" need apply.  Just ability modifiers. For example, +2 (in modifiers) over all other PCs? +3 over them? +4?



> I beleive there is more to a character then the numbers and I run my game that way.  It's worked for many years and I hope it will continue to work.



Very cool. And, unfortunately, very rare in this kind of flavour. Don't you also let players choose their characters' ability scores, without any rolling/buying/whatever. . . ?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 19, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Nope. That wasn't the question. No race involved here, so no "cool abilities" need apply.  Just ability modifiers. For example, +2 (in modifiers) over all other PCs? +3 over them? +4?




ecls don't work that way.  It makes for a nice intellectual exercise but has no application in the game because a character that has +10 point more then the others isn't assumed to be of higher level.



> Very cool. And, unfortunately, very rare in this kind of flavour. Don't you also let players choose their characters' ability scores, without any rolling/buying/whatever. . . ?




I learned many years ago that my style of gaming can be far removed from what others are doing with the same game.  And yes, I let players pick their ability scores.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 19, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> ecls don't work that way.  It makes for a nice intellectual exercise but has no application in the game because a character that has +10 point more then the others isn't assumed to be of higher level.



Really. . . ?

So, for example, an extra +1 modifier in say, Str(+1 melee, damage), Dex (+1 ranged, initiative, AC, Ref save) & Con (+1 HP/level, Fort save) - with a couple of other smaller advantages that these bring - isn't worth a level? No? Then how about another +1 in modifiers in each (double all the previous stuff, obviously). . . ?

Surely there has to be a point (and that's what I was asking at 'a') where ability modifiers _are_ worth a level. Surely.


Anyway, I thought it'd be an interesting exercise, yeah. If I end up loosing at teh intarweb, oh well.


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 19, 2006)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Look at a game with point buy and the vast majority will have all even stats and descending order or importance.




Part of my reason for dropping ability "scores" in favor of the  modifiers.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 19, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Really. . . ?
> 
> So, for example, an extra +1 modifier in say, Str(+1 melee, damage), Dex (+1 ranged, initiative, AC, Ref save) & Con (+1 HP/level, Fort save) - with a couple of other smaller advantages that these bring - isn't worth a level? No? Then how about another +1 in modifiers in each (double all the previous stuff, obviously). . . ?
> 
> Surely there has to be a point (and that's what I was asking at 'a') where ability modifiers _are_ worth a level. Surely.




I'm sure at some point it is, but the game isn't designed to do that.  I say that because there is a completely lack of rules that say what is worth ecl+1.  All they have are examples of things that are the different ecls.  

But to make a guess we'll say +2 across the board (all 6 stats).  That answer is just for the thread, I wouldn't have a character like that in my own games be a level higher just based on stats.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 19, 2006)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Part of my reason for dropping ability "scores" in favor of the  modifiers.




So now they just have descending stats in order of importance?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 19, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I'm sure at some point it is, but the game isn't designed to do that.  I say that because *there is a completely lack of rules that say what is worth ecl+1*.  All they have are examples of things that are the different ecls.



[emphasis mine]

Hence the question! 

The Hobgoblin is almost an illustration of what I personally believe to be the case in D&D, though. *Almost*.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Sep 19, 2006)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Part of my reason for dropping ability "scores" in favor of the  modifiers.




Seriously?  I mean this as an honest request so as to not derail this pretty cool thread ... but could you start a new thread describing how this has effected your game?  I'd love to speak more on this subject and how you think it has/hasn't affected your game.  Things like:

- How do you handle ability score adjustments ever four levels?
- How your players reacted.  Where they used to the original system?  Did it take a long time to adjust?
- How do you do things like Tomes and Manuals that give ability score boost?

And anything else you can speak from experience.  Personally, I think this idea is cool.  I just think it would take a bit or reworking to make some sections of the rules work.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Sep 19, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> So now they just have descending stats in order of importance?




I normally agree with what you have to say, Crothian, but I think here you missed his point.  Yes, you comment is probably right.  They do have them as a descending order of importance.  But the difference is that a 12 and a 13 are now the same value.  This is huge for point-buyers, but has little application for rollers or "just pick 'em" folks like yourself.


----------



## Tolen Mar (Sep 19, 2006)

Phasics said:
			
		

> what your DM dosent trust you when you say you rolled 18 18 18 18 18 17 at home before the game session ?




Hehe...talk to my GM who watched me roll 4 18's, a 16, and a 14 in front of him...  My rolls away from his sight are likely to be a bit more down to earth (after all, what are the odds of it happening again.  He'd nerf me for sure if I claimed that).


----------



## Crothian (Sep 19, 2006)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> I normally agree with what you have to say, Crothian, but I think here you missed his point.  Yes, you comment is probably right.  They do have them as a descending order of importance.  But the difference is that a 12 and a 13 are now the same value.  This is huge for point-buyers, but has little application for rollers or "just pick 'em" folks like yourself.




It was meant as a funny.  Nellisir got rid of the odd/even problem but didn't comment on the descending in order of importance.  So, in is still there or so the funny goes...right out of this thread....


----------



## Crothian (Sep 19, 2006)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Seriously?




It is what True 20 does.  I don't know if he does it the same way but having played True 20 it works well.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 19, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Seriously. What is the big deal?




  It prevents cheating so long as the DM actually still verifies the numbers rather than simply assuming that everyone DID adhere to the limitations it suggests.  'Tis sad but true that some gamers find it compelling to "cheat" even when the entire exercise is non-competitive.
  It prevents _whining_ about "He's got TWO 17's!  I want another one!", though again it is because gamers fail to grasp some of the fundamental concept of "non-competitive" play.  To give them their due they are encouraged in this by a game company that for 6 years has vastly over-emphasized rules in all things and payed little more than lip service to actual exercise of imagination.  [Yeah, that's harsh but that's how I see it.]
  It _does_ provide a modicum of levelled playing field (though definitely nothing like what it is routinely given credit for.)
  While your character will never be eggregiously outclassing other PC's at the games' inception your character will also be assured of never being notably less than average in any way as well.  Looked at another way; it promotes a pervasive blandness to character "design".
  It has long since ceased to be chic to take pride and enjoyment in having fun with a character suggested by unusual, random results, rather than one that is studiously, mathematically, and antiseptically engineered to provide properly packaged fun.

Point-buy is NOT a great evil, but it's no more flawless than random rolls.  I'll use it if that's what the DM wants but it is not my preference.  I try to keep my distaste for point-buy in line with the hyperbole in its favor.  I do consider it less conducive to active imagination and roleplaying than taking random rolls.  But that's just me.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Sep 19, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> MoogleEmpMog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Fair enough; I always test as LN on online alignment tests.

When I played my first game of HERO, I realized everything I despised about AD&D and what I still disliked in 3.x D&D; when I played my first game of SilCore, I realized that playing a character that interested me and fit the genre did not preclude generating a character in less than four hours.  Then along came Mutants & Masterminds and demonstrated that I could get almost as much flexibility as in HERO in a timeframe similar to SilCore.

I could never go back to not even having control over my character's basic abilities.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> That's because balance is much more complicated then this. Many times one is trying to compaire apples and oranges to determi8ne if things are balanced. I'm just saying you have to look at everything and not just one minor area for balance.




Balance is certainly more complicated than this.  But D&D's designers feel a simple +2 to two stats is worth an entire level (see goblin, hob).  As silly as the hobbie's LA is, D&D's ability scores can easily increase a 1st-level character's effective level to 2nd or 3rd level.  Even at higher levels, that amounts to an immense difference in character ability.

Which is fine.

I have no problem with telling players to assign the scores they want, assuming they're good players.  I have no problem with allowing them any class, race, feat, spell or item ever published provided the same thing.  But that's because I trust them to play well, and thus don't care about balance - not because I think it's actually balanced.

With players I didn't know or trust, I'd use point buy, because anything else is balanced, if at all, only by similar fortune in rolls - and then it's really not much different from point buy, anyway.


----------



## RFisher (Sep 19, 2006)

(Disclaimer: I didn't read the whole thread. Sorry.)

I completely agree with airwalkrr's original post.

However: I had a player once waste a whole session because he thought every set of ability scores he rolled were horribly low. The truth was that they were all decent. Some of the existing PCs had worse scores, but he couldn't see that. Everyone else had lived by the "only reroll if you qualify as 'hopeless'" rule, but he couldn't.

If I was ever in that situation again, I'd offer to let the player use point-buy.

(Although, I think I did make that offer several times, but it never seemed to be heard...)


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 19, 2006)

I allow players the choice between rolling and point buy.

Next campaign I intend to allow folks to roll, and if they do not get a character that they like they can do a 28 point buy character.

Mind you, lately I have been running Spycraft, which uses 36 pints in character generation*.

Point buy makes it easier to balance player characters against each other, and allows the GM to customize NPCs as needed.

The Auld Grump
*EDIT* Those be hard drinkin' super spies matey! Mayhap I meant points thar...


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Sep 19, 2006)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Mind you, lately I have been running Spycraft, which uses 36 pints in character generation*.
> 
> *EDIT* Those be hard drinkin' super spies matey! Mayhap I meant points thar...




I'll say.  But if you give 36 pints during character generation, I bet you don't get many complaints!


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 19, 2006)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> I'll say.  But if you give 36 pints during character generation, I bet you don't get many complaints!



Arrrr, ye be not listenen' to them the next mornin'! Ye'd be thinkin' I'd sawed the tops o' their 'eads off and poured burnin' powder down the 'ole.


The Auld Grump


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 19, 2006)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> I'm sure that you've heard the expression "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."  Like it or hate it, it is true.  A gun is not going to stand up and demand that it be used to kill someone.  A person picks up the gun and uses it for their own purpose.




While true, it still belies the *fact* that countries where guns are illegal have a lower murder rate than those where guns are legal. Guns may not kill people by themselves, but in practice more people get killed when guns are around.

Point buy is the same way. Point buy may not force people to power game, but in practice more people power game when point buy is being used.


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 19, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> And the game sucked. There were only a few character classes that actually contributed anything to the success of the group. If you werent a wizard or cleric, you may as well not even show up past 10th level. Believe it or not, something might actually benefit from years of research and experience behind its design, as opposed to what gygax and company cranked out one night after a bunch of stiff drinks.




Um, you do realize they played the game for nearly 10 years before releasing it in its final format?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2006)

Ok, let me propose a couple of questions.

Take two characters, A and B.  Both have identical stats.  Would you then allow either of the following:


Character B gains 50 000 gp worth of stat boost items at character generation.
Character B starts two levels higher than Character A.

Why or why not?


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 19, 2006)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> It prevents cheating so long as the DM actually still verifies the numbers rather than simply assuming that everyone DID adhere to the limitations it suggests.  'Tis sad but true that some gamers find it compelling to "cheat" even when the entire exercise is non-competitive.
> It prevents _whining_ about "He's got TWO 17's!  I want another one!", though again it is because gamers fail to grasp some of the fundamental concept of "non-competitive" play.  To give them their due they are encouraged in this by a game company that for 6 years has vastly over-emphasized rules in all things and payed little more than lip service to actual exercise of imagination.  [Yeah, that's harsh but that's how I see it.]
> It _does_ provide a modicum of levelled playing field (though definitely nothing like what it is routinely given credit for.)
> While your character will never be eggregiously outclassing other PC's at the games' inception your character will also be assured of never being notably less than average in any way as well.  Looked at another way; it promotes a pervasive blandness to character "design".
> ...




That is brilliant. I really liked reading that.


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ok, let me propose a couple of questions.
> 
> Take two characters, A and B.  Both have identical stats.  Would you then allow either of the following:
> 
> ...




The simplest answer as to why NOT is because a wise player would simply turn around, sell that stuff, and use it to buy items that grant smaller bonuses to more things. Another simple answer is that it would get stolen from the character very quickly unless everyone in your world was Lawful Good and respected the rights of others to their own property; 1st level characters do not defend their treasure well. If we are playing at level 10+, then I routinely give PCs disparate amounts of treasure for various reasons, most often as an rp reward. Oh no! Horrible imbalance there... not. It works fine.

Have I mentioned in my current campaign the dwarf fighter with the equivalent of 21 points outshines every single other character, even those with the equivalent of 36 points? All characters are 12th and 11th level. He has no special advantages the others do not have.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Sep 19, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> While true, it still belies the *fact* that countries where guns are illegal have a lower murder rate than those where guns are legal. Guns may not kill people by themselves, but in practice more people get killed when guns are around.
> 
> Point buy is the same way. Point buy may not force people to power game, but in practice more people power game when point buy is being used.




I'm not arguing any of this.  In fact, it furthers my point!

The problem is not with the system, it is with the people.  I'll give you a case example with a large population sample so it should be normal in its distribution.

Police officers carry loaded weapons more often than not.  They are taught and trained to use the weapon.  The majority of police officers don't ever actually kill anyone because they are taught how and when to appropriately shoot someone (powergame?) - and perhaps more importantly, when not to shoot someone.

Conversely, take the general public.  Sure, there are many people who own a gun and know how to use it appropriately.  But there are also many people who think the gun means power that can be thrown in people's faces.  That's when people get shot and die.  Because they don't have an appropriate understanding on when it is appropriate or not.

So it can be with point buy.  If you don't teach people how to roleplay and enjoy the game the right way, they're going to do what comes naturally.  The world is geared towards self-glorification.  Thus, unless people are taught, they tend to lean towards powergaming.  But if you teach people to do the game properly ... then it shouldn't make a difference on what system they use.

Any system can be powergamed.  Take the example of the person who rolls a whole sheet until they get the set they want.  Take the one that only plays under a 42 point buy.  If everyone in the party is doing it, then who am I to judge so long as they are having fun.  But nobody can deny that both are powergaming!


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> Have I mentioned in my current campaign the dwarf fighter with the equivalent of 21 points outshines every single other character, even those with the equivalent of 36 points? All characters are 12th and 11th level. He has no special advantages the others do not have.




I really gotta ask.  How?  Is it the scintillating wit you bring?  Sorry, can't be.  With a 21 point buy dwarf fighter, you've got a 10 int at best.  Perhaps its the deeply inciteful plans you craft.  Oh wait, nope.  21 point buy dwarf fighter - 8 Wis in all likelihood.  Perhaps its your incredible feats of strength?  Huh?  You've got a 14 strength AT BEST, so that can't be it.

Or, could it possibly be that you don't actually play the character that's on paper, but ignore the stats in favour of doing whatever you think is best all the time?

As far as stealing the stat boost items goes, that's an interesting idea.  Do your NPC's regularly walk around casting detect magic on random people in towns and then rob them when they find something juicy enough?  Otherwise, how could they possibly know that any of the character's items are magical?  How very... Everquest of you.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Sep 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I really gotta ask.  How?  Is it the scintillating wit you bring?  Sorry, can't be.  With a 21 point buy dwarf fighter, you've got a 10 int at best.  Perhaps its the deeply inciteful plans you craft.  Oh wait, nope.  21 point buy dwarf fighter - 8 Wis in all likelihood.  Perhaps its your incredible feats of strength?  Huh?  You've got a 14 strength AT BEST, so that can't be it.




Snarky ... but it has a legitimate question burried in there.

Hee are a few examples of a 21 point buy dwarf (no class intended):

In order from STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA:

18, 12, 11, 8, 8, 6
14, 14, 16, 11, 8, 6
14, 14, 13, 10, 10, 8

Now, of course there are a bunch of other combinations.  Stat-wise, the first one could make a decent fighter.  But they'd be on the dumber side of life, making less than wise decisions often, and really not well liked for some personality reason.  In combat, he might be okay.  But the rest of the game?

I think that is the point.  Anyone can use any set of stats if they are going to RP outside of what the stats say.  But to RP any of these stats would likely give you some serious things to consider.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 19, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> While true, it still belies the *fact* that countries where guns are illegal have a lower murder rate than those where guns are legal. Guns may not kill people by themselves, but in practice more people get killed when guns are around.




Yarr, here be a warning I shan't put in Piratese, harr harr:  

Next person to use a gun reference to make a point (or not) gets a free three day suspension from the site. Political discussions are expressly forbidden, and you can bet youir squid-infested anchor chain that gun control counts as political. Please use other analogies to make your point.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I really gotta ask.  How?  Is it the scintillating wit you bring?  Sorry, can't be.  With a 21 point buy dwarf fighter, you've got a 10 int at best.  Perhaps its the deeply inciteful plans you craft.  Oh wait, nope.  21 point buy dwarf fighter - 8 Wis in all likelihood.  Perhaps its your incredible feats of strength?  Huh?  You've got a 14 strength AT BEST, so that can't be it.
> 
> Or, could it possibly be that you don't actually play the character that's on paper, but ignore the stats in favour of doing whatever you think is best all the time?




Am I sitting in on a briefing with Donald Rumsfeld? Maybe. Are all of your points above correct? Heavens to Betsy, no.   

Maybe it's because he plays the character like the dial goes to 11 while everyone else just has dials that go to 10.
And what is it about people thinking that you can't come up with a good plan with an 8 Wisdom? It's only a hair below average. Even dumb dogs manage to hunt on occasion.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Sep 19, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Next person to use a gun reference to make a point (or not) gets a free three day suspension from the site. Political discussions are expressly forbidden, and you can bet youir squid-infested anchor chain that gun control counts as political. Please use other analogies to make your point.




As the one who originated the reference, I'll gladly ask for forgiveness.  I didn't mean to tread on the rules, it was certainly not intentional.  I honestly didn't think of it as a political discussion, but I get your point.  Being made aware, I will certainly abide!


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2006)

> Maybe it's because he plays the character like the dial goes to 11 while everyone else just has dials that go to 10.
> And what is it about people thinking that you can't come up with a good plan with an 8 Wisdom? It's only a hair below average. Even dumb dogs manage to hunt on occasion.




The problem is, the dial only goes to 7 because not only is his wisdom below average, his intelligence (the character's I mean  ) is also pretty dim and he's got the personality of a slightly concussed badger.  Even if he does come up with a great plan somehow, he cannot communicate it effectively and, again, even if he does, no one listens to him because he's an annoying git.  (Again, the character, I'm sure Airwalkrr is a nice enough fellow and I'd like to game with him).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 19, 2006)

For rolling, I really like the idea that PBartender has used for one campaign



			
				PBartender said:
			
		

> *Ability Scores*
> Ability scores will be generated using the "Organic" method:
> 
> 1. Roll 4d6, drop the lowest, six times and record the results in order.
> ...




I think that the 're-roll as much as you like, but you've got to create NPCs for each of the sets you discard' is quite inspired


----------



## Altalazar (Sep 19, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Yarr, here be a warning I shan't put in Piratese, harr harr:
> 
> Next person to use a gun reference to make a point (or not) gets a free three day suspension from the site. Political discussions are expressly forbidden, and you can bet youir squid-infested anchor chain that gun control counts as political. Please use other analogies to make your point.




Wow, even analogies are off-limits?  What if we talk about, instead, crossbows, and how the town watch is trained to use them...


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I really gotta ask.  How?  Is it the scintillating wit you bring?  Sorry, can't be.  With a 21 point buy dwarf fighter, you've got a 10 int at best.  Perhaps its the deeply inciteful plans you craft.  Oh wait, nope.  21 point buy dwarf fighter - 8 Wis in all likelihood.  Perhaps its your incredible feats of strength?  Huh?  You've got a 14 strength AT BEST, so that can't be it.
> 
> Or, could it possibly be that you don't actually play the character that's on paper, but ignore the stats in favour of doing whatever you think is best all the time?




It isn't my character; it is a PC in a game I run. The dwarf has a 6 Charisma and he's the de facto leader of the party simply because he is assertive. That and he has the leadership feat. The player actually roleplays the 6 Charisma very well by being gruff, blunt, and rude. But he manages to set party policy by leveraging the fact that he is a the one taking most of the hits. He is always the first into the room, usually the first to get hit, and the sufferer of the most deaths (two).

His Strength, which is a 21 counting his belt of giant strength +4, is far better than any other character's meaning he usually dishes out the most damage. He is a dwarf with levels of exotic weapon master so his power attacking damage is quite painful. As far as roleplaying the other abilities that you actually roleplay (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma), he does all of those very well. He is none too bright, but not an idiot (Int 10). He isn't the keenest fellow, but he makes the right decisions in a crunch (Wis 12). He is rude, conceited, and lacking in social graces (Cha 6; part of the reason he picked up a bard cohort, to remind him when to keep his mouth shut).



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> As far as stealing the stat boost items goes, that's an interesting idea.  Do your NPC's regularly walk around casting detect magic on random people in towns and then rob them when they find something juicy enough?




Smart thieves certainly do! In a cosmopolitan city like Greyhawk, you can bet your ass that there are mages in the Thieves' Guild who point out soft targets like wet-behind-the-ears adventurers with more loot than they know how to handle.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Otherwise, how could they possibly know that any of the character's items are magical?  How very... Everquest of you.




I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but 30% of magical items _glow_, at least according to the RAW (you may house rule that they do not, but that is another issue altogether). That's a dead giveaway. If you are wearing six magical items, two of them will probably have a rather unnatural radiance. So sans detect magic/arcane sight/greater arcane sight there are still ways for even the dumb half-orc thief to recognize you are carrying valuable stuff.


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 19, 2006)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> As the one who originated the reference, I'll gladly ask for forgiveness.  I didn't mean to tread on the rules, it was certainly not intentional.  I honestly didn't think of it as a political discussion, but I get your point.  Being made aware, I will certainly abide!




