For the same reason that the minstrel isn't called the Bard -- because there WILL be magic using variants of those semi adept classes in the future (quite possibly the next issue of LN)

I would personally prefer that the non-magic using wilderness character get the name "ranger" and the eventual magical one get something different (like a "wildsmaster", "explorer", etc).  I guess I never associated "Rangers" with magic...

I like the idea, I think.

I feel we could also use something like a "Temple Initiate", to support clerics and paladins.  Gives them lodging and free Faith Healing at their chosen temple in exchange for a certain commitment of service to the temple.

Oh, perhaps I wasn't clear the costs for increasing stats would be the same as for the point buy (1 point for 1 point increase up to 15, then 3 points per 1 point increase from 16 to 20), it is the trade in (-1 point to a stat (any stat value gives 1 point for use in increasing other stats)

Okay, I misunderstood.  I thought you were talking a flat 1:1 trade regardless of stat value.  This approach here I can support.  It also gives a person who rolls nothing but a bunch of 12s or13s the chance to bump up and down a few stats, so I think it's a good idea.

Tim, my proposal/request is that before you post a new rolling method poll, to tell me which dice methods you want to include, and I can make a single graph showing how each method's distribution looks, so everyone can get a sense for what numbers they will produce.  That way they can can make a more informed decision.

So since you have seem interested in the "buff-er" stats, Tim, I rolled up random 10 characters using the 2d10/reroll 1s and 2s method, and have shown them in the attached image.

They are sorted by average stat, so most players will get a character that looks like #4 thru 7, but all of them are certainly possible, and I personally think all would playable, although for #10 I might ask the DM for a reroll.

For each one, I show the avg stat, median stat, how much that character is "worth" via the [corrected] point buy values, and then the net (sum) of their stat bonuses from those stats.

I like that most of the typical characters have a weak stat to deal with.  Everyone else satisfied with numbers like these?

[and my apologies if this technical detour has bored everyone to tears.  I don't think anyone needs to pay this much attention to the math.  But I do think players can sense or will eventually discover when a system is unbalanced.  Plus if we are having 3 different stat creation systems, we should get them to produce comparable characters. So I think it's important to devote this time to get this "right", tuning it to values that should ultimately just feel seamless and invisible.  I hate having my fantasy world jarred out of its magic when some dice mechanics suddenly feel "wrong". ]

[attachment[/attachment]

Hmm... it is sounding like 3d10, drop the lowest (rerolling anything below a 6) may be the way to go for a random roll determining stats...

Brian - what did you think of my variation of the point buy method that you suggested?

First of all, I think there might be a small error in the point buy numbers you quoted.  There's only a 2 point jump from 17 (11pts) to 18 (13pts), when I think that should be 3 points according to your description.  But I used your chart as written for the following. I can correct the numbers as needed, but it will mostly just bump up the point counts of the more powerful characters below...


So I just experimented with both the rolling method you suggest, plus the point buy values.  I wrote a dice roller that implements those rolls (3d10, top 2, stat >=6 ) and ran 100 random "characters" through it.  Here are the highest, middle, and lowest lineups for that:

#1) 20    19  18  18  18  11  11  11 (avg: 15.8, and worth 77 points using proposed point buy values)
#50) 20    17  15  14  13  10  10  9 (avg: 13.5, and worth 41 points using proposed point buy values), the typical character
#100)15  15  14  11  10  9   7   6 (avg: 10.9, and worth 7 points using proposed point buy values)

Even that lowest character, the 1% worst case scenario, is still a very playable one with a couple of 15s, and the top one is a monster with 5 stats of 18 or higher, which makes think that we may still be a little "high" in the overall scale.

Two ways to trim it down a bit:
If we do the 4 stats with 3d10 (drop lowest) and 4 stats 3d10 (drop middle, which is effectively a 2d10) we get:
#1) 19   18  18  17  16  13  10  10 (avg: 15.2, and worth 64 points using proposed point buy values)
#50) 20    13  13  13  12  10  9   9  (avg: 12.4, and worth 28 points using proposed point buy values), the typical character
#100) 16    13  12  12  9   9   6   6  (avg: 10.4, and worth 5 points using proposed point buy values)

or perhaps a simpler/more elegant method of 2d10 but rerolling any 1s or 2s (which also ensures a minimum stat of 6):
#1) 19 18  18  18  16  15  10  9 (avg: 15.4, and worth 67 points using proposed point buy values)
#50) 17 15  14  14  13  13  12  9 (avg: 13.4, and worth 31 points using proposed point buy values), the typical character
#100) 16 14  12  10  8   7   7   6 (avg: 10, and worth 2 points using proposed point buy values)

For comparison, the traditional D&D method of 4d6, drop low, gives you:
#1) 18  17  16  15  15  14  14  13 (avg: 15.3, and worth 53 points, although the max stat is 18)
#50) 17   15  13  13  13  11  8   8 (avg: 12.3, and worth 22 points)
#100)12 11  11  10  8   7   7   7 (avg: 9.125, and worth -7 points)

So I will leave these numbers up for everyone's consideration.  I personally have never been the kind of player to desire super-high stats, because any good DM will simply throw super-hard baddies at you.  I like a mix of a few good stats, maybe one exceptional one, and a few flaws.  Forces you to have to defer to other players when something challenges your weaknesses.

