25 Point Buy vs 4d6 drop lowest
Rast
Just started playing TOEE (with Co8 mod pack). Realzing once again that
25 point buy is worse than rolling. Of course, in the computer game
you're allowed to roll as many times as you like, so you can easily get a
character that's worth 40+ points. But even in PNP, the typical rolled
character is going to be quote a bit better than 25 points.
Consider the following table:
http://www.superdan.net/dndmisc/4d6curve.html
We might be tempted to value rolls of 3 through 7 as -5 to -1 points, but
they aren't really that bad, since they are going to be dump stats
regardless. I'll value 6 and 7 as -1, and 3 to 5 as just -2.
Do a little arithmetic...
16*21+13*54+10*94+8*131+6*160+5*172+4*167+3*148+2*122+91
- (2+2*4+2*10+21+38) = 6204
6204/1296 = 4.787
The typical rolled stat is worth 4.787 point-buy points
So the typical rolled character is worth 28.7 point-buy points. BUT we
haven't considered those characters that can be discarded for having non-
positive total ability modifiers, or no 14-or-better rolls. The math
here gets more complicated, but safe to say that once you discard those
characters, the average of those that remain is at least 30.
Conclusion: standard point buy should be 30 points, not 25.
--
"It's only possible to betray where loyalty is due," said Sandy.
"Well, wasn't it due to Miss Brodie?"
"Only up to a point," said Sandy.
- Muriel Spark
Seebs
> Conclusion: standard point buy should be 30 points, not 25.
I think the difference reflects a combination of things, but most
significantly, control over what your abilities are is a pretty
substantial amount of power.
-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
Justisaur
> Conclusion: standard point buy should be 30 points, not 25.
Supposedly the difference is the ability to place the points wherever
you want, making the limited points more valuable. Unfortunately
point buy favors single score dependent classes excessively screwing
people who want to play Paladins, Monks, etc, at least until you get
up to very large values.
The question is, is it worth 5 points to be able to make the scores
whatever you want? It possibly is.
Thus I prefer a set array or the 27-25-23 method, or systems where
ability scores are of limited or no importance like Holmes Basic D&D.
- Justisaur
Reginald Blue
> Do a little arithmetic...
>
> 16*21+13*54+10*94+8*131+6*160+5*172+4*167+3*148+2*122+91
> - (2+2*4+2*10+21+38) = 6204
> 6204/1296 = 4.787
> The typical rolled stat is worth 4.787 point-buy points
>
> So the typical rolled character is worth 28.7 point-buy points. BUT
> we haven't considered those characters that can be discarded for
> having non- positive total ability modifiers, or no 14-or-better
> rolls. The math here gets more complicated, but safe to say that
> once you discard those characters, the average of those that remain
> is at least 30.
>
> Conclusion: standard point buy should be 30 points, not 25.
I've long ago concluded that we shouldn't do random stats anymore.
But there's a more concrete reason why it's 25 and not 30. What you're
forgetting is that what you're speaking of is the precise average set of
points. But... no one can ever get 28.7 points... obviously... and that
there will be a _substantial_ number of characters (sorry, too lazy to do
the math) who are below 28 (not half because of the cut off you mention) as
well as a greater than 50% set who are above that point.
In other words, the 25 points represents perfect stability. You _know_
you're going to get 25. With random rolls, you _could_ get 28 or more...
but you _could_ get less than 25. Maybe even a lot less. What's the points
for the "non positive no 14 or better"? Maybe 10? 15? That's your low
water mark, and hardly inconceivable to get.
--
Reginald Blue
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my
telephone."
- Bjarne Stroustrup (originator of C++) [quoted at the 2003
International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces]
Keith Davies
There are times when I'm having trouble wanting to keep ability scores
in Echelon. I haven't decided explicitly to remove them, or to keep
them, but the way things are built I don't know that they're really all
that important.
There's a certain appeal to ditching them entirely, to be honest.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Do you ever get the feeling that
keith....@kjdavies.org you're discovering, rather than
keith....@gmail.com creating, Echelon?"
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org -- Robin Leung
WDS
>
> Just started playing TOEE (with Co8 mod pack). Realzing once again that
> 25 point buy is worse than rolling. Of course, in the computer game
> you're allowed to roll as many times as you like, so you can easily get a
> character that's worth 40+ points. But even in PNP, the typical rolled
> character is going to be quote a bit better than 25 points.
>
> So the typical rolled character is worth 28.7 point-buy points. BUT we
> haven't considered those characters that can be discarded for having non-
> positive total ability modifiers, or no 14-or-better rolls. The math
> here gets more complicated, but safe to say that once you discard those
> characters, the average of those that remain is at least 30.
>
> Conclusion: standard point buy should be 30 points, not 25.
(I know this isn't what you are arguing but...)
The reason to ignore random rolling is because you can end up with a guy
with 18, 17, 17, 16, 15, 12 and 14, 12, 11, 10, 10, 9 in the same group
(which we've seen). If everyone is using the same point buy system it
doesn't matter what you pick as the point total.
tussock
> (I know this isn't what you are arguing but...)
