PDA

View Full Version : Point buy?



Admiral Squish
2007-12-20, 03:23 PM
Okay, I hear everyone referring to characters as 'XX point buys'. How exactly does this work? What is it? Why would you do so? How does the number relate to the actual points involved?

Reinboom
2007-12-20, 03:25 PM
See the DMG, pg 169.
It's not OGC, if I recall correctly.

- basically - point buy is a system your purchase stats (rather than rolling) with.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-20, 03:27 PM
I don't happen to own a DMG, I'm flat broke.

I assumed that much from 'buy'. But how exactly does it work?

Reinboom
2007-12-20, 03:30 PM
Can't give you exacts. If I did, I would be breaking rules and laws.

Summary, however. You start with all stats at 8, then you have a point buy value (point buy xx, xx is the value).
You may spend that on stats.
The higher the stat, the more it costs per point, though most is 1 point = 1 stat increase until you get into higher stats.

weenie
2007-12-20, 03:30 PM
This should give you an idea:

Point buy (http://invisiblecastle.com/help.py?p=buy)

Amiria
2007-12-20, 03:31 PM
This is how it works, raise your stats one-by-one to the allowed maximum (25 or 28 or 32 or 45 or 60 or whatever)

http://home.san.rr.com/thegraggs/dnd/Misc/pbcalc.htm

As youc an see, stats start at 8 points for free, before racial modifiers.

horseboy
2007-12-20, 03:32 PM
Here (http://www.nzcomputers.net/heroforge/). There's an Excel sheet called "Heroforge". It will tell you how many "points" the character's stats are worth. Reverse engineer from there.

Reinboom
2007-12-20, 03:33 PM
Oh, hey, found one too...

http://yellowrex.com/tools/pbcalc.php

This one includes racial mods for base races as well. Interesting.

Shishnarfne
2007-12-20, 03:35 PM
A more thorough way of saying it is to say that to increase an ability score by one point costs your current bonus in the score, to a minimum of one. As all scores start at 8, it costs 6 points to raise a stat to a starting value of 14, 10 to raise it to a value of 16, and 16 to raise it to a value of 18. Note that you can't pay extra to get it above 18.

For a point buy, a player is given X points (generally 25+ depending on the campaign) with which to buy all six stats at character creation. He then applies racial modifiers and level-up points.
Example: Elite array: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
These scores cost 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 0 points respectively, for a total of 25.

Living Greyhawk typically uses a 28 point system, so I purchased the array: 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8 for my first character in the system.

I hope this helps. DMG has a full table of point costs.

Edit: Spot check made. Ninjas sighted. Wow, that's a lot of ninjas.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-20, 03:35 PM
Wow. A 32-point build really sucks some serious arse... My DM gives us a set of scores to work with as we please. Ah, well, new systems to learn and master

horseboy
2007-12-20, 03:37 PM
Wow. A 32-point build really sucks some serious arse... My DM gives us a set of scores to work with as we please.

:smalleek: :smallconfused:

Thinker
2007-12-20, 03:41 PM
Wow. A 32-point build really sucks some serious arse... My DM gives us a set of scores to work with as we please. Ah, well, new systems to learn and master

Do you mean 32-point buy is bad? I prefer a 25 point-buy because I feel it makes the stats slightly more relevant, but 32 should be good for anyone.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-20, 03:44 PM
Let's put it this way. I'm used to an average score of about fifteen.

horseboy
2007-12-20, 03:44 PM
I usually used 28, LG and all.

kamikasei
2007-12-20, 03:48 PM
Do you mean 32-point buy is bad? I prefer a 25 point-buy because I feel it makes the stats slightly more relevant, but 32 should be good for anyone.

No kidding. 25 is what the game's supposedly balanced around.


Let's put it this way. I'm used to an average score of about fifteen.

