about rolling stats (like the old IE games)

[Cantousent]

Yeah, exceptional strength provided a whole slew of bonuses and I personally disagreed with the rule from the very beginning.  Just not enough to fight with the players who always wanted to use it.  Of course, my campaigns used the same stats available for the players for every major encounter, which could be kind of tough on them.  Low level DnD, like first and second level, is a lot of fun.  One hit from a hefty critter can kill almost all the characters in a single shot.  Hell, the characters could single shot each other most of the time.  Except mages.  Low level mages just sucked.  I much much preferred 3.x.

 

As far as the gremlins...   :Cant's looking innocent while pushing gremlins behind him with his foot icon:

[NegativeEdge]

My favourite stat system was ToEEs Iron Man where you rolled for each stat in order and got what you got. It made rolling the stats required for say, a Paladin, really rare and led to some really funky stat distributions. Apparently this was quite an old way to do it and often house ruled away (in PnP which I've never played) but the RNG and ending up with a character with a stat distribution you would never intentionally set up really appeals to me.

[Voss]

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.

 

That... isn't how math works. The random number generator produces exactly 20 results, and AC in AD&D is (theoretically, though some people/games ignore this) capped at -10.  Every bonus counts, and that extra bonus will always be there.   I'm not sure why you're assuming the person with superior stats has just a +1 bonus (and not just to hit, but damage as well), but even so, if we're talking about two warriors for simplicity sake, the warrior with the better stats is the better warrior.  Period.  If they're in the same party, they're going to be roughly the same level and have access to roughly the same quality equipment.  The one with superior stats always has a higher bonus, and thus... is better.  In an ie game, opting for the NPCs with worse stats honestly makes no sense, and there are enough of them that you're honestly presented with same class characters that are objectively inferior to each other.

 

For later game opponents, having just the bare minimum bonus (from class +weapon) simply isn't enough. In D&D particularly, sending meatshields against late game and non-trivial opponents without bonuses is a quick trip to the load screen.  But regardless of which D&D edition you deal with, since the bonuses from str, class and item are additive and the RNG is capped, there is never a point where more bonuses become useless. Having an attack stat as high as possible is always better, and objectively so.

 

 

Gauntlets and belts of giant strength are an oddity, with an odd duality that they're either absolutely required or a complete cheat.  Frankly they are a game design issue, an admission by the game designer that the mundane classes can't compete at higher levels, and if the meat is going to be of any more use than pocket summons, they need to artificially boost their numbers. For BG, they're pretty much a metagame issue, not available for half the game, and you have to know exactly which trivial side character to poke so you can murder her and take 'em.  

[Cantousent]

First of all, potions and the gauntlets aren't meta game items in Baldur's Gate. I found them in normal runs.

 

I was using +1 to make it simple, but that apparently didn't work because you continue the all or nothing approach. Yes, an advantage of +1 at first level will still be an advantage of +1 at level 5. However, with the increase in hit points, better armor, and other factors, that +1 won't be quite the massive deal breaker at level 5. This is entirely how the math works. At first level, even that lowly +1 is a tremendous advantage. At level 5, it's a small part of the character's overall score. ...Or, to put it this way, does a fighter with the much vaunted 18/00 strength, having +3 to hit and +6 damage wielding a long sword and wearing normal chain beat out a fifth level fighter with a 17 strength (+1,+1)wielding a +2 long sword and wearing +2 banded mail? You can conflate any advantage with all advantage, but once again, the strength matters far less than the advantages yielded by level and gear you can expect to find easily in the game. ...And that's rolling and rerolling so that you get 18/00 and you don't end up gimped in every other attribute. The math is clear, those initial stats, which yield precious benefit to your level 1 character become less important than other bonuses you naturally gain from other factors as the game progresses.

 

BTW: I believe there are 2 sets of ogre strength gauntlets in BG with TotSC installed.

 

...AND you're talking about the stats in *one* game that has the lowest levels of any of the IE games. I don't care if folks believe or understand this, but initial stats are increasingly less important than other factors pretty quickly in BG1, even more briefly by the time we get to IWD, and are rendered even less important when 3.x comes into use. Not only that, I'm using the best example of any initial stat in 2nd ed. There is no exceptional Wis, Int, Con, or Dex. In fact, L jefe's example of the wizard doesn't even work because non-fighter template folks max the constitution bonus at +2.

 

So, to recap, as I've already said, that +3 +6 will always come in handy. I said that for even the lowly +1, but its part of the bonus mix objectively lessens. Also, speaking of the RNG being capped, the array of monsters isn't capped. You might be faced with a horde of gibberlings who will go down with one shot from a well armed warrior of reasonable strength. Much of the +3 +6 bonus is wasted on overkill. You might face one badassed dragon with a huge amount of hit points, in which case the bonuses matter more, but certainly less than your level and your gear.

