Why such restrictions on Ability Points?

[Devinous]

Example - Human fighter - even if I have the required amount of points to upgrade I can not make them stronger than 16. This happens with other races as well. Also why no ability to roll abilities - IE give me 3x6d (or 4x6d picking best 3) and let me attempt to roll good stats for their class like D&D was designed to do. Its bad enough that I will only get to create one character anyways so why not give me the chance to make them stronger in their chosen field? Its not like I could take on scenarios that require groups as a solo character, even with an 18 stat anyways.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Later we'll have the option to roll our stats.

[Yojo0o]

You've never used point buy system for 5e? It's the most common method I've seen in this edition.

[id795078477]

Tbh I never understood the "roll for stats" in a setting where DM isn't human (aka a video-game server and/or lobby).

In the scenario where there's no social contract the roll for stats will inevitably lead to multiple attempts of re-rolling a character. Because .. well, what gives? Rolled badly? Just hit that "back" or "main menu" button and try again. After just maybe dozen attempts you'll be sporting 2-3 scores of 18 and that's close to impossible in a TT scenario.

So.. you'll start with a huge advantage at hand at all times. I can also imagine the most persistent of players getting even 4+ AS as 18. If it takes 1 second to roll, it's not even going to be that big of a hassle. 20-30 minutes and there we go.

[Metallicus]

It isn’t fair in a pen and paper DND game to have a player get lucky and roll amazing numbers while another character rolls poorly. It also helps the DM keep min-maxer’s in check as some players will forgo roll playing to create the ultimate super hero.

In the context of balancing the game for EA it makes sense to control the numbers that players begin the game with, however that will likely not be the only method for character creation when BG3 is fully released.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Originally posted by Dellecross:

Tbh I never understood the "roll for stats" in a setting where DM isn't human (aka a video-game server and/or lobby).

In the scenario where there's no social contract the roll for stats will inevitably lead to multiple attempts of re-rolling a character. Because .. well, what gives? Rolled badly? Just hit that "back" or "main menu" button and try again. After just maybe dozen attempts you'll be sporting 2-3 scores of 18 and that's close to impossible in a TT scenario.

So.. you'll start with a huge advantage at hand at all times. I can also imagine the most persistent of players getting even 4+ AS as 18. If it takes 1 second to roll, it's not even going to be that big of a hassle. 20-30 minutes and there we go.

I agree, they should just cut out the middle man and include the option to set our stats to whatever we want, just like Solasta. The actual rolling, in a video game, is just a time sink.

For me, balance has nothing to do with it - I prefer rolling (or choosing my stats) because I often like playing really weird, MAD type characters with strange multiclass combinations (like Barbarian/Wizards) that have ability requirements that point buy just isn't good enough for.

I also don't like the idea of tanking an ability just to get a decently high ability in something else, and it feels like point buy has this tendency to lead to formulaic characters (all fighters tend to be nearly identical to each other since they're all constrained by the same system of point buy - i.e., you rarely see a fighter with a high Int, Wis or Cha because they are dumping those stats to get high Str and Con - and MAYBE Dex - so all fighters end up being similar).

Rolling (or choosing) helps people get the character that they want to roleplay, rather than the character that is streamlined to be effective under the constraints of a point buy system.

And finally, player characters are heroes, not average peasants. They should be somewhat exceptional. Having a sub 10 score in anything is kind of like having a developmental disability. IQ is roughly equal to 10x your Int score, so anything below 10 literally means you ride the slow bus.

I usually aim for this spread: 18, 17, 16, 14, 12, 10. This lets me excel in one or two areas and still have enough to make sure I get enough hp from Con and/or don't have totally crap saving throw rolls in any category.

I also don't like taking ASI's, since they are nothing more than linear power progression, where feats at least do something interesting and change they way you play your character, so I prefer to put all of those into feats. This means that I intend to start my character with their ability scores maxed or close to maxed, that is the same they will be at max level or 'endgame' right from the beginning, rather than progressing them up to that point. Since I will never be taking an ASI, I will never grow beyond my initial stat allotment (unless I get an item that gives me a boost or something).

That's just the way I prefer to play. It gives me more control over what kind of character I can play and feels like taking the straight jacket off.

