First of all, let me say thank you so much for your feedback! All of this is great and it's nice to have a sounding board for me thinking through some possible house rules for this game.

Secondly, I'm using the words "powergamer" and "roleplayer" as ways to describe two ways of playing - one where the player knows the game well and knows that they should put all their points into characteristics, and a second that does not know the game as well, and is not planning ahead as well (and doesn't know that they should put their points into characteristics).

1. The developers tell us to put points into attributes, so it's not powergaming at all. It's the only time, it's designed to work that way by FFG, and the next time you can do it is 75xp into a talent tree for dedication, so do it now. Serious roleplayers also put their starting XP into characteristics.

I don't mean to bring about the associations of munchkin-ing or min-maxing when you put your starting XP into characteristics, just that if you do, you know something that another player may not, until it's a few sessions in and too late to change their character.

All I want to do is help those players who didn't know this curcial bit of information.

For convention's sake, powergamer refers to the player that knew to put points into characteristics, and the roleplayer refers to the one who didn't.

It's also worth pointing out you've effectively defined power gaming as someone who knows the game. That's not what power gaming is about. You're not power gaming if you read and understand the rules.

I don't mean to bring that connotation, only using those words as conventions for explaining the house rule I'm proposing.

But - but - but - if someone creates a bad character then they are stuck with it? Isn't that punishment? If a player is asked if they want to put points into characteristics and they ignorantly say no, that they want to have skills, only to find out later that the math adds up against them, they should be punished with a weak character for it? An expert would understand what it's like to be in their shoes and allow them to respec/upgrade to character creation levels.

If someone wants to ignore character creation advice then they have no one but themselves to blame if later they find out they don't like their character. You don't create house rules to accommodate stupid choices. More to the point, you don't create a house rule that punishes a player for understanding the game and rewards someone who doesn't want to listen when someone else tries to explain that.

If you make a bad character after being advised not to you don't deserve a respec, the rules shouldn't be rewritten to conform to you.

Or as the GM you can just not let people make bad characters. It honestly is not that hard to do.

How is the expert punished? The expert is also given the ability to respec his character or upgrade characteristics up to character creation levels. The expert is punished for knowing the system in that he won't selfishly have a better character than others because the others won't screw up and make weaker characters? Isn't that selfish? The expert should want everyone to have equally powered characters.

He's punished because he actually learned the game and you rewrote the rules so that you don't have to actually learn the game and it's system. He invested time and energy into knowing how the game works. You're rewarding laziness, both the new player and yours as a GM.

But - but - but - if someone creates a bad character then they are stuck with it? Isn't that punishment? If a player is asked if they want to put points into characteristics and they ignorantly say no, that they want to have skills, only to find out later that the math adds up against them, they should be punished with a weak character for it?

I don't know what kind of people you play with but if I would explain to my players why a certain way of building a character is preferable then that is what they would do.

Being obtuse does not equal being punished. Also, they could always start a new character....

How is the expert punished? The expert is also given the ability to respec his character or upgrade characteristics up to character creation levels. The expert is punished for knowing the system in that he won't selfishly have a better character than others because the others won't screw up and make weaker characters? Isn't that selfish? The expert should want everyone to have equally powered characters.

He's punished because he actually learned the game and you rewrote the rules so that you don't have to actually learn the game and it's system. He invested time and energy into knowing how the game works. You're rewarding laziness, both the new player and yours as a GM.

That's a fair argument. Players should be rewarded with reading the book and understanding the rules.

I think the problem is that we've reached a grey area where we need to ask how much should that player be rewarded?

If a player is rewarded a lot (as in DnD) we get powergamed characters that break the game and can do combat feats with ridiculous bonuses.

If a player is not rewarded at all, they won't read the rules.

I'd like to argue that players will still read the rules and that they're rewarded with roleplaying with their friends. Having unbalanced power levels in characters shouldn't be a reward. Maybe there should be another type of reward, but if I understand RPG systems, they're constantly evolving because they are trying to balance character power levels.