 

EDIT: Damn you, Voss, sparring with you actually overcame my innate laziness and I looked up stuff on teh interwebs. Here's an article I thought was kind of interesting and shows basically my thoughts, especially in regards to 3.x and beyond. :Cant's huge grin icon: http://www.joystiq.com/2012/04/27/why-skills-are-in-attributes-are-out-in-modern-role-playing-gam/

[Kjaamor]

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)

 

This post carries the fetid stench of the "enhanced" (read: thoughtlessly imbalanced) edition upon it.

[Suhiir]

No PC/console game system can satisfy everyone simply because they lack the flexibility of a GM run game.

To some people min-maxing characters IS the game.

To others it's role-play (difficult in any non human run game).

Yet others love finding ability/skill synergies that allow them to do things the designers didn't intend/forsee.

 

There's no right/wrong way to play a single-player game, unlike multi-player ones.

[Infinitron]

You can roll for stats in PoE. That functionality would be trivial to implement, and I'm surprised Obsidian haven't done it, just for kicks.

 

What you can't do is roll for how many total stat points you have at your disposal altogether. It's always the same amount.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Infinitron

[Efreeti]

If any game allows me to reroll stats infinitely, I undoubtedly get stuck there for 30-50 minutes. I especially remember doing it in ToEE, but it goes as far back as Swords and Serpents on NES. I think a point buy system is the best alternative.

[Lephys]

In fact, L jefe's example of the wizard doesn't even work because non-fighter template folks max the constitution bonus at +2.

Yeah, my apologies. I wasn't aware of that. Even then, my point was mainly only reinforcing the importance of them early on. Sure, a Health bonus is much more useful to a Wizard (because even 2 more guaranteed health per level on one of the lowest-health classes in existence is just a greater relative bonus), even in the long run. But, yeah, later on, when you have 30 Health. 2 more Health isn't as big of a deal as it was when you had 4 Health.

[Failion]

keep the stat rolling in tabletop games where it belongs. 

[Cantousent]

Yeah, I mean, that +2 still means something later, but 10 extra hit points at level 5 isn't nearly as important as what you can cast. ...And I still get caught on stuff. Like, I know the theory is that to hit is more important than bonus damage on a 1 for 1 basis, but it's still cool to know your guy could knock out a bull in one punch. Of course, you don't even need massive damage to knock off a mage at level one. ...But I also think making hit points completely random sucked. In a CRPG it could make a big difference if you rolled a 1 every time. If the DM (or game) scales everything properly, any bonus will still have an effect. As Voss says, the RNG (D20) is a finite and knowable spread. +1 will always be 1 twentieth of that die, so if everything scaled perfectly, it would be the exact same ratio at level 5 and level 10. Nothing ever works out that perfectly when scaling, and even if you could maintain some sort of Zenlike balance for the AC, Thac0, and HP, you've *still* got abilities and spells.

 

Because of the way the conversation has progressed it sounds like I'm saying that initial stats don't matter or don't matter past the first few levels. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that we fixate on the initial stats. ...And I do it too sometimes. So my favorite method is a simple straight point buy.

[Gromnir]

dunno.  speaking o' +2, assume you get max con for your thief in bg... 'cause you is a glutton for punishment.  is no other reason to play a thief in bg, but whatever. how many hps you get by level 10 w/o con bonus? average says 35, yes? 3.5 is actual average o' d6, yes?  so after 10 levels, if you play fair, 35 hps is what you would expect for a thief with no con bonus.  16 con thief?  he/she has an extra 20 hps.  obviously the numbers is gonna be even more significant for a mage, and a bit less for a cleric. but heck, how 'bout fighters?  a fighter at the end o' bg 1 should average at about 39 hps based only on hd per level.  with an 18 con, you add 28 more hps.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 13, 2015 by Gromnir

[Cantousent]

Yeah, con bonuses accumulate. If the idea is to scale encounters and keep all bonuses relevant, but there's a lot more dished out in a normal campaign to increase damage on one hand and avoid (I would say primarily avoid at least) damage on the other, but not nearly so much in a typical low level campaign to increase HP. +2 for a mage is actually pretty damned good. Even though it's part of the pool tends to be less as a ratio, that +4 for a fighter is truly significant for every level because you reap that bonus benefit. ...And randomized rolls means that if you end up with a bad run for your HPs, you can still be competitive. For myself, and I'm probably going to take even more heat for this, I don't like randomization for hit points or initial stats in character creation. I like it in combat and skill checks because it adds piquancy. Otherwise, I like the player decisions to be the important thing in the game.

[Gromnir]

am not a fan of randomized stats and hps either, but it doesn't take much perspicacity to realize just how important the con bonus from the constitution attribute is in pnp and ie game d&d. so, con is vital and so too is dex, and strength is as well. intelligence, wisdom and charisma were likely equal important in pnp d&d campaigns, but that depended on your dm.  

 

am just observing, once again, that starting attributes in old skool d&d were actual far too important. at least it is our opinion that those level 1 rolls were far too important.

 

HA! Good Fun!