about rolling stats (like the old IE games)

[Cantousent]

I laughed out loud at that, Temerlane.

 

Actually, while I agree that maxed initial stats can be damned useful, but disagree that they're of ultimate importance, I don't think the balance issue from rolling is because of people rerolling for big scores.  The problem with rolling is more people who roll once, take a truly pathetic score, and run with it because of ignorance or some such.  Huge scores will help, but aren't all that big of a deal in the long haul.  Low ability scores can make the low level early game excruciating.

[Gromnir]

The bonuses from initial stats are less important than other decisions from the very beginning, even in table top.  They can make a difference, as Grom points out, but in sheer number crunching terms, they become increasingly less important.  We're talking initial stats here, and even 2nd edition stats which had some wildly different spreads in terms of bonuses and whatnot those initial stats weren't the end all be all.  Sure, if you get huge stat increases  throughout the game, you're going to see a great benefit, but the idea that even making all your initial stats 18 at character creation will make you invincible is just plain silly.  Frankly, and I mean no offense and hope you take none, but it's an unserious comment to say that the *initial* character creation stats are the make or break moment in just about any CRPG game I've played.  Even if high stats can be a huge benefit at lower levels, and in particular the first two or three, there's still so many other factors.  ...And 3rd edition made those bonuses uniform, which means that you're not getting that huge spread of to hit and damage bonuses of an 18/00 STR from 2nd edition.  Meanwhile, in a straight point buy system, you can already max your primary stat bonuses.  Rerolling could conceivably allow you to spend a huge amount of time to get max bonuses in secondary or tertiary stats.  So, the idea that the extra +2 bonus from a tertiary stat at, say, fifth level will be more important than decisions regarding skills, perks, gear, etc. is just crazy talk.

for old d&d, there were no meaningful class decisions after rolling up your character.  there were no skills.  you couldn't add attribute points at level 4.  there were no feats or perks or whatever.  other than spell book selection for mages, thief skills (which every player pretty much used identical) and weapon proficients (there were no grandmastery nonsense in d&d and ad&d 1e) level 1 choices were pretty much the beginning and end o' character development choices... and dual-classing  or original bards were 'bout as likely as Gromnir sneezing out a 4 carat diamond.  other than the role-playing o' the player, attributes and gear were all there were to distinguish one cleric from another. it took a Long time to level. gear were much more rare.  

 

*shrug*

 

attributes were much more important in old tabletop.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lephys]

 

But... rolling over and over and over till you get a good score was a little boring.

 

Still can't believe people did/do this.

 

If I rolled all 10's or something, I'd usually reroll. But, honestly, if I rolled all 17's, I'd reroll. When we played PnP sessions, we had a rule that you could only have so many stat values above a certain number (usually 14 or so). So, if you had 3 numbers, for example, above 15, you had to reroll anything else that turned up 15 or higher.

 

I mean, to each his own, but... rerolling until you get pretty much maxed out stats kind of defeats the purpose of a rolling system, which is to randomize your stats, because if you just got to pick them all, you could just pick all 18s. The people who invented D&D weren't counting on people just trying to get a gambling thrill off their character creation. "Just keep rolling for that jackpot!"

[Cantousent]

Okay puting aside tabletop, in the IE games, maxing startingbstata could make the early game much easier, but certainly wasn't a win.button for the game.

[rjshae]

It might be interesting to have a game that allocates your stats based on a combination of your starting class, race, and cultural background, rather than setting them directly. Or perhaps some combination of the two.

[rheingold]

It really is an addiction though. I mean there is just no other way to describe it. Heck, I'm not even a power gamer but I'd spend hours and hours trying to get most of my stats as close as to 18 for a character that I really wanted to play. Complete madness.... And then of course I'd roll a paladin or some other class which had serious stat requirements and wow, first time almost all 18's. Man that would piss me off. The stat hungry classes had a massive advantage over the rest.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

Sorry, but I'm having traumatic flashbacks of rolling and rolling and rolling and rolling and rolling until I got something like 97 points total to distribute. And yet not considering it cheating because, hey, that's what the game gave me. After 500 rerolls. 

