I have begun the creation of a campaign setting for 3rd Edition, and last night I finally got into NPC creation. To keep from getting in a rut, I decided to use the 4d6 method to generate ability scores, and I dicovered just how ridiculously low the scores are with the point-buy system -- even with 28 points. Note: I did not do a statistical analysis; I just observed a practical application of the two systems. But check this out: to get a score of "3," you have to roll four 1s. To get a four, you have to roll three 1s and a 2. By contrast, to get an 18, you only have to roll three 6s. Of four dice you only have to roll two 6s to get a great score and there is more than one combination for all scores below 17. The two methods are not equal, not even close.
Start with the assumption that a score of 8 is considered average. That means that the average commoner suffers from a negative adjustment on every save, skill check, DC check, etc. To insure that your PC doesn't have any negative adjustments, you have to spend 12 of your 28 points right off the bat, giving you a 10 in every ability. You now have 16 points to enhance your abilities. With 3rd Edition rules every ability is important, even charisma! Wizards and sorcerors are the only characters with a throw away ability: strength. Leave that at 10. Now, your wizard must begin with a 16 intelligence in order to cast 9th level spells by the time he gets those slots. That costs 8 points, right? Leaving you with 8. Want better hit points? A better armor class? Add 2 each to Dex and Con, leaving you with 4. Now your AC is 11, instead of 10, and you have 5 whole hit points! You could divide the other 4 points between widom and charisma, raising them to 12 and giving you a +1 to will saves and charisma-based skill checks. Thus, your scores are: STR10 DEX12 CON12 INT16 WIS12 CHA12. To start with an 18 in one ability, you would have to spend SIX MORE POINTS! It can be done, but you would not have a sigle bonus from any other statistic. Even rolling 3d6, you have a chance to roll an 18, and you could beat the odds by still getting decent rolls for the other scores. And there's still the possibility of a jackpot -- against overwhelming odds, you could roll an 18 six times. With point-buy, there is no hope. You can't even get one 18 and one 17!
Now, with the 4d6 method, it's very, very hard to roll anything less than an 8. The number that came up most often for me was a 14. 15, 16, and 17 were common. I rolled about 100 random scores and there were three 18s and no 3s. The best roll? 17,16,15,17,15,15! It is possible to get a real loser, but most scores looked more like this: 10,14,13,16,12,15. That's more like a 33 point point-buy.
With 28 points, a wizard has to sacrifice all other personal improvment to advance to the highest spell levels; a thief has to sacrifice strength and hit point bonuses to spend extra points on intelligence so he can buy enough skills to do his job. It may be novel to play characters who are more like the common man, more average, but I want my heroes to be more impressive than that. I want them to stand head and shoulders above the crowd. Even if all the other heroes are equally impressive, you should still be able to look at them and know they're not common. And barely being able to perform your class functions is a joke!
In my world, players will use the 4d6 method and throw out any score under 10. A player wants his character to be a bad-a$$, and heroes should be heroes, dammit!
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Saigo ]
Point Buy System
Well actually a wizard only needs a starting score of 15. At level 16 he would have gotten the +4 ability points and thus giving him 19 intelligence at that level. 1 level before 9th. level spells.Originally posted by Saigo:
<STRONG><snip>Now, your wizard must begin with a 16 intelligence in order to cast 9th level spells by the time he gets those slots. <snip>
</STRONG>
But generally you are right that point-buy gives lower numbers than 4d6 - but is this importent?
Firstly: Bioware has not fixed themself on Point-buy 25 yet. They have stated often that it would/could change under testing.
The reason they say 25 at this time, is because it is the recomendation from WoTC.
Secondly: Encounters, monsters and quests would be differentet to match the level/"stats" of characters.
If Bioware fixes on 25 points the encounters will match that 25 points, if they decide on 50 point-buy (an example) - encounters and the rest would be adapted to these numbers, so the difference still exists.
It is relative not absolute.
This discussion will go on for a very long time - and IMO is quite pointless.
Bioware says (and WoTC recommends) point-buy will be official and requiered for the official vault.
Everybody can make their own "rules" for module, so one can change what one disagrees with.
Insert signature here.
25? Good Lord! 
I thought at least it would be the 28 points that Argyle's using! In that case, a character can hardly be thought of as exceptional at all. He's a normal peasant who's barely smart enough to cast a spell or nimble enough to pick a lock. God help a paladin, who must be strong, wise, hearty, and charismatic. 3rd Edition rules may have eliminated the minimum ability requirements for each class, but a paladin still has to have good scores in all those abilities just to do his job!