Uhm. Your average score is what, on a "normal" adventurer as Wizards conceives of these things, would be the best ability of the elite class of people who go out and risk their lives in dungeons for fun and profit? Higher again than the best score of any given NPC-class-leveled schmuck? I hope your DM can compensate well.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-20, 03:55 PM
you're not supposed to have a score under eight, and you can't have a score over eighteen. It's a strange system, but that's how the rolls usually average. Between thirteen and fifteen. The PHB even said that was average for an adventurer!

Thinker
2007-12-20, 04:01 PM
you're not supposed to have a score under eight,
Who says?


and you can't have a score over eighteen.
Yeah, that's because you can't physically roll over 18.


It's a strange system, but that's how the rolls usually average. Between thirteen and fifteen. The PHB even said that was average for an adventurer!
It mentions that if your highest score is 13 or lower you should reroll...that's not really the same thing.

kamikasei
2007-12-20, 04:05 PM
you're not supposed to have a score under eight, and you can't have a score over eighteen. It's a strange system, but that's how the rolls usually average. Between thirteen and fifteen. The PHB even said that was average for an adventurer!

What? No it's not.

If you're rolling, your scores vary between 3-18 before racial mods. If you're using point buy, yeah, it starts at 8 and caps at 18, but it also clusters towards the low end.

The PHB says "the most common ability scores for PCs are 12 and 13", in other words, the average of 4d6b3 is 12.5. I'm not sure if that's correct, I vaguely recall hearing it was lower, but it's certainly not higher.

Swooper
2007-12-20, 04:06 PM
Well, different groups have different ways of generating stats. My group uses 4d6b3 six times, re-roll all ones, roll until you have a set you're happy with (but starting a new set means dumping your previous sets).

This results in very high stats, granted, but this convention came from the fact that the DM almost never gave us any magical items or treasure, in fact our adventurers tended to grow poorer as they gained levels (we used to laugh at the WBL table when 3rd edition came out), so we had to get power from somewhere else.

So, personally, I see nothing wrong with average stat 15 sets.

MeklorIlavator
2007-12-20, 04:10 PM
The PHB even said that was average for an adventurer!

I thought that part only referred only to the max stat that was extremely important to the class, like Int for Wizards.

kamikasei
2007-12-20, 04:12 PM
Well, different groups have different ways of generating stats. My group uses 4d6b3 six times, re-roll all ones, roll until you have a set you're happy with (but starting a new set means dumping your previous sets).

This results in very high stats, granted, but this convention came from the fact that the DM almost never gave us any magical items or treasure, in fact our adventurers tended to grow poorer as they gained levels (we used to laugh at the WBL table when 3rd edition came out), so we had to get power from somewhere else.

So, personally, I see nothing wrong with average stat 15 sets.

I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with it, but I think it's a bad idea to gin up a statgen system which averages much higher than the default and then play with it on the assumption/misunderstanding that it's no more powerful than the game was designed for. It sounds like Admiral Squish thinks his characters are only as gifted as all PCs are meant to be.

Artanis
2007-12-20, 04:15 PM
The PHB says "the most common ability scores for PCs are 12 and 13", in other words, the average of 4d6b3 is 12.5. I'm not sure if that's correct, I vaguely recall hearing it was lower, but it's certainly not higher.
*thinks* Yeah, sounds about right. I get 13 as a quick-and-dirty estimate, though it would take me a while to work up an actual average.



On a related note, I find it interesting how the point-buy system rewards generalization (if only slightly). Straight 15s have the same average as three 18s and three 12s, but the latter costs more :smallcool:

Swooper
2007-12-20, 04:18 PM
I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with it, but I think it's a bad idea to gin up a statgen system which averages much higher than the default and then play with it on the assumption/misunderstanding that it's no more powerful than the game was designed for. It sounds like Admiral Squish thinks his characters are only as gifted as all PCs are meant to be.
And that may well be the difference between his group and mine - My group is perfectly aware that we use insanely high stats. :smallwink:

Fighteer
2007-12-20, 04:21 PM
I speak from personal experience: giving the characters a higher than average ability score allocation translates into significantly higher difficulty for the DM in presenting level-appropriate challenges. Either they wipe out encounters that are supposedly appropriate for their level (making the game boring), or you have to bump up the CR of the encounters in order to challenge them (meaning they level faster).