 

*whimper*

[Gromnir]

Okay puting aside tabletop, in the IE games, maxing startingbstata could make the early game much easier, but certainly wasn't a win.button for the game.

agree complete. in the ie games, gear quickly supplanted attributes as the prime determining factor in deciding relative powha at identical levels. 'course the abundance o' optional side quests meant that leveling itself were extreme important and hardly a constant.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Valsuelm]

The pertinent question is:

 

Where does one find a character editor?

 

Problem solved once one obtains one.

[Gromnir]

The pertinent question is:

 

Where does one find a character editor?

 

Problem solved once one obtains one.

ironically, it doesn't.  it is startling how many people that played the old ie games considered use of a character editor to be cheating, but multi-hour re-rolls to be part of the game, and fun as well.  

 

Di were an old ie fan that were around all the boards until five or six years ago.  she were intelligent and liked bio romances (she were actual a professional romance novelist) and we liked Di very much.  however, we never could understand her re-roll fascination.  we pointed out that a character editor would get same results much faster. the observation/suggestion bothered her as she were certain we were being patronizing.  we had same  discussion many times over many years and it were hardly limited to Di and Gromnir.

 

many/most o' the re-roll folks from the old boards would re-roll even if an editor were available.  we don't understand it, but that were the reality.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[rheingold]

I don't know if I buy the stats didn't make that much difference. They made a pretty big difference, certainly for a substantial portion of the game. It was only when you started to get powerful items that the usefulness started to become less important. It definitely wasn't for just a couple of levels though. The benefits went far further than that, sometime to the end of the game. It also depended on what class you where. Something like a paladin really benefited with being able to max strength, dex, con, wisdom and cha. That made for one serious character who couldn't fail saves if he/she tried.

Edited March 12, 2015 by rheingold

[Lephys]

Okay puting aside tabletop, in the IE games, maxing startingbstata could make the early game much easier, but certainly wasn't a win.button for the game.

True, but, strictly speaking of D&D rules, there's a big difference between having a Wizard with 4 HP who gains 1d4 per level, and a Wizard with 7 or 8 HP who gains 1d4+3 or 4 per level. Especially when that Wizard still has 18 Intelligence, and an awesome AC bonus from DEX, etc.

 

It wasn't a win button, but it could often feel like you just pulled a slider from Normal to Easy.

[Gromnir]

I don't know if I buy the stats didn't make that much difference. They made a pretty big difference, certainly for a substantial portion of the game. It was only when you started to get powerful items that the usefulness started to become less important. It definitely wasn't for just a couple of levels though. The benefits went far further than that, sometime to the end of the game. It also depended on what class you where. Something like a paladin really benefited with being able to max strength, dex, con, wisdom and cha. That made for one serious character who couldn't fail saves if he/she tried.

the one attribute that woulda/shoulda affected saves, at least in a limited way, were wisdom.  "maj. def. adj."  there were no actual maj. def. adj. in the ie games. no save bonus for con, wisdom, dex as with d&d 3e.  and bg paladins got no divine grace saving throw bonus modified by charisma but rather a flat +2 on all saves. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Voss]

The bonuses from initial stats are less important than other decisions from the very beginning, even in table top.  They can make a difference, as Grom points out, but in sheer number crunching terms, they become increasingly less important.  We're talking initial stats here, and even 2nd edition stats which had some wildly different spreads in terms of bonuses and whatnot those initial stats weren't the end all be all.  Sure, if you get huge stat increases  throughout the game, you're going to see a great benefit, but the idea that even making all your initial stats 18 at character creation will make you invincible is just plain silly.  Frankly, and I mean no offense and hope you take none, but it's an unserious comment to say that the *initial* character creation stats are the make or break moment in just about any CRPG game I've played.  Even if high stats can be a huge benefit at lower levels, and in particular the first two or three, there's still so many other factors.  ...And 3rd edition made those bonuses uniform, which means that you're not getting that huge spread of to hit and damage bonuses of an 18/00 STR from 2nd edition.  Meanwhile, in a straight point buy system, you can already max your primary stat bonuses.  Rerolling could conceivably allow you to spend a huge amount of time to get max bonuses in secondary or tertiary stats.  So, the idea that the extra +2 bonus from a tertiary stat at, say, fifth level will be more important than decisions regarding skills, perks, gear, etc. is just crazy talk.