But - but - but - if someone creates a bad character then they are stuck with it? Isn't that punishment? If a player is asked if they want to put points into characteristics and they ignorantly say no, that they want to have skills, only to find out later that the math adds up against them, they should be punished with a weak character for it? An expert would understand what it's like to be in their shoes and allow them to respec/upgrade to character creation levels.

If someone wants to ignore character creation advice then they have no one but themselves to blame if later they find out they don't like their character. You don't create house rules to accommodate stupid choices. More to the point, you don't create a house rule that punishes a player for understanding the game and rewards someone who doesn't want to listen when someone else tries to explain that.

If you make a bad character after being advised not to you don't deserve a respec, the rules shouldn't be rewritten to conform to you.

Or as the GM you can just not let people make bad characters. It honestly is not that hard to do.

I feel like this is a little harsh, but I understand your position.

Well, it was fun trying to be a part of the discussion but either I am on ignore or what I bring to the table is unwanted so I'll let it stand at 6 or 7 unanswered posts. Enjoy!

I think the problem is that we've reached a grey area where we need to ask how much should that player be rewarded?

This isn't a gray area. The book is very clear on the matter. If you and the expert players make it clear as well there is no gray area involved. You're the GM, if you don't make it clear then you're not doing your job. There is nothing gray about this.

I'd like to argue that players will still read the rules and that they're rewarded with roleplaying with their friends. Having unbalanced power levels in characters shouldn't be a reward. Maybe there should be another type of reward, but if I understand RPG systems, they're constantly evolving because they are trying to balance character power levels.

You're not discussing unbalanced characters. Failing to make a good character is not unbalanced. What you describe is just bad player choises. It happens. It's the GM's job to reduce the amount of bad choices novice players make.

You know what shouldn't be rewarded, failing to make a good character, ignoring the advice of expert players and the GM. The player you are talking about is someone who deserves a bad character. Most people if you explain how char gen works and what benefits are had and when will make a better character. If you explain how it works to them, and why and hell show them the math then most people make a good character.

The system was written to account for this. It already fixes the matter. All you're proposing to do is punish people for taking the time to learn and understand the system. You're punishing the player who actually listens to the advice of others and reward the player who is being obtuse.

On why my response was so emphatic

The short version : This is what I do for a living.

The slightly longer version: I'm an epidemiologist. I make my living studying causality from [largely] observational sets of data analyzed with statistics. I love what I do. When people are doing it wrong, I get worked up.

The long version : There's a lot of really bad science out there due to taking reasonable data and extrapolating it based really really bad assumptions. We're not saving lives or preventing disease here, but ffs if we're gonna math, lets just math right, okay? We're using it as a nice, quantitative foundation to draw some reasonable conclusions, that themselves are gonna be kinda subjective. Things are gonna get complicated and potentially misleading enough without throwing fuel on the fire with those bad bad BAD HORRIBLE assumptions.

On this house-rule as punishment

Holy crap, calm down. At the risk of seeming political, this point of view reminds me of this image .

The OP's intent seems pretty clear, he's just trying to level the playing field for the newbies. I don't think the way he's going about it is the best solution, I don't think it's nearly as big as a problem as he thinks it is, but it's not a punishment.

Okay, now I'm gonna math for a bit.

Well, it was fun trying to be a part of the discussion but either I am on ignore or what I bring to the table is unwanted so I'll let it stand at 6 or 7 unanswered posts. Enjoy!

Sorry! responding to them now

Well, it was fun trying to be a part of the discussion but either I am on ignore or what I bring to the table is unwanted so I'll let it stand at 6 or 7 unanswered posts. Enjoy!

Sorry! responding to them now

Wow, someone got butt-hurt by not being the center of attention...

PS go ahead and report it. I seriously don't even care anymore.