[id795078477]

Originally posted by pandariuskairos:

I agree, they should just cut out the middle man and include the option to set our stats to whatever we want, just like Solasta. The actual rolling, in a video game, is just a time sink.

And this is a much harder problem to balance than one could think. The main thing is - in a video game it's almost always possible to re-roll anything in any scenario. With enough patience one can achieve a perfect "always 20 on all checks" playthtough. And that's just not the case in a TT scenario.

DnD in its TT incarnation was never designed for video-games, especially not those where players can save/load for free. Rerolling the character would be exactly that - "save/load" albeit without any actual progress yet made.

The difficuly in balancing comes from the issue that players can always turn the flow of time back and retry till the result is satisfactory so the game designers then must answer the question - is the reload/retry a core game mechanic? Because if it is, then they can add all the rolls/randomized stuff they want just as DnD would want it, but at the expense of - well, "fun" - nobody likes to repeat the same part over and over. But on the other hand, if they chose to embrace that players will retry but recognize that the save/load isn't fun and therefore shouldn't be a core game concept, there's little they can do but reduce or completely remove the rolls or rng. But then we're hardly talking about DnD anymore.

[Lλmbdλ]

Originally posted by pandariuskairos:

Originally posted by Dellecross:

Tbh I never understood the "roll for stats" in a setting where DM isn't human (aka a video-game server and/or lobby).

In the scenario where there's no social contract the roll for stats will inevitably lead to multiple attempts of re-rolling a character. Because .. well, what gives? Rolled badly? Just hit that "back" or "main menu" button and try again. After just maybe dozen attempts you'll be sporting 2-3 scores of 18 and that's close to impossible in a TT scenario.

So.. you'll start with a huge advantage at hand at all times. I can also imagine the most persistent of players getting even 4+ AS as 18. If it takes 1 second to roll, it's not even going to be that big of a hassle. 20-30 minutes and there we go.

I agree, they should just cut out the middle man and include the option to set our stats to whatever we want, just like Solasta. The actual rolling, in a video game, is just a time sink.

For me, balance has nothing to do with it - I prefer rolling (or choosing my stats) because I often like playing really weird, MAD type characters with strange multiclass combinations (like Barbarian/Wizards) that have ability requirements that point buy just isn't good enough for.

I also don't like the idea of tanking an ability just to get a decently high ability in something else, and it feels like point buy has this tendency to lead to formulaic characters (all fighters tend to be nearly identical to each other since they're all constrained by the same system of point buy - i.e., you rarely see a fighter with a high Int, Wis or Cha because they are dumping those stats to get high Str and Con - and MAYBE Dex - so all fighters end up being similar).

Rolling (or choosing) helps people get the character that they want to roleplay, rather than the character that is streamlined to be effective under the constraints of a point buy system.

And finally, player characters are heroes, not average peasants. They should be somewhat exceptional. Having a sub 10 score in anything is kind of like having a developmental disability. IQ is roughly equal to 10x your Int score, so anything below 10 literally means you ride the slow bus.

I usually aim for this spread: 18, 17, 16, 14, 12, 10. This lets me excel in one or two areas and still have enough to make sure I get enough hp from Con and/or don't have totally crap saving throw rolls in any category.

I also don't like taking ASI's, since they are nothing more than linear power progression, where feats at least do something interesting and change they way you play your character, so I prefer to put all of those into feats. This means that I intend to start my character with their ability scores maxed or close to maxed, that is the same they will be at max level or 'endgame' right from the beginning, rather than progressing them up to that point. Since I will never be taking an ASI, I will never grow beyond my initial stat allotment (unless I get an item that gives me a boost or something).

That's just the way I prefer to play. It gives me more control over what kind of character I can play and feels like taking the straight jacket off.

1. The "we play heroes non mundane people" is right but highly depedent on : setting, tone and DM

2. "A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but adventurers and many monsters are a cut above average in most abilities."
Average NPC characteristics oscillated between 8, when they are bad, and 13/14 when they are good
10 is literally by the book the norm and everything more is being good or exceptionnal

[Grymspeak]

I would rather have a choice. Personally, I would prefer rolling for my stats. As long as I'm playing solo and not multi-player, no one else should care. My choices won't impact anyone else. A difficulty setting serves almost the same function. Some people like insanely hard settings whereas others prefer an easier approach. What I don't understand is people insisting only their play style matters and Larian should do only what they want them to do.

