|
5 years ago ::
May 07, 2008 - 12:58PM
#81
|
|
|
Not "does not produce...", but "sometimes does not produce..."
If it sometimes does not produce what it is supposed to it is broken. If your car sometimes doesn't start it is broken. You cannot sell anything that sometimes produces desired results.
Also, if you didn't see it as broken you would not have house ruled it. It seems to me that you want to make the game fair and balanced while still having the nostalgic feel of rolling dice. This is fine, but saying that as written it works fine and is fair to all players is flat out wrong (with the possible exception of everyone in the group enjoying being occasionally under or over powered which seems like a very rare case).
In any case, would you agree that it's more of a rogue/fighter issue, than one of stats?
No, I think it is entirely one of stats (or at least bonuses in general). +1 on a roll of a d20 is 5% increase to chance of success.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 07, 2008 - 1:22PM
#82
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
No, I think it is entirely one of stats (or at least bonuses in general). +1 on a roll of a d20 is 5% increase to chance of success.
This is wrong. A fighter with a +10 to hit has only a 10% chance of hitting a creature with an AC of 29. A rogue with a +4 to hit has a 5% chance of hitting the same target. That +6 that the fighter has over the rogue is only a 5% increase, not 30%. You just can't look at the +1 or +2 in a vacuum and try to determine what is good and what isn't.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 07, 2008 - 1:53PM
#83
|
|
|
This is wrong. A fighter with a +10 to hit has only a 10% chance of hitting a creature with an AC of 29. A rogue with a +4 to hit has a 5% chance of hitting the same target. That +6 that the fighter has over the rogue is only a 5% increase, not 30%. You just can't look at the +1 or +2 in a vacuum and try to determine what is good and what isn't.
Of course the numbers are weird with a monster with a way high AC. The fighter hits on a 19-20 and rogue only hits on a 20. That monster is either poorly balanced or way to high for the PCs which invalidates your point.
If that monster has 22 AC my statement holds. The fighter (+10) needs a 12-20 to hit and thus has a 45% chance to hit. The rogue (+4) needs a 18-20 and thus has a 15% chance to hit. Surprise... its exactly 30% less.
You say I can't look at it in a vacuum and I say you cannot disprove me with an odd and unlikely corner case.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 07, 2008 - 2:09PM
#84
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Of course the numbers are weird with a monster with a way high AC. The fighter hits on a 19-20 and rogue only hits on a 20. That monster is either poorly balanced or way to high for the PCs which invalidates your point.
If that monster has 22 AC my statement holds. The fighter (+10) needs a 12-20 to hit and thus has a 45% chance to hit. The rogue (+4) needs a 18-20 and thus has a 15% chance to hit. Surprise... its exactly 30% less.
You say I can't look at it in a vacuum and I say you cannot disprove me with an odd and unlikely corner case.
Actually, on EVERY monster with a 22 or higher AC, a +1 is either 5% or 0% depending on the pluses of the person involved. The ONLY time that +1 flatly equates to 5% is with a 21 or lower AC. In any case, even if I stretch things to grant you that +1 is 5% to hit....so what. It's irrelevant. The fighter downs it with one hit at 1st level and the rogue probably misses anyway.
The fighter will always have the advantage in 3ed combat over a rogue, and if you can't see that is a 3ed class issue that has absolutely no business being in a 4ed discussion, there isn't much point in debating with you.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 07, 2008 - 2:52PM
#85
|
|
|
The fighter will always have the advantage in 3ed combat over a rogue, and if you can't see that is a 3ed class issue that has absolutely no business being in a 4ed discussion, there isn't much point in debating with you.
I am not debating 3e class issues. I am debating that having overpowered and underpowered characters in the same game effort the game negatively. I was illustrating that point with 3e examples because I do not have 4e ones. Regardless +1 to a d20 roll is still 5% increased success chance as this exists outside of editions.
And all of these things support that point buy is better than rolling at providing balanced game play which in turn keeps certain stats within an acceptable range of one another. And hopefully these conditions lead to everyone feeling useful most of the time instead of some of the time.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 07, 2008 - 3:31PM
#86
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I am not debating 3e class issues. I am debating that having overpowered and underpowered characters in the same game effort the game negatively. I was illustrating that point with 3e examples because I do not have 4e ones. Regardless +1 to a d20 roll is still 5% increased success chance as this exists outside of editions.
No, you're debating 3ed class issues because YOU brought it to the 3ed fighter compared to the 3ed rogue in combat. 4ed doesn't have those issues, so it had to be 3ed whether you wanted it to be or not. Any effort to debate 4ed issues with 3ed examples is doomed to failure UNLESS we've seen the 4ed equivelent, and we haven't here.
And all of these things support that point buy is better than rolling at providing balanced game play which in turn keeps certain stats within an acceptable range of one another. And hopefully these conditions lead to everyone feeling useful most of the time instead of some of the time.
No, no they don't. All they support is you, as person, are hung up on whether or not someone might be a + or 2 better than you are. Most of us aren't so envious that we need to be equal to everyone else to feel good about our characters. Nor are our characters more than a hair better or worse than other characters because of those differences.
The other people here, they argued their opinions on which way they felt was the best option for THEM. You're the only one trying to show that somehow, rolling makes characters inferior and poor to the point of driving people away from playing, and with 3ed examples no less.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 07, 2008 - 4:52PM
#87
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2006
|
I think the rhetoric flying around here is getting more than a little overheated.