Well, it was fun trying to be a part of the discussion but either I am on ignore or what I bring to the table is unwanted so I'll let it stand at 6 or 7 unanswered posts. Enjoy!

Sorry!

I didn't respond to your posts because either I agreed with them or I'm not sure how to respond to them

Is that solely on the GM? The players at my table come with suggestions for roles all the time.

I think this is in response to GMs sticking to specific skills? I'm just going on experience as a player and GM that I understand when there are a few skills that get used more frequently than others.

So basically FFG is advocating 'Power gaming' by telling us to focus starting xp on characteristics then?

I strongly disagree that adding to your chaacteristics at the only time possible is power gaming especially as they designed the game to work as such.

Powergaming is just the term I used for knowing the system, I only meant it as a convention, not the min-maxing munchkining found everywhere in DnD etc

Isn't anyone playing this game for the first time either someone who's read the book, with someone who hasread the book, aided by someone that has read the book, playing with others who have read the book or has his/her game run by a GM that has read the book?

I think the whole premise of this topic is bizar it is like allowing new basketball players to second dribble because the others already know they aren't allowed.

Additionally the people refered to as Roleplayers are the 'noobs' in this scenario? While actually roleplaying is the thing (in my experiencing) new players find hardest to do....

I'm not sure what you mean here, of course at least a few people in a gaming group have read the book, what I'm arguing for is that we can make this game so that it won't be unbalanced if you haven't read the book entirely.

It's like playing basketball with NBA all stars and allowing non-NBA all-stars to grow two feet and gain manual dexterity so that they can play basketball just as well as the NBA all-stars can with the same height and same skill. You'll still get shorter 6ft players who are quick and taller 7ft players that can block, but now everyone's playing basketball fairly.

I chose those words (roleplayer) as conventions for explaining the house rule.

But - but - but - if someone creates a bad character then they are stuck with it? Isn't that punishment? If a player is asked if they want to put points into characteristics and they ignorantly say no, that they want to have skills, only to find out later that the math adds up against them, they should be punished with a weak character for it?

I don't know what kind of people you play with but if I would explain to my players why a certain way of building a character is preferable then that is what they would do.

Being obtuse does not equal being punished. Also, they could always start a new character....

I agree with this, but are we not able to forgive mistakes? Why are we so strongly harsh on those that don;t know any better?

@lethaldose: Wow, you sure do carry a crutch dude.

Must have struck a bit too close to home I guess. Weird that you feel the need to attack me even after you put me on ignore for telling you to tone down the rudeness, but hey every troll needs his hobbies I guess.

Anyway, humor is lost on you that is for sure. Also, trying to add to a conversation and thinking it is not worth your time or not adding to the conversation and being "hurt" seem to be two different things.

Edit: ah you toned it down....

Good point, I'm bringing it up because it has happened at our table, where some players knew to upgrade their characteristics while others didn't. The players that didn't put their points into skills and are necessarily gimped at only two proficiency dice for every skill in the long run. That means less triumphs and less probability of successes.

Add to that the math and we see that these characters are gimped in the early and late game, which seems unbalanced.

So because the people that "knew" didn't help or inform those that "did not know" you have a "problem". Sounds like the "problem" is of your own making. I put problem in quotes because this "problem" is relative and subjective. This game is not all about pass/fail so these math arguments mean little to me. I don't see the disparity that you apparently do.

I'd like to argue that players will still read the rules and that they're rewarded with roleplaying with their friends. Having unbalanced power levels in characters shouldn't be a reward. Maybe there should be another type of reward, but if I understand RPG systems, they're constantly evolving because they are trying to balance character power levels.

You're not discussing unbalanced characters. Failing to make a good character is not unbalanced. What you describe is just bad player choises. It happens. It's the GM's job to reduce the amount of bad choices novice players make.