I think I myself lean toward the "2d10, reroll 1s/2s" as they keeps the namesake 2d10 mechanic, and everyone is ensured of having 2 d10s, but not always 3...

(disclaimer/footnote:  The above numbers are just sample sets run 100 at a time.  They do not necessarily reflect average probability.  But if you want those, I can compute those too

I like choice, and I think a point buy and a random roll method are the best two options to offer... 
however..
I have problems with the implementation of both of them as currently written.

Rolling
I love to roll dice for making characters and would love this to be an option for all players (with GM's approval). The current 2d10, keep-higher-and-add-5/10 roll method isn't a bell curve, but instead a ramp that favors a lot of 13,14,15s (for the stats you are adding 5 to).  You are more likely to get higher numbers than lower ones (the median is 13, in fact).  And for the +10 option, you are more likely to have a 17 than a 16!  16s end up being a small "trough" in the distribution.  In order to keep it as a bell curve, we might want to look at either doing:

• 2d10, added together, then perhaps giving a small pool of extra points to bump up a few stats
• 3d10, drop lowest (sorta like the old 4d6 drop lowest), which gives a similar average of 13.5 as the existing "ramp" method, but with a bell curve instead.

Perhaps a compromise would be 4 stats of 2d10 and 4 stats of 3d10 (drop lowest).  That would give you a few average stats and a few exceptional ones (I kinda like this since we're already willing to have 6 stats with +5 and 2 with +10, we already have a precedent for splitting the method among the various stats).  This would give you an overall average of 12.24, which sounds about right for an adventurer, but still a shot at a couple impressive numbers for your key stats.

Point buy
I like point buys, but I also like them to have a premium for buying really high stats.  For example, in a certain popular RPG, point buy stats of 8-14 cost 1 point per stat point.  A 15 or 16 cost 2 points each, while raising to a 17 or 18 cost 3 points each (and that scale was capped at 18).  That way, if you wanted that really juicy high number, it came with a price.  I'd like to see something like that here.  It keeps exceptional scores as "exceptional".  So, yes, please sanction a point buy as a character gen method, but let's calibrate it a little.

One way we could do so, that fits pretty closely to the current "Stat bonuses"  table, would be for all stats to start at a 6 (in keeping with your desire for that to be the min), all stats 7-15 costs 1 point each, each step from 16-18 costs 2 points, and 19 or 20 costs 3 points each.  A player would get 60 points to allocate among their stats.  (The pregenerated stats amount to 61 points by this system, so you could almost make that same lineup with this)  You could also buy up to some pretty high values, but you'd have to balance those with some average or lower ones.  (I personally think it's fun to role play having at least one low stat in the mix).

For those who like a visual depiction, here it is in chart form:

Stat	Point cost
6	0
7	1
8	2
9	3
10	4
11	5
12	6
13	7
14	8
15	9
16	11
17	13
18	15
19	18
20	21

[/list]

I support the idea and favor the wording of applying to any one ranged weapon, not any ranged weapon.  Being good at a bow doesn't make you a slingmaster.

Back when I played D&D, our group did the following, and liked the way it worked/realism.

Before each round of combat, all players jotted down a short note about their action for that round.  It could be dependent on other people's actions who acted before you. (Like, "if the wizard starts to cast a spell, I move to block him"). We allotted only a minute or so for this.  Then we played out the actions from highest initiative to lowest.

You had the ability to abort an action and just take a partial/standard action (as opposed to any full round actions) if something unexpected in the situation changed.  Thus if the orc fled the room [before your action because he had higher initiative], you didn't have to waste your fireball spell, but you also couldn't take an arbitrary full action instead (we assumed you started your original action, but changed partway through, thus costing you a part of the time slice).

We liked the system overall - This kept players for maximizing/overcoordinating, it still allowed for players to be surprised by their comrades actions in the heat of the battle (which we felt was necessary and real), and still accommodated some flexibility in changing things at last minute.  And you didn't have to fully write down your action - we trusted our players just to put a few words describing the action, and have the integrity to stick to even a bad planned action.

Haven't playtested Novus yet...