As will I. Didn't think of it as being political. Sorry.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Otherwise, how could they possibly know that any of the character's items are magical?  How very... Everquest of you.




I think I'm going to propose that using a video game reference as a smarmy, smirking backhanded insult is the equivalent of Godiwinng (referencing Hitler) a thread on a gaming board. Now we just need a name for it. Hmmm.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 19, 2006)

I've made it clear that I'm all in the "roll d'em bones" corner of this boxing ring. However, I would like to add a caveat. 

If you are stuck in a situation where you are forced to play with people who you just flat CANNOT trust to play by the rules. You may have better luck with point buy...because a die hard cheater (heh, pun) will find a way to roll up some awesome stats even when all the players roll together. 

Likewise, if you're running a game day game in a local store or running a convention game, point buy will probably work better for you (especially since you can post the point buy rules before hand and have people show up with characters). 

If you're in a seasoned group of friends that you all trust and know...offer both choices. Just try hard to balance the die rolling method you are using with a point buy method. For this, I prefer to use a die rolling method that is 'slightly' more favorable than point buy. Because you're taking a chance...bigger risks, the chance for bigger rewards, etc. 

But, if I'm in that group, expect to see four of my black d6s with the rep pips come out and start getting warmed up.


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 19, 2006)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Seriously?  I mean this as an honest request so as to not derail this pretty cool thread ... but could you start a new thread describing how this has effected your game?  I'd love to speak more on this subject and how you think it has/hasn't affected your game.  Things like:
> 
> - How do you handle ability score adjustments ever four levels?
> - How your players reacted.  Where they used to the original system?  Did it take a long time to adjust?
> ...





OK.  http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3072559#post3072559


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 19, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> So now they just have descending stats in order of importance?




Yes.  Except for the champion who, due to an inexplicable brain-fart, gave himself a -1 in Charisma.  Since all the champion's abilities are 1+Charisma per day....


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> 
> 
> Smart thieves certainly do! In a cosmopolitan city like Greyhawk, you can bet your ass that there are mages in the Thieves' Guild who point out soft targets like wet-behind-the-ears adventurers with more loot than they know how to handle.




Fair enough if you're actually playing in a major city.  How often does this happen in the small towns that low level characters typically start in.  Besides that, how do the thieves know that the PC is "wet behind the ears"?  Wouldn't the presence of major magic items generally deter would be thieves who would look for much softer targets?  




> I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but 30% of magical items _glow_, at least according to the RAW (you may house rule that they do not, but that is another issue altogether). That's a dead giveaway. If you are wearing six magical items, two of them will probably have a rather unnatural radiance. So sans detect magic/arcane sight/greater arcane sight there are still ways for even the dumb half-orc thief to recognize you are carrying valuable stuff.




Reference?  I haven't seen that one before.  From the SRD (bold mine)



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Light Generation
> 
> *Fully 30% of magic weapons* shed light equivalent to a light spell (bright light in a 20-foot radius, shadowy light in a 40-foot radius). These glowing weapons are quite obviously magical. Such a weapon can’t be concealed when drawn, nor can its light be shut off. Some of the specific weapons detailed below always or never glow, as defined in their descriptions.




Note, that only applies to weapons, and not wonderous items.  

But, this is going in circles.  You see nothing wrong with allowing a PC to have the equivalent of thousands of gold worth of stat boost items or being effectively one or two levels ahead of other PC's.  I do.  I use stat buy precisely because of this.  I've seen far too many poor campaigns where the star PC is so far ahead of the rest of the party that it's simply no fun.  I've also seen many DM's complain about how their party is blitzing through encounters that should be challenging without actually taking the time to realize that the PC's being played are effectively one or two levels higher due to high stats.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, this is going in circles.  You see nothing wrong with allowing a PC to have the equivalent of thousands of gold worth of stat boost items or being effectively one or two levels ahead of other PC's.  I do.  I use stat buy precisely because of this.  I've seen far too many poor campaigns where the star PC is so far ahead of the rest of the party that it's simply no fun.  I've also seen many DM's complain about how their party is blitzing through encounters that should be challenging without actually taking the time to realize that the PC's being played are effectively one or two levels higher due to high stats.




Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile this with the fact that I can make a MUCH more effective wizard or sorceror on 28 point buy, when compared to someone elses Monk or Paladin?

In order to make a monk or paladin really shine and be very enjoyable to play (both classes are arguably underpowered), you need above average stats. At least with die rolling you have a chance at being able to play an effective version of the character you have imagined, and if your stats merely come out so-so...there's still the option of Sorceror, Wizard, Druid, etc. Classes which can function well with one decent stat and one good stat. 

Again, I'm not saying that point buy has no place in D&D, I just don't think it should be a method used to force balance into party dynamics.


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 19, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Do you make your PCs roll or do you use point buy? It seems like every other DM I know uses point buy and I cannot help but feel that point buy has spoiled a lot of players into thinking they can create a character with no holes. This isn't chess. It's D&D. There is randomness in the game and I think players need to get over it. Call me old fashioned, but I don't think point buys are as great of an "equalizer" as people seem to think they are. To me, the only advantage to point buy is that you can allow PCs to create more powerful characters if you want to run a more powerful campaign. I recognize the need for point buys in massive campaigns such as living campaigns where it is impossible to police everyone's rolls, but for my home campaign, I think a point buy is needless.



I don't let players roll, point buy is mandatory in games I run.

I don't do it to protect players from poor rolls, I use it to protect the campaign from overpowered, overlucky rolls, in creating characters so powerful they overshadow the entire campaign, and are by blessing of high ability scores, effectively a level or more higher than the rest of the party.

All characters, at creation, should be created equal.  Why bother to set a standard starting level and standard starting money, if you have one character who fairly rolled 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 (which is a legal, non-rerollable character) and a character who rolled 18, 17, 17, 16, 16, 15 (I've seen that rolled on fair dice right in front of me before). 

Random die-rolling character creation is a relic of a bygone era, when you would also roll to see if your character had psionic talent, roll for 1st level hit points, roll for everything.  (I know some DM's that made PC's roll for everything from family background, social strata, if the character is currently wanted for any crimes, sexual orientation, hair color, eye color, virtually every aspect of the character be randomly determined).

Once the game begins, in combat and such, yes, there is a random element, but I don't see why character creation itself, especially something as fundamental as ability scores, should be so random.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 19, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I think I'm going to propose that using a video game reference as a smarmy, smirking backhanded insult is the equivalent of Godiwinng (referencing Hitler) a thread on a gaming board. Now we just need a name for it. Hmmm.




I agree.  Allow me to codify this:



			
				Godwin's Law said:
			
		

> As an online discussion of RPGs grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving video games approaches one.






			
				corollary said:
			
		

> Once such a comparison has been made, the thread is over, and whoever made the comparison has lost whatever argument he was attempting to make.






			
				addendum said:
			
		

> The words "video games" can be replaced by "roll-playing", "munchkinning", or any of several other phrases designed to prematurely drive the thread into the ground.  Quirks's exception also applies here: if the individual "Godwinning" the thread is recognized as doing so, the thread is not over, but that individual's line of argument is still presumed to have been unsuccessful.


----------



## Acid_crash (Sep 19, 2006)

I prefer point buy because in my mind everyone begins on equal footing.  Someone can specialize in one or two stats, but no one is great in all of them.

I also like to randomly roll, but I do it like this.

3 columns, 4d6-L 6 times per column, reroll 1's one time.  After the three columns are done, pick the column you want to play.  If I don't allow rerolls, when the column is picked, each person rolls 1d3+1 and gets that many bonus points to put into their ability scores, nothing higher than an 18.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 19, 2006)

I would never allow point buy, and haven't found that ability scores are nearly as important as luck of the dice and player ability to make smart choice and sound tactical decisions.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Sep 19, 2006)

Phasics said:
			
		

> what your DM dosent trust you when you say you rolled 18 18 18 18 18 17 at home before the game session ?




*
I actually witnessed a set of rolls like this once with the DM in my first gaming group.*


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2006)

Isn't it funny.  I'm getting hosed here for comparing Airwalkrr's behavior to Everquest behavior where it is common for players to stalk newbies in order to kill them and steal their equipment - a behaviour that is well known, but Airwalkrr gets to trot out the idea that DM's should punish players for having items by using completely metagame knowledge and IMO, very unrealistic behavior, and no one has a problem with this.  



> Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile this with the fact that I can make a MUCH more effective wizard or sorceror on 28 point buy, when compared to someone elses Monk or Paladin?
> 
> In order to make a monk or paladin really shine and be very enjoyable to play (both classes are arguably underpowered), you need above average stats. At least with die rolling you have a chance at being able to play an effective version of the character you have imagined, and if your stats merely come out so-so...there's still the option of Sorceror, Wizard, Druid, etc. Classes which can function well with one decent stat and one good stat.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying that point buy has no place in D&D, I just don't think it should be a method used to force balance into party dynamics.




First off, a monk with a 28 point buy is hardly ineffective, and nor is a Paladin.  I don't buy the idea that either class must have very high stats in order to be useful.  In fact, since the monk gets AC bonuses for both wisdom and dex, he can afford to put lower scores in both and still get the same effect.  A 28 buy character won't have 18's, true, but, like Crothian, I don't see it as a huge problem for the monk to have a 14 str while the fighter has an 18.

Actually, the point buy allows some of these classes to shine.  With a 25 point buy, only the ranger is going to have the two weapon fighting feats beyond the first one.  The monk is likely the only one who will have improved trip since few fighters with that point buy will take the Int.  

Since the points are equal overall, I don't have a problem.  Monk is perhaps a poor choice, but, it's generally agreed that monks are a fairly weak class to begin with.  Buffing them up with higher stats isn't going to make it a better class.  At best, that's a patch.  Besides, a monk with higher stats isn't suddenly better than a fighter with higher stats.

Really, wizard is a bit of a hard one, since it only needs one score.  You could make a pretty effective wizzie with a 15 point buy.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> First off, a monk with a 28 point buy is hardly ineffective, and nor is a Paladin.  I don't buy the idea that either class must have very high stats in order to be useful.  In fact, since the monk gets AC bonuses for both wisdom and dex, he can afford to put lower scores in both and still get the same effect.  A 28 buy character won't have 18's, true, but, like Crothian, I don't see it as a huge problem for the monk to have a 14 str while the fighter has an 18.
> 
> Actually, the point buy allows some of these classes to shine.  With a 25 point buy, only the ranger is going to have the two weapon fighting feats beyond the first one.  The monk is likely the only one who will have improved trip since few fighters with that point buy will take the Int.
> 
> ...




I guess I just can't agree with requiring Point Buy for reasons of "balance." I think it allows some classes to shine, some classes are largely unaffected and a few classes are forced to mediocrity (with a low to average point buy, 28 or so). 

But, obviously, you guys are free to play however you choose. And I'll be the first to step up and defend your right to do so.


----------



## werk (Sep 19, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile this with the fact that I can make a MUCH more effective wizard or sorceror on 28 point buy, when compared to someone elses Monk or Paladin?




It's apples and oranges, not a fair comparison. Monks and paladins are more reliant on multiple good stats.

A better comparison is you making a sorcer with 28 point buy compared to a sorcerer you would make using a 32 point buy.

anything else is a bad analogy


----------



## Cedric (Sep 19, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> It's apples and oranges, not a fair comparison. Monks and paladins are more reliant on multiple good stats.
> 
> A better comparison is you making a sorcer with 28 point buy compared to a sorcerer you would make using a 32 point buy.
> 
> anything else is a bad analogy




I agree that if someone takes their monster stats and makes a one trick pony, they're going to be overall more well rounded and capable. 

However, since we are talking about all characters being made with the same point buy, I think it is a fair analogy. Again, I'm not saying Point Buy is a 'bad' idea, I'm just saying that it only produces the semblance of balance, but not balance itself. 

Ultimately, I believe balance in an RPG to be an illusion. You could give me a monk with a 15 pt. buy and my years of experience and quick wit will allow me to hold my own with a lot of people with MUCH better stats...but that's neither here nor there.


----------



## werk (Sep 19, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I agree that if someone takes their monster stats and makes a one trick pony, they're going to be overall more well rounded and capable.
> 
> However, since we are talking about all characters being made with the same point buy, I think it is a fair analogy. Again, I'm not saying Point Buy is a 'bad' idea, I'm just saying that it only produces the semblance of balance, but not balance itself.
> 
> Ultimately, I believe balance in an RPG to be an illusion. You could give me a monk with a 15 pt. buy and my years of experience and quick wit will allow me to hold my own with a lot of people with MUCH better stats...but that's neither here nor there.




...and ever so modest.

Wouldn't it make sense for you to handicap yourself when playing with others that are not as experienced?  The best way to do that is via a point buy, where you get fewer points and everyone else gets more.  If you were to roll for stats, and you came out way ahead of the rest of the group, (like my 70-20 scenario, pro got 70, newb got 20) how would that be fair?

Not all things are created equal, you are right.  But by allowing all players to start with the same 'stat wealth' then they all have all the opions that the others have...if using point buy you can tweak out some classes more than others...why do the other classes get played?  Maybe it's not all about 'power'.

It's the difference between playing the hand you are dealt and choosing which hand you are dealt.  It is completely fair if a player CHOOSES to penalize his character through less than optimal choices, it's not fair when one player gets more than the others for no reason other than luck.

And for the people that say stats don't matter, I completely disagree.  Stats affect every roll that character makes.  Yes, you can min/max and all that, but the fact remains, one has less than the other, so things are harder on him...for his entire character life.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 19, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> ...and ever so modest.
> 
> Wouldn't it make sense for you to handicap yourself when playing with others that are not as experienced?  The best way to do that is via a point buy, where you get fewer points and everyone else gets more.  If you were to roll for stats, and you came out way ahead of the rest of the group, (like my 70-20 scenario, pro got 70, newb got 20) how would that be fair?
> 
> ...




You make some really good points, and I can't disagree with most of them. However, I think your points and mind can coexist and represent the strengths of both sides of this situation. 

I play D&D largely for the random character creation. It's not so random that I'm limited in what background I can choose, however it has a random element that appeals to me when I want that. 

If I wanted static character creation there are excellent games available from White Wolf, there's Hero 5th edition and others. Sometimes I play those games too, especially when I'm in the mood for static character creation. 

Again, I have nothing against point buy for D&D. I just don't think it actually produces the "balance" that many people attribute to it. 

As to handicapping myself when I am playing with a less experienced group, I do that all of the time. I stick to the shadows more, let them take the spotlight, and contribute in a manner that tries to nudge them along encouragingly. I don't need a certain set of stats, good or bad, to accomplish that.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 19, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> However, since we are talking about all characters being made with the same point buy, I think it is a fair analogy. Again, I'm not saying Point Buy is a 'bad' idea, I'm just saying that it only produces the semblance of balance, but not balance itself.




I agree that it's a fair analogy. If stats are so important to balance, then there has to be some rationalization to square how some classes benefit from stat concentration compared to others that require more stat diffusion.
I'm not necessarilly saying that's an important justification for dice rolling the stats. But I do think it undermines the claim about stats being quite so important that point buy is the only fair method.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 19, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> ...and ever so modest.




I'll happily list my weaknesses and limitations, but just as happily list my strengths. Overall, I think it's a valuable part of being a person of honesty and integrity.


----------



## Victim (Sep 19, 2006)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> I'll say.  But if you give 36 pints during character generation, I bet you don't get many complaints!




Spycraft 2.0's 36 point buy also uses a completely different cost chart.  36 points isn't all that much since the costs of every stat above 12 went up; paying 22 points for an 18 stat instead of 16 points is a big difference.

I don't think DnD's static character generation system has any more faults than WW's or HERO's.  None of the point buy systems are perfectly balanced, but I prefer them to the alternative.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Two things.
> 
> One, I've seen sevens and even three sixes in a point buy character.  The Orc barbarian in my WLD game has them.  Not too bright, not someone you'd bring home to mom, and definitely short sighted, but, built for the beating.



How?  Most point-buy systems start at base 8...meaning your lowest stat still has to be at least 8.  (some DM's allow you to voluntarily go lower, or even trade down for up, but not all)



> Secondly, if you are playing a character beyond its abilities, how are you actually playing the character?  Does your Wis 7 character frequently make very poor choices?  She should be.  But, then again, most people tend to ignore that end of the stats.



If you saw her played, you'd think different.   She's smart, so she can figure things out fast enough...but she's impulsive as all hell, and her usual weapon of first resort once her spells run out is her Rod of Wonder, regardless who might be in the way.  And, even though she's a pure Illusionist (Wizard), if someone interrupts her spellcasting (she *hates* that) she's been often known to start flailing away in melee with a weapon instead of simply backing up and trying the spell again...

We do awards each year for our various games combined; she's won "Most Entertaining Character" the last 2 years...for a reason! 



> Look, if I have 50 points over your character, then I am effectively two or three levels higher than you are.  That might not bother you, but, I'll guarantee it bothers lots of people.  When you look at all the complaining that this or that is broken the first culprit is almost always the point cost of the character.



If a character's broken it's usually because the DM has allowed some wacko race as a PC.  More often what's broken are the feats, skills, and items it has...

Lanefan


----------



## werk (Sep 19, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I'll happily list my weaknesses and limitations, but just as happily list my strengths. Overall, I think it's a valuable part of being a person of honesty and integrity.




Did you miss that on the first reply?  



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> As to handicapping myself when I am playing with a less experienced group, I do that all of the time. I stick to the shadows more, let them take the spotlight, and contribute in a manner that tries to nudge them along encouragingly. I don't need a certain set of stats, good or bad, to accomplish that.




I do the same, but again, it's a lot different to elect to play that way vs. being forced to play that way.


I think what the topic is refining itself to, is, that point buy does not guarantee balanced or equal characters as a result, but it does give all players the same opportunity at the start...what they do with it is up to them.


----------



## jcfiala (Sep 19, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> How?  Most point-buy systems start at base 8...meaning your lowest stat still has to be at least 8.  (some DM's allow you to voluntarily go lower, or even trade down for up, but not all)




If you buy a 9 point stat, and have a -2 penalty for racial traits, then you end up with a 7.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 19, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> Did you miss that on the first reply?




Nah, just felt it was off-topic so I would stick it in its own reply so it stood alone from the point I was trying to make. 



> I think what the topic is refining itself to, is, that point buy does not guarantee balanced or equal characters as a result, but it does give all players the same opportunity at the start...what they do with it is up to them.




I would agree with that.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2006)

jcfiala said:
			
		

> If you buy a 9 point stat, and have a -2 penalty for racial traits, then you end up with a 7.



D'oh!  Yep, that would do it.  (we put everything on a bell curve, so there's no straight -x or +x by race, so I always forget that aspect of the rules...)

Lanefan


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Sep 19, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> I think what the topic is refining itself to, is, that point buy does not guarantee balanced or equal characters as a result, but it does give all players the same opportunity at the start...what they do with it is up to them.




And this is why I will always go with point-buy from now on.  I will agree that some classes need a little more help in numbers than another. 

Point Buy may not be perfectly balanced.  But it does ensure more balance than stat rolling may end up allowing.  You might still have people hogging the spotlight with point-buy.  You might have a "smarter" player better using their fighter than someone else's fighter is being used for.

It isn't perfect.  But from my experiences it is better.  I know there won't be someone completely dominating a completely different class than they are playing simply because thier stats are THAT much better.

That is enough for me to be completely sold on point buy.


----------



## Alceste (Sep 19, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I guess I just can't agree with requiring Point Buy for reasons of "balance." I think it allows some classes to shine, some classes are largely unaffected and a few classes are forced to mediocrity (with a low to average point buy, 28 or so).
> 
> But, obviously, you guys are free to play however you choose. And I'll be the first to step up and defend your right to do so.




Games seem to work much, much better for us using point buy. No whining, no superman, no "hopeless" characters, and you make exactly the character you want to make before the game starts but I will defend your right to use rolling if that is what you choose to do in your campaign.

Btw, Paladins can immensely effective on 28 point buys. I have a charisma based one in my Saturday game. Divine might, and divine sacrifice coupled with well timed smites works wonders on mobs. Paladins get to deal nice damage with a shield up so they are not turned into swiss cheese like raging barbarians too. The save bonus helps alot too. Even lay on hands can be used effectively on incorporal undead. Most of our campaigns have had a paladin in them actually.


----------



## werk (Sep 19, 2006)

I wanted to add, for those that haven't seen it stated before, I use a really high point buy.  Largely because, when I used rolled stats (~17 years) I had such a contrived method to help level things out that when I converted some existing characters to point buy, they were really high as well.  I wanted to keep that internal consistancy with my players and my personal preference and experiences.

Everyone plays a hero IMC.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Sep 19, 2006)

I've never used point-buy (in any edition of D&D).  We typically use one of the following:

1.  3d6, arrange to taste
2.  3d6, arrange to taste and adjust*
3.  4d6, drop lowest, and arrange to taste

* per the various classic D&D rules

I tend to prefer some randomness over desire for balance.  I'm not really against point-buy, I just don't see any compelling reason to use it.


----------



## jcfiala (Sep 19, 2006)

Personally, I go back and forth between point buy and rolling, but I'm interested in the question between monk and sorcerer.

Let's say we're making a sorcerer and we end up with, oh, 18 12 12 10 10 8.  He's going to be pretty powerful with that 18 - nice work.