You know what shouldn't be rewarded, failing to make a good character, ignoring the advice of expert players and the GM. The player you are talking about is someone who deserves a bad character. Most people if you explain how char gen works and what benefits are had and when will make a better character. If you explain how it works to them, and why and hell show them the math then most people make a good character.

The system was written to account for this. It already fixes the matter. All you're proposing to do is punish people for taking the time to learn and understand the system. You're punishing the player who actually listens to the advice of others and reward the player who is being obtuse.

Fair point: unbalanced classes/careers vs. just making terrible characters - there is a difference, and I understand you want there to be reward for making a character but imagine this:

You can create a character in any way, a new player may make his character with unconventional stats and choosing unconventional careers, but imagine that that character is actually good at something - the things he chose to put XP into.

Imagine a game where no matter how you made a character, it was balanced - the wizard is as powerful as a fighter, at all levels, but obviously not at all skills/activities (which is arguably not the case in DnD 3.5 and earlier). What I'm arguing for is that EotE can be that - it can be balanced for everyone to make characters that - no matter how you make your character - the power level of them all are balanced.

This is not to say they are all good at fighting - they'll all have their strengths and weaknesses - but imagine if it all balanced out, no matter how you made your character. It would be the end-all be-all of RPG systems. It would be the pinnacle of RPGs! I see EotE as very close to that!

Good point, I'm bringing it up because it has happened at our table, where some players knew to upgrade their characteristics while others didn't. The players that didn't put their points into skills and are necessarily gimped at only two proficiency dice for every skill in the long run. That means less triumphs and less probability of successes.

Add to that the math and we see that these characters are gimped in the early and late game, which seems unbalanced.

So because the people that "knew" didn't help or inform those that "did not know" you have a "problem". Sounds like the "problem" is of your own making. I put problem in quotes because this "problem" is relative and subjective. This game is not all about pass/fail so these math arguments mean little to me. I don't see the disparity that you apparently do.

Yes I see your point, but what if we could stop this from happening at all tables? If we could spend an hour or two putting together characters instead of an entire session devoted to it because it's not so much of a worry, then why shouldn't we? What are the downsides?

The disparity is in the math of the probability of getting successes on your skill checks - the math shows that putting XP into character creation is better in the short and long term, so those that don't are crippled from the start. I think we could stop this problem from happening at any table with this rule. What are the downsides for adding a rule that may not help everyone, but may help some tables with newer timid players?

I agree with this, but are we not able to forgive mistakes? Why are we so strongly harsh on those that don;t know any better?

Likely because the rest of us understand that there isn't a way for an informed GM and an expert player to allow for a novice player to not know better. If the player doesn't know any better then his group has failed him. As the GM it's your job to make sure the player knows better. If after they are informed they still make the choice that's on them. But you as the GM already know how this works. You need to be explaining this stuff to your players.

Fair point: unbalanced classes/careers vs. just making terrible characters - there is a difference, and I understand you want there to be reward for making a character but imagine this:

I have at no point advocated there should be a reward for making a character. I have just advocated that it's your job to nip this in the bud well before it becomes a problem.

What I'm arguing for is that EotE can be that - it can be balanced for everyone to make characters that - no matter how you make your character - the power level of them all are balanced.

You aren't arguing for game balance. The game is already balanced. What you are arguing for is to unbalance the game because the GM and the expert player are too busy not helping the novice build a character.

This is not to say they are all good at fighting - they'll all have their strengths and weaknesses - but imagine if it all balanced out, no matter how you made your character. It would be the end-all be-all of RPG systems. It would be the pinnacle of RPGs! I see EotE as very close to that!

Just repeating myself but you aren't proposing game balance.

Good point, I'm bringing it up because it has happened at our table, where some players knew to upgrade their characteristics while others didn't. The players that didn't put their points into skills and are necessarily gimped at only two proficiency dice for every skill in the long run. That means less triumphs and less probability of successes.

Add to that the math and we see that these characters are gimped in the early and late game, which seems unbalanced.