Rolling stats naturally tends to create inequality and unfairness. It also limits your ability to make the particular character you want because not only the level of your attributes but also their distribution is taken out of your hands. I have a friend who prefers something like 14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10 for attributes, while I prefer something closer to 18, 14, 14, 8, 8, 8 or 16, 14, 14, 12, 8, 8 depending what I'm trying to play. With dice we would be forced to have a certain level of balance/specialization depending on the roll that might not fit our desired playstyle.
Personally, I can enjoy the pros and cons of each. On the other hand I've also seen people crushed (emotionally) by low die rolls for stats, and others that rub high rolls into their party members' faces and make everyone else have less fun. I'd like to just once run a campaign where everyone picked race first, then rolled stats in order (with one swap just to keep things from being too pidgeonholing) and then build from there.. just to see how it plays out. But I don't honestly believe I have a group handy that would be able to play a campaign like that and not be put off by it. My current campaign is roll (4d6 - drop, once through, assign at will) with a 28 point buy available if you don't like what you rolled. That works for that group. For RPGA I can see point buy being a necessity for fairness (because it's much harder to keep cheaters and gloaters out). There's a certain visceral enjoyment to die rolling that cannot be denied, but sometimes you need to step in and reassert some of the balance that die rolling takes out. Sounds like Maxperson's group has a good solid well-tested set of houserules to achieve a good level of balance that they enjoy. Yay. I'm going to continue enjoying the unfettered freedom of pointbuy and the unpredictable excitement of die rolling depending on which campaign I'm in at the moment.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 07, 2008 - 4:56PM
#88
|
|
|
Any effort to debate 4ed issues with 3ed examples is doomed to failure UNLESS we've seen the 4ed equivelent, and we haven't here.
I agree. I used an example from 3e to show why I think point buy makes for a more fair game. In no way, shape, or form is that using 3e examples to debate 4e issues. I was discussing outside of editions. As far as I know 4e has no issues cause I have not played it.
No, no they don't. All they support is you, as person, are hung up on whether or not someone might be a + or 2 better than you are.
This is just an absurd statement. I cannot remember the last time I played as a PC. I always DM the game. Always. I try to make examples and hold valid arguments. You, so far, have given me no counter examples. You simply claim it doesn't matter and dismiss my arguments out of hand. I have seen and played with people that it has mattered to. This lead me to stop rolling for stats because I feel as the DM it is my job to make sure everyone (including myself) has fun.
Most of us aren't so envious that we need to be equal to everyone else to feel good about our characters. Nor are our characters more than a hair better or worse than other characters because of those differences.
I never said people had to be equal. I said they needed to be in the same range. And the range variation with rolling I, personally, find to be too high.
The other people here, they argued their opinions on which way they felt was the best option for THEM. You're the only one trying to show that somehow, rolling makes characters inferior and poor to the point of driving people away from playing, and with 3ed examples no less.
I too simply stated what was best for me and gave examples as to why. Yes, rolling can lead to inferior characters, but it can also lead to superior characters. The issue only arises when you have both in the same party. Who knows this may not even be an issue in 4e. I am done. I was simply trying to show why I think point buy is a superior method for stat generation.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 07, 2008 - 5:01PM
#89
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I think the rhetoric flying around here is getting more than a little overheated.
Rolling stats naturally tends to create inequality and unfairness. It also limits your ability to make the particular character you want because not only the level of your attributes but also their distribution is taken out of your hands. I have a friend who prefers something like 14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10 for attributes, while I prefer something closer to 18, 14, 14, 8, 8, 8 or 16, 14, 14, 12, 8, 8 depending what I'm trying to play. With dice we would be forced to have a certain level of balance/specialization depending on the roll that might not fit our desired playstyle.
Personally, I can enjoy the pros and cons of each. On the other hand I've also seen people crushed (emotionally) by low die rolls for stats, and others that rub high rolls into their party members' faces and make everyone else have less fun. I'd like to just once run a campaign where everyone picked race first, then rolled stats in order (with one swap just to keep things from being too pidgeonholing) and then build from there.. just to see how it plays out. But I don't honestly believe I have a group handy that would be able to play a campaign like that and not be put off by it. My current campaign is roll (4d6 - drop, once through, assign at will) with a 28 point buy available if you don't like what you rolled. That works for that group. For RPGA I can see point buy being a necessity for fairness (because it's much harder to keep cheaters and gloaters out). There's a certain visceral enjoyment to die rolling that cannot be denied, but sometimes you need to step in and reassert some of the balance that die rolling takes out. Sounds like Maxperson's group has a good solid well-tested set of houserules to achieve a good level of balance that they enjoy. Yay. I'm going to continue enjoying the unfettered freedom of pointbuy and the unpredictable excitement of die rolling depending on which campaign I'm in at the moment.
Yeah, it's a good set of rules. I once played with a DM who had each of the 6 players roll one stat, and then all players had to use those same 6 numbers arranged however they chose.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 07, 2008 - 8:48PM
#90
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2004
|
15, 14, 13, 10, 8, 6
ROFL IF you have a DM that forces you to keep those numbers, you need a new DM.
You are aware that said scores passes the "reroll test" in the 3.5 PH? High score is 15 (above 13), net modifier is +2 (above +0). By the 3.5 PH, it's a completely playable character.
That you seem to consider the numbers unplayable highlights a problem: that your idea of "normal" and the numbers the game is calibrated around differ wildly.
Unless you only consider the numbers unplayable in contrast to 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 8 (not sure of the exact array, because it had 7 scores), in which case haven't you just conceded Aardvark's point about dissimilar character arrays?
|
|
|
