PDA

View Full Version : what is elite array?



penbed400
2009-06-29, 11:09 PM
Simple as the title. I feel stupid for asking since it seems like a common term, but yea. Anybody care to clarify?

AslanCross
2009-06-29, 11:14 PM
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.

It's a set of numbers that DMs or players can assign to ability scores.
Monsters are usually statted in the books with starting numbers of 11,11,11,10,10,10. Changing those numbers to the elite array makes the monster stronger than usual, usually warranting a +1 to CR (unless the monster is advanced by class levels, which automatically assumes it has the elite array).

AintThatASeamus
2009-06-29, 11:15 PM
The elite array is the set of standard ability scores given to generic characters with class levels. It's effectively a 25-point-buy, that gives the character a 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8, placed as appropriate for their class and modified by race. It's a quick method of stat generation for elite monsters and characters with better than the usual 10 or 11 to their base abilities.

TheThan
2009-06-29, 11:25 PM
yep. I'm actually in a game where the whole party has the elite array for starting attributes. it's enjoyable. though i admit not having at least one super good stat is annoying.

ericgrau
2009-06-29, 11:57 PM
It's actually equal to average rolled stats... but no one seems to play characters with stats that "low". It's "elite" because 10 is supposed to be average. So basically it's a heck of a lot easier than rolling stats every time you want to make a monster or NPC that's a major figure just like the PCs are.

Colmarr
2009-06-30, 12:08 AM
It's actually equal to average rolled stats... but no one seems to play characters with stats that "low".

It's alway struck me as kinda odd that DM's make such a rod for their own backs by allowing PCs to use 30+ point buy, when the game is designed around 25 point buy.

Random832
2009-06-30, 12:10 AM
For the record (I actually ran the numbers), the actual average stats for "4d6 drop 1" are 8.5, 10.4, 11.8, 13, 14.2, 15.7 - marginally better than the elite array.

Average stats for 3d6 are 6.8, 8.5, 9.9, 11.1, 12.5, 14.2

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-30, 12:19 AM
It's alway struck me as kinda odd that DM's make such a rod for their own backs by allowing PCs to use 30+ point buy, when the game is designed around 25 point buy.It's better for balance.
Wizard 25 pt-buy has 17 Int, 14 Con, 14 Dex. Not bad at all.
Fighter has 16 Str, 16 Con, 13 Dex or Int, and is already behind in either skills or AC.
Boost that to 28, and a Wizard has +1 save DCs and a couple extra bonus spells half the time, while now the fighter can afford Combat Reflexes and Combat Expertise.
32, the Wizard has either +1 AC/AB or has eliminated a couple stat penalties, while the Fighter has an extra AC, extra skill/level, and eliminates a penalty.

Heck, 40 pt-buy makes the Monk decent, the Paladin good, and Gishes great. Why make 3.x balance worse?

Irreverent Fool
2009-06-30, 12:34 AM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm
Monsters are assumed to have completely average (or standard) ability scores—a 10 or an 11 in each ability, as modified by their racial bonuses. However, improved monsters are individuals and often have better than normal ability scores, and usually make use of either the elite array or the nonelite array of ability scores. Monsters who improve by adding a template, and monsters who improve by increasing their Hit Dice, may use any of the three arrays (standard, nonelite, or elite). Any monster unique enough to be improved could easily be considered elite.
Elite Array

The elite array is: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. While the monster has one weakness compared to a typical member of its race, it is significantly better overall. The elite array is most appropriate for monsters who add levels in a player character class.

Pretty much what has been said before. The basic idea of the array is for the DM to customize monsters or make 'elite' versions. All the monsters in the monster manual have 10s or 11s for their base stats. Their stats are then modified by racial/size bonuses/penalties and bonus ability points for every 4 HD (just like PCs).

obnoxious
sig

Colmarr
2009-06-30, 01:27 AM
It's better for balance.

I assume you mean intra-party balance.

Notwithstanding that I don't quite accept your logic in that regard, it sure as hell isn't good for party-vs-monsters balance because it gives the average PC an additional +1 to attack and/or (possibly more than) one save.

And in my (somewhat limited) DMing experience, it's the PC-vs-monster balance that does the most damage to a campaign.