I thought at least it would be the 28 points that Argyle's using! In that case, a character can hardly be thought of as exceptional at all. He's a normal peasant who's barely smart enough to cast a spell or nimble enough to pick a lock. God help a paladin, who must be strong, wise, hearty, and charismatic. 3rd Edition rules may have eliminated the minimum ability requirements for each class, but a paladin still has to have good scores in all those abilities just to do his job!Well we also have to remember that the comparision between 2.ed and 3.ed stats are difficulty due to the "bonus".
If I were to make a 3.ed paladin I'd proberly make a:
12,12,14,10,12,13 (str/dex/con/int/wis/cha) and use my extra 5 points to get to: 14,12,14,10,14,14.
But my initial stats would, if only comparing bonus' (+1,+1,+2,0,+1,+1) be somewhat comparable to stats like: 16,16,16,10-13,15,13 (str, dex, con, int, wis, cha) in 2.ed
Of course it is impossible to do this correctly due to the difference in the rules, but I did it a anyway just to illustrate.
If I were to make a 3.ed paladin I'd proberly make a:
12,12,14,10,12,13 (str/dex/con/int/wis/cha) and use my extra 5 points to get to: 14,12,14,10,14,14.
But my initial stats would, if only comparing bonus' (+1,+1,+2,0,+1,+1) be somewhat comparable to stats like: 16,16,16,10-13,15,13 (str, dex, con, int, wis, cha) in 2.ed
Of course it is impossible to do this correctly due to the difference in the rules, but I did it a anyway just to illustrate.
Insert signature here.
Xandax, I'm not trying to compare the 2nd edition stats to 3rd, and I do like the new system better. I just don't like the limitations of a 25 or 28 point buying system. What I am comparing is the relationship of scores under point-buy to the minimum, maximum, and average scores. Assuming that the min/max scores are still based on 3d6 (and they are), point-buy restricts you to barely above average or lopsided stats (incredibly smart or fast but weak as a kitten, or incredibly strong but slow, stupid and anemic).
I'll give one more illustration, to explain my point of view, and then I'll try to stop complaining. In real life, look at people like the Rock (WWF, The Mummy Returns), Arnold Schwartzeneggar, or Howie Long (Broken Arrow). All three of these men are very intelligent (if you've never seen them interviewed, take my word for it), very charismatic, and are among the most physically gifted men in the world. Under the point-buy system, your character will never be their equal. We all know of real life examples of other architypes -- real people who are exceptional in more than one category. If that kind of person exists in real life, why is it impossible for me to create a fictional hero with the same abilities?
In the other thread, you suggested I might prefer a 50 point system. That may be at the core of what I'm concerned about: the power gamers versus low magic "realists." I don't like power gaming, either. I don't want 50 points and a Holy Avenger at first level. On the other hand, I don't want to play an armored version of myself. Why does it seem like everybody is at one extreme or the other? What I would like to see is the middle ground. How about 35 points? Enough to get higher stats for your class and a decent score in something else (for a second class or an interesting facet to your main class). Then the magic isn't so important. Generally, my favorite heroes from fiction made do with little or no magic, but they had impressive physical prowess.
Let me say this: I do like debates, but I respect everybody's opinion. I believe that everybody has his own unique perspective on the world. So I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong, and I'm not trying to convince anybody that I'm right. I just thought that this would be a good topic for discussion. I do plan to play NWN, and I do plan to play in Argyle. And I will not complain about having to play under those rules. I plan to play my character well and have a ball doing it. We can still talk about what we want out of an RPG, though.
I'll give one more illustration, to explain my point of view, and then I'll try to stop complaining. In real life, look at people like the Rock (WWF, The Mummy Returns), Arnold Schwartzeneggar, or Howie Long (Broken Arrow). All three of these men are very intelligent (if you've never seen them interviewed, take my word for it), very charismatic, and are among the most physically gifted men in the world. Under the point-buy system, your character will never be their equal. We all know of real life examples of other architypes -- real people who are exceptional in more than one category. If that kind of person exists in real life, why is it impossible for me to create a fictional hero with the same abilities?
In the other thread, you suggested I might prefer a 50 point system.