The standard point buy would give characters an average of 12-13 across all ability scores; slightly lower if they bump any scores higher than 15.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-20, 04:21 PM
well, if you take the max possible as base, eighteen, then the average, at twelve, a logical pattern indicates the lower limit to achieve a thirteen average as eight. Disregarding rolls lower than eight and simply rolling three dice comes up wit the presented average on a regular basis.

And it does say that's average for an adventurer, I'll quote it, word for word:

To create an ability score for your character roll four six-sided dice and total the three highest ones. The result is between three (horrible) and eighteen (tremendous). The average ability score for a typical commoner is 10 or 11, but your character is not typical. The most common ability scores for player characters (PCs) are 12 and 13. (that's right, the average player character is above average.)

I added the emphasis, but word for word, comma for comma, that's what it says in the very beginning of the ability scores chapter in the PHB.

MagicPrime
2007-12-20, 04:22 PM
You can have scores under 8, (I think the real limitation is 3, or atleast you can't be a PC with an intelligence less than 3) the max for a stat is 18 before racial modifiers so an elf can start off with a 20 dexterity.

And it's not a 1 to 1 basis on points. Eventually they start taking more than one point.

horseboy
2007-12-20, 04:30 PM
*thinks* Yeah, sounds about right. I get 13 as a quick-and-dirty estimate, though it would take me a while to work up an actual average.



On a related note, I find it interesting how the point-buy system rewards generalization (if only slightly). Straight 15s have the same average as three 18s and three 12s, but the latter costs more :smallcool:

18's are inefficient. 16 is your most efficient stat purchase.

MagicPrime
2007-12-20, 04:31 PM
18's are inefficient. 16 is your most efficient stat purchase.

And with racials that will snag you an 18, so long as your not Human.

kamikasei
2007-12-20, 04:34 PM
Er...


you're not supposed to have a score under eight, and you can't have a score over eighteen. It's a strange system, but that's how the rolls usually average. Between thirteen and fifteen. The PHB even said that was average for an adventurer!


The most common ability scores for player characters (PCs) are 12 and 13. (that's right, the average player character is above average.)

You see where I'm coming from here?

Admiral Squish
2007-12-20, 04:36 PM
Off by two... not that terrible.

kamikasei
2007-12-20, 04:40 PM
Off by two... not that terrible.

How much is a template that grants +2 to all six abilities worth, in terms of LA? Because that's basically what you play with.

And I'm sorry, but when you post something that directly contradicts your claim as support for your argument, and don't even see it, that's pretty bad.

Thinker
2007-12-20, 04:40 PM
Off by two... not that terrible.

Having an array of 3 12's and 3 13's would be a 27 point-buy, which is a far cry from 32 :smalltongue:

North
2007-12-20, 04:42 PM
My real life group typically rolls higher stats. I like 32pt buy though. YOu have to make some tough decisions about where your going to be deficient. And I hate turning charisma into a dump stat.

PCs are supposed to be above average though. If they were average, theyd stay back at home on the farm.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-20, 04:49 PM
Point buy: an interesting idea, but not very practical. If I can only afford two vaguely high scores by having the rest of the scores as tens or eights, I probably wouldn't last long on the adventure-trail. To get one eighteen, T had to have three tens and two twelves. That's no way to rock a red dragon. You're toast in a few seconds or you're not even touching it.

I'll keep my system, for now at least. Maybe if I find a slightly less sadistic DM, I'll give the point-buy a try.

kamikasei
2007-12-20, 04:49 PM
PCs are supposed to be above average though. If they were average, theyd stay back at home on the farm.

4d6b3 is, on average, above average. 25-point buy is above average. Remember, 10 is the average. The average person is all 10s. The NPC array is 13-8, and that's only for captains of the guard and the village priest and so on. Being a 15-8 PC makes you better at some one thing than most other people are at anything at all.