I have a rather large collection of characters I rolled in BG1 and BG2. They are all better than average by far, and I never played some of them. I just liked seeing what I could create. Yes, I believe heroic fantasy characters should be, well.. heroic. Was Raistlin Majere average? Was his brother Caramon? Was Conan average? Point to any one example of a fantasy literature hero that was simply average. It is almost impossible to do because there was always something about them that set them apart.

I know the old heroic trope is highly frowned upon these days, but I still enjoy it. I want to "be" that hero. Just my two cents.

[Something completely different]

I am pretty sure stat rolling will be added along the line. I sincerely hope so anyway as I pretty much share Grymspeaks sentiment.

In my tabletop game PB is the only option for the players to avoid envy but in an SP game the players stats don't matter all that much so you should be able to re roll them until you're happy with them.

[Yojo0o]

I'm just not quite sold on it, myself. I'm not really sure how game balance is supposed to work with stat rolling, you know? Freedom to choose one's own settings is all well and good, but at a certain point, the experience is supposed to be curated to an extent. The common reason for restriction from rolling stats in tabletop may be to avoid envy between the players, but that also allows for a DM to continuously tweak the experience to suit the power of the players.

BG1-2, for all their quality, are a bit of a mess in terms of balance. In my experience, you're heavily incentivized to roll for stats until you're at peak power in those games, with min/maxing being heavily rewarded and almost never punished. 2e rules for attributes don't translate well to the equivalent stats in 5e, but even so, some sort of standard array or point-buy equivalent in those games would have made for a VERY hard first-timer experience.

BG3 seems balanced around PCs with stats falling within the point buy system. What is the expected experience if a PC rerolls until they have 14+ in all stats and 18-ish in their main ones? Take barbarians, for example. A skilled DM knows that a barbarian player with stats looking like 18/14/16/8/10/8 is going to be tough to take down with weapons, but the DM can challenge the player and party strategy by throwing spells like Hold Person or Enemies Abound to circumvent that style. A 20/16/18/14/14/14 barbarian against a game AI? I don't know how you'd ever die while raging.

With that above example, an informed player who chooses to play that way is fine. I'm just not sure if the folks who aren't on these boards will really know the best way to play the game with these sort of options available. If BG3 is your first foray into DnD-style gaming, who in their right mind would pick point buy if free rerolls forever are available?

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

The simple answer is that it just doesn't matter. Lots of people play point buy because they like the challenge.

Some people will use rolling/choosing to create the most powerful character they can, and that's fine. If they get bored because the game is too easy, then they'll reroll and not do that.

That's all there is to it.

[Yojo0o]

Originally posted by pandariuskairos:

The simple answer is that it just doesn't matter. Lots of people play point buy because they like the challenge.

Some people will use rolling/choosing to create the most powerful character they can, and that's fine. If they get bored because the game is too easy, then they'll reroll and not do that.

That's all there is to it.

I mean, you've previously stated that rolling for stats should be sufficient on its own to allow for the soloing of at least the content currently available. With that sort of potential for power, how is balance supposed to work?

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Originally posted by Yojo0o:

Originally posted by pandariuskairos:

The simple answer is that it just doesn't matter. Lots of people play point buy because they like the challenge.

Some people will use rolling/choosing to create the most powerful character they can, and that's fine. If they get bored because the game is too easy, then they'll reroll and not do that.

That's all there is to it.

I mean, you've previously stated that rolling for stats should be sufficient on its own to allow for the soloing of at least the content currently available. With that sort of potential for power, how is balance supposed to work?

You seem to be operating under this strange assumption that the difficulty of the game must be the same for everyone.

Also, high stats alone don't make a character overpowered. It's certainly a factor, but not the only one.

[Yojo0o]

Difficulty speaks directly to the subjective quality of the experience. I don't think it needs to be the same for everybody, but starting from a similar power level helps the devs to deliver their intended experience.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Originally posted by Yojo0o:

Difficulty speaks directly to the subjective quality of the experience. I don't think it needs to be the same for everybody, but starting from a similar power level helps the devs to deliver their intended experience.

Then why add difficulty settings at all?