No it isn't.  Its provably and trivially true that initial bonuses matter more.  No one is arguing 'invincible,' just mathematically better.

 

Take Minsc and Khalid from BG1.   Minsc continually has... what... +2 to hit and +4 (or 5) damage over Khalid for the entire game.   As they level, they might get one level apart due to the differences between fighter and ranger level progression, which is 1 point of THAC0.  Minsc is literally always better from beginning to end.

 

It is even easier to see if you take two characters of the same class, and much easier to see in 3rd edition due to mkaing the level progression uniform and making ability bonuses sane.

Now granted there is the spellcaster vs. mundane useless idiot issue, but that is a completely different kettle of fish, marked by extraordinary levels of failure in basic game design.

[Cantousent]

I thought max HP for non fighters was plus 2. Memory might be failing me.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

many/most o' the re-roll folks from the old boards would re-roll even if an editor were available.  we don't understand it, but that were the reality.

 

It isn't rational, I know, but to me at least going into a character editor felt like cheating because I could instantly give myself 18 in everything. I didn't earn those stats, I just gave them to myself instantly.

 

Meanwhile, if I spent a bunch of time rolling over and over and over again, it felt like I had put in the time to have earned whatever ridiculous stats I ended up with. And no matter what those stats were, they were almost certainly shy of 18 in everything, so there was still a degree of compromise involved.

 

Those ridiculous stats were a product of blood, sweat and tears. I won them fair and square, dammit.  

[rheingold]

Those stats all counted in some way, wisdom for saves, con for hp. They were pretty substantial bonuses. The difference between a pc and the various nps was often rather glaring, mainly because of attributes. Still I am glad that it won't be an issue with Pillars.

Edited March 12, 2015 by rheingold

[Cantousent]

I get ya, Voss. When I get home I'll cast minor wall of text on you. :Cant's wry grin icon;

[Gromnir]

khalid, with 5 stars in Longbows, were a better damage dealer than minsc... just saying.  but he were not better than minsc at the beginning.  you somehow stumbled into the one scenario in which leveling beyond first level could be significant.  silly bg grandmastery gave +3 thac0, +5 damage and 5 attacks every 2 rounds... which is why bioware and black isle nerfed grandmastery.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

Those stats all counted in some way, wisdom for saves, con for hp. They were pretty substantial bonuses. The difference between a pc and the various nps was often rather glaring, mainly because of attributes. Still I am glad that it won't be an issue with Pillars.

the save bonus for wisdom was indeed included in the manual for every single ie game except iwd2, but it weren't actual in the game.  

 

however, you are correct that most o' the other attributes could significantly improve the paladin.  int and wis could be dump stats, but you couldn't actually dump wisdom regardless o' the fact that it were complete useless to the bg paladin.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Madscientist]

It might be interesting to have a game that allocates your stats based on a combination of your starting class, race, and cultural background, rather than setting them directly. Or perhaps some combination of the two.

 Thats it !

 

Your stats are determined by the fact that you are an elf mage with scientist background from the mountains.

 

Arcanum is a good example. You have lots of possible combinations, but you do not roll for stats.

[Voss]

khalid, with 5 stars in Longbows, were a better damage dealer than minsc... just saying.  but he were not better than minsc at the beginning.  you somehow stumbled into the one scenario in which leveling beyond first level could be significant.  silly bg grandmastery gave +3 thac0, +5 damage and 5 attacks every 2 rounds... which is why bioware and black isle nerfed grandmastery.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

If built that way, sure.  But that is a pretty corner case (can he even hit 5 slots with the bg1 level cap?), and even so an longbow grandmaster with 18 dex is still just strictly better than an archer grandmaster with a 12 dex.  Same with an 1st/2nd edition melee warrior without 18/xx strength.  Without those bonuses, such a character isn't worth taking along, if you have a choice in the matter.  The BG games were rife with NPCs that were just horribly built, both in terms of stats and proficiencies.  (and available magic weapons.... poor Ajantis and the lack of decent bastard swords)

[Gromnir]

ranger can't get grandmastery... and why wouldn't you put all proficiency slots in bows for khalid?  archery were overpowered, which led to nerfing by bis and bioware in iwd and bg2 respective, and khalid's stats, such as they were, lent themselves to ranged weapons. 