Random832
2009-06-30, 07:01 AM
I assume you mean intra-party balance.

Notwithstanding that I don't quite accept your logic in that regard, it sure as hell isn't good for party-vs-monsters balance because it gives the average PC an additional +1 to attack and/or (possibly more than) one save.

And in my (somewhat limited) DMing experience, it's the PC-vs-monster balance that does the most damage to a campaign.

It's not that hard for DMs to adapt by throwing slightly more powerful monsters at the players - in the end what you've got is a faster-moving campaign (higher CRs = higher XP), which isn't necessarily a bad thing

Eldariel
2009-06-30, 09:07 AM
It's not that hard for DMs to adapt by throwing slightly more powerful monsters at the players - in the end what you've got is a faster-moving campaign (higher CRs = higher XP), which isn't necessarily a bad thing

Besides, it's not like most monsters are worth their CR anyways (and some are totally under-CRd; does the name "That Damn Crab" say anything to you? Oh, and most Dragons), so you already are better off customizing and pumping the monsters up a bit.

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-30, 10:33 AM
It's better for balance.
Wizard 25 pt-buy has 17 Int, 14 Con, 14 Dex. Not bad at all.
Fighter has 16 Str, 16 Con, 13 Dex or Int, and is already behind in either skills or AC.
Boost that to 28, and a Wizard has +1 save DCs and a couple extra bonus spells half the time, while now the fighter can afford Combat Reflexes and Combat Expertise.
32, the Wizard has either +1 AC/AB or has eliminated a couple stat penalties, while the Fighter has an extra AC, extra skill/level, and eliminates a penalty.

Heck, 40 pt-buy makes the Monk decent, the Paladin good, and Gishes great. Why make 3.x balance worse?

Exactly. I use 43 PB to resolve MAD issues. It ends up being similar to the Elite Array, but every stat is 2 points higher (17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 10).

ericgrau
2009-06-30, 10:37 AM
If you want a faster moving (or slowing moving) campaign you're well within your rights as a DM to increase xp given out. And throwing harder monsters does more than boost their AC & saves; they get other abilities as well. If anything you'd be better off using the same monsters and giving them all a +1 to AC & saves. Or just use lower stats and avoid the headache. Or ignore the imbalance like most do.

As for MAD, I'm not sure it really exists. Like an 18 in a PC's high stat, people seem stuck in some mentality that characters absolutely must have something. That only leads to a lack of character variety IMO.

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-30, 10:49 AM
As for MAD, I'm not sure it really exists. Like an 18 in a PC's high stat, people seem stuck in some mentality that characters absolutely must have something. That only leads to a lack of character variety IMO.

MAD exists. Look at the staple Chain Tripper Fighter build. You need a Dex score of 13 to get Combat Reflexes (and even higher, as you will be making a ton of AoOs with a Spiked Chain), an Int of 13 to get Combat Expertise (for Improved Trip), a Con of at least 16 because you are a melee character, and a Str of at minimum 16 (Power Attack and attack rolls). If you go Weapon Finesse instead of Str, you need a minimum of 13 Str for Power Attack anyway and now need a Dex of 16 or higher to make sure your attack bonuses are good enough to matter.

That's 4 ability scores, 2/3s of what you have to work with. You also need to find a way to make up for a low Will save, such as immunity to Mind Affecting abilities (attainable at 1st level easily, but it costs you 4 more points of Wis). If you are gunning for the Combat Focus tree in PH2, you also need a Wis of 13 just to take the first feat.

This is what MAD means: You need more than 3 ability scores to be an effective party member. Wizards need Con and Int (Dex is actually optional), Druids need Con and Wis past 6th level (and even then, their animal companion can make up for the first 5 levels), and Clerics need Wis and Con (Cha is optional if you don't take Divine Metamagic, but what Cleric doesn't take DMM?).

ericgrau
2009-06-30, 11:14 AM
^


People seem stuck in some mentality that characters absolutely must have something

So you just resaid what I said except you stated it as a fact instead of a mentality. Apparently agreeing to disagree is not an option. Same with the "needed" high stats that don't fulfill pre-reqs.