So because the people that "knew" didn't help or inform those that "did not know" you have a "problem". Sounds like the "problem" is of your own making. I put problem in quotes because this "problem" is relative and subjective. This game is not all about pass/fail so these math arguments mean little to me. I don't see the disparity that you apparently do.

Yes I see your point, but what if we could stop this from happening at all tables? If we could spend an hour or two putting together characters instead of an entire session devoted to it because it's not so much of a worry, then why shouldn't we? What are the downsides?

The disparity is in the math of the probability of getting successes on your skill checks - the math shows that putting XP into character creation is better in the short and long term, so those that don't are crippled from the start. I think we could stop this problem from happening at any table with this rule. What are the downsides for adding a rule that may not help everyone, but may help some tables with newer timid players?

If you are so stupid as to not put the XP into attributes from the beginning as is recommended by the game you have no one but your self to blame. That is not an imbalance that is stupidly ignoring the advice of the game designers.

First off, you feel free to hit the report button on a lot of these responses. The mods don't look kindly on harassment, especially of new posters, and a lot of these responses are way over the line.

Anyway, some comments on the results below:

• Just to better represent what players are going to see, I'm adding difficulties to the rolls. The difficulties are kept consistent, but each dice pool is rolled separately.
• I'm using a Monte Carlo method to generate these results with 100,000 simulations each. This should be sufficient to explore the sample space (see Weak Law of Large Numbers )
• Any correlation values are Pearson's correlations. These expect an underlying multivariate normal (or at least conditionally multivariate normal) to be valid. I feel this is a safe under the central limit theorem .
• The code is available on request, but I have limitations on how it's used.
• The OP at least appears savvy with stats, so I'm not slowing down if someone doesn't get some notation.
• I'm rounding to one decimal place for brevity.
• Some of you are on ignore, don't expect responses to what you post.

Okay, for starting characters we're comparing an the PG and RP pools as described above, I'm just adding an "Average" difficulty.

RP results (YYPP):

• Pr(successes > 0) = 56.4%
• Median Advantages | Success > 0 = -1
• Median Advantages | Success < 1 = 1
• Cor(Suc, Adv) = -0.57
• Pr(Triumph > 0) = 16.1%

PG results (YGGPP):

Again at creation, the RP character is 20 XP richer on this skill check ( as described above ), and failing ~ 10% more frequently than the PG player. The RP character is getting a little bit more adv on a fail, a little bit less about the same on a success, and [unsurprisingly] getting a triumph about 8% more of the time.

Edit: Below I decided I wanted to add a more extreme case, a PG+. This pool costs:

• 70 XP to increase attribute to 4
• 0 XP for first skill rank

So this pool is 60 XP down from the RP pool. It's results are:

• Pr(successes > 0) = 76.2%
• Median Advantages | Success > 0 = 1
• Median Advantages | Success < 1 = 1
• Cor(Suc, Adv) = -0.55
• Pr(Triumph > 0) = 8.2%

For 60 XP, we're getting about a 20% increase in success over the RP'er, and typically getting about 1 adv per roll. Triumphs, same as above. This is probably noticeable at creation , both in terms of success, adv, and XP hit.

Update: Found a code boo-boo that was grabbing the wrong median advantage data. It's updated above. Everything is correct.

Alright, here I'm going to compare RP and PG after some advancement. I'm increasing the to "Hard" (PPP) to keep pace with the increasing difficulty of the game. These pools were selected based on the OP's post above (I think), and it's going to be no obvious that the PG and PG+ pools ARE going to be superior, however, these simulations will show by how much, and compare the costs

The RP pool: YYGG

• 0 XP spent at creation to improve skill
• 0 XP spent at creation to improve attribute
• 10 XP spent at creation for second skill rank
• 15 XP spent later for third skill rank
• 20 XP spent later for fourth skill rank
• Total XP spent: 45 XP