 

am believing you is correct that with level cap, khalid could only get 4 stars, which still gave him bonuses superior to minsc, but only by leveling.  is likely the one situation where post level 1 decisions could overcome the advantages and importance o' initial attribute spreads + gear.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

If we want to confine the game in question to BG1 and specific characters, that's cool, but my point is that generally initial stats have increasingly less impact than decisions the player makes.  A +1 will always give an advantage, all things being equal, but a +1 at level one has a much greater impact on combat when compared to a character who has a net 0 or a -1.  That's why you would find people railing about choosing to play an elf to get the +1 with long swords and longbows, which is quite powerful at level one.  However, that huge advantage at level is not the same huge advantage at level 5.  It's still an advantage, but at level 5, the base attack bonus contributes far more to the attack rolls.  Now, assume we add magic weapons, even a single +2 weapon at level 5, which you will almost certainly have found by then.  At that point, you've got +1 from your initial stat, +5 from your level, and +2 from your sword.  Yeah, the +1 is better, but it's not like he stands over the +0 guy and scoffs at him.  In a straight up battle, he'll win the majority of the time, but it's not certain in the least.

 

Now, 2nd edition, since we're ignoring 3rd edition or other games with initial stats, many of which actually have a variety of ways to increase stats temporarily or even permanently, but back to 2nd edition.  Yeah, if you're a fighter, you get the absolutely idiotic exceptional strength bonus.  That's not small potatoes.  You'll get +3 and +6 if I'm not mistaken.  Those stats will be pretty hefty for a while.  Of course, in a game where you find gauntlets of ogre strength and girdles and potions of giant strength, That doesn't just start to become less important as players gain BaB, it becomes a non-issue.  Your fighter with gauntlets of ogre strength is just as strong as the fighter without them.  The fighter with a girdle of even hill giants strength is superior.

 

Keep in mind, unless you create the entire party, the NPCs have set values.  You *choose* take Minsc.  If he has superior utility as a fighter, then that falls under a choice you make.  You can stack your guy all you want, but it's one guy in a party, and unless you're really metagaming, you're not going to solo everything.  If you do want to metagame and dual class from fighter at level 3 or 6 or whatever the hell the cool kids are doing these days, I think you really will get a lot of mileage out of rolling and rerolling for your guy with 18/00 strength and as many other 18s as you can get, but my initial point is still the same and still true.  Your initial stats become less important as the game goes forward.  Hell, even if your initial stats really do have a huge impact the whole game, they still become part of what makes you awesome, not the sole grantor of awesomeness as they are at the first level through maybe third level.

 

NOTE:  I'm not arguing they don't matter and I never have.  I have always said, they become less important.  Even when I've run campaigns, initial stats could be important, and perhaps make someone shine, but where the players go, how they approach problems, their ability to think of novel and interesting ways to deal with obstacles was still more important.

[Gromnir]

in bg, a fighter could get to level 7.  that is a thac0 improvement o' +6 for the entire +80 hour game.  an 18/91 str, which were kinda a target for most obsessive rollers. gave a +2 to thac0.   +2 is damned signifficant, particularly if bg had been like tabletop where magic were rare... but it wasn't.  between gaunlets o' weapon expertise and inevitable +2 weapon acquisition, and cost-nothing potions o' heroism...

 

*shrug*

 

magic stuff made the stat bonuses far less important than they coulda' been.  

 

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70906-about-rolling-stats-like-the-old-ie-games/?p=1581587

 

am clearly not arguing against bg magic loot impact.  however, a +2 change to thac0 and a +5 to damage were still significant as you could only reach level 7. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

edit: most o' our post got destroyed by gremlins. weird.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Gromnir