If you have 10 people all use point-buy, and they all decide to make a fighter, chances are all of their stats will be almost identicle to each other. Likewise if they all make a mage, or a thief, etc., etc.
Boring...
Boring if the stats actually were identical, yes, but your example is extremely flawed. 10 Fighters made with point-buy will not have the same stat array, and many won't be all that close to each other. We have far, far too many ways to build Fighters and too many stats to care about for that statement to be true, even if all 10 of the builders are hard-core optimizers.
Compare, for example, optimal stat arrays for a Dwarven hammer using BRV Fighter, a Half-Orc urgrosh using Tempest Fighter, a Longtooth Shifter polearm 2-H WT Fighter, and a Dragonborn Fighter optimized around Draconic Arrogance.
And that's not even getting into multi-class options, hybrid options, and fringe ideas like optimzing around Harlequin Style.
Honestly, I'd expect variance with 10 optimizers building a Human 1-H WT Heavy Blade using Fighter, let alone something as vague as "fighter", "mage", "thief".
Heck, I see variance in the way people build their Greatspear-wielding Feycharging Eladrin Tactical Warlords, and that's one of the most codified popular builds I'm aware of.
t~
edit: half-ninja'ed by Novacat, but worth saying again. Also, don't miss rolling stats, even a little bit.
If you have 10 people all use point-buy, and they all decide to make a fighter, chances are all of their stats will be almost identicle to each other.
Maybe fighter isn't the best example of the point you're trying to make. Between the race the player picks, and the build of fighter they choose, and their weapon of choice, and the feats they select or are looking forward to selecting in the future (especially if they have their sights set on multiclassing), any given level 1 fighter could reasonably have a Strength of 16 to 20, with their next-highest stat being Constitution, Dexterity, or Wisdom...or even Intelligence or Charisma. Sure, some of these builds may not be CharOp Approved⁚, but all would be playable, able to handle their fair share of combat, and be very, very different stat-wise.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Novacat...and tiomys...I gotta learn to type faster...
Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders. Das Fliegende Spaghettimonster helfe mir. RAmen.
I think we have just fumbled over the actual definition of "unbalanced". There is nothing unbalanced about rolling stats. "Unoptimized" perhaps, but not unbalanced. Having every player in the game roll their stats does NOT unbalance the game. It's not that fragile of a system.
I'll give an example:
If you have 10 people all use point-buy, and they all decide to make a fighter, chances are all of their stats will be almost identicle to each other. Likewise if they all make a mage, or a thief, etc., etc.
Boring...
However, with rolling stats, you have a chance at individuality. The cookie-cutter 18 STR, 16 CON, etc. fighter is not neccessarily the case. Why should two fighters be equally as strong as each other? Why should two thieves be just as dextrous as each other? That's the cookie-cutter syndrome if I've ever seen it. Yeah, you can customize them all differently, but if you strip away the feats, appearance, skills, etc., you have identicle PCs.
No, you might not be the strongest fighter. You might not be the most charismatic bard. You might not be the most dextrous rogue. So what? Why does that matter so much? What happened to individuality? What happened to creativity?
Maybe it's just a product of the times. After 20+ years of D&D, I can take any array of stats, rolled or otherwise, and make a memorable, fun PC that is just as active a participant as the guy next to me with 3 points in his "primary stats" higher than me. Maybe not everyone can. It's a shame, really. Any more, you sit down at the table with 2 fighters in the group, you already know what their stats are before you even see their character sheet. That's not how I learned to roleplay. You appreciate your strengths, accept your weaknesses, and roleplay the hell out of that character. That's how memories are made. Not with cookie-cutter PCs that are overly-predictable. I have little doubt that at some point in the future, character classes will come pre-statted so all you have to do is plug in a few feats, pick your gear, and hit the road. It'll be a sad day.
So...yeah, I miss rolling stats, which is why I still do it. The very first PC I ever made had rolled stats, just like the latest one I made.
Sorry to say, but you didn't seem to understand the basic principles of the game.
The first part is about thinking what you want to play, imagining your character. And not rolling the dice and see what comcept might be derived from that.
The prime choice shall be in the hand of the player, not randomized.
And your other points are not well-thought either. Did you even look at the PHB and the other books? There is no "one way to build character X, Y, Z" but instead there are at least two options for any given class, sometimes even four. These builds can be distinguished from each other - you won't guess, that's why I'm telling you - by choice of important stats, because depending on your build of choice you often have differing secondary stats, some even differing primary stats.
Stat arrays for fighters will be similar, yes, but there are still ways to customize, depending on your choice of race (dwarves will rarely start with Strength 18) and weapon, since weapon mastery has different qualification criteria for each weapon group. A Hammer-Fighter will look different than a Sword-Fighter.
We are supposed to play heroic characters, so outstanding attribute-scores are the reason you even became an adventurer. Bill the Shepherd might also want to become a fighter, but because he's physically not strong enough, he won't be trained in the martial arts. Joe the Sailor might feel he would make a glorious bard, but his voice and way to present himself doesn't make people willing to listen to him any longer than two minutes.