>
> The reason to ignore random rolling is because you can end up with a guy
> with 18, 17, 17, 16, 15, 12 and 14, 12, 11, 10, 10, 9 in the same group
> (which we've seen). If everyone is using the same point buy system it
> doesn't matter what you pick as the point total.
As a counter argument, the first character makes a good ren-era
Paladin, and the second can keep up fine as a Wizard. The problem comes
when roll A wants to be the Cleric, and B wants to be the Monk, because
the Cleric will do everything the Monk can, only better, and be a Cleric
too.
The problem is that /some/ classes just give a few bonuses to hit,
damage, hit points, and AC, and when Str+Con+Dex gives the same to
everyone, then it sucks to have bad stats because many class choices are
just playing catchup.
Or in 4e, where you roll often enough that +5 is twice as good as +4.
--
tussock
Tetsubo
I've been leaning towards a 32 point buy in 3.5 (or it's equivalent in PF).
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Keith Davies
> On Sep 20, 7:38?pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>> Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sep 20, 4:04?pm, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Conclusion: standard point buy should be 30 points, not 25.
>>
>> > Supposedly the difference is the ability to place the points wherever
>> > point buy favors single score dependent classes excessively screwing
>> > people who want to play Paladins, Monks, etc, at least until you get
>> > up to very large values.
>>
>> > The question is, is it worth 5 points to be able to make the scores
>>
>> > Thus I prefer a set array or the 27-25-23 method, or systems where
>> > ability scores are of limited or no importance like Holmes Basic D&D.
>>
>> There are times when I'm having trouble wanting to keep ability scores
>> them, but the way things are built I don't know that they're really all
>> that important.
>>
>> There's a certain appeal to ditching them entirely, to be honest.
>
> creation considerably, especially if they don't mean much. I was
> toying with the idea myself.
The problem perhaps is not in the rolling, but in managing and
assigning.
Another alternative I considered (and that reminds me of Palladium RPG,
which suggests it might not work too well) is having various talents
build up ability scores.
So, your tanky character comes with higher Strength, proficiency with
light weapons or missile weapons suggests higher Dexterity, being a
spellcaster means you're smart, and so on. You don't roll at all, you
just start at 10 (or perhaps lower, but let's say 10 for now) and adjust
for your talents. I'm not exactly sure of the details (such as how to
deal with multiple talents that bump the same ability score), but it
could cause the ability scores to align with the talents of the
character.
DougL
> Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 4:04?pm, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Conclusion: standard point buy should be 30 points, not 25.
>
> > Supposedly the difference is the ability to place the points wherever
> > you want, making the limited points more valuable. Unfortunately
> > point buy favors single score dependent classes excessively screwing
> > people who want to play Paladins, Monks, etc, at least until you get
> > up to very large values.
>
> > The question is, is it worth 5 points to be able to make the scores
> > whatever you want? It possibly is.
>
> > Thus I prefer a set array or the 27-25-23 method, or systems where
> > ability scores are of limited or no importance like Holmes Basic D&D.
>
> There are times when I'm having trouble wanting to keep ability scores
> in Echelon. I haven't decided explicitly to remove them, or to keep
> them, but the way things are built I don't know that they're really all
> that important.
>
> There's a certain appeal to ditching them entirely, to be honest.
I'm not sure I'd kill them entirely, they make a nice way to
differentiate skills and varrying damage with abilities encourages a
certain minimal level of specialization.
But I've already ditched all ability score and enhancement
modification of "to hit" chances in my fourth edition game (hit chance
is level plus 4 plus any situational modifiers plus any weapon
proficiency modifier, which is relevant in 4th edition as some weapons
give a +2 and others a +3).
It seems to me to work much better, people can actually have varied
abilities. Fourth edition gives a 22 point buy (with a different price
schedule from 3.x) and then everyone spends 12-16 points on one
ability and picks a class that their race gives a +2 to because hit
chance actually matters and abilities add to that.
Assuming that all characters can do SOMETHING relevant in combat and
that no one has any glaring weaknesses or insta-kill powers then the
chance of success on a combat action is to a reasonable approximation
a baseline measure of how "bad-ass" a character is, and level is
SUPPOSED to be a measure of how "bad-ass" the charcter is. Tying to
two together directly doesn't offend me at all.
Parvati V
> Just started playing TOEE (with Co8 mod pack). Realzing once again
> that 25 point buy is worse than rolling. Of course, in the computer
> game you're allowed to roll as many times as you like, so you can
> easily get a character that's worth 40+ points. But even in PNP, the
> typical rolled character is going to be quote a bit better than 25
> points.
I rolled a character who was a lot worse than that with 5d6, drop two
lowest.
The problem with rolling is in the willingness of the group and
individual of rerolling the lowest characters to keep things equal.
Thing is, in modern editions of D&D ability scores make quite a lot of
difference and having characters with very different potential at the
table can be that much harder to manage for DMs and players alike.