That may be at the core of what I'm concerned about: the power gamers versus low magic "realists." I don't like power gaming, either. I don't want 50 points and a Holy Avenger at first level. On the other hand, I don't want to play an armored version of myself. Why does it seem like everybody is at one extreme or the other? What I would like to see is the middle ground. How about 35 points? Enough to get higher stats for your class and a decent score in something else (for a second class or an interesting facet to your main class). Then the magic isn't so important. Generally, my favorite heroes from fiction made do with little or no magic, but they had impressive physical prowess.Let me say this: I do like debates, but I respect everybody's opinion. I believe that everybody has his own unique perspective on the world. So I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong, and I'm not trying to convince anybody that I'm right. I just thought that this would be a good topic for discussion. I do plan to play NWN, and I do plan to play in Argyle. And I will not complain about having to play under those rules. I plan to play my character well and have a ball doing it. We can still talk about what we want out of an RPG, though.
I am kind of torn on the issue.
On the one hand, I too would like to play the kind of character like The Rock, Van Damme, or Bruce Lee. I picture many of my characters and where they would be at higher levels, and I realize the stats will never match the way I picture them.
On the other hand, I think an 18 in a stat should be something truely exceptional. I don't like that in most D&D settings that a thief without 18 Dex is considered disadvantages. I mean, how many BG2 characters did you see without at least two 18 scores in their stats? I heard rumors of one somewhere in the Australian outback, but they were never found and thus never proven to exist.
What I'd like is some way to improve your character through experience and time. I don't mind playing a peon at the beginning. They are level 1, after all. We should be beginners, not heroes. But, it would be nice if there were some way to become physical or mental specimen that you have pictured. I'd like a way to perhaps forgoe feats or skill points in lieu of adding stats. Maybe they should just allow us to get a point to add every other level instead of every fourth level. Just a thought.
On the one hand, I too would like to play the kind of character like The Rock, Van Damme, or Bruce Lee. I picture many of my characters and where they would be at higher levels, and I realize the stats will never match the way I picture them.
On the other hand, I think an 18 in a stat should be something truely exceptional. I don't like that in most D&D settings that a thief without 18 Dex is considered disadvantages. I mean, how many BG2 characters did you see without at least two 18 scores in their stats? I heard rumors of one somewhere in the Australian outback, but they were never found and thus never proven to exist.
What I'd like is some way to improve your character through experience and time. I don't mind playing a peon at the beginning. They are level 1, after all. We should be beginners, not heroes. But, it would be nice if there were some way to become physical or mental specimen that you have pictured. I'd like a way to perhaps forgoe feats or skill points in lieu of adding stats. Maybe they should just allow us to get a point to add every other level instead of every fourth level. Just a thought.
Matti Il-Amin, Paladin, comedian, and expert adventurer. Proudly bearing the colors of the [url="http://www.svelmoe.dk/blade/index.htm"]Blades of the Banshee[/url]
I know what you mean - but how many of these "exceptional" people exists compared to "ordinary" or people excelling in only one field. (intelligence contra strenght; dexterity contra hardiness)?Originally posted by Saigo:
<STRONG><snip>
I'll give one more illustration, to explain my point of view, and then I'll try to stop complaining. In real life, look at people like the Rock (WWF, The Mummy Returns), Arnold Schwartzeneggar, or Howie Long (Broken Arrow). All three of these men are very intelligent (if you've never seen them interviewed, take my word for it), very charismatic, and are among the most physically gifted men in the world. Under the point-buy system, your character will never be their equal. We all know of real life examples of other architypes -- real people who are exceptional in more than one category. If that kind of person exists in real life, why is it impossible for me to create a fictional hero with the same abilities?
</STRONG>
I know you want your hero to be a hero in "more than primary" stats - and can fully understand your "concern".
But after I get my 5 points for my characters - I actually feel (although he is weak and not wise
)that he is quite extraodinary.Another point why stats aren't so importent anymore - are feats. These might make the need for lower stats?
And again - we need to remember that actually ei. 18 intelligence is somewhat the highest a human can ever score. And in 3.ed they "easily" can go over that score with the bonus poinst.
And actually I feel that this new system will cause more diversity than a world were everybody runs around with all 16+ for a lvl. 1 charachter.
I just stated the 50 points as an exmaple, of what is "talked about around the net" and what would be possible with NwN.Originally posted by Saigo:
<STRONG><snip>
In the other thread, you suggested I might prefer a 50 point system.
</STRONG>
But again - I really doubt that the average score for peasents is 8.
That would be an "average"/starting stat for adventurers.
And again - comparing to my character - I have a primary stat, that IMO is high enough for the first levels and using bonus points on this will make that go to 20. And I have 2 other good stats and 2 lousy stats.
But of course I would always be nice to have more points for our characters, but again that is why one can make own modules.