If you're not good in what you want to do (and the stats do represent this to an extent) than why did you even become this class? Everyone needs training, maybe in a kind of academy, sometimes as private scholar. If you're not good enough, your teachers will know it soon enough and might suggest another career for you, if you're lucky. In the case of self-taught people, some classes will have some kind of "Darwinism", since a non-dextrous thief will get caught and maybe lose a hand. A weak fighter will find a stronger enemy sooner than his stronger counterpart.
A couple of side note: according to the Character Builder, rolled stats are "house-ruled". Which of course doesn't stop you playing that way, but it's clear that option's not considered to be a peer of point buy or standard array. (Character Builder also doesn't let you point buy more than one stat lower than 10.)
Also, heck, yes, rolling dice is unbalanced. A +1 to hit is pretty much the most valuable thing you can get in 4th Edition; giving up one or possibly two of them because of a bad roll puts you behind the balance curve forever. It's the equivalent of using a +3 weapon when everyone else has a +5.
4E monsters are balanced so that you hit them X percent of the time providing you are soft-optimised for your level with appropriate magic gear. Whether that's a right or wrong decision (and whether or not it's actually achieved across the entire 30 levels), that's the design intention. If you're not running with a 20-something in your main stat (or some appropriately twinky feat/power offset) you're taking a deliberate nerf to your power forever. (Unlike 3.0/3.5 there's no way to raise/lower stats outside the levelling curve.) You will always be less effective against monsters.
More importantly, you're a less valuable member of the party than your point buy/array peers (or your dice-roll peers who rolled better). If you're cool with that, that's fine, but as a general proposition it sucks to be the guy who is just less useful.
There's a place in my heart for that style of luck-of-the-dice whacky highs-and-lows skin-of-your-teeth character creation, and the ridiculously overpowered luck-of-the-draw magic loot that supports it - but that place is wholly taken by 2nd Edition and 3.0/3.5. When I want to play like that, I'll go get those books out, and have a blast. It's not what 4th Edition is, and while I respect your right to play 4E in this kind of "hardcore" mode (and I'm sure you'll have a blast), I can't help but feel that you're better served sticking with a previous edition if randomised stats are something you really enjoy.
I completely agree with Hocus-Smokus, I too don't doubt that we'll soon see a system where you'll pick your class and the abilities will be pre-assigned. Hell, with the push of a button the DDI Character Builder optimizes your abilities for you so you don't have to think. If you ask me, the MMORPG-ization of the PnP-RPG has already begun.
Point buy = every character being homogenized. Everyone puts most of the point in their primary ability, then their secondary and then takes the remaining three or four points and spreads them out among their remaining four abilities (or you can have the Character Builder do that for you).
Back when I was playing 1e or 2e and even the brief time I played 3e we always rolled three sets of 4d6 (dropping the lowest die), picking the best set and assign the rolls were we wanted them. I applaud those that take the rolls where they land and build a character around the ability scores but that didn't allows us the control we wanted so we ditched that rule.
Pfft. Hardly. Read the half-dozen posts before yours for why this isn't even remotely accurate.
Talthus wrote:
Everyone puts most of the point in their primary ability, then their secondary and then takes the remain three or four points and spreads them out among their remaining four abilities (or you can have the Character Builder do that for you).
OR... you can roll randomly and put the highest roll in your primary stat, followed by your second-highest in your secondary stat, and then the rest spread out among your remaining four abilities. Big difference, eh? Besides this being a Straw Man, it's not even a good Straw Man within its own context.
Talthus wrote:
Back when I was playing 1e or 2e and even the brief time I played 3e we always rolled three sets of 4d6 (dropping the lowest die), picking the best set and assign the rolls were we wanted them. I applaud those take the rolls where they land and build a character around the ability scores but that didn't allows us the control we wanted so we ditched that rule.
[sarcasm]OMGWHAT? You wanted control? Over making your own character? You... modern, teenage, MMO-playing heathens. Next thing you'll be telling me that you didn't even roll for your race and class![/sarcasm]
Not to sound like an attack-dog, but the arguments for rolling stats just don't make any sense to me. Perhaps if someone could point out an advantage to rolling over point-buy, because all I've seen so far is:
• "You can still role-play even if you roll stats." Well, you can role-play even if you point-buy, too. • "Point-buy always results in the same set of stats." This is false.
I'm looking for a solid, true reason, any reason at all, why random stats is better in any way to point-bought stats.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
Point buy = every character being homogenized. Everyone puts most of the point in their primary ability, then their secondary and then takes the remaining three or four points and spreads them out among their remaining four abilities (or you can have the Character Builder do that for you).
Back when I was playing 1e or 2e and even the brief time I played 3e we always rolled three sets of 4d6 (dropping the lowest die), picking the best set and assign the rolls were we wanted them. I applaud those that take the rolls where they land and build a character around the ability scores but that didn't allows us the control we wanted so we ditched that rule.
I have difficulty reconciling the fact that you applaud people with the imagination to take a set of random stats and build an effective character out of those stats, but apparently lack the imagination to understand why point-buy does not equal homogenization. While it's generally true that people "put most of their points in their primary ability", the specific number of those points varies widely enough to make the rest of your claim meaningless.