On the other hand, we could make the Monk with the same numbers and he'd be pretty good too.  Throw the 18 into Dex, and take Weapon Finesse, and he's hitting a lot.  Put the 12's in Con and Str for a little damage, or Con and Wis for a little extra AC.  Alternately, throw the 18 into Strength for the damage and to-hit boost, and concentrate the 12's into Dex and Wis (or Con and Dex) for AC, and keep your eyes out for something AC-boosting (like that sorcerer) that can help you out.

I think a Monk with the same attribute numbers as a sorcerer can do very well - although with point buy he may do a little better by going from 18-12-12 to 16-14-14.  (I don't have the exact table here.)


----------



## Schmoe (Sep 19, 2006)

mr_outsidevoice said:
			
		

> Point Buy
> 
> 
> And I run a high power game so 32 points for PCs
> ...




Wow, that's almost identical to the system I use.  The only difference is that I don't follow my system strictly for NPCs, sometimes using the elite array or something like that.

Personally, I like point buy because I've seen too many times where players have felt useless throughout long running campaigns due to relatively poor rolls.  Point buy starts people out on an equal footing, so if they are feeling useless, they only have their own decisions to blame.  There's usually less resentment when you have greater control over your uselessness


----------



## Warbringer (Sep 19, 2006)

I resently ported my group to trueD+D (blend of true 20 and D+D).

Points is, we went from rolling stats to straight +7 in points (ability to take some -ve values to pump +ve scores). So, in rolling, people freeked if they had "8" in a stat, now they happily drop a sta to -1,-2... Wierd.

Point buy seems to encourage lower stats, which opens great roleplay. Of course, gotta watch the tendancy to load a stat...


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 20, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I play D&D largely for the random character creation. It's not so random that I'm limited in what background I can choose, however it has a random element that appeals to me when I want that.
> 
> If I wanted static character creation there are excellent games available from White Wolf, there's Hero 5th edition and others. Sometimes I play those games too, especially when I'm in the mood for static character creation.



A player who likes randomness can have it within a point buy system - simply roll dice to determine how you spend your attribute points, race, character class, feats, etc. That's the beauty of point buy systems, they still allow for randomness if you want it. Because the power is in the hands of the players they can give up that power to the dice if they so wish. But the reverse isn't true. Once the dice have the power, a player can't take it away.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 20, 2006)

To those that point out that there can still be imbalance with point buy as an argument against it: This is not a good argument. The question is not whether point buy leads to a perfectly balanced game, of course it doesn't, but whether it leads to a _more_ balanced game than random rolls, which of course it does.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 20, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> I don't think DnD's static character generation system has any more faults than WW's or HERO's.  None of the point buy systems are perfectly balanced, but I prefer them to the alternative.




QFT.

Yes, the point buy system may favour classes that don't suffer MAD.  Then again, die rolling does as well.  If  I roll 5 10's and one 18, I can make a sorc or a wizzie perfectly well.  I could make a monk or a paly, but, it would be a pretty bloody weak one.

Stat generation can't really fix the problems of MAD, whether you use rolling or point buy.  That's a problem with the class, not with chargen.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 20, 2006)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> A player who likes randomness can have it within a point buy system - simply roll dice to determine how you spend your attribute points, race, character class, feats, etc. That's the beauty of point buy systems, they still allow for randomness if you want it. Because the power is in the hands of the players they can give up that power to the dice if they so wish. But the reverse isn't true. Once the dice have the power, a player can't take it away.




If we were discussing a new game, with which I had no history, I might very well agree with you completely. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that the current iterations of D&D are slightly more conducisive to a point buy system. 

However, the game doesn't exist in a vaccuum, it comes with history, about three decades of it. I don't play "a" game for the randomness in character creation, I play D&D for the randomness of character creation. 

There are other games I've mentioned that I play when I want to use a point buy system, Hero being my favorite among those (but GURPS and White Wolf both have good systems too). 

When I want randomness along with combat complexity and flavor, I play Rolemaster (the original, not that standard issue they came out with). 

If you want to say that I'm just too stuck in my ways to adapt to a better system, I won't agree with you, but I definitely won't argue with you either. 

And just to restate this, I don't disagree with the use of Point Buy and I don't proclaim that rolling stats is somehow "better." 

I'm only saying that balance is an illusion (imo) and you would do better to just play the game the way you want to play it and not invest your time into trying to balance it. 

Cedric


----------



## Crothian (Sep 20, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Stat generation can't really fix the problems of MAD, whether you use rolling or point buy.  That's a problem with the class, not with chargen.




That's only true if one limits oneself to just those two methods of stat generation.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 20, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> That's only true if one limits oneself to just those two methods of stat generation.




What other methods are there?  Either you use point buy in some form or you are rolling stats (by various methods).  I suppose the article in Dragon a month or so ago could be used where you use 3 Dragon Ante readings to create characters.

In any case, either the chargen is mostly random or chosen.  What is the third option?


----------



## Nyaricus (Sep 20, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> If you really wish to blow their minds, mention rolling ability scores _in order_. After their jaws have dropped, concede that „okay, okay, you can roll _two_ series”.



Actually, my entire group did Organic Method for our new campaign (4d6, in order, re-roll any one and switch and two) and it was fine.

So long as the entire group can agree with the method of character stat creation, then fine. This, of course, means DM and players.

Personally, I have a little list of optional Sat Rolling methods (see my Tasty Bits thread for a link to it) and they, as a group, choose one and let'r rip. Honestly, so long as everyone is okay, what's the big deal?

Personally, if I were ever one to do a point-buy, I'd do it 1-1, with a 75 base point buy, going up or down depending on campaign flavour. IE 60 for low-powered campaigns, and 90 for high-powered ones. YMMV, JMHO


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Sep 20, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> In any case, either the chargen is mostly random or chosen.  What is the third option?




I think he's referring to the fact that some aspects of certain 'random' systems are less punishing.  I've seen people here post that they use '4d6, drop the lowest, re-roll 1s and arrange to suit'.  If that can't get you good enough stats to suit the most MAD-mad class, you need new dice.

I find most MAD arguements in 3.5 to be unconvincing (although, to be fair, I banned monks so long ago that I've not had to DM one in 3.x).  Most classes can at least use their class abilities with a 12 in the primary stat.  Paladins are a little rough, but do-able.  The only thing that really can suck is the primary stat for spellcasters, and even then I've never actually seen a caster that couldn't cast their highest level spells because of a low INT or what have you.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 20, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> What other methods are there?




Let them pick their own stats.  If they feel a class is MAD they can pick the stats the class needs.


----------



## jcfiala (Sep 20, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Let them pick their own stats.  If they feel a class is MAD they can pick the stats the class needs.




Heh.

"Pick whatever stats you want or need.  3-18.  Your choice.  But total up how many points it would cost to make that character with point buy, subtract 32, and that's your Hubris score.  Write that on your sheet so I can see it."

"Hubris?  What's it for?  Oh, you'll find out."


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 20, 2006)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> I don't let players roll, point buy is mandatory in games I run.
> 
> I don't do it to protect players from poor rolls, I use it to protect the campaign from overpowered, overlucky rolls, in creating characters so powerful they overshadow the entire campaign, and are by blessing of high ability scores, effectively a level or more higher than the rest of the party.



IME this is more of a player problem than a dice vs. point-buy problem.  Good players should be aware of the dangers of high stats in making them prone to hogging the spotlight and _seeking_ to dominate other players and characters.  Good players should also be aware that characters that are played and valued solely for their uberstats get boring if they too greatly overshadow play.  DM's should be aware that it is every bit as sensible to limit random rolls that are too high as to allow rerolls for those that are too low to be viable.  Players that revel in high stats to the point that they become a problem are generally players whose characters will be problematic even if their stats are LOW.


> All characters, at creation, should be created equal.



But that is impossible.  Two characters of the same class, race, etc. created using the same point-buy totals can be VASTLY different in power levels, future potential, playability, etc.  Heck, two characters that are absolutely identical in everything at the outset can be vastly different in those areas in just a level or two depending on feats chosen, play styles, player _attitude_, and more.  While point-buy makes strides in the direction of greater equity where greater equity is _needed_ beyond what would normally be, it is NOT a guarantee of equity and should not be credited as it so often is as being a cure-all when what it really does is closer to merely masking other problems (generally being player problems IME.)


> Random die-rolling character creation is a relic of a bygone era, when you would also roll to see if your character had psionic talent, roll for 1st level hit points, roll for everything.



Amusing, though untrue since while point-buy is quite popular on ENworld polls it is probably a good decade or so away from being genuinely in danger of reducing die-rolled stas to "relic" status.


> (I know some DM's that made PC's roll for everything from family background, social strata, if the character is currently wanted for any crimes, sexual orientation, hair color, eye color, virtually every aspect of the character be randomly determined).



Heck that used to be TYPICAL IME.  It was also before anyone really knew better.  Yet I still look back on those days quite fondly and ultimately do not think it is as outrageous as you make it out to be.


> Once the game begins, in combat and such, yes, there is a random element, but I don't see why character creation itself, especially something as fundamental as ability scores, should be so random.



Because creativity is not just found in being able to assemble a character when you have access to everything you want.  Sometimes it's _more_ creative if you're assembling a character that is inspired by the _limitations_ that you have to work with.

Don't let that stop you from using point-buy if that's really what you prefer, but again it is NOT the be-all end-all that you insist it is.  The very fact that people are stating they do NOT prefer it should be enough to make that clear.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Sep 20, 2006)

Heh, its like I've been saying all along.  The system is just the system.  Any fault (regarding point-buy and rolling methods) typically lies with the players.  Can you have fun with both systems?  Sure.  Will they likely both be around for a while with people vehemently defending each one?  Sure.

So don't complain about broken systems ... complain about players abusing whatever system is used.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 20, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it make sense for you to handicap yourself when playing with others that are not as experienced?  The best way to do that is via a point buy, where you get fewer points and everyone else gets more.  If you were to roll for stats, and you came out way ahead of the rest of the group, (like my 70-20 scenario, pro got 70, newb got 20) how would that be fair?



This is an improper comparison.  If you are accepting the idea of handicapping yourself with a lower point-buy total then you ALSO would accept the idea of handicapping yourself by refusing to accept high randomly rolled totals.  Yes?


> And for the people that say stats don't matter, I completely disagree.  Stats affect every roll that character makes.  Yes, you can min/max and all that, but the fact remains, one has less than the other, so things are harder on him...for his entire character life.



One will ALWAYS have less than the other.  Even with absolutely identical characters the playing style/attitude of the player and in-game choices of action for the character will make the characters different.  You cannot FORCE equality where every element in the game is designed to create variety and therfore INequality.  More to the point - I don't think you should even attempt to force equality of characters.  Inequality creates tension and conflict.  As long as this is kept where it is supposed to be (tension and conflict between characters rather than _players_) it is better for roleplaying than forcing greater equity.

There's no denying that having the stats to really lay down the smack is appealing, but in the long run I personally prefer a character with inherent random ability score "flaws" NOT of my choosing.  As Mr. Spock said: "_Having_ a thing is often not so satisfying as _wanting_ a thing.  It is not logical, but it is often true."

THAT is the difference between those who prefer point-buy and those who prefer random rolls for ability score generation.


----------



## pogre (Sep 20, 2006)

QuaziquestGM said:
			
		

> In my experince, people who only play the characters that they want to play never really learn to play the game. Steve is always the elf archer or the elf monk.  Jon is always the sneaky guy or the evil fighter.  Sara is yet another Kender. They may become reasonably proficient with one class, or at playing one paticular character, but hand them anything else, even a pregen, and they have no clue what to do.  I'm more impressed by people who can guide the survival and triumphs of a randomly rolled character than I am of people of have to cherry pick.  The best players will occationally make it though a session in such a way that their Stats don't matter, becasue they never have to roll dice.
> 
> As for players' rights...the GM decides those.  If everyone is rolling stats, then that is fair.




This is treading dangerously close to labeling such players as having "bad fun." I have had certain players in my campaign who enjoy playing basically the same character type over and over again. I think you can be an excellent player and still always go for the same schtick.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 20, 2006)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> IME this is more of a player problem than a dice vs. point-buy problem.  Good players should be aware of the dangers of high stats in making them prone to hogging the spotlight and _seeking_ to dominate other players and characters.  Good players should also be aware that characters that are played and valued solely for their uberstats get boring if they too greatly overshadow play.  DM's should be aware that it is every bit as sensible to limit random rolls that are too high as to allow rerolls for those that are too low to be viable.  Players that revel in high stats to the point that they become a problem are generally players whose characters will be problematic even if their stats are LOW.



If high stats are as much a problem as low stats, perhaps the standard approach of 4d6 drop lowest six times, arrange as desired is just too variable?

Would a character generation method of say, 2d4+7 six times, arrange as desired be more palatable to those who prefer point buy while retaining the element of randomness for those who prefer rolling?

Is there anyone who dislikes this method because a character cannot start with an 18?


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Sep 20, 2006)

jcfiala said:
			
		

> Heh.
> 
> "Pick whatever stats you want or need.  3-18.  Your choice.  But total up how many points it would cost to make that character with point buy, subtract 32, and that's your Hubris score.  Write that on your sheet so I can see it."
> 
> "Hubris?  What's it for?  Oh, you'll find out."




Now THIS, I absolutely love.  

Well, technically, I'd probably let players know what they were getting into, because IMX they'd want to play along with it, whereas just saying this would spook them into using 32 point buy, tops.

How about starting a thread suggesting what to do with those points of Hubris...?


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 20, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Note, that only applies to weapons, and not wonderous items.




There are also Knowledge checks to identify magic items, but I probably assumed (apparently incorrectly) that the magic weapon glow applied to all items. This notwithstanding, detect magic is an easy spell to use, and with a duration of concentration, it is not hard to use it inconspicuously and then move into a more heavily populated area as long as you are keeping a low profile.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I've seen far too many poor campaigns where the star PC is so far ahead of the rest of the party that it's simply no fun.




That has never happened in any of my campaigns, at least not to that extent. I have run a large number of campaigns since I picked up DMing in 1998 and it has rarely been even a semblence of a problem. As I recently pointed out, the PC with the WORST ability scores is the star of my current campaign. I have no idea why it is so difficult to wrap your mind around the idea that ability scores are not as defining to a character as a caste system. The game rules are much more fluid than that.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I've also seen many DM's complain about how their party is blitzing through encounters that should be challenging without actually taking the time to realize that the PC's being played are effectively one or two levels higher due to high stats.




For the record, I am not one of those DMs. I know how to control the power level of my PCs and I do not have to do it by capping or "standardizing" their ability scores. I also recognize that over the course of a character's career, the ability scores he started with define him less and less. Compare a fighter with a 12 Str to a fighter with an 18. All other things being equal at 20th level and assuming he has a +5 weapon, +6 belt of giant strength, and Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus, his Strength has gone from contributing between 33% and 66% of his attack bonus to between 18% and 25% of his attack bonus. The discrepansy gets even bigger when the bard is singing to inspire courage, heroics, or greatness and the cleric has cast bless and prayer. High level characters are defined by their class levels, their magic, their equipment, and least of all their ability scores.


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 20, 2006)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> I don't let players roll, point buy is mandatory in games I run.
> 
> I don't do it to protect players from poor rolls, I use it to protect the campaign from overpowered, overlucky rolls, in creating characters so powerful they overshadow the entire campaign, and are by blessing of high ability scores, effectively a level or more higher than the rest of the party.




Then point buy is fine for you. As for me, I do not have this problem because I control the power level of my characters. I have never said point buy is horrible or bad for the game. It simply doesn't help me accomplish anything with the game that I want to accomplish, and I am tired of other DMs (and players for that matter) preaching to me about the merits of point buy when I have never seen a significant advantage to it in my games. Other DMs can do as they wish, but point buy is not innately superior by any stretch of the imagination.

Players are smart. They tend to figure out who needs magic items to augment their contributions to the party and who does not. Consequently, players who rolled higher often get last pick of magic items found. It is not unfair in the slightest, and this is but one of many ways my players have come up with to police their own power level. They recognize they will do better if everyone can contribute than if one person is the sole strand which holds them together and dole out equipment accordingly.


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 20, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> And for the people that say stats don't matter, I completely disagree.  Stats affect every roll that character makes.  Yes, you can min/max and all that, but the fact remains, one has less than the other, so things are harder on him...for his entire character life.




This is a simple misrepresentation of the argument. I do not think anyone has ever claimed ability scores do not matter. Ability scores matter, but my position is that they do not matter as much as other aspects of your character. A fighter's base attack bonus is a much more integral part of his character than his Strength score after 5th level or so, and the disparity keeps growing after that because his Strength can never hope to keep up with his level. Consequently, a relatively minor discrepansy between "average" characters and "high-powered" characters as the DMG defines them in terms of ability scores is not going to have a significant impact on the game in the long run.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 20, 2006)

> There's no denying that having the stats to really lay down the smack is appealing, but in the long run I personally prefer a character with inherent random ability score "flaws" NOT of my choosing. As Mr. Spock said: "Having a thing is often not so satisfying as wanting a thing. It is not logical, but it is often true."
> 
> THAT is the difference between those who prefer point-buy and those who prefer random rolls for ability score generation.




THis is a bit of a false comparison though.  Point buy characters aren't necessarily better at "laying down the smack" than rolled characters.  In fact, IME, rolled characters are almost universally higher point characters than point buy simply because a one is cocked FAR more often than six.  

Sure, characters will become different through play.  That's a given.  But, what's wrong with them all starting at the same point?

The difference between a 25 point character and a 35 point character is about one level.  Take a look at a 35 point 4th level fighter and a 25 point 5th level fighter.  The 4th level fighter is numerically almost identical (and possibly a little better) than the 5th level fighter.  At 6th, the 25 point fighter pulls ahead due to a bonus feat and iterative attack, but, at 7th, they pull neck and neck again.  The same is true for just about any class.  I realize, that by 20th level, the point buy doesn't make much difference, but, up to about 10th or 11th, it makes about a 1 level difference.  This is pretty large IMO.

I usually give this advice to DM's wanting to run low magic campaigns - use higher point buys to even out the party's abilities.

I guess that's my basic reason for using stat buy.  It allows me, as DM, to guage the party's abilities much better.  If I want to use very tough encounters, I can use a higher point buy.  If I am not so concerned with combat encounters and am running a much higher rp game, then 25 point buys are perfectly acceptable.

I really do believe that much of the criticism leveled that 3e characters are so powerful stems from die rolled characters.  It makes sense that a party with 35-40 point characters is going to steamroll standard encounters - they are equivalent to a level higher.  The game, IME, just works a lot better with point buy.  CR functions more easily because the party isn't over or underpowered.  Classes and PrC's don't get out of hand as easily because the wahoo stuff requires such high stats that 25 point buy characters just can't qualify.

Not that die roll generation is bad.  I used it for a long time and I understand the attraction.  However, I've found that point buy just works so much better for me, that I would never go back to random generation.  And, sorry Cro, letting my PC's pick their stats isn't going to happen either.


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 20, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I really do believe that much of the criticism leveled that 3e characters are so powerful stems from die rolled characters.  It makes sense that a party with 35-40 point characters is going to steamroll standard encounters - they are equivalent to a level higher.




This comparison is simple to make with a fighter but is more complicated with a rogue or a wizard or a cleric. A key difference between a 10th level wizard and an 11th level wizard is 6th level spells. Having an 18 base Intelligence rather than a 14 is not going to give the 10th level wizard 6th level spells. His spells are harder to resist, he gets more skill points, and he gets a bonus 3rd and 4th level spell, but those are the only benefits. It does not translate to the key strength of the wizard, which is namely the highest level spells he can cast. Given the choice, I would rather cast chain lightning than cone of cold with a higher save DC (by 1). Why? Chain lightning is a more versatile spell that gives me a better opportunity to target those foes I want to target and ignore those I do not want to target. And that is a bad example. Compare the efficacy of wall of force (5th) to wall of iron. Wall of iron can be used offensively (drop it on a target) and is so thick it essentially lasts as long as the short duration of wall of force. That makes it a better spell in many respects. Or compare dominate person to geas. Geas does not allow a save (although you have to cast it outside combat) and dominate person grants an additional save whenever you try to compel the subject to do something outside its nature. Plus, geas can last forever under the right conditions. I could go on and on, but the fact is an 11th level wizard even with lower ability scores, will be superior to a 10th level wizard all other things being equal.

So the comparison does not work as well with other classes as it does with the fighter.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Sep 20, 2006)

I think the key thing is this:

Even WITH random rolls, a 3e character takes quite some time to generate, especially if you're generating them higher than first level.

This time spent generating a character is, for the most part, time that is of lesser enjoyment than playing the game itself.

In early editions, a dead character could be replaced in seconds. Roll your 6x3d6, pick a class, optionally have the DM give you spells which you'd never have chosen, and you're done. If you rolled all 3s, you'd die and replace the character in a few seconds while everyone else takes a loo break.

Nowadays this isn't going to happen. If your character sucks, chances are you still want to avoid having to make a new one.

So the guy with crud stats is penalised twice over - once for having bad stats and a less effective character, twice for having to sit out to make new characters.

And, of course, if you're using rolled stats, you probably can't let your players go off and make characters in advance. You have to vet all the rolls, and even if you do then you don't want to encourage a lemming train that ends in an all-18's uber-character.

Point buy means that there is no "maybe I'll get better rolls next time" incentive to suicide.