Saph
2009-06-30, 11:19 AM
MAD exists. Look at the staple Chain Tripper Fighter build. You need a Dex score of 13 to get Combat Reflexes (and even higher, as you will be making a ton of AoOs with a Spiked Chain), an Int of 13 to get Combat Expertise (for Improved Trip), a Con of at least 16 because you are a melee character, and a Str of at minimum 16 (Power Attack and attack rolls).

I think you're getting mixed up between 'want' and 'need'. You want a Con of 16, sure. You want a Con of 18 if you can get it. But you can manage without.

Tripper fighter with Elite Array: Str 15 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 13 Wis 10 Cha 8. With Combat Reflexes, that gives you two AoOs a round, which should probably be enough unless your enemies are really suicidal. Your Str goes up to 16 at level 4. Perfectly playable.

- Saph

Doug Lampert
2009-06-30, 11:20 AM
Pretty much what has been said before. The basic idea of the array is for the DM to customize monsters or make 'elite' versions. All the monsters in the monster manual have 10s or 11s for their base stats. Their stats are then modified by racial/size bonuses/penalties and bonus ability points for every 4 HD (just like PCs).
Not all monsters in the MM have the monster array of 10s and 11s.

Quite a few of the humanoids are NPC warriors and get the NPC array of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8.

A few of the templated creatures like the vampires are PC classed and get the elite array. But unless a creature has at least one class level listed it's assumed to be built on an array of 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11.

Eldariel
2009-06-30, 11:20 AM
So you just resaid what I said except you stated it as a fact instead of a mentality.

He said that to play characters with a certain set of abilities and perform well in-game, you need certain ability scores. Your Grappler Monk needs high Str, decent Con, decent Dex and decent Wis, or he either is too easy to hit, cannot take hits or cannot win Grapple-checks. All of those are essential for the character to be playable in-game.

A tripper Fighter has the same problem, though to a lesser degree (thanks to Full-Plate); you need Int and Dex to qualify for feats, Str for the checks themselves and Con to live. A mounted Paladin needs high Str (for the mounted charges to hit and deal damage), decent Cha (lest he wants to waste his Paladin-abilities), decent Con (lest he wants to die quick), decent Wis (lest he doesn't want his spellcasting), decent Int (just for Ride & Handle Animal already) and preferably some Dex ('cause getting penalties to AC and Initiative is never cool).


I don't really see what you're saying; sure, you don't need the 18 in the main stat, but that doesn't change the fact that many characters just can't exist without a given threshold number in a number of attributes. And others can.

And that 18 in the primary stat is really a prerequisite for some combat styles (such as Grappling, to make up for the monsters' size & BAB advantage), although casters can usually get by just fine with 15 and some pounder types do fine with 15s too.

MickJay
2009-06-30, 11:23 AM
He said that to play characters with a certain set of abilities and perform well in-game, you need certain ability scores. Your Grappler Monk needs high Str, decent Con, decent Dex and decent Wis, or he either is too easy to hit, cannot take hits or cannot win Grapple-checks. All of those are essential for the character to be playable in-game.

A tripper Fighter has the same problem, though to a lesser degree (thanks to Full-Plate); you need Int and Dex to qualify for feats, Str for the checks themselves and Con to live. A mounted Paladin needs high Str (for the mounted charges to hit and deal damage), decent Cha (lest he wants to waste his Paladin-abilities), decent Con (lest he wants to die quick), decent Wis (lest he doesn't want his spellcasting), decent Int (just for Ride & Handle Animal already) and preferably some Dex ('cause getting penalties to AC and Initiative is never cool).


I don't really see what you're saying; sure, you don't need the 18 in the main stat, but that doesn't change the fact that many characters just can't exist without a given threshold number in a number of attributes. And others can.

And that 18 in the primary stat is really a prerequisite for some combat styles (such as Grappling, to make up for the monsters' size & BAB advantage), although casters can usually get by just fine with 15 and some pounder types do fine with 15s too.

I think the idea is that if you necessarily have to play a certain build, then these stats are a must. But you don't have to play the same generic build as everyone else, based on the same stats; you can manage well with lower point buy - so you don't need those extra points to play a fighter, though you need them if you want a specific build. That way, the balance vs. monsters comes more naturally, too.