There's a strange inflation at work where it seems people go from "PCs should be above average " to "my characters should be above average [when compared to other people's characters from different games]".


Point buy: an interesting idea, but not very practical. If I can only afford two vaguely high scores by having the rest of the scores as tens or eights, I probably wouldn't last long on the adventure-trail. To get one eighteen, T had to have three tens and two twelves. That's no way to rock a red dragon. You're toast in a few seconds or you're not even touching it.

18 isn't a vaguely high score, it's the best score a human can naturally have before starting out as an adventurer and becoming gradually superhuman. You're expected to be able to fight a red dragon with starting scores of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 and with 28-point buy as in Living Greyhawk you could make that 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8. You're expected to be able to fight anything in the game with those scores, [I]once you reach the appropriate level, with decent gear/ability choices/tactics. Personally I couldn't ever have too high an Int score, because that affects skills which I a) am addicted to and b) regard as an important way to further define your character, but beyond that there's no reason to need anything higher than a 15. Seriously.


I'll keep my system, for now at least. Maybe if I find a slightly less sadistic DM, I'll give the point-buy a try.

Yeah, having a DM who runs according to the guidelines presented instead of trying to kill the players is generally a help in keeping expectations within reasonable bounds.

Dausuul
2007-12-20, 05:00 PM
The PHB says "the most common ability scores for PCs are 12 and 13", in other words, the average of 4d6b3 is 12.5. I'm not sure if that's correct, I vaguely recall hearing it was lower, but it's certainly not higher.

It's pretty close. I crunched the numbers on it once, and I think I got something like 12.87, but I don't remember what the exact value was.

Edit: According to some page I found on Google, it's 12.244. Take that as you will.

Further edit: This page (http://sullivan.pgh.pa.us/~ksulliva/ralph/dnd-stats.html) is highly informative on the subject. Interestingly, if you do the math, 4d6 drop lowest averages out to 28.542-point buy, if we assume that scores below 8 are worth -1 per point below.

Average (point buy value of 4d6 drop lowest) is not equal to the point buy value of average (4d6 drop lowest).

And yes, 25-point buy is the standard to which the game is balanced. I prefer 32-point buy, as it seems a lot of gamers do. Conveniently, 32-point buy is just about the equivalent of +1 ECL over 25-point buy, so managing challenge ratings is fairly simple.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-20, 05:05 PM
4d6b3 is, on average, above average. 25-point buy is above average. Remember, 10 is the average. The average person is all 10s. The NPC array is 13-8, and that's only for captains of the guard and the village priest and so on. Being a 15-8 PC makes you better at some one thing than most other people are at anything at all.

There's a strange inflation at work where it seems people go from "PCs should be above average " to "my characters should be above average [when compared to other people's characters from different games]".



18 isn't a vaguely high score, it's the best score a human can naturally have before starting out as an adventurer and becoming gradually superhuman. You're expected to be able to fight a red dragon with starting scores of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 and with 28-point buy as in Living Greyhawk you could make that 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8. You're expected to be able to fight anything in the game with those scores, [I]once you reach the appropriate level, with decent gear/ability choices/tactics. Personally I couldn't ever have too high an Int score, because that affects skills which I a) am addicted to and b) regard as an important way to further define your character, but beyond that there's no reason to need anything higher than a 15. Seriously.



Yeah, having a DM who runs according to the guidelines presented instead of trying to kill the players is generally a help in keeping expectations within reasonable bounds.

Hey, man, there's no need to be hostile here. I never said you have any kind of fault. I just don't particularly like the system. I could understand your tone if I'd called you some sort of name or insulted something you made, but it's just a system. Some use it. Some don't. Really, who cares? It's a game, first and foremost, and we're here to have fun. Unless you happen to have fun flaming me. Then we're not liking that so much. Or, I am, really.

kamikasei
2007-12-20, 05:09 PM
Hey, man, there's no need to be hostile here. I never said you have any kind of fault. I just don't particularly like the system. I could understand your tone if I'd called you some sort of name or insulted something you made, but it's just a system. Some use it. Some don't. Really, who cares? It's a game, first and foremost, and we're here to have fun. Unless you happen to have fun flaming me. Then we're not liking that so much. Or, I am, really.