----------



## Mieric (Sep 20, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> This comparison is simple to make with a fighter but is more complicated with a rogue or a wizard or a cleric. A key difference between a 10th level wizard and an 11th level wizard is 6th level spells. Having an 18 base Intelligence rather than a 14 is not going to give the 10th level wizard 6th level spells. His spells are harder to resist, he gets more skill points, and he gets a bonus 3rd and 4th level spell, but those are the only benefits. It does not translate to the key strength of the wizard, which is namely the highest level spells he can cast.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





Intelligence does affect the level of spells the wizard can cast. 



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> The minimum Intelligence score needed to cast a wizard spell is 10 + the spell’s level.




Using the two wizards from your post:

10th Level Wizard - 18 Intelligence

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th level bonus spells
Can cast 5th level spells (in accordance with his level)

11th Level Wizard - 14 Intelligence

1st & 2nd level bonus spells
Can't cast anything higher than 4th level spells (misses out on 5th and 6th level spells).


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 20, 2006)

Mieric said:
			
		

> 11th Level Wizard - 14 Intelligence
> 
> 1st & 2nd level bonus spells
> Can't cast anything higher than 4th level spells (misses out on 5th and 6th level spells).




I think he still gets the spell slots as a consolation prize.  He just can't hack the "real" spells.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 21, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> This comparison is simple to make with a fighter but is more complicated with a rogue or a wizard or a cleric. A key difference between a 10th level wizard and an 11th level wizard is 6th level spells. Having an 18 base Intelligence rather than a 14 is not going to give the 10th level wizard 6th level spells. His spells are harder to resist, he gets more skill points, and he gets a bonus 3rd and 4th level spell, but those are the only benefits. It does not translate to the key strength of the wizard, which is namely the highest level spells he can cast. Given the choice, I would rather cast chain lightning than cone of cold with a higher save DC (by 1). Why? Chain lightning is a more versatile spell that gives me a better opportunity to target those foes I want to target and ignore those I do not want to target. And that is a bad example. Compare the efficacy of wall of force (5th) to wall of iron. Wall of iron can be used offensively (drop it on a target) and is so thick it essentially lasts as long as the short duration of wall of force. That makes it a better spell in many respects. Or compare dominate person to geas. Geas does not allow a save (although you have to cast it outside combat) and dominate person grants an additional save whenever you try to compel the subject to do something outside its nature. Plus, geas can last forever under the right conditions. I could go on and on, but the fact is an 11th level wizard even with lower ability scores, will be superior to a 10th level wizard all other things being equal.
> 
> So the comparison does not work as well with other classes as it does with the fighter.




I do see your point, but, then reverse the comparison.  Take an odd level and compare it to an even one.  A 7th level 35 point buy wizard has almost equal number of spells as an 8th level 25 point buy wizard.  He's got an extra 3rd and 4th, which is actually exactly the same.  Additionally, all his spells are +2 to DC, or the equivalent of several feats.  Plus he's got a couple of extra hit dice worth of hit points, his Dex is better, giving him a better Ref save and attack bonus.  Yes, at the next level, the 25 point character maybe pulls a little ahead (assuming he can actually CAST his spells as was mentioned) but, he's still way down on HP's, AC, skills, and Saving Throws.  Is a single higher level spell really worth all that?  Once a day?  Not likely.  These bonuses come in EVERY combat.  That single higher level spell only comes in once.  

There can be no real denying it, IMO.  A 10-15 point advantage is worth about one level.  You gain the hit points, saving throws, attack bonuses and skill points of a higher level character.  About the only thing you miss out on is the bennie which comes with that level, which varies greatly from class to class.  And the advantages outweigh that single bennie considerably.


----------



## wayne62682 (Sep 21, 2006)

The only downside that I see to Point Buy is that especially with the low ones (although I don't believe that crap about the game being balanced at 25 points) it forces you to essentially spend ALL of your attribute bonuses on your primary stat.. assuming that you have only one.  

Assuming the Elite Array (which is the baseline) for a single-classed Wizard, you NEED to put every last one of your attribute bonuses into Intelligence or you'll never get 9th level spells (barring items that increase, but then you're relying only on this item and giving the DM an incentive to screw you over by taking it out of the equation).  So... I guess I do see where it can encourage min-maxing.

I still prefer point buy for the simple reason that I like to build a concept and assign stats that fit the concept, not roll randomly for stats and then make up a concept that fits around the stats like in the olden days.  Back then I could have a great idea for a paladin or monk or whatever, but when I roll it's "Too bad, you didn't roll that 17 Charisma, no Paladin for you" and then I can't even play what I wanted to.  Even now, where there are no more prerequisites (thank god) for base classes, I can end up with mediocre rolls and thus STILL not be able to do my concept in game.  If the game is about player choice and the players having fun, why keep using an outdated relic instead of allowing the players to control what they play?


----------



## Cor Azer (Sep 21, 2006)

One thing I haven't really seen mentioned about the difference in point-buy versus rolling stats is the concept of "scrapping" a set of rolled stats.

When using point-buy, I do up my stats as I see fit, and that's that.

When rolling, and generate my attributes (using whatever manner), and then if they're not good enough (based on varying criteria), _I can roll them again_.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with rolling stats (and like I said before, I let my players choose whichever method they prefer), but if a system has a rules/guidelines built into it for redoing "unplayable" stats, then maybe the system doesn't meet everyone's needs. It's for those players that point-buy is for, in my opinion.

It's not a "your way is wrong, mine is right" debate. You like butterscotch ripple, I'm more of a strawberry sorbet person. Different strokes is all.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Sep 21, 2006)

Cor Azer said:
			
		

> When rolling, and generate my attributes (using whatever manner), and then if they're not good enough (based on varying criteria), _I can roll them again_.




By what definition of "not good enough"?  The written definition of at least total +1 mod and a score of at least X (I don't recall what that number is right now)?

A character that has one 14 and the rest 10s is valid by this guideline.  So is the all 18s character.  These two characters, while both being legal - really shouldn't be in the same game.  The runt with the 10s won't have much to contribute beside the uber-guy.  That issue is what point-but eliminates.

That said, if the DM says they are rolling stats and that he will limit the variance in character power level somehow (like how the method of the group rolling stats and then everyone using the same stat values)...  I'm fine with that.   My problem with rolling isn't the fear of not getting the stats I want - it's having a Runt along side an Uber.


----------



## Diremede (Sep 21, 2006)

I think the big problem with random roll vs. point buy, is that pretty much all the monsters in the DMG and other supplements assume your playing a balanced character.  If you take a look at most humanoid monsters stats, there seems to be a point buy system applied to them.  Also with random roll you do have the possiblity of having a uber character.  This was about 5 years ago, but in my gaming group we were all rolling characters with the DM and a guy actually rolled out three 18's, and I believe his lowest score was a 12.  This was using the roll 4d6 throw out the lowest one, roll 6 times method.  Now most everyone else in the group averaged a 10 or so with maybe a single 16 or 17 accompanied by a 12 or 14, fairly average characters with one really good stat, but nothing under 9 if memory serves me correctly.  

Now you can say that stats aren't everything, but a character with three 18's has a lot going for them early on in the game, and in the long run as well, he will be better at more situations than pretty much anyone in the group.  If assigned right say this character is a melee type character he will have better saving throws, a better chance to hit, he will do more damage, have more hit points, and a better armor class.  Essentially this character will be better than his peers, and will perform better on a level by level basis. 

With all this in mind some would say that isn't fair, but if your playing for realism, well life isn't fair, and some people are born "better" than others, either physically, mentally, or both.  With all probability in real life if you were to group 6 random people together and took a measure of their strength, their constitution, their intelligence, their decision making skills (wisdom), and their charismatic attitude and looks, you would find that more likely than not one person in that group will excell at more things than the other five.  

Its really just a game style all in all, and how the DM wants to run his game.  With point buy, the DM can take control  of the situation as he knows that all the characters are fairly equal in power and ability.  This makes planning and game design easier.  Also if you don't have a lot of game time, point buy enables the players to make their characters ahead of time, and you dont' have to worry about "lucky dice" if the player rolls up a character at home.


----------



## Alceste (Sep 21, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> This comparison is simple to make with a fighter but is more complicated with a rogue or a wizard or a cleric. A key difference between a 10th level wizard and an 11th level wizard is 6th level spells. Having an 18 base Intelligence rather than a 14 is not going to give the 10th level wizard 6th level spells. His spells are harder to resist, he gets more skill points, and he gets a bonus 3rd and 4th level spell, but those are the only benefits. It does not translate to the key strength of the wizard, which is namely the highest level spells he can cast. Given the choice, I would rather cast chain lightning than cone of cold with a higher save DC (by 1). Why? Chain lightning is a more versatile spell that gives me a better opportunity to target those foes I want to target and ignore those I do not want to target. And that is a bad example. Compare the efficacy of wall of force (5th) to wall of iron. Wall of iron can be used offensively (drop it on a target) and is so thick it essentially lasts as long as the short duration of wall of force. That makes it a better spell in many respects. Or compare dominate person to geas. Geas does not allow a save (although you have to cast it outside combat) and dominate person grants an additional save whenever you try to compel the subject to do something outside its nature. Plus, geas can last forever under the right conditions. I could go on and on, but the fact is an 11th level wizard even with lower ability scores, will be superior to a 10th level wizard all other things being equal.
> 
> So the comparison does not work as well with other classes as it does with the fighter.




You are leaving out the immense effect of con and other high ability scores for the 10th level wizard. With a high secondary score the hot rolling player will have seventy percent more hit points and better saves to boot. Ie player with 18, 18, 16, 12, 12, 8 vs 14, 12, 12, 10, 10, 8. With an 18 con the 10th level wizard will have an average of 67 hit points versus the 11th level wizard with a 12 con having 40. Not to mention the 10th level wizard will have a fort save of 7 versus the 11th level wizards fort save of 4. The difference in reflex/ init bonus is 6 reflex / 3 init bonus for the 10th level versus 4 reflex / 1 init bonus. Btw, the save / init difference is three feats right there. The tenth level wizard acts faster, saves better, and can take a lot more damage too. This is at 10th level. The difference at lower levels is even wider.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Sep 21, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> This comparison is simple to make with a fighter but is more complicated with a rogue or a wizard or a cleric.



Actually, the comparison works fine with the rogue. A high-Str rogue is MUCH more effective in combat; high Con makes the rogue much more durable. Count those in for at LEAST one level's worth of sneak attack (1/2d6). High Int gives enough skill points to count a level's worth, especially with improved mods from skill-associated stats.

Really, the comparison works for all non-primary spellcasting classes. It works for comparing odd-level to (odd+1)-level spellcasters as well, as noted earlier. 

As to the "historical" argument stated earlier: I would suggest that history cuts both ways. As a long-time (A)D&D DM, I have long disliked the consequences of drastically disparate ability score arrays in my player groups. In fact, I ended up increasing the power of the _wish_ spell in one game simply to allow the PCs who had slogged up to high levels in the shadow of one especially steroidal barbarian PC (Str 18/00, Dex 16, Con 17, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 16; yes, he rolled all these in front of me on 4d6 drop one, same as the other PCs) to raise their ability scores to comparable levels by about 20th-21st character level. I thus see (A)D&D's history of randomly rolled ability scores as demonstrating a weak point in need of improvement, which I think point buy resolves nicely.

That said, I fully understand that YMMV. If you *like* the randomness of rolled ability score generation, then you like it, and thus it is fun. QED. I do think that for DMs concerned about PC-to-PC balance, point buy is a superior option.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 21, 2006)

Diremede said:
			
		

> I think the big problem with random roll vs. point buy, is that pretty much all the monsters in the DMG and other supplements assume your playing a balanced character.  If you take a look at most humanoid monsters stats, there seems to be a point buy system applied to them.  Also with random roll you do have the possiblity of having a uber character.  This was about 5 years ago, but in my gaming group we were all rolling characters with the DM and a guy actually rolled out three 18's, and I believe his lowest score was a 12.  This was using the roll 4d6 throw out the lowest one, roll 6 times method.  Now most everyone else in the group averaged a 10 or so with maybe a single 16 or 17 accompanied by a 12 or 14, fairly average characters with one really good stat, but nothing under 9 if memory serves me correctly.



What you notably fail to mention is whether the 18-laden character survived any longer in the game than the others; if it didn't, then your point kinda falls flat...

Lanefan


----------



## Twowolves (Sep 21, 2006)

Cor Azer said:
			
		

> One thing I haven't really seen mentioned about the difference in point-buy versus rolling stats is the concept of "scrapping" a set of rolled stats.
> 
> When using point-buy, I do up my stats as I see fit, and that's that.
> 
> When rolling, and generate my attributes (using whatever manner), and then if they're not good enough (based on varying criteria), _I can roll them again_.




In fact, in one 1st ed game I played in, there was quite the pile of once-despondant-now-rotting-corpses of unwanted characters at the bottom of a cliff.

"Man, these stats suck. My character pulls a lemming and jumps off the nearest cliff. Hand me those dice again..."


----------



## RFisher (Sep 22, 2006)

It is possible to play an effective Wizard without access to ninth level spells.

Balance is important to the game, but that only goes so far. Due to the randomness built into the game, balance can only be rough, not precise.

But even conceding that point: Personally, doing well because I have big numbers on my character record wears thin a lot faster than doing well because I had to make the best of what I had.


----------



## RFisher (Sep 22, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> "Man, these stats suck. My character pulls a lemming and jumps off the nearest cliff. Hand me those dice again..."



As one of the guys in my group said on classic _Traveller_ character generation night: Looks like this one is going to be a belter.
[sblock]In classic _Traveller_, you can die in character generation. With the rules we were using, the belter career gave the best chance of dying during character generation. If you _did_ survive, though, your skills would likely make up for low stats.[/sblock]


----------



## Hussar (Sep 22, 2006)

LOL.

But, RFisher, it's not really about whether or not lower stats are more satisfying.  That's a personal preference.  Besides which, point buy is usually considerably lower than die rolled anyway, due to the rather higher chances of ones "falling off the table" than sixes.  

However, while it is true you can play effective characters with lower points, it doesn't really change the fact that if your character is a 21 point PC and everyone else is 40 points, you're pretty much dead weight.  So long as the stats between characters are roughly equal, things work, although the DM might have to do some extra legwork beefing up encounters.

The problem I see with die rolled PC's is that you have such a huge variance between PC's.  While some might not see that as a problem, I do.  From both sides actually.  I don't want to be that dead weight character dragging everyone down, and, if I'm lucky enough to roll high stats, why should preferential treatment be given to the guy with poor stats?  Why should I get shafted simply because the dice favoured me at chargen?

Or, to put it another way, if someone believes that stats don't matter, then why should lower stat characters get first shot at magical treasure?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 22, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, while it is true you can play effective characters with lower points, it doesn't really change the fact that if your character is a 21 point PC and everyone else is 40 points, you're pretty much dead weight.




The only dead weight character at a table has a dead weight player attached to him.


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 22, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, while it is true you can play effective characters with lower points, it doesn't really change the fact that if your character is a 21 point PC and everyone else is 40 points, you're pretty much dead weight.  So long as the stats between characters are roughly equal, things work, although the DM might have to do some extra legwork beefing up encounters.




My current campaign is direct evidence to the contrary of this. As I mentioned, the dwarf fighter has effectively a 21 point buy and he dominates the campaign in the face of three other characters with an average of about 32 points. He is the leader of the group. He directs them in combat. He deals out the most damage. He has the best AC. He has the most hit points. Part of this is because he is a fighter, the rest of this is because the player plays the game well. We have one guy who is relatively new to the hobby, having only played 3e, but the other two are veterans who are very good at the game. However, the fighter is the crux of the group. Without him, any combat situation falls apart. Would he be better if he had higher ability scores? Obviously. But the player did not NEED high ability scores to bring an effective character to the campaign, nor did he NEED high ability scores to play the concept he wanted. The dwarf fighter is anything but dead weight.

Now I suppose part of this has to do with the fact that we have a four character party. If we had, say, eight, then each character would be a less vital part of the group. But that has a lot more to do with the logistics of large parties than it does with any individualy character. It is one of the reasons I prefer to run small groups over large ones. Much as I hate turning players away from my campaign, I know that the larger my campaign gets, the greater the chance there is for one character to feel marginalized by the rest of the group. When there are four characters with four specialities, you tend to rely on the fighter with 21 points because he is the only one who specializes in fighting. In that respect, point buy might be a superior method for a larger group, but I don't think it solves the problem entirely, if at all. In such an environment there is still only one DM whose attention is now divided more thinly than ever. The min/maxers are the ones who will contribute the most to the group, along with those who do not share roles with others.

As a case in point, I once joined a Planescape campaign at 15th level. There were seven players in all, among them a rogue type, several warriors, and a couple priests. There were no mages so I opted to play a wizard/loremaster. I was unable to get much response from the DM in time for the first session so I created my character with an elite array, thinking it the fairest way. I arrived to find that the rest of the characters had been created with a 32 point buy. But I went ahead and played with my elite array, and as it turned out, my contribution to the group was huge. Why? I filled a niche that nobody else filled and could do things that nobody else could do. Only the pixie rogue had been capable of invisibility before, but I showed up with invisibility sphere and they Oooed and Aahed. They had no way to enter a heavily fortified keep, but I used passwall to great effect. Again, wonderment from the other players. The list goes on but the point was I filled a niche that hadn't been filled, and all while playing a "deadweight" character. :\ 

Now suppose you want to play a ranger. You have been planning this character concept since the beginning of proverbial time. When you join in the campaign the DM informs you the party includes a barbarian, a fighter, a ranger, and a druid. If you are rolling your ability scores, I guess you had better hope you roll high, because otherwise you will be marginalized. But if you insist on playing a ranger, is that really anyone's fault but your own? You are the one joining a group with many weaknesses and insisting on playing a class that reinforces their strengths and ignores those weaknesses. If you really wanted to contribute to that group, you should have chosen to play a bard, a cleric, or a wizard. Those things would have been a welcome and helpful addition. But the ranger is pretty redundant in a party that probably includes enough wilderness skill and fighting ability to choke a camel. And here is the clincher, even if everyone gets a 25 point buy, if your ranger is not as optimized as the other ranger, your character will still get marginalized. He would be the appendix, the unnecessary organ in an adventuring party.

So here is the bottom line, as I see it. If a player chooses to play a character concept that is redundant to the rest of the group, he is not going to be as valuable as he would if he choose a character concept that is novel to the group. Point buy merely ensures that the power-gamer who knows how to allocate his points optimally will outshine the sub-optimal player. A player with a novel character concept will be a valuable member of any party, regardless of whether he has a point buy that theoretically "balances" him with the other players or whether he has randomly generated ability scores.

My conclusion? Neither is superior, which has been my point all along. When I choose to use random ability score generation, that is an expression of a preference, and it does not mean my players are going to be at any more disadvantage than they would be if they were playing with a point buy. A novel character concept is more vital to getting "face time" with a group than "balanced" ability scores.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Sep 22, 2006)

This is still going on. It's pretty amusing. 

I'm still waiting for some more people to answer my original question though. It's not about which one is better. It's not about how important your stats are. It's about the goals of the game and play style, and what generation type fits that best. 

I've done point exchange games, and that was a blast. Each person started with one +2 card to each stats, then got 1 random card. I left to get pizza, and they could exchange cards as they wished. If I was to do it again, I'd probably start all the stats at 7 or 8, then give everyone more cards to shuffle. Then I could hand out 3 random +1 to stats, and a few miscelanious modefiers.

Also, Crothian's method rocks. Here's the converstaion from the game I tried something similiar. 

"So, how do I get my stats?"
"Pick them. You can have whatever you want."
"So, I can have an 18 here?"
"Yeah."
"And I can have an 18 here?"
"Yeah. Whatever you want."
"Wow"

As my games are leaning more and more towards cheap satisfaction, but with a sense of earning it, I'd probably do my next game with a rolling method that returns hugely inflated stats. You rolled them so they're YOURS darn it. But look at how big and shiny they are!


----------



## Hussar (Sep 22, 2006)

> My current campaign is direct evidence to the contrary of this. As I mentioned, the dwarf fighter has effectively a 21 point buy and he dominates the campaign in the face of three other characters with an average of about 32 points. He is the leader of the group. He directs them in combat. He deals out the most damage. He has the best AC. He has the most hit points. Part of this is because he is a fighter, the rest of this is because the player plays the game well. We have one guy who is relatively new to the hobby, having only played 3e, but the other two are veterans who are very good at the game. However, the fighter is the crux of the group. Without him, any combat situation falls apart. Would he be better if he had higher ability scores? Obviously. But the player did not NEED high ability scores to bring an effective character to the campaign, nor did he NEED high ability scores to play the concept he wanted. The dwarf fighter is anything but dead weight.




See, I have a real problem buying this.  Most damage?  Best AC?  Most HP's?

Are the other three PC's wizards?

The cleric, with the much higher stats, SHOULD be better at all three of those.  He should have a better AC, he should do more damage and he should have more hp's.  If he doesn't, then what's wrong with him?

However, it still boils down to the fact that your Dwarf with the poor Cha is leading.  He's not playing the character that's on the paper.  IIRC, he had a 6 Cha.  This guy should be absolutely loathesome.  Take a look through your MM and see what gets a 6 Cha.  THAT'S how horrid your dwarf is.

Yes, if you are playing the only wizard in the party, you have your niche and you are contributing.  However, you are still lagging far behind everyone else because of poor stats.  Your save DC's are measurably worse, you have no hp's, and, at higher levels, the party has to carry you because you can't cast higher level spells.

