Community

If you want to eliminate the SAD of spell casters then change the way the primary spell stat works to reflect the same way things work for physical stats. For example, make the highest level of spell known equal to your Int modifier for ALL casters even clerics. Change the determiner for all your spell DCs to Cha for ALL casters. And base your number of bonus spells on your Wis for ALL casters.

Done, no more SAD for casters.

I for one do not believe in the whole SAD nonsense. Seen players casters put all they can in INT/CHA and have all other stat be low. The the lack of CON HP almost always mean their early deaths. People forget about skill stat bonus and saves. I seen so to many mages die in Ed's Black Tec. When there are so many ways to deal with it. Even if that means starting with a 16 and not a 18 INT/CHA.

It is the same as saying all a fighter/melee build needs is STR.

Now the the guy that house rule all caster being linked to metal stats .... Some casters do not want the play "do nothing but stand there and be your bluff/heal bolt."

totoro wrote:

This is the key. There is no practical difference between a cheater and a person who is exceptionally lucky. Point buy solves that particular problem, and luck eventually evens out. (That's why you can spot cheaters without ever seeing what they roll.)

I don't understand what you mean by "no practical difference between a cheater and a person who is exceptionally lucky." If you need a system to verify whether someone is cheating or not, watch them roll. But that's not the problem of the system, but rather the player who doesn't use the system.

Much like if you roll a d20 and say you rolled a 20, but don't let anyone see it. It's not a problem with the d20 system that someone can hide their die roll, but rather the problem with the person who lied. If there's a problem with rolling stats, and rolling d20s, what are you going to have now? A pointbuy that you use in place of rolling d20s?

There's a bigger at hand when it comes to cheaters. Cheaters are those who ignore the rules. The solution to "solving" the cheating problem is the fact that players cheat in the first place, not make a system that lacks dice.

As for spotting cheaters, you cannot simply call someone a cheater since they got lucky. If there's a chance that someone could have rolled what they did, there's a chance they are telling the truth. If you're going to accuse someone of cheating, and thusly disrespecting them, off of a chance, then you need to get into insurance. I'd much rather do it off other things. I'd ask the person, in all honesty whether s/he has been fudging rolls. if they want to use a different system, like pointbuy, I'll give them the alternative, but I don't care for cheaters. I'd rather them tell me they don't like their stats and ask for a reroll with rolling than be lied to.

I'd personally hate to think that someone would call me a liar for getting a streak of good luck. I mean I know recently, I've been getting terrible luck with rolls over the past 100-200 some rolls(approximately 30% nat 1s, 40%ish 2-6, and the rest 7+). If I were to be called a liar on the off-chance I got some really lucky rolls, then that means that percentage of people will automatically be called a liar regardless of their telling the truth. I wouldn't do those victims the injustice of assuming against their behalf.

Something I've personally done before is a non-weighted point buy method with a random 2d3 dice roll at the end ()o give characters a slight difference between each other), that has limits (prior to racial adjustments). This also allows players to be completely happy with how their characters are built, and requires them to have weaknesses in order to have extra strengths. I do the following:

All stats start at a base of 7. The player is then given 36+2d3 points to distribute (I run high power campaigns normally). This gives them 38-42 points to add in. At the max, this would put someone at an average of 6x14s, with a minimum of 4x13s with 2x14s. I then limit them to no 3 abilities at or above 16, with no more than 1 at an 18. I also limit them to no more than 1 at a 7.
An example array using this with an average 4 result on the 2d3 would be something like: 18, 16, 16, 13, 11, 8.

Obviously you can change the overall starting points to your liking, but I recommend if you do random rolls using this idea, that you always leave it at a point pool +2d3. This insures that the largest difference between 2 players' starting stats is a total of 4 points, so no one feels like they got the short end of the luck stick. As always, you should be coaching newer players a little to help them understand what ability scores are important for which classes.