Uh, what did I say that was hostile or flaming?

You've made bad arguments and I take issue with bad arguments. It's a bad idea to take that as hostility or flaming, because it'll lead you to seek "civil" debate that amounts to sycophancy.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-20, 05:38 PM
Uh, what did I say that was hostile or flaming?

You've made bad arguments and I take issue with bad arguments. It's a bad idea to take that as hostility or flaming, because it'll lead you to seek "civil" debate that amounts to sycophancy.


Yeah, having a DM who runs according to the guidelines presented instead of trying to kill the players is generally a help in keeping expectations within reasonable bounds.

I'm not sure about you, but with me, me DM is my friend. I can't think of a single way that that statement could be taken positively. I happen to enjoy his games. He keeps them fun and interesting, and makes them hard enough that we have to work to keep ourselves alive, unlike campaigns where the PCs just wade through hordes of faceless minions without a scratch. Every win feels earned this way, and nobody skates by on a crazy-high AC. Don't talk bad about my friends, capisce?

Tormsskull
2007-12-20, 10:11 PM
Hey, man, there's no need to be hostile here. I never said you have any kind of fault. I just don't particularly like the system. I could understand your tone if I'd called you some sort of name or insulted something you made, but it's just a system. Some use it. Some don't. Really, who cares? It's a game, first and foremost, and we're here to have fun. Unless you happen to have fun flaming me. Then we're not liking that so much. Or, I am, really.


Let me summarize this thread for you:

AS (That's you): I don't get Point-Buy, what is it how does it work?
Others: Explain the system, provide links.
AS: Oh, that's dumb, it results in lower stats than the average adventurer is supposed to have.
Others: No it doesn't, look in the rulebooks.
AS: I'm not interested in PB. I mean, if I had a less sadistic DM, then maybe I'd try it, but I need higher scores to survive in his campaign.
kamikasei: That's pretty much common sense. If your DM is using more difficult challenges than is recommended for the average adventurer, then average adventurer stats are going to seem pretty low.
AS: Woah! Don't get hostile.
kamikasei: Huh?
AS: <quote> That's being really hostile.


Seriously man, point-buy is incredible for making balanced characters, which is balanced against the Monster CR ratings and such. If a character with average stats would die in your DMs campaign, then that isn't a problem with average stats.

kamikasei
2007-12-21, 01:58 AM
I'm not sure about you, but with me, me DM is my friend. I can't think of a single way that that statement could be taken positively. I happen to enjoy his games. He keeps them fun and interesting, and makes them hard enough that we have to work to keep ourselves alive, unlike campaigns where the PCs just wade through hordes of faceless minions without a scratch. Every win feels earned this way, and nobody skates by on a crazy-high AC. Don't talk bad about my friends, capisce?

"I can't think of a single way that that statement could be taken positively." - it wasn't meant to be. That doesn't make it hostile or an attack. If you need higher stats than 25-point buy can net you in order to survive your DM's campaign because he's, in your words, "sadistic", presumably he's throwing encounters at you that are tougher than the guidelines in the books would indicate. That's fair enough - many enjoy a more deadly campaign - but I get the impression from your arguments here that you and your DM both think this is how the game is played, by default, what it's balanced around. It's not. The game is designed around a lower power level with the expectation that the DM will throw monsters at the party according to CR guidelines, about four encounters a day on days you're having encounters, downtime for crafting/training/etc., and so on.

Personally, I take exception to statements like:

I'm not sure about you, but with me, me DM is my friend.
I happen to enjoy his games.
He keeps them fun and interesting,
makes them hard enough that we have to work to keep ourselves alive
unlike campaigns where the PCs just wade through hordes of faceless minions without a scratch
Every win feels earned this way
nobody skates by on a crazy-high AC

...where your implication seems to be that unless you play with artificially inflated challenges and stats to match, that you can't really enjoy the game, it won't be fun or interesting, and in general that a 25-point buy game with monsters run according to CR and no particular "sadism" on the part of the DM is in effect a romp through the Candy Meadows singing happy songs while wearing thickly padded outfits of the softest loveliest wool stuffed with downy feathers.