Then again, ever since reading GURPS (and many more games later on, but
that was the first game without rolling I saw) rolling for stats just
feels incredibly silly to me.
--
Parvati V
dr...@bin.sh
take 'em and weep. then give the party some control over how much
risk they face (at least, most of the time), and it works out fine.
--
.--._.--.
|_/---\_| dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
] |<3 | [ -----------------------------------------------------------------
|~\---/~| Courage is Not The Absence of Fear
`--'~'--'
DougL
> damn kids. in my 4e campaign, the PCs are all rolled on 3d6,
> take 'em and weep. then give the party some control over how much
> risk they face (at least, most of the time), and it works out fine.
I trust that's 3d6 in order, rolled AFTER you pick your race (and if
human AFTER you choose where to put your single +2).
After all, real people don't get to optimize their order or their
choice of abilities.
That was tolerable back when Men and Magic had most of the rules,
abilities made amazingly little difference, and if your rolls sucked
you just died and rerolled till you got something decent. But about
the time Greyhawk came out and ability scores started to actually
matter most people decided that method sucked.
Fourth ed. characters aren't much harder to make thanks to the
Character Builder, but abilities do matter, and a character with a +4
for his primary ability modifier will simply overshadow one with a +1
for his primary ability modifier.
Justisaur
Well it still takes some time and if your stats don't affect much,
then why have them at all.
Of course point buy takes far longer than rolling (unless you count
suiciding your non-optimal rolled characters to start over with
another chance at what you consider acceptable)
- Justisaur
Keith Davies
> On Sep 21, 10:41?am, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>> Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Yeah I get that, 6 scores not to have to roll would shorten
>> > character creation considerably, especially if they don't mean
>>
>> The problem perhaps is not in the rolling, but in managing and
>> assigning.
>
> Well it still takes some time and if your stats don't affect much,
> then why have them at all.
In BD&D, sure. Most of the time you might have a +1 or +2, which is
kind of nice but not huge. It's not like D&D 3.x where you can start
with +4 or +5, reasonably.
> Of course point buy takes far longer than rolling (unless you count
> suiciding your non-optimal rolled characters to start over with
> another chance at what you consider acceptable)
Analysis paralysis, yeah.
That's what I like about 27-25-23 -- you can expect to get something
reasonable, then it's just a matter of placement. Since I started using
it I rarely had hard decisions.
I still want to think about how it might be possible to have baseline
ability scores that get built up by talents taken. I do like having
some general gauge of how good a character is in a certain area (such as
things that depend on Strength or Dexterity, etc.) so keeping ability
scores in some fashion or another is appealing.
Hmm. On the other hand, who says they have to be the same core six?
Right now it's shaping up that I have thinks like:
* good at tanky melee
* good at nimble melee
* good at ranged combat
* good at spell casting
* good at divine channeling
and so on. Tanky melee is Strength, Nimble and Ranged use Dexterity (in
D&D-based rules), Spell Casting is currently it for Intelligence, Divine
Channeling uses Charisma.
I *could* have 'tank', 'nimble', 'ranged', 'spell', 'channeling' as
ability scores instead. Each starts at 10 (potentially) and is
increased by the maximum training bonus for the relevant talents. Other
talents might use those scores instead of more general bonuses.
So, tank takes 'tank talent'. When he has +3 training bonus, he has a
tank score of 13 -- this is used for defense when using tanky armor,
offense when using tanky weapons, and so on, and it applies when doing
tanky things like lifting stuff. If you use Bo9S stuff, he could use
tanky score for martial disciplines appropriate to guys in heavy armor.
I need to think about this. It's a significant departure from where I
was going and I'm not as familiar with it.
The happy thing is, I think this would be a viable method of play for
Echelon... and could be substituted in and keep the core framework.
SS
4d6-drop-lowest for the 3d6-twice-keep-highest-sum option for our
AD&D2e group. I'm the only one who plays an "advanced" class (ranger)
so I've been the only one without any stats above 16 (most of the
others thave atleast one 17+).
The problem with the high rolls has been that our DM calls for an
ability-check the standard responds tends to be "do I have to?" since
their chance of failing is so small it's ridiculous. Our DM has
responded by adding penalties (sometimes severe) to actually make the
chance of failing real. The problem with that is ofcource that if you
ask a rogue with 18 DEX to test DEX an -4 means the rogue still has a
pretty doable, but if the rest of the group has to take the same test
at the same difficulty it becomes next to impossible.
So, being the geek I am I programmed a Java program to churn out some
statistics on rolling-methods. I only tested the three "official" AD&D
methods (3d6, 3d6 twice and 4d6). I confirmed what our DM wanted to
achieve (reducing the number of 17's and 18's).
The results-table and java code is on my wiki.
https://snorreselmer.net/wiki/Terningkastesimulator_(Java)
The username is "wiki" and the password is "velkommen".
The wiki is written in norwegian, but the table and code is readable as
I only code in english.
SS