As I said, I've seen the flipside of this.  In a 2e game, the DM allowed one of the players to play an ogre with a 20 str and 20 Con.  We figured it out that his damage and hit bonuses as well as his hit points were actually on par with a character THREE levels higher than the rest of us.  He completely dominated the game.  He could easily destroy anything that was a serious threat to the rest of us.  If he sneezed, monsters died.  If the rest of us got anywhere near something that could threaten him, we died.

I accept that rolling works for you.  I reject the idea that point buy is for powergamers to twink their characters.  I like the idea that I can have a concept for a character and then build him without having to roll the dice umpteen times to get what I wanted in the first place.


----------



## wayne62682 (Sep 22, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I like the idea that I can have a concept for a character and then build him without having to roll the dice umpteen times to get what I wanted in the first place.




QFT.

Maybe my views are a bit biased, I'll admit, since I play in a group where nobody thinks about the group overall and instead plays whatever they want/enjoy playing e.g. we always have someone who will play a spellcaster, no matter what the group needs, because it's the only thing this person has fun playing (they will get bored of the campaign otherwise), so it's all about doing something better than someone else because there is no "niche to fill" so to speak, although I'm the one who usually plays whatever the group seems to be lacking....


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 22, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> What you notably fail to mention is whether the 18-laden character survived any longer in the game than the others; if it didn't, then your point kinda falls flat...




That assumption ignores the fact that D&D is a team game.


----------



## wayne62682 (Sep 22, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> That assumption ignores the fact that D&D is a team game.



 That's an opinion, not a fact.. sad to say.. D&D is only a team game if the players want it to be.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 22, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> That's an opinion, not a fact.. sad to say.. D&D is only a team game if the players want it to be.




Not at all. He was making the claim that the most powerful people live the longest. I'm pointing out that this isn't true. The most powerful person could easily die first and it not be their fault at all. Even if the party isn't playing "as a team" one PC's actions still affect all the others, even if they don't want it to.


----------



## Cor Azer (Sep 22, 2006)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> By what definition of "not good enough"?  The written definition of at least total +1 mod and a score of at least X (I don't recall what that number is right now)?




Well, that was sort of my point... (lowsy lack of irony tag)

Many (but yes, certainly not all) pro-rollers include various rules to let players roll multiple times, choosing the best set, or re-rolling completely... if you're going to do all that, why not just use point-buy?

As I've said, I allow both. Those players of mine who still roll more-or-less say it's just because they love chucking dice, for whatever reason.

Although I must admit, I'm starting to ponder more-and-more of using Crothian's "pick'em as you wish"... since the game will be tailored to fit the party anyways, if they all want super-characters, they'll have super-foes.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 22, 2006)

Cor Azer
Many (but yes said:
			
		

> That's a generalization. I certainly don't let players roll multiple times unless it's a "hopeless character" as defined by the Players Handbook. The PCs also have a choice of point buy (25 points), but if they choose to roll, they don't get to fall back to the point buy method if they roll badly. Bad rolls challenge players to optimize their characters better, and some of the results can be very impressive.


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 22, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> See, I have a real problem buying this.  Most damage?  Best AC?  Most HP's?
> 
> Are the other three PC's wizards?




The other PCs are a Healer, Druid, and Monk.

The healer has a d6 HD and 15 Con. She has about 15 hp less than the fighter. Her AC sucks because she only gets non-metal armor (and for that matter the player has invested no resources in AC, leather armor only so AC 12). I think the reason why she does not deal much damage is obvious.

The druid has a d8 HD and 12 Con base (14 with amulet of health). She has about as many hp as the healer, which is to be expected. Her AC is not impressive as she is limited to druid armor or the natural armor of her wild shape. Rarely higher than 20. She and her animal companion probably equal the dwarf in damage, more if enemies are bunched close enough for a flame strike.

The monk has a Con of 8 and fewer hp than anyone else in the party for that reason. Of course, as anyone who has seen high level monks in play, he rarely takes damage thanks to improved evasion, high saves, and respectable AC. He gets a chance to shine on occassion, usually when fighting stunnable enemies and his damage approximates the dwarf's with Iron Fist, but he is more of the group's trickster, being agile and able to get into spots the rest of the group cannot (lacking a mage means flying is the sole domain of the wild shaping druid so being able to climb, balance, tumble, jump, and swim is valuable in this group).

It also doesn't hurt that the dwarf has rolled very well for hp of late.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The cleric, with the much higher stats, SHOULD be better at all three of those.  He should have a better AC, he should do more damage and he should have more hp's.  If he doesn't, then what's wrong with him?




Assuming an archetypal cleric, he would not necessarily be better at all of those. For one, the fighter has six extra fighting feats to improve his damage and attack bonus, not to mention his AC (there are numerous feats that do this as well). Second, the fighter has a higher BAB by 3 points at 12th level. Third, the cleric can only rival the fighter in fighting prowess IF he is allowed time to cast prep spells such as divine favor, divine power, righteous might, etc. That usually takes a round or two, and meanwhile, the fighter is beating away. Wise clerics will spend their time aiding the group with helpful spells, not trying to deal damage. Spells that allow a cleric to fight should be reserved as a last resort.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> However, it still boils down to the fact that your Dwarf with the poor Cha is leading.  He's not playing the character that's on the paper.  IIRC, he had a 6 Cha.  This guy should be absolutely loathesome.  Take a look through your MM and see what gets a 6 Cha.  THAT'S how horrid your dwarf is.




You have a very narrowly defined definition of Charisma. I have already explained that the player of the dwarf roleplays the Charisma 6 well. He is gruff, rude, and never very friendly. When he tells people to do things, it is usually because he is able to leverage them by virtue of his importance to the group, not because he is a polarizing personality. He may not be a natural leader, but circumstances dictate that his position is vital to the group, and the wise character (Wis 12) is cognizant of that. Not to mention he has the Leadership feat, which I will point out to you has no Cha prerequisite. Now we could argue till we are blue in the face whether or not it SHOULD have one, but it doesn't, so obviously WotC does not correlate leadership potential with Charisma any more than the leadership chart indicates. Low Charisma characters can still be leaders. They will not be as inspiring as high Charisma characters and they will not attract as many followers, but that does not mean they are bad or ineffective leaders necessarily. He's playing the character written on the paper to a T, thank you.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Yes, if you are playing the only wizard in the party, you have your niche and you are contributing.  However, you are still lagging far behind everyone else because of poor stats.  Your save DC's are measurably worse, you have no hp's, and, at higher levels, the party has to carry you because you can't cast higher level spells.




WTF? I wasn't lagging far behind everyone. I had 8th level spells thank you, and they were nice. My save DCs being measurably worse belied the fact that I was the only person casting fireball. Fireball with save DC 20 is better than no fireball. And I wasn't crying my eyes out that the save DC wasn't 21 (which is what it would have been if I had been able to buy an 18 as opposed to a 15). I never worried much about the hp barrier. False life and a good cleric (shugenja actually) took care of that problem. Nobody ever had to carry me. There are ways of increasing ability scores besides getting them at 1st level you know. Ability score boosts and magic items come to mind.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> As I said, I've seen the flipside of this.  In a 2e game, the DM allowed one of the players to play an ogre with a 20 str and 20 Con.  We figured it out that his damage and hit bonuses as well as his hit points were actually on par with a character THREE levels higher than the rest of us.  He completely dominated the game.  He could easily destroy anything that was a serious threat to the rest of us.  If he sneezed, monsters died.  If the rest of us got anywhere near something that could threaten him, we died.




Guess what, ogres in 3e have a HUGE LA and HD to boot. Not to mention AD&D characters weren't even capable of such high Str and Con without wish. An AD&D comparison means absolutely nothing in the context of this argument.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I accept that rolling works for you.  I reject the idea that point buy is for powergamers to twink their characters.  I like the idea that I can have a concept for a character and then build him without having to roll the dice umpteen times to get what I wanted in the first place.




Point buy favors powergamers. That is undisputable. Truth is, the game favors powergamers. And the more randomness you take out of the game, the more powergamers claim the upper hand. Point buy is not JUST for powergamers, but it certainly lets them min/max a lot more than random ability score generation does.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 22, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Not at all. He was making the claim that the most powerful people live the longest. I'm pointing out that this isn't true. The most powerful person could easily die first and it not be their fault at all. Even if the party isn't playing "as a team" one PC's actions still affect all the others, even if they don't want it to.



Actually, I was making quite the opposite claim: that high or low stats don't necessarily have *any* bearing on how long the PC survives and-or remains useful.  That said, and as others have mentioned, a lot depends on the player; some players are better at running low-stat characters than others...

All this said, there's also a perfectly valid argument to be made that for much of the time, stats are just there to serve the game mechanics, and the character's personality come out of how it is role-played, e.g. the Dwarf fighter example noted elsewhere here.

Lanefan


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I really do believe that much of the criticism leveled that 3e characters are so powerful stems from die rolled characters.  It makes sense that a party with 35-40 point characters is going to steamroll standard encounters - they are equivalent to a level higher.



I would tend to disagree for a couple of reasons.  First, a properly perceptive DM will realized it if the PC's are really so power inflated that they _steamroll_ encounters and will simply adjust.  Second, the complaint is seldom that random rolls create an entire party that is overpowered, but that one character is more powerful than another and as mentioned before, even with identical stats one character WILL be different than another based simply on player choices and play style if not basics of class and race.  1st level wizards are pathetic compared to 1st level fighters of the same stat values in terms of raw, immediate power.  My perception of the criticism that 3E characters are so powerful would be because they are now nearly universally DESIGNED.  They are planned, calculated, even engineered to be VERY good at what the player wants the character to do.  This is in shocking contrast to Ye Olde Dayes when ability scores themselves were irrelvant unless at LEAST 15 or higher and some people still could be found to use generation methods that the player did not have "creative control" over, i.e., stats recorded in order as rolled.
[quoteThe game, IME, just works a lot better with point buy.[/quote]I, on the other hand find no inherent superiority in point buy.  If you like it, use it and don't let me tell you different (not that I would, as my comments are never that PB is inferior, only that it is not inherently superior, nor without drawbacks, and of course it's not MY preference).


> Not that die roll generation is bad.  I used it for a long time and I understand the attraction.  However, I've found that point buy just works so much better for me, that I would never go back to random generation.



I've tried PB and methods like it as far back as 1E.  I've found that because I can create characters with any and all ability score generation methods, and can fathom no reason that other players would be unable to do likewise, that the method of character generation I prefer is one that fosters, even demands greater creativity from players.  And that means a method that is random, and which also does not allow the player complete freedom to arrange the scores.  Scores are random so that characters ARE of different power levels and capabilities as this, too, is a matter of creativity (how you play a character that lacks inherent strengths as well as how an inherently powerful character interacts with other PC's and NPC's.  Arrangement of the random scores as the player wants is also limited so that players are prompted, even required to play characters that DON'T rely on always eliminating the most likely flaws and always enhancing the most common strengths.

Characters that are always designed and _planned_ tend to irk me.  A player who has already decided his characters development from inception to retirement is often (not always) signalling to me that he has no interest in seeing his character develop as a result of the events that unfold in my campaign, but only according to their pre-concieved plans.  If anything the campaign is likely to be only an irritation to such a player because it can only result in delay, and interference with the intended course of the characters fruition.

Not sure I'm really arguing anything here now so much as just trying to mention a few things that people might want to think about for their future games.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 23, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> The only downside that I see to Point Buy is that especially with the low ones (although I don't believe that crap about the game being balanced at 25 points) it forces you to essentially spend ALL of your attribute bonuses on your primary stat.. assuming that you have only one.



Honestly, I think a lot of that is simply because we STILL have this deep-seated need, largely inherited from earlier editions that you MUST ALWAYS have a high primary stat or your character is hopelessly outclassed.  A character like a monk does indeed need several equally decent scores to be as powerful as say an equivalent level fighter.  Excuse me for waxing rhetorical - but why do we feel that a monk DOES need to be as powerful as any other character?  Why can't we just take the monk for what it IS and enjoy making of it what we can?  Why can't we just take the ability scores that we happen to randomly get and enjoy making of it what we can?  3E was supposed to be about providing choices and tools, not providing rights and privileges.  Okay, maybe that's pushing it.

I'm pretty sure that's the way I and others in my group played back in our 1E days and even most of our 2E days - to take what we got and enjoy making something of it (or just trying), rather than to plan out what we want and then expect it.  We craved those high scores because it was ONLY the high scores that provided bonuses and the character generation methods that were invented were obsessed with how to get those high scores.  When 3E eliminated the need for the high scores by allowing anything above average to provide bonuses I'd have thought that we'd start to be satisfied with lower average scores.  In the Olde Dayes we looked forward to those occasional characters with great stats, and were happy to see SOMEbody get them even if we were jealous that it wasn't us.  Now we see complaints that it isn't even fair if someone gets higher stats than anyone else.  Not that there wasn't always some poor wanker who was never satisfied unless HE had it all over everyone else (and maybe not even then).  But 3E hasn't changed some things at all has it?  Interesting...

I swear I'm becoming more of a cranky old Luddite all the time.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 23, 2006)

Diremede said:
			
		

> I think the big problem with random roll vs. point buy, is that pretty much all the monsters in the DMG and other supplements assume your playing a balanced character.



Not quite.    Balance is a myth.  Always has been because there are just too many variables.  Even if things are balanced according to what I think is balanced, it's surely going to be intolerably whacked for the next guy.  And balance is as balance does; which is to say that what's balanced for me right now I can discover is horribly IM-balanced next week.

In any case, the DMG, et. al. do not actually assume that we all will be playing balanced characters.  They have simply set up a baseline reference that reasonably approximates something LIKE balance.  We don't then need to strictly adhere to that baseline to make the game work properly, but we can then still compare where WE are to where the rules have placed their references and then more easily make adjustments if we want to.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 23, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The only dead weight character at a table has a dead weight player attached to him.



QFT


----------



## The Human Target (Sep 23, 2006)

Good thread.

I'm an avid fan of point buy and fixed hp.

If I don't use point buy, I'll come up with three different ability sets a PC can choose from (and then place accordingly.)


I just rolled up a character for a friends new game.

I wanted to play a monk/scout and figured I'd need some pretty good scores.

My DM wanted to use rolls.

I had to roll stats four, count em, four times.

And my DM then said "Man, you rolled really poorly for that character, and everyone else rolled well."


So he gave me an average of the group.

And then I lowered my Charisma score, because it was higher than I wanted my scarred, introverted monk to have.


I hate fracking rolling.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Sep 23, 2006)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> I've tried PB and methods like it as far back as 1E.  I've found that because I can create characters with any and all ability score generation methods, and can fathom no reason that other players would be unable to do likewise, that the method of character generation I prefer is one that fosters, even demands greater creativity from players.  And that means a method that is random, and which also does not allow the player complete freedom to arrange the scores.




No - that method fosters creativity at the table, under time pressure.  Which is a skill, and a useful one, but generally not a good way to create deep and compelling characters.  Especially if you don't HAVE that skill, or if you happen to be having an off night.

I've yet to play with a character created immediately before play that had 2-5 pages of background, a detailed explanation of how and why he had the abilities he had, and a strong understanding of how to play him to achieve those goals.

Or, frankly, a character created immediately before play whose player ever seriously treated him as anything other than an avatar.

All that stuff came from somewhere, and unless the players were hiring thesis ghostwriters to pump out character studies for them, they apparently used their own creativity.



			
				Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Scores are random so that characters ARE of different power levels and capabilities as this, too, is a matter of creativity (how you play a character that lacks inherent strengths as well as how an inherently powerful character interacts with other PC's and NPC's.  Arrangement of the random scores as the player wants is also limited so that players are prompted, even required to play characters that DON'T rely on always eliminating the most likely flaws and always enhancing the most common strengths.




That's not creativity, that's PLAY SKILL - which can, to be fair, INVOLVE creativity.  It's min/maxing your play rather than the minigame of character creation, but it's still a completely gamist exercise in overcoming challenges.  Not that there's anything wrong with that - I happen to like a large helping of 'game' in my 'role-playing game' - but it's certainly not synonymous with creativity.



			
				Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Characters that are always designed and _planned_ tend to irk me.  A player who has already decided his characters development from inception to retirement is often (not always) signalling to me that he has no interest in seeing his character develop as a result of the events that unfold in my campaign, but only according to their pre-concieved plans.  If anything the campaign is likely to be only an irritation to such a player because it can only result in delay, and interference with the intended course of the characters fruition.




What it signals to me is a player who is probably playing D&D because it's a) what he knows or b) what he can get a game of, but who might prefer a system that lets him play the character he wants, who might actually fit the epic fantasy or sword and sorcery genres, without waiting and hoping the GM doesn't steer the campaign in a wildly different direction.

In any case, if the pre-planned PC and the campaign take wildly divergent courses, it indicates a) you and your players have no common ground established regarding the campaign's theme and style and b) you believe people (or at least PCs) shouldn't plan their training regimen and set clear personal goals for themselves.  I can't remember who said it (maybe Buzz?) in a previous thread, but the quote sticks with me: "I know plenty of people who developed organically; they work at McDonalds."



			
				Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Not quite. Balance is a myth. Always has been because there are just too many variables. Even if things are balanced according to what I think is balanced, it's surely going to be intolerably whacked for the next guy. And balance is as balance does; which is to say that what's balanced for me right now I can discover is horribly IM-balanced next week.




So because 'balance' is imperfect, it's mythical?  Nowhere in the PHB or DMG does it claim that the races, classes, statistics packages, spells, feats, skills and equipment contained therein are perfectly balanced.

As has been repeatedly demonstrated mathematically in this thread, of all of those elements in the core books, the default stat generation method is the *least* balanced part of the core rules.  That doesn't mean that either the alternative is perfect or that the rest of the books are; it simply states the *fact* that nothing in the core rules allows your character's power to be further above or below another character's than rolling for stats.

Randomly generated ability scores are LESS balanced than other aspects of the core rules.  They are potentially UNbalanced.

Balance is not a Platonic ideal.  A squirrel perched on a wet metal railing that slips and slides and scrambles and manages to stay atop the rail is balanced atop it - but only just.  The squirrel at rest atop the railing is better balanced.  The squirrel who slipped off and is now breaking for the trees was not balanced.  The first two squirrels differ quantitatively from each other (MORE balanced, LESS balanced), but the third differs qualitatively (NOT balanced at all).

I really don't care that much about game balance in something like D&D - but 'not caring' and 'discarding out of hand' are not one and the same.



			
				Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think a lot of that is simply because we STILL have this deep-seated need, largely inherited from earlier editions that you MUST ALWAYS have a high primary stat or your character is hopelessly outclassed. A character like a monk does indeed need several equally decent scores to be as powerful as say an equivalent level fighter. Excuse me for waxing rhetorical - but why do we feel that a monk DOES need to be as powerful as any other character? Why can't we just take the monk for what it IS and enjoy making of it what we can? Why can't we just take the ability scores that we happen to randomly get and enjoy making of it what we can? 3E was supposed to be about providing choices and tools, not providing rights and privileges. Okay, maybe that's pushing it




How is being given a random suite of abilities and asked to make a character with them before play begins 'providing choices and tools?'

My desire to use point buy is a 'holdover' from playing games that actually allowed me to make the character I wanted, not the character the dice decided to give me.  Games that felt the players didn't need to 'work' to get their 'fun' and that player skill was not as important as player enjoyment.  D&D and MMORPGs both follow the 'work to get your fun' model, and both seem to do pretty well, so apparently it holds some inexplicable appeal.  Nonetheless, there ARE alternatives to this model, and I for one have no tolerance for it.  Making me play Frodo now in the hopes of playing Conan later completely misses the point of both characters.  Making someone who wants to play Frodo play Conan, or vice versa, because their dice dictate it, completely misses the point of a game, IMO.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 23, 2006)

> Why can't we just take the ability scores that we happen to randomly get and enjoy making of it what we can? 3E was supposed to be about providing choices and tools, not providing rights and privileges. Okay, maybe that's pushing it




Heh, fair enough.  However, I do agree with you about 3e being about providing choices and tools.  However, randomly generated stats are not choices.  They are actually pretty much the antithesis of choice.  It's not even being forced by someone else (which would at least be someone else's choice), but rather being forced to accept chance as a realistic model for creating a character that I am likely going to play for several hundred hours.

Now, if you get a character that you like out of random rolling, that's great.  Of course that isn't a problem.  And, if you aren't terribly worried about a particular concept and just want to play whatever comes along, that's great too.  I've done that and it can be lots of fun.

But that's the point.  It "can" be lots of fun, it can also lead to lemming characters that commit suicide at the first opportunity so I can try the dice gods again.  Or, it can lead to playing a character that you don't particularly like since it's a concept that perhaps doesn't appeal.

Pretty much all the dice roll methods, aside from taking exactly as rolled, allow you to customize.  4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste (likely the most common form) is not terribly different from point buy anyway.  The vast majority of players will put their best stat where it makes them most effective.  So, arguements that point buy leads to powergaming are false.  We do it anyway.  Die rolled PC's are every bit as powergamed as point buy.  While it probably has happened, I truly believe that anyone who has created a fighter has had either Str or Dex as his highest stat, and those that haven't are mere statistical bumps.  Even Airwalkrr's dwarf fighter has powergamed his PC.  Highest stat str, cha as a dump stat.  That's powergaming pure and simple.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with that.  