I'll clarify the statement that you took such issue with. Your DM doesn't run according to the guidelines in the books: clear enough, if you describe him as "sadistic" and say you need higher-than-normal stats to get by in his games. He's trying to kill your characters: well, that's a little unfair I suppose, but it certainly sounds close. This gives you unreasonably inflated expectations: yeah, that much is clear from your arguments here.

If your DM runs a high-powered game, well and good. If he does it under the impression that it's actually the game's default power level, he is wrong, and so are you. Not, "that's bad and wrong! stop it at once!", just factually wrong, that thing you have to accept you might be when you make an argument. If you then try to argue that adventurers are supposed to have exceptionally high stats and that this is both a) balanced and b) as set out in the PHB because, in your game, the challenges are deadlier to match, you have made an invalid argument due to unreasonable expectations.

That's all. You made a bad argument and I'm arguing against it. It sounds like you enjoy your game and that's great;but it's an entirely separate question from the balance or utility of point buy.

Talic
2007-12-21, 02:22 AM
"I can't think of a single way that that statement could be taken positively." - it wasn't meant to be. That doesn't make it hostile or an attack. If you need higher stats than 25-point buy can net you in order to survive your DM's campaign because he's, in your words, "sadistic", presumably he's throwing encounters at you that are tougher than the guidelines in the books would indicate. That's fair enough - many enjoy a more deadly campaign - but I get the impression from your arguments here that you and your DM both think this is how the game is played, by default, what it's balanced around. It's not. The game is designed around a lower power level with the expectation that the DM will throw monsters at the party according to CR guidelines, about four encounters a day on days you're having encounters, downtime for crafting/training/etc., and so on.

Personally, I take exception to statements like:

I'm not sure about you, but with me, me DM is my friend.
I happen to enjoy his games.
He keeps them fun and interesting,
makes them hard enough that we have to work to keep ourselves alive
unlike campaigns where the PCs just wade through hordes of faceless minions without a scratch
Every win feels earned this way
nobody skates by on a crazy-high AC

...where your implication seems to be that unless you play with artificially inflated challenges and stats to match, that you can't really enjoy the game, it won't be fun or interesting, and in general that a 25-point buy game with monsters run according to CR and no particular "sadism" on the part of the DM is in effect a romp through the Candy Meadows singing happy songs while wearing thickly padded outfits of the softest loveliest wool stuffed with downy feathers.

First, if you take exception to the fact that a DM is fun and interesting, I feel sorry for you. And if you take exception to the fact that Admiral Squish enjoys his D&D sessions, that's rather petty.

That said, what's "artificially inflated" in a game where everything's fake? The rules are guidelines, and, since all of us here know that a purely RAW run campaign is a joke at best, that RAW is meant to be a base that is changed to taste.

Now, Admiral there has pointed out twice, words to the effect of, "more power to you, but I like it this way", and you seem patently unable and unwilling to accept that.

The CR system is a guideline, and is designed to be modified at need. Party composition greatly affects the CR that the group can face, the types of enemies within that CR that the group can face. Not all CR's are created equal, and a group that can breeze through one CR 12, might get stomped flat by another.

This has little to do with stats. The difference between a 14 str and a 16 str is about 4 points, or the difference between 28 and 32 point buy. At level 10, assuming a +2 weapon, and a fighter attack progression, that difference amounts to the difference between +14 and +15 to hit, and +1 - 2 for damage. That accounts for a 6% increase in the relevant boost, and a 5% increased chance to hit. Hardly game breaking. Boosting stats is just a different way to play the game.