I plan on trying to make some modules, or at least help others with scripting.
And I would properly also go for somewhere 30-35 points
But I still find 25 enough especially since WoTC have recommended this point for FR-campaings.
The higher point-scores are for "heros of the realm" (peeps like Drizzts, and Elminister etc. - "your extraordinary people").
But of course - what else should we have these forums forOriginally posted by Saigo:
<STRONG><snip>
Let me say this: I do like debates, but I respect everybody's opinion. I believe that everybody has his own unique perspective on the world. So I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong, and I'm not trying to convince anybody that I'm right. I just thought that this would be a good topic for discussion. I do plan to play NWN, and I do plan to play in Argyle. And I will not complain about having to play under those rules. I plan to play my character well and have a ball doing it. We can still talk about what we want out of an RPG, though.
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]
Insert signature here.
IMO, clearly an average score would be 8 or 9. If you start getting bonuses at 10, then that logically should be above average. If you look at it that way, every 28pt character is absolutely outstanding.
However, if you want a character who is physically and charismatically head and shoulders above other heroes, then you're out of luck. Heroes are all pretty even under this system. I still would like a way to sacrifice bonus skills and feats for stats, if that's what the player would prefer.
However, if you want a character who is physically and charismatically head and shoulders above other heroes, then you're out of luck. Heroes are all pretty even under this system. I still would like a way to sacrifice bonus skills and feats for stats, if that's what the player would prefer.
Matti Il-Amin, Paladin, comedian, and expert adventurer. Proudly bearing the colors of the [url="http://www.svelmoe.dk/blade/index.htm"]Blades of the Banshee[/url]
Rail, the PH states that "10-11" is average for the common folk, and at "10," you don't start getting bonuses. At 10, you juat don't have any more penalties. Th PH says that 12-13 is an average score for player characters. OK, I can live with that, but to get to the "minimum average" (12) in each stat, you have to spend 20 of your 25 (or 28) points. You can spend the rest of the 25 to get to 13 in each stat, but you don't get any more bonus than at 12.
The way the stat bonuses are set up, it could take 8 levels to get one point. Raise a stat from 12 to 13 at 4th level (no bonus), then from 13 to 14 at 8th level (bonus). So, unless all your abilities are odd numbers, you get a stat increase every 4 levels, but a bonus only every 8. A smart player can do a little better than that, but there are still times when you feel like you've wasted a stat increase that you had to wait a long time for.
I don't want my character to be better than the other characters, but I want him to be better than Farmer Brown by a wider margin. I want all player characters to be a lot better than Farmer Brown. They will be in my campaign setting.
The way the stat bonuses are set up, it could take 8 levels to get one point. Raise a stat from 12 to 13 at 4th level (no bonus), then from 13 to 14 at 8th level (bonus). So, unless all your abilities are odd numbers, you get a stat increase every 4 levels, but a bonus only every 8. A smart player can do a little better than that, but there are still times when you feel like you've wasted a stat increase that you had to wait a long time for.
I don't want my character to be better than the other characters, but I want him to be better than Farmer Brown by a wider margin. I want all player characters to be a lot better than Farmer Brown. They will be in my campaign setting.
Ah, the classic mistake of comparing 2E stats to 3E.
3E is almost a whole new game in this respect. Nobody stated that a character with stats averaging 13 isn't some sort of half-god compared to Jack the Farmer.
If you roll 4d6 (and drop lowest), you get an average of 12.1 or so, I believe. That's lower than the average you can get with 25 Point Buy. However, the 4d6 method gives stats that vary up and down more, and the cost increase of higher stats is much bigger than the decrease of lower stats.
Also, with Point Buy you're assured of getting the stats you want. Even if you can assign your die rolls to the stats of your choice, you might not get that 14 Strength, Dex and Con you were after.
As stated, 3E gives you a bonus at 12. Under 2E it was almost pointless to have stats of 14. You either had 16+, or you might as well have 8. There was a huge "no bonus" gap in between. A 3E character with average adventurer stats (13) will have more bonuses than even a gifted (average 15) 2E character.
Compare a 2E Paladin to a 3E version.
(Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha)
2E stats: 17, 14, 16, 12, 14, 17
3E stats: 14, 10, 14, 10, 12, 14
Yes, the 3E stats are a lot lower, but they give comparable bonuses. 3E Strength 14 is even better than 2E 17, 2E Dex 14 does nothing (just like a 3E 10), and the uses of Int, Wis and Cha under 2E rules are highly debatable.
