Character Creation.

[Arduin]

Like you said, Arduin, the average NPC score falls into the 10-11 range (10.5 being the average score) having too many stats below 9 would be pretty crappy.

Actually, the avg NPC score is 8. A -1 penalty. The avg. PC score is ~11.

So, the basic question I asked the poster (and never got a response to) was; what % above the rabble would a PC's scores need to be, to be considered "heroic". It is 40% above (like the rules state). Does it need to be 100% (2X) the average persons, etc.

The old adage, "define the terms of the discussion".

[Treebore]

I responded to the other thread first, so to summarize. Heroic is the actions taken, as well as the motivations behind them. You can appear to behave heroically, but it is, to me, also the reason underlying why you took that action, that truly defines if what you did was heroic.

All stats as mechanically defined as being achievable at character creation is "normal" for that race. Even if you have an 18, or 19 for elves, it is still an attribute normally achievable for that race. It is just unusual to see, so defined as "exceptional" within the context of that race.

As for am I trying not to kill PC's? Yep. I don't want them to die. I want them to succeed. As Rigon points out, that in no way means I do not kill PC's. I kill lots of PC's. Rigon complains about how often nwelte kills his PC's. Yet in my games I killed nwelte's characters so often, especially the Paladin he once played, I started referring to him as the "yo yo" Paladin because he was up, then down, then back up, then down again. Dead or unconscious. Fortunately for him the party was going through the G series, then all the way on to Lolth, so they had wishes and plenty of other resources to keep his PC alive for as long as he wanted to play him.

[mgtremaine]

Crappy to me would be 3 or more stats of 8 or below without a 16+ is a single stat. I find on average we get usually 1 16+, 1-2 13+ and the rest in the middle with 1-2 9-

As I said I used 4d6 drop 1...

Here is a pretty typical sample, this is 7th level Gnome Druid in my game who has amulet of wisdom to move from 16 to 18. This character was first made in 2002 under 3rd edition and ported in 2008 to C&C..... He'll make 8th next adventure. I consider this not crappy, but solid fun for the player.

Strength: 12
Intelligence: 11
Wisdom: 18(16)
Constitution: 10
Dexterity: 14
Charisma: 9

-Mike

[Treebore]

Crappy to me would be 3 or more stats of 8 or below without a 16+ is a single stat. I find on average we get usually 1 16+, 1-2 13+ and the rest in the middle with 1-2 9-

As I said I used 4d6 drop 1...

Here is a pretty typical sample, this is 7th level Gnome Druid in my game who has amulet of wisdom to move from 16 to 18. This character was first made in 2002 under 3rd edition and ported in 2008 to C&C..... He'll make 8th next adventure. I consider this not crappy, but solid fun for the player.

Strength: 12
Intelligence: 11
Wisdom: 18(16)
Constitution: 10
Dexterity: 14
Charisma: 9

-Mike

I agree that YOU might be right, your player may have fun playing this character. I just went all the way. With my players creating their character however they choose, there is no doubt what so ever they are playing a character they like. Since I am asking them to play these characters for months, and years, I figure it is best to be as certain as possible from the very beginning.

It isn't like allowing them to do so make characters I cannot kill, it just makes characters that it is a little easier for me not to kill. I am literally the "god" of the campaign world. Player characters only live because I make it happen. Whenever I make sure they have a fair chance to survive a given encounter, which I do with every single encounter, and so does every GM out there committed to running a long running game, I am manipulating the "reality" of the given setting. It has nothing to do with "reality". Reality rarely ever gives us a "fair" encounter. So when I see people say their game needs to be "realistic" I laugh, because I know if their players characters have survived to 6th level, it is only because they were always given "fair" encounters. Reality was thrown out the window from encounter number 1.

So why should I care what attributes the characters have? Even if they have all 18's and 19's, I can still kill them whenever I wish. So what harm does it do to let players create their characters to their own specifications? It doesn't. They get precisely the character they want every single time. I get a character, usually, that is a little bit easier for me not to kill. Its a win-win. So that's why I do it.

[Arduin]

All stats as mechanically defined as being achievable at character creation is "normal" for that race. Even if you have an 18, or 19 for elves, it is still an attribute normally achievable for that race. It is just unusual to see, so defined as "exceptional" within the context of that race.

No. NPC elves have a 3-13 range (without racial mods.)

[Lord Dynel]

Like you said, Arduin, the average NPC score falls into the 10-11 range (10.5 being the average score) having too many stats below 9 would be pretty crappy.

Actually, the avg NPC score is 8. A -1 penalty. The avg. PC score is ~11.

Actually, that's from the CKG, which is an optional source. That's not RAW, but a suggestion. Unless I missed it in the PHB somewhere.