Stop "taking exception" to the fun of others. When someone says that the power level in their games is higher, and they get boosted stats to match that, and they like their game, it does NOT mean that nobody should like yours. Your way is perfectly valid... Until your way becomes bashing the ways of others.

kamikasei
2007-12-21, 02:35 AM
First, if you take exception to the fact that a DM is fun and interesting, I feel sorry for you. And if you take exception to the fact that Admiral Squish enjoys his D&D sessions, that's rather petty.

*headdesk*

I take exception to being told, "I don't know about you, but I play a fun game where we're not mollycoddled and treated gently, etc., etc." because the implication is that I must not play a fun and interesting game because it's not so powerful.


That said, what's "artificially inflated" in a game where everything's fake?

"Artificially inflated" is when someone argues that you can't possibly play an effective character with normal stats, because his own game is more lethal. It's fallacious, because it's using an exceptional environment (Squish's campaign) to argue about what's expected and normal in the core books.


Now, Admiral there has pointed out twice, words to the effect of, "more power to you, but I like it this way", and you seem patently unable and unwilling to accept that... Boosting stats is just a different way to play the game.

No, Squish has stated that his power level is the power level the game was designed for, and argued this point using invalid evidence drawn from his own game, where he doesn't seem to be conscious that the stats are in fact boosted.

I note also that you dropped the latter part of my post from your quote, where I say "If your DM runs a high-powered game, well and good. If he does it under the impression that it's actually the game's default power level, he is wrong, and so are you." That sure sounds to me like a statement that, yes, it sounds like you do have fun in your game and that's great, but, no, you can't argue from that that the power level of your game is the baseline for all D&D. Which is what Squish has argued.


Stop "taking exception" to the fun of others. When someone says that the power level in their games is higher, and they get boosted stats to match that, and they like their game, it does NOT mean that nobody should like yours. Your way is perfectly valid... Until your way becomes bashing the ways of others.

I haven't said a single thing about my own games. Otherwise, see the previous paragraph.

Talic
2007-12-21, 02:47 AM
*headdesk*

I take exception to being told, "I don't know about you, but I play a fun game where we're not mollycoddled and treated gently, etc., etc." because the implication is that I must not play a fun and interesting game because it's not so powerful.

Then you completely misinterpreted the statement, methinks. Perhaps his "I don't know about you" comment only referenced the following comment about his DM being his friend. As I'm sure you know, several people play D&D under a DM they're not so familiar with. And, if you'll note, all the italics and emphasis created above were put there by you. Not him.


"Artificially inflated" is when someone argues that you can't possibly play an effective character with normal stats, because his own game is more lethal. It's fallacious, because it's using an exceptional environment (Squish's campaign) to argue about what's expected and normal in the core books.

He didn't say that YOU couldn't. He said that HE couldn't, and cited the reason... A more challenging than normal setting. Nowhere in his arguement did he try to extend that line of thinking to "expected and normal in the core books". Again, that was you.


No, Squish has stated that his power level is the power level the game was designed for, and argued this point using invalid evidence drawn from his own game, where he doesn't seem to be conscious that the stats are in fact boosted.

I never saw him state that. Cite your source. Quote please, if you would.


I note also that you dropped the latter part of my post from your quote, where I say "If your DM runs a high-powered game, well and good. If he does it under the impression that it's actually the game's default power level, he is wrong, and so are you." That sure sounds to me like a statement that, yes, it sounds like you do have fun in your game and that's great, but, no, you can't argue from that that the power level of your game is the baseline for all D&D. Which is what Squish has argued.

Yeah, I didn't because the personal style of arguement which is "I'm right, you're wrong, nyah nyah" personally irks me, and I didn't want to be drawn into saying something inappropriate. Please, indulge me in this, and don't bait me further by bringing it up again. Throwing your correct statements in with smug assertations does little to engender goodwill in those around you.


I haven't said a single thing about my own games. Otherwise, see the previous paragraph.
True, you're trying to argue from the baseline, and are making the *fallacious* assumption that others are also, when citing the reasons for their own personal preferences.

kamikasei
2007-12-21, 06:31 AM
I'm at work now, so a detailed reply will have to wait until later, but I wanted to question this.