3E is almost a whole new game in this respect. Nobody stated that a character with stats averaging 13 isn't some sort of half-god compared to Jack the Farmer.
If you roll 4d6 (and drop lowest), you get an average of 12.1 or so, I believe. That's lower than the average you can get with 25 Point Buy. However, the 4d6 method gives stats that vary up and down more, and the cost increase of higher stats is much bigger than the decrease of lower stats.
Also, with Point Buy you're assured of getting the stats you want. Even if you can assign your die rolls to the stats of your choice, you might not get that 14 Strength, Dex and Con you were after.
As stated, 3E gives you a bonus at 12. Under 2E it was almost pointless to have stats of 14. You either had 16+, or you might as well have 8. There was a huge "no bonus" gap in between. A 3E character with average adventurer stats (13) will have more bonuses than even a gifted (average 15) 2E character.
Compare a 2E Paladin to a 3E version.
(Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha)
2E stats: 17, 14, 16, 12, 14, 17
3E stats: 14, 10, 14, 10, 12, 14
Yes, the 3E stats are a lot lower, but they give comparable bonuses. 3E Strength 14 is even better than 2E 17, 2E Dex 14 does nothing (just like a 3E 10), and the uses of Int, Wis and Cha under 2E rules are highly debatable.
[url="http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/SpellsReference/Main.htm"]Baldur's Gate 2 Spells Reference[/url]: Strategy, tips, tricks, bugs, cheese and corrections to the manual.
Xyx, for the record, I am not comparing 2E to 3E. I'm not the one who brought it up. I'm saying that with the point-buy system, you have to spend your first 10 points to avoid taking any penalties, and to become "an average commoner," according to the 3E PH. I'm also saying that I would like to see a larger gap between commoners and adventurers. Further, I like the randomness of the 4d6 system because there is more variety among characters and, while it is possible (but not easy) to roll a bad score, it's also possible to roll an exceptional one. With point-buy an exceptional score is only possible at the expense of all other abilites.
I love the new ability score system. It's much more even than 2E. For the most part, 3E rules are now what I've wanted them to be ever since I started playing, over twenty years ago. I'm a roll player, not a power gamer, and the new rules give me many more opportunities to create a unique character. the point-buy system itself is not too bad either, I just think that 25-28 points are not enough.
I love the new ability score system. It's much more even than 2E. For the most part, 3E rules are now what I've wanted them to be ever since I started playing, over twenty years ago. I'm a roll player, not a power gamer, and the new rules give me many more opportunities to create a unique character. the point-buy system itself is not too bad either, I just think that 25-28 points are not enough.
Yes, but should a level 1 adventurer have higher? IMO, no! They are peons. A level one character has been given the basics of his class, but has no experience. A level one fighter should be the equivalent of a white belt in most martial arts (or maybe yellow). Now, a level 15 fighter should be the most elite physical and mental specimen of a warrior, but that seems impossible under this system. They will be 3 pts better than the level one character, either a one or two point bonus in one attribute.
[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: Rail ]
They will be 3 pts better than the level one character, either a one or two point bonus in one attribute.[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: Rail ]
Matti Il-Amin, Paladin, comedian, and expert adventurer. Proudly bearing the colors of the [url="http://www.svelmoe.dk/blade/index.htm"]Blades of the Banshee[/url]
Yep, and in the "real" world, the ones with more determination, dedication, and desire have the chance to get better stats.
I think the arguements for and against are moot. I don't particularly like that everyone has the same stats or points to buy stats. However, I also don't like it when you roll, that everyone will just keep rolling untill they get what they want, so once again, everyone has the same stats. They're just all higher under a roll system. When everyone has high rolls, we're hardly exceptional. Under the Point buy rules, at least you have the chance to get an attribute or two to an exceptional level. My only beef is that its at the expense of your other attributes and that you are basically stuck with your starting stats throughout your career.
I think the arguements for and against are moot. I don't particularly like that everyone has the same stats or points to buy stats. However, I also don't like it when you roll, that everyone will just keep rolling untill they get what they want, so once again, everyone has the same stats. They're just all higher under a roll system.
When everyone has high rolls, we're hardly exceptional. Under the Point buy rules, at least you have the chance to get an attribute or two to an exceptional level. My only beef is that its at the expense of your other attributes and that you are basically stuck with your starting stats throughout your career.Matti Il-Amin, Paladin, comedian, and expert adventurer. Proudly bearing the colors of the [url="http://www.svelmoe.dk/blade/index.htm"]Blades of the Banshee[/url]