The PG pool: YYYG

• 30 XP spent at creation for the attribute increase
• 0 XP for first skill rank at creation
• 45 XP spent at or after creation for ranks 2 - 4
• Total XP spent: 75 XP
• Note, this is also the PG+ pool with two only 2 more skill ranks (Total cost: 95 XP)

The PG+ pool: YYYY

• 70 XP spent at creation for the attribute increase
• 0 XP for first skill rank at creation
• 45 XP spent at or after creation for ranks 2 - 4
• Total XP spent: 115 XP

And the results:

RP pool: YYGGPPP

• Pr(successes > 0) = 69.5%
• Median Advantages | Success > 0 = 0
• Median Advantages | Success < 1 = 2
• Cor(Suc, Adv) = -0.56
• Pr(Triumph > 0) = 16.2%

PG pool: YYYGPPP

• Pr(successes > 0) = 73.3%
• Median Advantages | Success > 0 = 0
• Median Advantages | Success < 1 = 2
• Cor(Suc, Adv) = -0.56
• Pr(Triumph > 0) = 22.9%

PG+ pool: YYYYPPP

• Pr(successes > 0) = 76.8%
• Median Advantages | Success > 0 = 0
• Median Advantages | Success < 1 = 2
• Cor(Suc, Adv) = -0.57
• Pr(Triumph > 0) = 29.3%

Okay, so it's obvious that the PG and PG+ are better, but really, the increased success rate is very small: < 4% for the PG pool, and ~ 7% for the PG+ pool. IMO, the former just isn't noticeable. The median advantages are all the same across the board, and the triumph results are unsurprising. Remember the PG character is 30 XP down from the RP, and the PG+ is down 70.

Now lets do something interesting. Lets say the RP character took those 30 xp points and invested them into a class skill using the same attribute as the skill we're discussing (3 ranks), where as the PG player didn't have those XP to invest (0 Ranks). The results look like this:

RP+ "off-skill" pool 1: YYGPPPP

• Pr(successes > 0) = 57.9%
• Median Advantages | Success > 0 = -1
• Median Advantages | Success < 1 = 1
• Cor(Suc, Adv) = -0.56
• Pr(Triumph > 0) = 15.9%

PG "off-skill" pool: GGGPPP

• Pr(successes > 0) = 47.7%
• Median Advantages | Success > 0 = -1
• Median Advantages | Success < 1 = 0
• Cor(Suc, Adv) = -0.54
• Pr(Triumph > 0) = 0%

The off-skill is about 10% better success rate, better chance of advantage on a success, and triumphs. It should also be noted that 30 xp could be a specialization skill rank and a Dedication talent that the PG wouldn't have, which would make the dice pool:

RP+ "off-skill" pool 2: YGGPPPP

Next we'll do later game dice pools after everyone can get some dedication ranks in there.

Imagine a game where no matter how you made a character, it was balanced - the wizard is as powerful as a fighter, at all levels, but obviously not at all skills/activities (which is arguably not the case in DnD 3.5 and earlier). What I'm arguing for is that EotE can be that - it can be balanced for everyone to make characters that - no matter how you make your character - the power level of them all are balanced.

This is not to say they are all good at fighting - they'll all have their strengths and weaknesses - but imagine if it all balanced out, no matter how you made your character. It would be the end-all be-all of RPG systems. It would be the pinnacle of RPGs! I see EotE as very close to that!

Bah, so many unicorns. You haven't defined what a "balanced character" is. Nebulous concepts of "powerful" don't really exist here because "powerful" is contextual. Maybe D&D is easier because so much of it revolves around "hit points", and it's not very good at much more than combat. In that case you can directly compare wizard HP output vs barbarian HP output and decide who's more "powerful". But unless you run your EotE campaign like a D&D campaign and only look at Wounds and Strain, it's pointless. If you hold a tense negotiation and make a lucrative deal, are you more or less "powerful" than the Enforcer who takes out a mob of minions?