Yeah, I didn't because the personal style of arguement which is "I'm right, you're wrong, nyah nyah" personally irks me, and I didn't want to be drawn into saying something inappropriate. Please, indulge me in this, and don't bait me further by bringing it up again. Throwing your correct statements in with smug assertations does little to engender goodwill in those around you.

Where have I said anything like "I'm right, you're wrong, nyah nyah"? Of course I think I'm right and that Squish is wrong; otherwise I wouldn't be arguing against him! But I think he's wrong for clear reasons, which I've stated. I haven't made any "smug assertations" I'm aware of.

Certainly it's normally superfluous to point out that someone is wrong; normally you can just contradict them. But in this instance Squish seemed to be taking contradiction as a personal attack. My point was that I'm simply arguing that he's incorrect, not attacking him personally.

If you feel I'm "baiting you" or that the response you want to make would be inappropriate for the forums, by all means PM me.

Talic
2007-12-21, 06:50 AM
I'm at work now, so a detailed reply will have to wait until later, but I wanted to question this.



Where have I said anything like "I'm right, you're wrong, nyah nyah"?

I believe you reference the statement below.


Of course I think I'm right and that Squish is wrong; otherwise I wouldn't be arguing against him! But I think he's wrong for clear reasons, which I've stated. I haven't made any "smug assertations" I'm aware of.

And you would certainly find clarity in your thoughts. It's a shame I have to disagree as to its presence in your post. "But if he thinks XXX, he is wrong, and so are you." That is generally, in most circles, considered arrogant.


Certainly it's normally superfluous to point out that someone is wrong; normally you can just contradict them. But in this instance Squish seemed to be taking contradiction as a personal attack. My point was that I'm simply arguing that he's incorrect, not attacking him personally.

Simple as to why he took it that way. You took a confrontational demeanor. If you point a bow at someone, and they lob a fireball, it's a bit silly to go, "hey hey, I didn't attack you, what's this for?" Confrontational poses are usually viewed as aggressive actions.


If you feel I'm "baiting you" or that the response you want to make would be inappropriate for the forums, by all means PM me.
I'm attempting to avoid an inappropriate response at all, and not because of forum rules. I believe that debates are best held at respectable levels, and when they degenerate into hostile comments, they become pointless. That's why I avoided the comments where you seemed, in my eyes, to pat yourself on the back. If you can't show someone they're wrong without telling them they're wrong, you have no business debating it in the first place. That sort of "debating" is usually left behind at 6th grade graduation.

Now that THAT'S concluded, are there any more RELEVANT posts to the discussion?

Khanderas
2007-12-21, 08:11 AM
I'm attempting to avoid an inappropriate response at all, and not because of forum rules. I believe that debates are best held at respectable levels, and when they degenerate into hostile comments, they become pointless. That's why I avoided the comments where you seemed, in my eyes, to pat yourself on the back. If you can't show someone they're wrong without telling them they're wrong, you have no business debating it in the first place. That sort of "debating" is usually left behind at 6th grade graduation.

Now that THAT'S concluded, are there any more RELEVANT posts to the discussion?
I do not see anything wrong or childish with an argument where one, or both, says the other side is incorrect. When it is with arguments like "because" and "Nuh-uh" sure, but not the way kamekasi has posted.
I also agree that he naturally has to say he is right, because otherwise he would either argument for something he does not believe in and that is far worse.

I myself am very amused by this turn of events, I grabbed my metaphorical popcorn and I am reading with intrest. Dismissing his argument and your banter as irrelevant and concluded is problebly worse, though that is naturally my opinion.

Edit: A point that is made a handful of posts back, if a race can get +1 LA for getting +2 to one stat (and minor fluff), how is not +2 to six stats not something that shifts the game ?
The guy who does play with an average of 15 in all stats likes to play it that way, no problem. Kamikasi only pointed out that the CR does assume stats less then that and his DM makes the encounters harder because he has better stats (to keep the challenge up) and problebly not the other way around.