But, if we're going to do it anyway, why not just use point buy?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 23, 2006)

Just noticed something from another thread:



			
				Airwalkrr said:
			
		

> I agree that the fighter is a touch underpowered. That is why I give them extra stuff in my campaigns: an extra weapon proficiency or weapon focus/specialization at 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th, leadership at 5th (only fighter levels add to score), landlord at 9th, renown at 13th, and great renown at 17th.




Details like this could possibly explain why your fighter is a touch more powerful than has stats might descibe.


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just noticed something from another thread:
> 
> 
> 
> Details like this could possibly explain why your fighter is a touch more powerful than has stats might descibe.




They might, but they do not. He is using a slightly older version in which the bonus weapon feats only grant additional weapon proficiencies, none of which have really come into play yet. I mean, he has pulled out his bow (his only other weapon) twice over the course of 12 levels!  He has had leadership, but he did not actually get a cohort until 11th level, and the cohort was promptly captured by a shadow spider. The PCs are still trying to complete the spider's quest to get the cohort back. And yes, he has a keep, not that it gives him anything but the ability to say he is a dwarven lord. It adds a nice roleplaying schtick, but it hasn't had any mechanical effect so far at all. So basically, I have given him some extra roleplaying options. They hardly make him more powerful than a traditional 3e fighter, although the title of nobility might be giving him some level of "prestige" among the group to make them want to listen to him.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Sep 23, 2006)

As I mentioned, earlier, I've never used point buy -- usually the PCs in my campaigns roll and arrange to taste, which gives you some randomness, but also some ability to "aim" for the type of character you have in mind.  I like this approach the best.

While I haven't used point-buy, I *have* had games where I allow the players to simply assign the stats they want.  If "get the character I want to play" is the primary concern, then this is the best approach, IMO.  

If "balance" is the primary goal, then by all means, point buy is a solid approach.  Personally, I find the constant quest for "balance," gets to me.  The CR/advancement forumlas, the EL calculations, "balanced classes," the emphasis on nothing too far off the mean (wealth, monster powers, encounter difficulty, etc) makes things too neat and pat for my tastes.  Call me crazy, but I like a healthy dose of uncertainty in the game.  YMMV.

Actually, YMMV basically sums up this whole thread, IMO.


----------



## shilsen (Sep 23, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Actually, YMMV basically sums up this whole thread, IMO.




QFT.

Personally, I like to start PCs as much on the same level as possible. So PCs start at the same ECL, same wealth, and I use point-buy. Would the same thing work for everyone? No. Do I care? Hell, no.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 23, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> Personally, I like to start PCs as much on the same level as possible. So PCs start at the same ECL, same wealth, and I use point-buy. Would the same thing work for everyone? No. Do I care? Hell, no.




Oh hey, I agree 100%.  What annoys me is being called a powergamer, or saying that point buy is somehow wrongbadfun because it links to powergaming.  I disagree with that entirely.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 23, 2006)

I'm one of the group that prefers pt. buy.

I do so because, honestly, chargen is down low on my list of things I want to spend an afternoon doing.  It's always gotten on my nerves, from either side of the table.  

So, for my games, I use point buy ... and averaged HP to boot!  There are rules in place for purchasing items ... so everything can be done in the comfort of the player's own home before the first session.

I don't play with people I don't trust, usually, so I don't go over people's papers or anything before play.  It's just a convenience.  There's nobody at the table that can say:  "Hrm, Bob rolled an awful lot of 18s at home ... and great HP ... I WONDER." 

Which has, so far, worked well for me.  I've had some people that dug in their heels for a moment and said:  "But I LIKE rolling!" but after I explained that we weren't going to have a character creation session and the first game night would be spent GAMING ... they all decided that it wasn't such a bad idea that they'd not want to play.  Never had any complaints after the game started, that's for sure.  Nobody saying:  "Man, this point-buy character sucks and all the other point buy characters are the same!"

I've only had one unworkable situation with point buy.  We were putting together an online game and one player just said:  "Point buy?  Hate it, no thanks, don't want to play."  Which is totally their choice, but was sort of bizarre and annoying.  Had never before encountered somebody who literally walked away from the game at the word "point buy".

--fje


----------



## RFisher (Sep 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, RFisher, it's not really about whether or not lower stats are more satisfying.  That's a personal preference.



I completely understand that some people prefer to "craft" a PC & therefore prefer point buy.

The claim--in support of point buy--that the exact ability scores make a _huge_ difference is what doesn't hold water with me. I'm not saying I prefer to play underpowered characters; I'm saying that I don't measure the strength of my character by his ability scores.


			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> The only dead weight character at a table has a dead weight player attached to him.



Exactly!


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 23, 2006)

RFisher said:
			
		

> The claim--in support of point buy--that the exact ability scores make a _huge_ difference is what doesn't hold water with me. I'm not saying I prefer to play underpowered characters; I'm saying that I don't measure the strength of my character by his ability scores.




How about this for an argument...?

Don't measure the strength of a character by his ability scores.  A player can have fun with low stats.  A character can be effective with low stats if he has an excellent player behind him.

Of course, an excellent player will probably be _even more_ effective if he has a character with *great stats*.  His being effective with poor stats doesn't mean that stats don't factor into your effectiveness.  It just means that he can be more effective with poor stats than a poorer player (in the sense of being an "effective" player) will be with better stats.

What about the poorer player?  Is this only a game for the good players who can overcome poor stats?  Maybe a better system would be to give a stat handicap for poorer players, to counter their less effective playing skills?


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 23, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> How about this for an argument...?
> Don't measure the strength of a character by his ability scores.  A player can have fun with low stats.  A character can be effective with low stats if he has an excellent player behind him.




I think it's...misdirected.  Subjectively, any character can be as fun as any other character.  Objectively, the higher the ability scores in a character's class-relevant abilities, the more effective that character is in his class functions.  All other factors (skill point allocation, feats, racial mods, etc) being equal, a rogue with an 18 Dex is a better rogue than one with a 12 Dex.  A wizard with an 18 Intelligence is a better wizard than one with an 11 Intelligence.

The problem with disparate ability scores come to the fore not when the party is a rogue, wizard, cleric, and fighter; it's when the party is two fighters, or two clerics, or two rogues -- in other words, when there's overlap in the iconic roles.

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 23, 2006)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> The problem with disparate ability scores come to the fore not when the party is a rogue, wizard, cleric, and fighter; it's when the party is two fighters, or two clerics, or two rogues -- in other words, when there's overlap in the iconic roles.




I think the problem is magnified then, not that there isn't a problem elsewhere.  When you take it outside of two fighters, for example, you have other factors that apply as well. 

Let's say that we have a fighter & wizard in a game at low levels.  If the fighter has much higher stats, and is clearly a more effective character you'll have arguments that it makes sense because a fighter is a more powerful class at low levels than a wizard.  And it has merit.  That doesn't mean the fighter's stats are giving him an advantage, it just means the class advantage applies as well and it's harder to compare where it's coming from.

At 6-8 level if you create a fighter and a wizard, give one stats with 50 point buy and one with 20 point buy, and I have no doubt the one with 50 pt. buy will be clearly better than the 20 point buy in a balanced game.


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 23, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I think the problem is magnified then, not that there isn't a problem elsewhere.  When you take it outside of two fighters, for example, you have other factors that apply as well.




I agree completely.  I didn't say it wasn't a problem elsewhere; I said "the problem comes to the fore", meaning it's clearest and most visible.

Alot of this thread has been objective views vs subjective views.  It's not balanced vs it's still fun.  You can't effectively argue subjective viewpoints, and the best way to argue an objective point is to eliminate all points of disparity except for the point under contention.  So, given two characters identical in all respects except ability scores, which is more effective in fulfilling its iconic role?  The one with better ability scores.  This wouldn't be an issue except that many parties do have characters that overlap in those roles, and rolling for ability scores, by its nature, generates a broad range of ability score sets.

I've got no problem with rolling for scores.  I've done it before, and I'll do it again.  But when considered objectively and in the context of a party of characters, it's a less equitable system than point-buy.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 23, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Point buy favors powergamers. That is undisputable. Truth is, the game favors powergamers. And the more randomness you take out of the game, the more powergamers claim the upper hand. Point buy is not JUST for powergamers, but it certainly lets them min/max a lot more than random ability score generation does.



I think the most virulent powergamers flourish best under randomness. The worst ones I've gamed with cheated on their dice rolls. The real problem in this case is of course the player, not the system, and the best solution is not to play with people like that, which I no longer do. Nonetheless I dispute your assertion that point buy favors powergamers.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 23, 2006)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Nonetheless I dispute your assertion that point buy favors powergamers.




With point buy a player can powergame by min maxing his stats.  With random rolls one can't do that becasue they don't have control over the numbers.  They can try to min max with what the dice give them, but that is never as easy as doing it with point buy.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 23, 2006)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I think the most virulent powergamers flourish best under randomness.



I 100% agree*.  I've never known a power-gamer to play poor to average stats _for long_.      Random characters don't seem very random, a poor witnessed rolled character gets whining and complaining, those that must be played usually last less than a session.  Every pure powergamer doesn't do all of these things, but usually at least two (and sometimes other variations).

*I'm specifically separating out the min-max player from the power-gamer definition, since they flourish under any type of character generation system, but prefer point buy.


----------



## shilsen (Sep 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Oh hey, I agree 100%.  What annoys me is being called a powergamer, or saying that point buy is somehow wrongbadfun because it links to powergaming.  I disagree with that entirely.



 Fair enough. I figured out a long time ago that spending an iota of energy getting irritated by what some random stranger on a messageboard thinks about my gaming preferences is a waste of time and energy.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 23, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I 100% agree*.  I've never known a power-gamer to play poor to average stats _for long_.      Random characters don't seem very random, a poor witnessed rolled character gets whining and complaining, those that must be played usually last less than a session.  Every pure powergamer doesn't do all of these things, but usually at least two (and sometimes other variations).
> 
> *I'm specifically separating out the min-max player from the power-gamer definition, since they flourish under any type of character generation system, but prefer point buy.




I'm of the opinion that if you need to institute rules like Point Buy just to keep your players in line, you may need to consider playing with a different group of people.


----------



## Ranes (Sep 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> ...A character that I am likely going to play for several hundred hours.




Wow! I never anticipate a character of mine lasting that long.

I'm not saying that this has anything to do with the point that you were making but I do not understand the idea I've seen repeated several times in this thread that a character's ability scores have anything at all to do with how compelling a character it is to play.

Anyway. Gimme random. Thanks.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 24, 2006)

Ranes said:
			
		

> Wow! I never anticipate a character of mine lasting that long.




100 hours is only 4 a week for half a year (well, with one week off). In my group, campaigns typically last 9-18 months before a reset, and until recently I'd had pretty good luck keeping the same character from start to finish (though in the last game, I lost two, and I'm on my second in the current one).


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 24, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Point buy favors powergamers. That is undisputable. Truth is, the game favors powergamers. And the more randomness you take out of the game, the more powergamers claim the upper hand. Point buy is not JUST for powergamers, but it certainly lets them min/max a lot more than random ability score generation does.




There's this undercurrent in alot of this discussion that "powergaming" and "min/maxing" are automatically evil; that you're a crappy gamer and don't really "get it" if you "powergame".  That's probably not the intent, but it's implied when it's used as an argument against something.

I wonder if what you call min/maxing I call optimizing, or playing to a character's strengths.  I created a 12th level wizard last year.  He was joining an existing group, one that lacked any arcane spellcasting ability whatsoever, and they were facing magical foes - undead, fiends, and the like.  Was it powergaming and min/maxing to build the best, most useful, wizard I could?  A wizard's wizard?  Did I have "dump stats"?  Sure.  Str, Cha, and Dex, in that order.  If this guy was in melee, something was seriously wrong (hit points are always useful, so his Con was 17...after taking a hit for being old).  Did I build the character around the optimal prestige classes?  Depends.  The whole -idea- of the character was a top-notch, professional, expert spellcaster; the most powerful prestige classes made the most sense to the character.

I just don't buy that I was a worse gamer because I maximized my character's strengths and minimized his weaknesses.  I think I did a pretty fair job of role-playing him and his tutu-wearing coure eladrin familiar.

And, yeah.  His stats were rolled.


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 24, 2006)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I think the most virulent powergamers flourish best under randomness. The worst ones I've gamed with cheated on their dice rolls.




That is simply called cheating and is an altogether different issue from powergaming. The very notion that you would associate the two so closely is offensive. Powergamers are not cheaters and that kind of attitude is prejudice, pure and simple.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 24, 2006)

I don't see that "powergaming" or "min/maxing" can't go hand-in-hand with good playing, skillful roleplaying, or having a really good time.

I'm probably a "powergamer" or a "min/maxer", or an "optimizer" or "characterist".  When I'm the guy on the playing end of the game (which had been, until recently, very seldom) I like to take enjoyment from ALL aspects of playing the game ... I like the roleplaying.  I like making an optimized character.  I like interacting with the other people at the table.  I like kicking monster kiester.  Getting levels, powering up, making a memorable table presence, all of it.

I've played to-the-hilt killing machines (my current bbn1/clr12).  I've played oddly weak characters (a dwarf bard, a craftsman specializing in making magical weapons, not the optimal path for a bard).  

As far as stats go, I think they're largely unimportant to fun table-time.  I can play a really great character who is a fighter with 18Str.  I can play a really great character who is a fighter with 8Str.  I don't think it makes me a better person than other people that I can make an 8Str fighter fun to be.  Nor a worse person than others that I can have fun playing a fighter with 18Str.

In the end, it depends on the campaign.  I, and everybody at the table, liked my garrulous old dwarven craftsmen (my bard singing took the form of topical anecdotes ... the inspirational ones usually involved an exceptionally large troute named George).  Unfortunately the campaign was Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil and eventually things got so tough that a non-optimized character put the whole group in jeopardy of wipes regularly and the guy playing the tank had to drop out ... so I retired the bard and brought in a totally optimized fighter type that was a killing machine.  He too was very fun to play.

I had a rolled character with unbelievably high stats.  We rolled at the table and there he was.  I think I had, hands down, the best stats at the table.  That character was as fun as any other.  I enjoyed optimizing him, with his really good stats.  The only downside was that he ended up being so good that when the GM started writing encounters specificially to deal with HIM he ended up pulping other PCs.  Among our group that became known as "The Rob's Paladin Maneuver".  At one point an encounter obviously meant for my character brought another character (Rob's Paladin) from 83hp to -57hp in one round.  Unfortunately my guy was a dwarf and it took him until the next round to stump over there on them short little legs and resoundingly trump the rest of the encounter.  

So, of them all, the most abusively overpowered character I ever built was rolled.  Point buy, at least, gives me the choice of what I want to do ... if the rest of the group is good on power and killing, I can make a fun little goblin rogue (Grimbold the Mighty!) who makes the best of a bum deal (in that case, starting with crappy goblin adjustments) or I can make something to plug a hole ... and both are totally fun, rounded, enjoyable characters for me and everybody at the table.

I don't see where one generation type makes anybody a superior gamer.  Or where optimizing makes you a poor gamer.  Or not optimizing makes you a poor gamer.  

To summarize ...

If you're a crappy gamer, rolling stats will not force you to improve (by making the best of a bad hand, or forcing you to play something different than you usually do).  

If you're a good gamer, point buy will not make you a crappy gamer (by engendering you to take up with the devil Minmax, or letting you always play a paladin).

Real Role Players are not "better gamers" than Powergamers ... they don't even have to be different people!

All of the games I run are point buy because it suits my particular tastes (everybody comes to the game with a character ready).  It doesn't particularly make me feel like a better or worse person that I do so.  I wouldn't walk out on a game where we rolled 3d6 in order, even.  I think that would be as fun as anything else.

--fje


----------



## Hussar (Sep 24, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> With point buy a player can powergame by min maxing his stats. With random rolls one can't do that becasue they don't have control over the numbers. They can try to min max with what the dice give them, but that is never as easy as doing it with point buy.




It is exactly as easy as point buy, unless you are forcing them to take the rolls in order.

Sure, I might not have exactly the same numbers, but, they're going to be very close.  If I'm making a fighter, my highest score is going into my Str (or possibly Dex) with Con and Dex following next.  My lowest number is most likely getting dumped into Cha.  Which is precisely what Airwalkrr's Dwarf did.  This is a perfect example of a min/maxed character.  Str highest to dump stat Cha.

While the numbers may be slightly at variance, at the end of the day, a random roll character or a point buy character of equivalent value will likely look very, very close.

This is why I reject the idea that point buy leads to powergaming.  Yes, I'm sure that someone out there played a fighter with an 18 Int and a 10 Str, but, again, I'm willing to bet that they are in a vanishingly small minority.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 24, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It is exactly as easy as point buy, unless you are forcing them to take the rolls in order.
> 
> Sure, I might not have exactly the same numbers, but, they're going to be very close.




Very close isn't the same.  With point buy one can avoid useless odd stats, scores lower then 8, and have greater control over what scores they have.  Point buy is a lot more versatile.  With the rolls one has to work with six set numbers, that just isn;t true with point buy.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 24, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Very close isn't the same.  With point buy one can avoid useless odd stats, scores lower then 8, and have greater control over what scores they have.  Point buy is a lot more versatile.  With the rolls one has to work with six set numbers, that just isn;t true with point buy.




That's true.  One can.  However, one doesn't have to.  I've seen more than a few characters with odd numbered stats, although, to be fair, it doesn't happen all that often.  Stats under 8 I've never ever seen in a die rolled character because dice tend to fall off the table when that happens.    Characters who wind up with sixes IME, are pretty much automatically rerolled.  Never mind that with 4d6 drop the lowest, your odds are pretty good that all your scores are going to be 10 or higher.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 24, 2006)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> There's this undercurrent in alot of this discussion that "powergaming" and "min/maxing" are automatically evil; that you're a crappy gamer and don't really "get it" if you "powergame".  That's probably not the intent, but it's implied when it's used as an argument against something.



It might be an undercurrent, but I believe most here are talking about "powergaming" and "min/maxing" taken to extremes.  I think a little of each is quite reasonable (and in fact, I fit that mold), but taken too far is very bad.   However, if I have to put that caveat in every post, the main point gets lost quickly.

While I think there are a few posters who believe any powergaming or min/maxing is bad, I believe most here are only talking about those who take those tendancies too far.  Of course, then you get dozens of opinions on what is "too far."


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 24, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Stats under 8 I've never ever seen in a die rolled character because dice tend to fall off the table when that happens.    Characters who wind up with sixes IME, are pretty much automatically rerolled.




This is a point I've seen you make several times now. I think it is quite possible that the way your groups have been handling rolling (what I would essentially call cheating; if you are gonna call a die cocked or off the table just cuz you don't like it, why are you even rolling?) has led you to believe it creates more powerful (hence powergamed) characters. I realize the crux of your arguments hasn't been that rolled characters are too powerful, but you have said that you believe rolling encourages powergaming more than point buy.

It seems to me that when your groups roll, they are quite "generous" in the rolling method and this often results in very powerful characters with ability scores much higher than would be attainable by most point buy methods. This would suggest that consequently you have built up an association between rolled characters and over-overpowered characters.

I would put to you that when my characters roll, they actually roll and take the good with the bad. For my current campaign, one of the former players (he moved away a few months ago) had rolled a 5 for one of his ability scores. He put the 5 into Charisma, played a half-orc (a rogue no less), and pushed it to a 3. He then took a flaw that gave him -2 to any ability score and put it into Charisma. Normally, I would see this as min/maxing and tell the player to choose another flaw. But I was rather amused at the fact that touch of idiocy was essentially a guaranteed one-hit "kill" for this character (not to mention Charisma damage in general) so I allowed it. It turned out that the Charisma score of 1 was detrimental to the character on more than one occassion. Besides being hideously ugly, devoid of all social skill whatsoever, and the ubiquitous black sheep of the party, Charisma damage came up several times in his adventuring career, much to his dismay. Had we used point buy, he probably would have had a 6 Charisma and such situations would not have threatened him quite so much.

Anyway, my point is that my players must keep the rolls they receive. Pulling a lemming is deeply frowned upon (as it should be in any group of mature gamers). If you use a rolling method that is too forgiving then of course you will develop the perception that rolled characters tend to be too powerful.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 24, 2006)

> but you have said that you believe rolling encourages powergaming more than point buy.




No, that is incorrect.  I never said that.  What I said was that rolling and point buy equally encourage powergaming.  The fact that your prime candidate is purely powergamed pretty much shows my point.  People will put their highest stat in the place that most benefits them.  That's pretty much universal.  I never said that "rolled characters tend to be powerful".  However, the fact that three of your four characters, in your own words, are 35+ point buy characters would tend to support this.

I'm sure there are groups out there that enforce one set of rolls and force people to play what they rolled.  Me, I would never force a player to play a character he didn't like.


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 24, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> No, that is incorrect.  I never said that.  What I said was that rolling and point buy equally encourage powergaming.  The fact that your prime candidate is purely powergamed pretty much shows my point.  People will put their highest stat in the place that most benefits them.  That's pretty much universal.  I never said that "rolled characters tend to be powerful".  However, the fact that three of your four characters, in your own words, are 35+ point buy characters would tend to support this.
> 
> I'm sure there are groups out there that enforce one set of rolls and force people to play what they rolled.  Me, I would never force a player to play a character he didn't like.




Ooops. My bad. I just went back and checked and it was another poster who had said that.