So let's be clear about what this thread is: a solution looking for a problem. It's also an exercise in math-geekery ... not that there's anything wrong with that! ... but I think you're more in love with the idea of solving a problem than actually identifying one that exists.

Not to mention: as long as the players feel their outcomes are roughly on par and they all get a chance to shine, there's not much more that needs to be done. D&D4 was pretty "balanced" -- there was some incredible math behind all the different powers and their damage output -- but it was completely tedious to run.

/dies of math overload

I think the system more than others allows for a GM to run the game and if needed house rule the threads debate and the system doesn't break.

I run my games where all players begin after starting XP is spent a bonus 2 to one stat and a bonus one to 3 other stats and it's working great for my game. However that doesn't mean it works for GM'S or players at another table. Just do what is needed to make you and your players happy. Only rule I would stick with is do for one player as you do for all players at the table and as a GM do the same for your Nemesis and maybe important rivals.

I'm gonna keep this one pretty simple, I think we know the spiel by now and this is getting tedious. The RP pool is gonna get skill rank 5 and a dedication talent, the PG pool is gonna get a dedication talent. This should make their XP totals close enough to being equal.

RP pool: YYYGGPPP

• Pr(successes > 0) = 81.6%
• Median Advantages | Success > 0 = 1
• Median Advantages | Success < 1 = 3
• Cor(Suc, Adv) = -0.56
• Pr(Triumph > 0) = 23.1%

PG pool: YYYYPPP

• Same as the PG+ pool in the previous example.

The biggest difference in these looks to be that the RP pool at this level is producing more adv on all rolls.

On the "off" skills, the comparison is going to be GGG vs GGGG:

RP "off-skill" pool: GGGPPP

• Same as the PG "off skill" pool above.

PG "off-skill" pool: GGGGPPP

• Pr(successes > 0) = 60.8%
• Median Advantages | Success > 0 = 0
• Median Advantages | Success < 1 = 1
• Cor(Suc, Adv) = -0.55
• Pr(Triumph > 0) = 0%

I assume everyone here can count and add, so I don't really think I need to summarize it again. Everyone's probably gonna draw their own opinions on the numbers anyway.

I have to concede that, overall, the dumping XP into stats at creation is numerically better than a more conservative skill or talent based approach, but when you look at the XP costs vs the numerical gains, it's really minor. IMO, it's minor to the point where I think it's a non-issue.

I'll stand by my previous statement that I think just to offering a character a one-time respec if they feel they're under performing due to choices at creation is a vastly better solution than a potentially abuse-able house rule. If the "power gamer" feels they're getting 'punished', then offer them the exact same one-time respec. I doubt they'll change much. Personally, I'd give them some $#!t about it if they claimed it constituted punishment.

PS Sorry if you think this is an overload of math, but

1. It's the kind of info that you have to produce to make any claims about imbalance
2. Like I said, I do this for a living.

Yes I see your point, but what if we could stop this from happening at all tables?

But it doesn't happen at all tables. I daresay it happens at very few. Only when people do not read the books or do not share the information when they do. The designers specifically call out spending chargen xp on attributes as it is the only time you will be able to. I'm not interested in helping people who don't even inform themselves in the first place.

I haven't read anything here that changes my mind. Your solution is fixing a problem that doesn't exist with the game. Players not knowing rules or helping one another, GMs not helping players, isn't the game's fault. The fault is the table, not the game.

Power gamer will always "beat" roleplayers mechanically, because that is their goal, and roleplayers don't care. If you fight the powergamer on their own turf, you will lose. Rather then mucking with the rules a whole bunch, just boot the players that don't jive with your group.

I've got no problem with folks who ar more interested in the combat then the roleplaying. They are welcome to my one shots or short adventures. When I run my year long campaign, I will cherry pick the folks that I trust to keep to the spirit of the game.