If you use this method, then yes, PCs are a bit above the common folk. I didn't quite understand what you were citing earlier. Now I understand you were referencing an optional source. As far as I'm concerned, I'll use the standard 3d6 method from the PHB to determine everyone's stats. At least now I know where our discrepancy was coming from!


Tree, I have to admit something, since we're on the subject. I've always looked on your attribute method with a mix of respect and a little bit of head-shaking and disbelief. It's one of those, "it's so crazy, it just might work" kind of things. I've bandied around the notion that PC lives came and went at my whim but never did I consider the idea to let them have any attribute score they wanted. I guess the two never merged together. When I heard you did this some years back I thought, "That Treebore, he's a crazy ol' coot." But the more I thought about it, the more I could see the sense in it. I don't think I could ever do it in my games (my players would be so paranoid, they'd probably stand up and walk out!) but kudos to you, sir!

[Treebore]

All stats as mechanically defined as being achievable at character creation is "normal" for that race. Even if you have an 18, or 19 for elves, it is still an attribute normally achievable for that race. It is just unusual to see, so defined as "exceptional" within the context of that race.

No. NPC elves have a 3-13 range (without racial mods.)

Since I am talking character creation, of PC's, not NPC's, that does not apply. All I have talked about since my OP is player characters. NPC's are whatever I need them to be, just like any monster is what I want it to be. So if I want an NPC elf to have an 19 DEX, that is what they are going to have. I'll only care about the 3-13 range if I am bothering to write up a truly average townsfolk type of NPC. I rarely ever bother with that. I just assume a 9 attribute across the board and 4 HP with a 10 AC. Then I decide on what job they have and give them a name, if needed. That's all 99.9% of the worlds NPC population are until I need to define them. When I actually use them I decide if they deviate from the norm, and how much they do so.

[Treebore]

Tree, I have to admit something, since we're on the subject. I've always looked on your attribute method with a mix of respect and a little bit of head-shaking and disbelief. It's one of those, "it's so crazy, it just might work" kind of things. I've bandied around the notion that PC lives came and went at my whim but never did I consider the idea to let them have any attribute score they wanted. I guess the two never merged together. When I heard you did this some years back I thought, "That Treebore, he's a crazy ol' coot." But the more I thought about it, the more I could see the sense in it. I don't think I could ever do it in my games (my players would be so paranoid, they'd probably stand up and walk out!) but kudos to you, sir!

I found it surprisingly, even uncomfortably, liberating. So I hope you give it a try some day.

Still, this also depends on your players. My players do not give themselves 18's across the board. Most of the time, they actually use one of my dice methods.

Now if you have a player, or players, who will always give themselves all 18's, you should stick to dice rolls or a point buy system. I'm just a bit lucky in that I have players who do not want to play such characters all the time. So it works with my players.

[Troll Root]

I don't think it really matters what method you use. If the PC's use their brains when playing they can overcome many obstacles as they can when parties actually work together. I have used pretty much all of the methods, and none really have a great effect if the CK has a good handle of the game itself.

[trashheap]

I usually allow the players the choice to roll 3d6 and arrange as needed or point buy. Those that want to gamble with dice get to, those that don't, don't have to. Im running my first long term C&C campaign now and I offered the point buy from the CKG unmodified. I honestly like the distribution the players got from having the choice. Also the seige system seems to pretty much garuntee that characters shine where their classes are meant to, so I don't really see the need for high level stats.

As far as hit die goe, In the past in other D&D esque things I usually start characters off between level 2-3 and allow them to take the average on hit die or roll. With C&C I picked an arbitrary amount of XP that I felt was about right to start them out right and gave them the same option for hitdie. It worked out fine. Though I also give my players a lot of creative latitude in avoiding or altering the outcomes of combat if they can figure out a good way to and roleplay it well. So their hitpoints may stretch farther than some folks.

[lobocastle]

I consider NPCs to be a little more robust than the CKG suggests. I figure that anyone who lives to adulthood in a low technology fantasy setting would have to be fairly capable. For the campaigns that I run NPC have an average of 72 points spread out between the six ability scores, which is an average of 12. The 72 point system allows for a strong black smith, a smart scribe, a charismatic minstrel, a wise healer, a nimble weaver, or a healthy woodsman. I figure player characters to have an average ability score of 13 or 14.

[SaveVsFail]

For the longest time I did 4d6 drop the lowest, sometimes I'd let them roll multiple sets and choose the set they wanted, that was the pretty standard model for my group back home in the states. Lot's of reasons for it that don't really bear going into, suffice to say it kept SOME people honest.

Since I started playing C&C here in NZ the groups I ran games for were more open to doing it more "old school" so they just went with straight 3d6 placed where they want. I let them roll multiple sets if they wanted, most went with just one. I did give them max HP at first level though because 1 hp just isn't fun for anyone.

The other thing I did when I would let people to max HP on level advance, was that I made sure to tell them that if they wanted to go that route, the same would apply to monsters, they would also function at max HD.