At any rate, I'd like to talk semantics for just a second. I think it is important to distinguish here what you mean by "encourage powergaming." I think it is very clear that point buy encourages powergaming, at least in the sense of character planning, more than rolling. That is hardly even arguable because point buy is by definition not random and therefore more subject to character choice, and hence planning, while rolling is by definition random and therefore limits your character planning options to those available from the roll. For instance, with a point buy, you can plan to have X feat by Y level because you can set your starting scores at the minimum necessary to get that feat by that level. If said feat is a prerequisite for a prestige class, then you will be able to know you can take Z prestige class by YY level. And so on.

Other posters have commented on the fact that players often plan their characters from level 1 to 20 in 3e and I think that is often true. Perhaps point buy does not encourage munchkinism (that is, exploiting loopholes in the game, favoring numbers over everything else, etc.), but it certainly does promote character planning, which I think is at least an element of powergaming.

And a quick word on powergaming too. I consider myself a powergamer, but only in the sense that I tend to optimize certain parts of a character. However, I rarely do so to play to the character's strengths, rather I build characters with strengths that are unusual for their character type. For instance, I play a Living Greyhawk character with a 16 Strength, a 16 Con, a 13 Int, Power Attack and Improved Toughness. Guessed the character class yet? It's wizard? 7th level wizard and no other classes. The character happens to be a very good fighter, although not as good of a fighter as an actual fighter would be, but very good nonetheless, and he can still cast his highest level spells using a headband of intellect +2. So the character is powergamed for fighting, but as a wizard, not a fighter. Many of my characters tend to follow a similar theme because I find that fun to play. This has little to do with the point buy argument. I am simply saying that I powergame to an extent and I do not consider it a bad thing. But there is a mentality among some players to create an invincible character (usually newer players IME if that can be believed) and that is usually based on twinking out every little bit of the rules and finding every possible angle to cover every single contingency. Such a thing makes the game unfun because then it really isn't much of a game. Your character has already prepared for every contingency so that randomness doesn't affect you. With things like the luck and destiny domain and fatespinner levels, you can even prevent the occassional '1' from setting you back, and as long as you only fail your saving throws on a 1. As a DM, what is the point for me to run a game when the numbers already dictate that my players will win and they don't even need to rely on thinking clearly to achieve that goal. Even the BBEG of this dungeon can't hit the fighter's AC without a 20. *Yawn* I guess you guys just win. There isn't much of a point. Point buy encourages the type of character planning that leads to such "invincible" characters because it makes character planning easier and more precise. Of course that doesn't mean you can't plan with rolled scores, but rolled scores do not always give you exactly what you want. When they do it's awesome, and your character is awesome. That's fine because such characters are rare. But when the rolls don't go your way, you have to come up with a build that is probably less than optimal and probably requires you to wait a little longer than you'd like in some cases to pick up a certain feat or prestige class.


----------



## wayne62682 (Sep 24, 2006)

Jeez, with all the arguments I'm tempted to say let's all just use the Elite Array and be done with it.. since after all the game was balanced around that


----------



## drothgery (Sep 24, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> This is a point I've seen you make several times now. I think it is quite possible that the way your groups have been handling rolling (what I would essentially call cheating; if you are gonna call a die cocked or off the table just cuz you don't like it, why are you even rolling?) has led you to believe it creates more powerful (hence powergamed) characters. I realize the crux of your arguments hasn't been that rolled characters are too powerful, but you have said that you believe rolling encourages powergaming more than point buy.




I think it's human nature to favor rerolling bad rolls more than good ones when there are judgement calls to be made. And unless one does all of one's rolling on an electronic device, or maybe in a dice tray, dice are going to sometimes land places where judgement calls must be made.

I've never -- in multiple groups in multiple states run by people who never knew each other -- played in a game where the method for rolling stats wasn't somewhat more generous than the default 4d6 drop lowest, arrange to taste. The groups I played 2e with in college allowed ones on the die to be rerolled. The group I play with now allows three sets of rolls straight-out. Both had far higher standards for a "hopeless" character than the default, especially if most of the players ended up with extraordinarily good rolls.

Both of those effects mean typical rolled characters, in my experience, aren't 29-point characters (which probability based on straight-up rolling would indicate), they're 32+ point characters. Now, that's fine; there's nothing wrong with high stats (there is something wrong with big stat disparities among characters -- that's why I'm a point buy advocate). But it does mean the possibility of low stats isn't a good defense for why rolling is good.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 24, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Stats under 8 I've never ever seen in a die rolled character because dice tend to fall off the table when that happens.    Characters who wind up with sixes IME, are pretty much automatically rerolled.




Ah, see when I'm talking about rolling I'm refering to honest rolling and not what I would consider border line cheating of rerolls and dice getting knocked off the table.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 24, 2006)

For me, all of the rolling "systems" I've played (again, multiple years over multiple states and multiple groups, from the first days of 2nd ed to today) ended up not being perfectly "true" to what was in the book.

My most powerfully statted character, that particular group had a Roll 4d6 Eight Times, Reroll Ones, Drop Lowest Die, Drop Two Lowest Totals ... so, really, all of the PCs ended up about 33-35 points and my guy was at least in the 40s ... 18, 17, 17, 15, 14, 14 ... 63 points?  Ftr/Pal/DD.  I probably should have played a monk with that array, just to suck it up a little for everybody else.

I want to play a paladin ... I just used Irony's dice server to serve up a normal roll (4d6x6, drop lowest) and got these numbers ... 15, 8, 12, 14, 15, 9 ... that's 27 points.  
15 str
8 Dex
14 Con
9 Int
12 Wis
15 Cha

Now, 25 point buy (what should be an equitable point buy)
14 Str
10 Dex
14 Con
9 Int
12 Wis
14 Cha

Is the second character more powergamed?  He's got fewer points, but +6 instead of +5 in total stat bonus!  I'd play both of them.  At 1st level the second character has an edge because I could "do more" with my fewer points by buying evens instead of odds ... at 4th level the rolled paladin breaks ahead and stays there through the rest of the career.  The second character really is more mediocre.  At 8th level I'll have probably spent my 2 adds in Con or Cha to reach 16 in one stat while the first will have blossomed into two 16s.  I'd, honestly, RATHER have the first character than the second character, since no amount of evening and finangling will get me 2 more points to play with.

I don't get the value judgements being made.  If starting at 1st level would I be a better person to choose the rolled character?  What if I were coming into a game at 8th level, would I still be a better person for choosing the rolled character?

If playing 28 point buy, would I be a better person to volunteer to take 27 points just for the sake of real-roleplayer manliness?  Am I superior if I make half my stats odd numbers?  

Seriously, where's the moral value located at?

--fje


----------



## Crothian (Sep 24, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Seriously, where's the moral value located at?




Not everything has a moral value.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 24, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Not everything has a moral value.




Many people use arguments like "increases powergaming" as moralist arguments against point buy.

I don't see it, morally or logically.

--fje


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 25, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Many people use arguments like "increases powergaming" as moralist arguments against point buy.
> 
> I don't see it, morally or logically.
> 
> --fje




I don't think anyone has every said "increases powergaming." My contention is that it encouages powergaming. It by no means guarantees or increases it in an absolute sense, merely provides yet one more encouragement to the player to plan out his character from day 1.

Incidentally, I will be using the organic roll method from the DMG for my next campaign, although players will probably be allowed to permanently spend action points to reroll an ability or swap a pair of abilities.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Sep 25, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone has every said "increases powergaming." My contention is that it encouages powergaming. It by no means guarantees or increases it in an absolute sense, merely provides yet one more encouragement to the player to plan out his character from day 1.




First of all, 'encouraging' and 'increasing' are essentially the same thing, provided you're talking about groups of people and not individuals.  'Guaranteeing' is in no way the same thing as either 'encouraging' or 'increasing.'  By contrast, 'increasing in an absolute sense' is pretty much true of anything that is 'encouraged,' provided you use a large enough sample size.  If you 'encourage' something, you will 'increase' it if you 'encourage' enough people because there will invevitably be those who respond to the 'encouragement.'

Second, what does planning a character have to do with powergaming?  You can play a character who will suck horribly at every level, or a character who will be really powerful at every level.  You can advance a character impulsively who will suck horribly (and this will often happen with certain classes, especially fighter), and you can advance a character impulsively who will be on par with a planned character (provided the impulsively advanced character is a divine spellcaster).

Planning or not planning is a playstyle issue that largely boils down to whether one's expectations are primarily derived from the D&D of yore (or D&D taught by players whose expectations derive from same) or from almost any other game (pen and paper or electronic), book or other media.



			
				airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Incidentally, I will be using the organic roll method from the DMG for my next campaign, although players will probably be allowed to permanently spend action points to reroll an ability or swap a pair of abilities.




So in addition to completely basing the power level of the PCs on randomness, you also allow them to (largely randomly) nerf themselves forever in yet another way!  I'm sure there's enjoyment to be gotten from this, just as I'm sure there's enjoyment to be gotten from 'grinding' in a MMORPG; what, exactly that enjoyment is, remains a mystery. :\


----------



## Cedric (Sep 25, 2006)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> So in addition to completely basing the power level of the PCs on randomness, you also allow them to (largely randomly) nerf themselves forever in yet another way!  I'm sure there's enjoyment to be gotten from this, just as I'm sure there's enjoyment to be gotten from 'grinding' in a MMORPG; what, exactly that enjoyment is, remains a mystery. :\




I'll take that over the cookie cutter repetition of playing the same stat block over and over. Sure, if you're new to the game or don't play that often...that's fine. But I've been playing long enough to have run through just about every concept that reasonably comes to mind. 

Because of the years invested and the experience...as time goes by I appreciate the random aspects of the game more and more. 

When I want static character generation, I play a different RPG.


----------



## xnrdcorex (Sep 25, 2006)

Isn't the "point" of point-buy so that all characters within the party can be on equal grounds as far as stats? Everyone will know its fair and can have fun. That way one person wont end up with all 8s and another with all 18s. That may be fun or funny to roleplay once but its stupid if it happens a few times and, well, we're playing games here, games reqiure balance. Point buy balances the players with each other so their can be no jealousy/animosity/anger between them out of game/in-game in regards to one more unimportant thing.

At my game table there are allot of arguments. Good ones and bad ones. In character and out. If one person was blessed with way better stats than other people he would just be far superior to them and have not only a combat advantage but a role-playing advantage. Stats=power. I do not believe you should allow one player to "randomly" obtain vast amounts more than th-e others. 

That's why point-buy is great. It makes it even and fun for everyone because they know they started on the same even grounds.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 25, 2006)

IMHO, both sides have their merit, but we always use rolling in our games.

Point buy just adds to the "computer game" feel of modern D&D editions - more like you are in a selection screen at the startup of a PC game. Rolling is more "organic" to me. We always have the caveat that if rolling produces a truly awful character, you can reroll. Each DM has his own definition of what consitutes awful.

But that radom element also means that a player may get lucky and roll up a character of truly heroic proportions. Other players may be a little envious, but a good DM can still run a game that shares the spotlight equally.

It also helps prevent "cookie cutter" characters, where a particular player will find the point buy or array that suits his ideal character concept and then flog it to death with every subsequent character he creates.

"Oh, another fighter with 18 STR and 18 CON, but 6 everything else. Great. You do remember how your characters keep failing every Will and Reflex save, right?"

I have absolutely no problem with point buy or array, but we will stick with rolling in our gaming group.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2006)

xnrdcorex said:
			
		

> If one person was blessed with way better stats than other people he would just be far superior to them and have not only a combat advantage but a role-playing advantage. Stats=power.




How do stats and power give a person an advantage of role playing?


----------



## Cedric (Sep 25, 2006)

I keep reading these examples (when stats are rolled) of the group having a character with all bad stats and at least one character with "straight 18s". 

I realize that both are exaggerations...however, in my experience, rolling for stats (depending on the method you use) has seldom produced a huge power disparrity between the characters. 

Yes, there will be differences, not everyone would have the same total if you added them up "point buy" style. But the characters are more often than not close enough that no one feels  left out and no one just takes over. 

It may happen now and then, but that just adds to the flavor. Now and then you get the character with pretty nice stats, now and then you get the character with the so-so stats. (Most groups will not make a player take abyssmal stats). 

So your argument that someone always has great stats or someone always has awful stats is a myth. It just doesn't work that way, at least not in my 15+ years of very active gaming. 

But with Point Buy (unless you use a ridiculously high point buy amount)  you can be certain that those little happenstances of luck that sometimes add a bit of flavor to your games via the random stats...won't happen. Everyone will be equally mediocre, good or great ...depending on the point total you select.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 25, 2006)

But is power disparity better?  I mean ... the argument states that there's no real disparity, but that the disparity that exists in the "luck" adds "flavor"?  

I've BEEN the guy with the great stats.  They weren't all 18s, but they were plenty high ... and the disparity REALLY DID EXIST.  Everybody there who played in that game agreed that my character, and the things the GM was trying to do to "challenge" that character, directly led to the death of another character in the game.  He, essentially, took a bullet meant for Das UberDwarfen and got smoked.  

Heck, the GM had already purposefully nerfed my character by giving me a special background "relic weapon" made from obscure Forgotten Realms metal that cost an absolutely unbelievable sum.  Left to me, I'd have taken a +1 Holy Waraxe ... I got a +1 Keen Warhammer that hit as silver and cost the same amount.  (Some ability from FR that's keen for bludgeoning).

I never see rolling systems that really have a regular "average" with a benign chance for "luck".  People always seem to hedge their bets in the rolling circle ... mulligans and hand-tilty-definitions for "hopeless" ... rerolling 1s or rolling two sets and taking the one you want or rolling an extra group and trading in or 5d6-drop-2.  Making sure everybody has the same point-total as the guy that rolled the best.  Not even "Oh, it fell off the table" cheating, which I've seen blatantly allowed at tables as well ... and, of course, there are always those crappy players that just Ho-Hum along with their not-the-best-at-the-table character and let him get killed off as quickly as possible to roll up another one hoping for Das Ubercharacter.

It's just human nature that, rolling, everybody there is hoping he's the guy that gets "lucky" and gets to play the character who is better than everybody else's character for that campaign.  Those bet-hedging rolling systems lets everybody feel like they're special ... and usually somebody is ... not as big a disparity as my character had, which has, I freely admit, happened only one time ... but there's usually AT LEAST one guy who has, added up point-style, 3-4 more points than everybody else.

It would be an interesting thing, I think, to have numbers in a hat ... like -3, +1, -1, +2 or whatever, and an equal number of +/-0 ... and play point buy and everybody gets to draw out of the hat and their point total is adjusted by their luck "at the hat".  Same general idea.  Luck=Flavor, right?  

I still maintain that a crappy player is a crappy player with dice or point buy.  And that a good player is going to have fun and be successfull doing whatever.

For a weekend bash-fest dungeon-plunge I think it would be great to play a totally randomized game.  Nobody gets any choice about their character ... before the game the GM makes pregens with strict 3d6-in-order and rolls randomly for treasure for each character.  Then they're numbered on the back, placed face down on the table before the session and everybody draws a folded piece of paper from a hat with a number.  Especially if there are at least 50% more characters than players so that there's bound to be a gem or two and a stinker or two.  

--fje


----------



## Cedric (Sep 25, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> I never see rolling systems that really have a regular "average" with a benign chance for "luck".  People always seem to hedge their bets in the rolling circle ... mulligans and hand-tilty-definitions for "hopeless" ... rerolling 1s or rolling two sets and taking the one you want or rolling an extra group and trading in or 5d6-drop-2.  Making sure everybody has the same point-total as the guy that rolled the best.  Not even "Oh, it fell off the table" cheating, which I've seen blatantly allowed at tables as well ... and, of course, there are always those crappy players that just Ho-Hum along with their not-the-best-at-the-table character and let him get killed off as quickly as possible to roll up another one hoping for Das Ubercharacter.--fje




If you have to use a certain method of character generation to regulate the behavior of your players, then you have problems that go way above and beyond Point Buy vs. Rolling. 

My proclamations in favor of rolling for stats assume that you play with a group of honest, skilled, respectable players who are able to enjoy the game without trying to create unreasonable advantages for themselves. It also helps a lot if they are able to enjoy the game from a position of advantage or disadvantage. 

If you're only going to play with a group a few times, don't know the players well or have reason to doubt their honesty or ability, by all means use methods such as point buy to try to provide an atmosphere of honesty.


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 25, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Everyone will be equally mediocre, good or great ...depending on the point total you select.




Everyone's stats, you mean.  Putting the emphasis on the character, where it belongs.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 25, 2006)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Everyone's stats, you mean.  Putting the emphasis on the character, where it belongs.




Many people seem to be taking the standpoint that stats matter more than anything...and using that position as an argument against allowing rolled stats and requiring point buy.


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 25, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> I've BEEN the guy with the great stats.  They weren't all 18s, but they were plenty high ... and the disparity REALLY DID EXIST.  Everybody there who played in that game agreed that my character, and the things the GM was trying to do to "challenge" that character, directly led to the death of another character in the game.  He, essentially, took a bullet meant for Das UberDwarfen and got smoked.




I can't say I've been the guy with the crappy stats, but that's because the DM had me reroll.

TWELVE times.  Twelve sets of 4d6 drop the low reroll double 1s before I got a set he found acceptable.  (And Charisma was still 8.)

In addition to the other reasons I've stated, I like point buy because it cuts the DM out of tweaking my character.  I would've played set #1, high roll of 13 and all.  By set roll #12, I just wanted him to tell me what my stats were and go away.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 25, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Many people seem to be taking the standpoint that stats matter more than anything...and using that position as an argument against allowing rolled stats and requiring point buy.




If being a good roleplayer is what's most important, then why are point-buy characters less cool than rolled?  

Some people like one over the other.  It's a personal taste thing.

I, generally, prefer point buy.  But if the game is fun and the people playing are cool we could deal cards or read tea leaves to get stats.

--fje


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2006)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Everyone's stats, you mean.  Putting the emphasis on the character, where it belongs.




Players place emphasis on Character if they choose.  I don't think rolling or point buy really metter in doing that.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 25, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> If being a good roleplayer is what's most important, then why are point-buy characters less cool than rolled?




I wouldn't use the term more or less cool. I would just sum it up as a general discontent with repetitive, cookie-cutter stats. Once, twice...fine, after that it gets old. 



			
				HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Some people like one over the other.  It's a personal taste thing.




Absolutely agreed. I always offer players an option for point buy if they want that. 



			
				HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> I, generally, prefer point buy.  But if the game is fun and the people playing are cool we could deal cards or read tea leaves to get stats.




Definitely. I've used a deck of cards (ala Deadwood), dice, assigned stats, stat auctions, etc. 

Cedric

--fje[/QUOTE]


----------



## PallidPatience (Sep 25, 2006)

For every statement denying the importance of ability scores in playability, I'll largely agree... when it comes to physical ability scores.

Low mental ability scores simply defy such statements, as far as I'm concerned, however. Roleplayed correctly, Int or Wis scores of 6 can be crippling, as far as survivability is concerned. Besides that, no one wants to play the guy who doesn't know better than to run into the pit, or pull the lever, or push the button. Being stupid and too foolish to think things through makes a character completely unplayable, as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, that's just my opinion. Physical stats will be my dump for the most part, as long as I can play the character that's smart enough and wise enough to not be in the most dangerous place.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Sep 25, 2006)

I think another part of the reason I tend towards point buy is the simple fact of how much stats change both my perception of a character and the way they're played. For example, my wizard with poor str dex and con was always a physically weak person. He's very sensitive to how close people are to him about that, and he has a lot of his early spells devoted to making up for his deficiencies. He also tries to make sure everyone understands how important he is, since his childhood was filled wih a lot of being worthless (he was too weak and sickly to help with chores, and mostly was watched by his sister even when he wasn't ill). 

Given this, it's really hard for me to make random stats work with characters that are already in my head. I'm usually discussing characters and how they'll fit into the game and into the party for weeks before hand. It's often quite hard for me to deal with taking those characters and looking at a set of rolls that doesn't fit and trying to mash the two together. What usually ends up happening is that I sigh sadly and make a different character. 

Though I am still pushing for a game of 3D6 in order.  

So, at least for me, stats matter in the top 2 important aspects of the character that go on the character sheet. It's right up there with class and ahead of race.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 25, 2006)

ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> it's really hard for me to make random stats work with characters that are already in my head.



Same here. And I *much* prefer to start with character concepts, flesh them out, and _eventually_ roll the stats / choose the stats / whatever. "Much" doesn't quite carry the emphasis needed though. 

This is certainly one reason for the divide: there are players who prefer to come up with characters, then have stats that (hopefully) represent aspects of that character; and there are players who prefer to see what the stats themselves determine along character lines.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 25, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> This is certainly one reason for the divide: there are players who prefer to come up with characters, then have stats that (hopefully) represent aspects of that character; and there are players who prefer to see what the stats themselves determine along character lines.



"Prefer" doesn't result in a divide. 

"Think it is superior, and that everyone who doesn't do it this way is playing the game wrong" results in a divide.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 25, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> "Prefer" doesn't result in a divide.
> 
> "Think it is superior, and that everyone who doesn't do it this way is playing the game wrong" results in a divide.



No, actually, what I posted reads just fine, and makes perfect sense, as is. Thanks.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 25, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Same here. And I *much* prefer to start with character concepts, flesh them out, and _eventually_ roll the stats / choose the stats / whatever. "Much" doesn't quite carry the emphasis needed though.
> 
> This is certainly one reason for the divide: there are players who prefer to come up with characters, then have stats that (hopefully) represent aspects of that character; and there are players who prefer to see what the stats themselves determine along character lines.




I would agree that this is one significant reason for the divide. I would be in that second category. At any one time I may have dozens of tenuous character concepts floating around in my brain. Once I roll stats and know how I can assign my stats, I'll start weighing which of those character concepts is going to get the nod. 

Some of those concepts may work well in a point buy game with little variance between stats....but many won't. 

There are times when I'll sit on a concept for maybe years while I wait for the right rolls to come along to make the character flourish. 

I'm playing one of those right now. A strictly melee character, part Barbarian and part Fighter, with a 14 int and 16 wisdom. 

I've no intention of taking any classes, prestige classes or the like that rely on those stats, but this allows me the chance to legitimately roleplay the character as being very, very different than your average step in and slug something character. 

I suppose I could have roleplayed him that way after having assigned him a 10 int and 12 wisdom...but I won't do that. Doesn't fit the character. Or, I could have tanked his physical stats, relying on rage to bring them back up and had nice mental stats so I could roleplay him that way...but again, doesn't work. I imagine the character as being physically imposing and capable. A naturally skilled warrior. *shrugs*

ymmv


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Sep 25, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I would agree that this is one significant reason for the divide. I would be in that second category. At any one time I may have dozens of tenuous character concepts floating around in my brain. Once I roll stats and know how I can assign my stats, I'll start weighing which of those character concepts is going to get the nod.
> 
> Some of those concepts may work well in a point buy game with little variance between stats....but many won't.
> 
> ...




That's a pretty good philosophy there. How often do you get to play? How long do the games last? I'm primarally a DM, and I think I've gotten to play three times in the last 7 years. And one of those games only lasted 2 sessions. 

The randomly rolled wizard above was the non Point Buy one that lasted for a while. But my DM was also a wussy when it came to kililng people, so getting a new character via accidental death was right out. The result was that I spent almost a year playing a character I wasn't really enjoying that much, who somehow the DM decided was story critical, beffore I decided to leave the game. Then I was offered a chance to roll up a new character. 

Also, another question: When do you think stats become noticably above normal?

I've noticed a tendancy in the people that I've played with here who were "hardcore" D&D 2E players. They all tended to view a 14 as mediocre, and only really start thinking of a stat as above average at 16. And even then, a 16 is the minimum in "Strong" for a strong character. 

If you start playing with the idea that a 12 is noticably above normal, than a 14 is good enough to be a 'pretty strong guy', and a 16 is the 'strongest guy in town' and an 18 is 'amazing carnival strongman'. And that sort of mindset changes what stats feel bland. 

But again, I admire your patience to keep waiting for the stats you need. : )


----------



## Cedric (Sep 25, 2006)

ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> That's a pretty good philosophy there. How often do you get to play? How long do the games last? I'm primarally a DM, and I think I've gotten to play three times in the last 7 years. And one of those games only lasted 2 sessions.
> 
> The randomly rolled wizard above was the non Point Buy one that lasted for a while. But my DM was also a wussy when it came to kililng people, so getting a new character via accidental death was right out. The result was that I spent almost a year playing a character I wasn't really enjoying that much, who somehow the DM decided was story critical, beffore I decided to leave the game. Then I was offered a chance to roll up a new character.
> 
> ...




I'm playing less now than I've played in years, only about once every 3 weeks (thankfully I've found a great group of guys to play with), but I'd like to play once a week if I could.

Still though, I'm on my 4th D&D character in the past year. If you only rarely get a chance to play or haven't played that much, I could see the allure for point buy. You can guarantee that you'll be able to have a playable character who can fill most roles you might want to tackle. 

As to what constitutes a high score...

If you cut your teeth on 1e and 2e (like I did), then yes, I think there is a natural instinct to not think of stats as being high until they hit the 16-18 mark. However, I'm completely happy with a 14 in everything except for my primary casting stat if I'm a full caster (in which case, I prefer at least a 15 so I can cast 9th level spells by the time I'm eligible for them). 

I don't think stats become notably above normal in 3.0 and 3.5 pretty much ever. I mean, if I am a warrior who had a 15 strength at character creation. By 20th level I could have spent 5 points to make that a 20, read a tome (or used two rings of three wishes) to make it a 25, then put on a belt to make it a 31. That's not "that" much more impressive than the 34 I'd have if I started with an 18 strength. 

There are so many things that add to stats in 3.x that high stats themselves are diluted, eventually everyone has access to them in all but a low magic game. 

If I had a belt of (storm) giant strength in 2e, I was leaps and bounds ahead of the fighter without one. Perhaps almost an order of magnitude difference. 

Today, it's +3 to attack, +3 to damage on an opponent who may have 150 (or more) hit points *shrugs* (my point there being that hit point values, especially at higher levels, are much higher in 3.x...especially once you add some class levels). 

As to patience, I hope to never run out of character concepts. The day I am asked to roll up a D&D character and realize there is nothing I want to play...well, nevermind, I don't want to face that day. Imagination in life, is everything.

Cedric


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 25, 2006)

I, and as far as I know my players, never go into a game with a particular character in mind.  I decide that after I roll stats.  I guess that is why we always do rolling, since it never closes off a character concept.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2006)

See, now I'm the opposite and always have been.  I have a concept in mind, even if its just, "Hey, I'd like to play an X" and work from there.  When we rolled dice, it worked, and it just works a smidgeon easier with point buy.


----------



## Dracorat (Sep 25, 2006)

We use 28 point buy and the average HP method.

Everyone resists it at first, but by the time they get to level six or seven, they usually start making statements that they would never go back to rolling.

Point buy does encourage power gaming (IMO), but as long as people aren't being munchkinist about it, that also means that it also increases satisfaction.


----------



## kenobi65 (Sep 25, 2006)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> Point buy does encourage power gaming (IMO)




See, I have the exact opposite opinion.

I have a few players, across the groups I DM for, that prefer rolling stats.  A small part of that is, I think, nostalgia (they've been playing since 1E days), but they have told me that the reason they want to roll is for the chance at "really high scores".


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 25, 2006)

I usually have a vague concept in mind when rolling up a character, but the concept will usually work regardless of the stats I get.  For example, if I'm thinking of a bossy, officious mage to whom rank and status is everything, I can play that on any stats.  That said, I'm well aware that if my concept is something that requires high stats (ex.: 1e Ranger, Monk, etc.) then there's a very real chance it ain't gonna happen...and so I'll dream up something else.

This 1-20 planning idea borders on ridiculous - it makes little or no allowance for in-game changes or disruptions, and if the player makes a big deal about the work involved in said planning it puts a silent obligation on the DM to let the character survive...yuck...

And to whoever posted that 3e introduced choices rather than privileges, bravo! 

Lanefan


----------



## Cedric (Sep 25, 2006)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> Point buy does encourage power gaming (IMO), but as long as people aren't being munchkinist about it, that also means that it also increases satisfaction.




I don't think either method encourages power gaming. Each method in its own way can help facilitate power gaming. However, ultimately a power gamer, is a power gamer. They will work within the establish rules (as far as they can stretch them) in order to squeeze out every advantage they can for their character. 

Some will do it shamelessly and be proud of it.

Some will do it defensively and adamantly point out that they are just trying to be as effective as possible with their character. 

Some will make some small aspect of their character sub-optimal to salve their conscience. 

However, regardless what they do, they are not suddenly going to become a power gamer because of the character generation method in place.


----------



## Dracorat (Sep 25, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I don't think either method encourages power gaming. Each method in its own way can help facilitate power gaming. However, ultimately a power gamer, is a power gamer. They will work within the establish rules (as far as they can stretch them) in order to squeeze out every advantage they can for their character.




Not that doing so is necessarily bad. The degree of bending and stretching is key. Keep reading...



> Some will do it shamelessly and be proud of it.




There is nothing to be ashamed of unless you are trying to break mechanics of the game. (Powergaming vs. Munchkinism)



> Some will do it defensively and adamantly point out that they are just trying to be as effective as possible with their character.




Completely reasonable IMO.



> Some will make some small aspect of their character sub-optimal to salve their conscience.




And if it does salvage their conscience, then they probably succeeded.



> However, regardless what they do, they are not suddenly going to become a power gamer because of the character generation method in place.




I agree, however, the possibilities and ease of opportunity do lend themselves toward specific methods (including some of the dice rolling methods).


----------



## Cedric (Sep 26, 2006)

I absolutely agree that there is nothing wrong with some reasonable power gaming. In fact, 3.x very much encourages it, imo. 

I have often found that once in a blue moon if you let your players go with truly egregious stats (read, egregiously high, not low)...that they'll get a lot of it out of their system. 

They'll also discover that I wildly alter encounters in order to keep them challenging for the players. I disregard the ECL, LA, CR system and pretty much just assign xp as I feel necessary. Also, if I think the players can handle it, I'll try to throw just "enough" at them to keep them on the edge, but not TPK. 

I don't mind fudging some die rolls if I felt I overdid, or change the encounter some. But I avoid blatant deus ex machina (no last minute, surprise NPC calvary charge). 

But, if my players do something silly, ill thought out, poorly prepared or just stupid...I'll kill 'em in a heartbeat.


----------



## dracolich40 (Sep 26, 2006)

You've all got good points. The way I look at it is, set two ways of doing it. If the person doesn't like the point-buy value, tell them that if they don't want to use those points then let them roll. If they don't like their stats, let them do a few sets. Usually, in my case, those campaigns work out the best for me. I'm not disagreeing with you guys, just posting my opinion.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 26, 2006)

> I absolutely agree that there is nothing wrong with some reasonable power gaming. In fact, 3.x very much encourages it, imo.




Why the 3.x caveat?  Every edition encouraged high stats.  Heck, you got bonus xp for them in earlier editions.  Isn't that pretty much the ultimate encouragement?

Other than that, I agree with Cedric.


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 26, 2006)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> See, I have the exact opposite opinion.
> 
> I have a few players, across the groups I DM for, that prefer rolling stats.  A small part of that is, I think, nostalgia (they've been playing since 1E days), but they have told me that the reason they want to roll is for the chance at "really high scores".




I just don't see that as powergaming though. Powergaming has to do with building a character without weaknesses. Hoping for a character with good scores entails a risk that your character will have merely adequate scores. True powergamers (like myself) recognize that stability is the key to power. From a powergaming perspective, I would rather create a character from a 25 point buy than roll 4d6 drop lowest and arrange as desired because it gives me total control on where my abilities go and it nixes the possibility of a suboptimal character. In other words, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.


----------



## Kem (Sep 26, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why the 3.x caveat?  Every edition encouraged high stats.  Heck, you got bonus xp for them in earlier editions.  Isn't that pretty much the ultimate encouragement?
> 
> Other than that, I agree with Cedric.




AND a high stat was the only way to get a good bonus.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 26, 2006)

> I just don't see that as powergaming though. Powergaming has to do with building a character without weaknesses.




I disagree with this.  Powergaming has to do with building a character which minimizes weaknesses.  A subtle but important distinction.  If my character is all about teh hack, then I don't care if I have a 6 cha, because it isn't going to come up.  With die rolled, there's every chance that I will roll much higher than 25 points, even with a single low stat, and if I roll really badly, the DM will likely let me do it over.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 26, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why the 3.x caveat?  Every edition encouraged high stats.  Heck, you got bonus xp for them in earlier editions.  Isn't that pretty much the ultimate encouragement?
> 
> Other than that, I agree with Cedric.




My point was that 3.x encourages power gaming. It's no more guilty than previous editions of encouraging high stats, other than providing numerous means to attain high stats, permanently even. 

However the multitude of feats, prestige classes, class abilities and the like encourage power gaming, imo. I don't mean this at all as a bad thing. Merely pointing out that the mechanics of 3.x truly flourish when players take great care to optimize their characters. Additionally, there are numerous paths to optimization. 

To my thinking, this makes 3.x much more power gamer friendly than previous versions of D&D.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 26, 2006)

This is powergaming, nor are we in it.



Personally, I think the "encouragement to powergaming" could also be called ... "having options".  Previously, honestly, earlier versions probably encouraged more "bad behavior" about stats than this edition primarily BECAUSE there were fewer options ... You were a "Wizard" with high or low stats ... and you stayed a wizard, with high or low stats, for the next three years on your way to 12th level.

I mean, in my personal gaming experience, I've certainly seen fewer "mysteriously high-statted" characters in 3.X than, say, 2nd.  I saw alot of fighters with 18/00 Strength ... far and away many more than is statistically POSSIBLE given the sample size.  

Earlier editions, there really wasn't any "point" in playing, say, a 14 Strength Fighter as opposed to an 18/00 Str Fighter ... even if that 14Str guy had higher Charisma and Intelligence and Wisdom.  Other than "roleplaying" ... which you can do with any character.  Now you can build an effective multiclass, or you can qualify for feats that require Charisma or Wisdom or Intelligence that you couldn't otherwise, that makes the character different from other characters of the same class.

It might be powergaming, but it's more fun to me than saying:  "This fighter, with his lower strength and higher intelligence than my last guy, Smashdor Ironthews, will be more intellectual about combat ... I swing ... I miss ... I swing ... I hit."

Now, at least, I can take Dodge and Improved Disarm and Combat Expertise and also get some mechanical variation to go with my roleplaying of Smartdor Brassthews, the fighter with 14 Strength.

--fje


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Sep 26, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> This 1-20 planning idea borders on ridiculous




Not that I'm disagreeing - but what does that have to do with Rolling vs Point Buy?  The only difference is if you can plan out the 20 levels before or after stats are officially created.  Pre-plannig of levels can happen with either method.


----------



## Darrell (Sep 26, 2006)

Hmmm...

Without having read the entire thread (only the first few pages), I'm moderately interested in this discussion, as I've all but abandoned both the rolling _and _ the point-buy methods.  

In the games I run now, we use the "Elite Array" method for stats (often with no racial modifiers).  Everybody starts on an even keel, and can tailor stats as they rise in level.  So far, my players seem to enjoy this more than either of the other methods.

Regards,
Darrell King


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 27, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I disagree with this.  Powergaming has to do with building a character which minimizes weaknesses.  A subtle but important distinction.




Actually, I'll give you that. To even further refine the idea, what we are really talking about are _insignificant weaknesses_. The fighter with 6 Charisma has a weakness alright, but it is insignificant compared to his role in the party. None of his class abilities (feats, use of armor and weapons, etc.) are based on Charisma so his weakness will rarely have a negative impact on his character.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> With die rolled, there's every chance that I will roll much higher than 25 points, even with a single low stat,




Now it is my turn to make a distinction.  There is a _good_ chance it will be more _quantitatively_, but it is not a foregone conclusion, nor is it a guarantee that the allocation will be optimal. If you get two 18s and four 8s, you will have a bit of trouble building a balanced character, but with point buy you can at least nominally cover all your bases without letting any of your significant ability scores be abyssmal. And let us not forget how many complaints there have been about "unplayable" characters after rolling. With so many complaints about "worthless" or "no-fun-to-play" characters, the risk of getting a low roll must definitely be real. Characters who like rolling are risk-takers, not min/maxers, although I suppose min/maxing and powergaming are not synonymous. So I guess I meant to say that min/maxers will choose point buy over rolling because it minimalizes risk, which is what min/maxing is all about. The bird in the hand being worth two in the bush analogy surfaces again here.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> and if I roll really badly, the DM will likely let me do it over.




As I've stated before, this is apparently an idiosyncrasity of your gaming group(s) and is by no means a universal standard. If I am min/maxing my character, I do not enjoy gambling my character's effectiveness on the DM's roulette table of mercy. I do not allow "do-overs" in my campaign and I have heard others say the same, although admittedly there are several who also do things the way you and your group(s) do.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Sep 27, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Personally, I think the "encouragement to powergaming" could also be called ... "having options".  Previously, honestly, earlier versions probably encouraged more "bad behavior" about stats than this edition primarily BECAUSE there were fewer options ... You were a "Wizard" with high or low stats ... and you stayed a wizard, with high or low stats, for the next three years on your way to 12th level.




D&D is kind of weird about it's options. The way I describe it is that, when asked "Can I do X?", D&D says "No, unless you do..." A good example is feat selection. The typical way to get a good feat is to have a stat of at least X, and take two other feats (which may also have stat requirements). This is shown perfectly in 3.0's dual wield feats. To be effective at it at level one required 2 feats, meaning that you needed to be a fighter, a ranger, or human and already proficient in the weapon you want to use. Also, watch that dex. 

Archers are a similar sort of deal. Yes, I could use my level 1 feat to get precise shot, my level 3 feat to get point blank shot, and my level 6 feat to pick up longbow proficiency.  Prestige Classes only add to this. 




> I mean, in my personal gaming experience, I've certainly seen fewer "mysteriously high-statted" characters in 3.X than, say, 2nd.  I saw alot of fighters with 18/00 Strength ... far and away many more than is statistically POSSIBLE given the sample size.
> 
> Earlier editions, there really wasn't any "point" in playing, say, a 14 Strength Fighter as opposed to an 18/00 Str Fighter ... even if that 14Str guy had higher Charisma and Intelligence and Wisdom.  Other than "roleplaying" ... which you can do with any character.  Now you can build an effective multiclass, or you can qualify for feats that require Charisma or Wisdom or Intelligence that you couldn't otherwise, that makes the character different from other characters of the same class.
> 
> ...




Yeah, you're very right that the feat and skill systems do a great job of making sure that the character is quite a bit more than just stats. And that's a lot of why I got back into gaming with 3.0.

But in the end, D&D is a game that makes you jump through hoops to get to the candy. That makes the game less accessable, and with fairly limited resources (say 7 feats over the entire course of a character's career -- potentially years of playing), that makes some of these hoops incredibly expensive. 

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but the design of 3.x rewards planning ahead and taking efficient paths while punishing non-proficiency and non-specialization. It's not having options that encourages the powergame mindset, it's having restricted options with high rewards for efficient use of limited resources.


----------



## Zweihänder (Sep 27, 2006)

I feel the exact opposite of these alleged players: I refuse to DM or play a game in which point buy is used (with the exception of one-offs at Gameday, but... well, I'm not making the character, so I don't care).  I believe the soul of D&D is randomness, and if you take that away... well, what have you got left?  Standardized bull.  This is the same reason I refuse the option to take 20 on anything but a Search check, and, even then, I only do it rarely.  The only time I'll even take 10 is on a Use Magic Device check (with my Warlock <3), and, even then, that's only because I was granted the ability to do so specifically; it's one of the selling points of the class!

In short: random = good, point buy = evil.  Also, virus = very yes.




I hope no one here gets that last one.  That would be a sign of the bad sort of overlap between ENWorld and 4chan...


----------



## an_idol_mind (Sep 27, 2006)

Zweihänder said:
			
		

> In short: random = good, point buy = evil.  Also, virus = very yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I get it.


----------



## Zweihänder (Sep 27, 2006)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> I get it.




Oh dear...

Just remember, a cat is NOT fine too!


----------



## Hussar (Sep 27, 2006)

Now, by no means would I refuse to play in a rolled game.  As I said, I did it for years, and don't loathe it by any stretch.  The fact that in all likelihood I will wind up with a 40 point character means that I'm pretty happy with 4d6  (That was meant as a joke, I know that things like that don't work so well on the 'net)

However, in my games, I simply don't want to be bothered for the reasons I've outlined.  PC's with very high stats can seriously bump up the power level of a party, making adventure design a pain.  A wide spread between PC's in stats can lead to friction and hard feelings, which is another problem I don't want to be bothered with.

Not that any of the above is always true.  Of course not.  It's only my mileage varying.

Airwalkrr, again, your experience has been very different than mine.  As a DM, if I tried to force players to play stats they weren't happy with, I'd see an awful lot of suicide in my games.  Having seen it before, I know that it does happen.  As a player, under a fair number of DM's over the years (I've moved 11 times in the last 13 years, including two continents and still managed to play fairly regularly), I can honestly say that every DM I've ever played under had the same attitude.  

So, as it has been said, it's all about the mileage.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 2, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> How about this for an argument...?
> 
> Don't measure the strength of a character by his ability scores.  A player can have fun with low stats.  A character can be effective with low stats if he has an excellent player behind him.
> 
> ...




How about this for an argument...?

A PC's effectiveness is not greatly affected by ability scores no matter who is playing that PC. This is my experience & no way of spinning it is going change that.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 2, 2006)

Zweihänder said:
			
		

> In short: random = good, point buy = evil.  Also, virus = very yes.
> 
> 
> I hope no one here gets that last one.  That would be a sign of the bad sort of overlap between ENWorld and www.homestarrunner.com



Fixed.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 3, 2006)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Not that I'm disagreeing - but what does that have to do with Rolling vs Point Buy?  The only difference is if you can plan out the 20 levels before or after stats are officially created.  Pre-plannig of levels can happen with either method.



Someone mentioned that point-buy allows one to better do the 1-20 plan-out during initial character conception, or something like that; I was merely trying to point out that whether a particular roll-up method makes 1-20 planning easier is or should be a non-sequitur, as the inherent assumption involved - that the character will make it to 20 - is flawed.

Lanefan


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 3, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Someone mentioned that point-buy allows one to better do the 1-20 plan-out during initial character conception, or something like that; I was merely trying to point out that whether a particular roll-up method makes 1-20 planning easier is or should be a non-sequitur, as the inherent assumption involved - that the character will make it to 20 - is flawed.



Yep. The character might not survive, for example. More fundamentally though, most campaigns don't go to 20th.


----------