Saph
2009-06-30, 11:24 AM
And that 18 in the primary stat is really a prerequisite for some combat styles (such as Grappling, to make up for the monsters' size & BAB advantage), although casters can usually get by just fine with 15 and some pounder types do fine with 15s too.

This is a bit illusory in my experience. If you talk to DMs who allow very high point buy scores (say 40) the explanation they usually give is that they send stronger-than-average enemies to compensate.

So your grappler has an 18 strength instead of a 16 strength - but the monsters all have a strength 2 to 4 points higher as well. Since grapple checks are opposed rolls, you're essentially running a rat race here.

- Saph

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-30, 11:30 AM
^



So you just resaid what I said except you stated it as a fact instead of a mentality. Apparently agreeing to disagree is not an option. Same with the "needed" high stats that don't fulfill pre-reqs.

In case we are having a misunderstanding, I'd like to clarify my stance on the whole "MAD as a mindset" thing. I may just have misunderstood the logic behind you calling MAD a mindset. Here's my line of thought.

Fact: Ineffective PCs are little more than an XP and GP sink during combat-based encounters, no matter who is playing the character. If they are costing more than they can provide the party, they should not be a party member.

Fact: Multi-ability dependency hinders a class' ability to contribute to an encounter. If the player did not optimize his stats/build to compensate for MAD, or actively did not attempt to distribute his stats in a way that MAD is reduced to a small setback, he may become a hindrance to the party's survival/resources.

Fact: Efficient resource management helps to ensure survival. Ability scores are a resource, and should be managed efficiently.

Logic: Players who do not take MAD into account may become a hindrance to the party in some major way. Other party members can go out of their way to assist this player, but there should be a limit to how much assistance a single player receives. If the player in question cannot repay the investments made by other players in some means (such as efficiency in combat scenarios or actual compensation), the player's character is a liability. If he does not attempt to rectify the liability through optimization, the party has no reason to continue assisting his character. At that point, it would be best for the player in question to make a new (more efficient) character.


So, are you saying my "facts" are a way of thinking, rather than my conclusion? Or am I completely misunderstanding your post?

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-30, 11:36 AM
I think you're getting mixed up between 'want' and 'need'. You want a Con of 16, sure. You want a Con of 18 if you can get it. But you can manage without.

Tripper fighter with Elite Array: Str 15 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 13 Wis 10 Cha 8. With Combat Reflexes, that gives you two AoOs a round, which should probably be enough unless your enemies are really suicidal. Your Str goes up to 16 at level 4. Perfectly playable.

- Saph

Combat Expertise gives you a number of AoOs per round equal to your Dex modifier, not Dex+1. That Fighter can only make a single AoO each round, not very effective. If he were a Halfling, Rilkan, or another race that gets a Dex bonus, he would be a better Chain Tripper (he would be able to make use of his reach against multiple enemies, rather than one singular opponent).

You are right, it is a playable Fighter. I feel he would be a better Warblade, but that's just my opinion.

snoopy13a
2009-06-30, 11:41 AM
Combat Expertise gives you a number of AoOs per round equal to your Dex modifier, not Dex+1. That Fighter can only make a single AoO each round, not very effective. If he were a Halfling, Rilkan, or another race that gets a Dex bonus, he would be a better Chain Tripper (he would be able to make use of his reach against multiple enemies, rather than one singular opponent).

You are right, it is a playable Fighter. I feel he would be a better Warblade, but that's just my opinion.

No, combat reflexes gives an additional amount of AoOs equal to your Dex modifier. So, a Dex of 12 and combat reflexes gets two (the normal one and one extra). A Dex of 10 would get no additional AoOs and I suppose a Dex of 8 would theorectically lose their normal one (1 + -1) :smalltongue:

Personally, I'd go with a Str 15, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8 for an elite array chain tripper to get three AoOs myself at the cost of a hp per level.

Saph
2009-06-30, 11:43 AM
Combat Expertise gives you a number of AoOs per round equal to your Dex modifier, not Dex+1.

From the SRD: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatReflexes)


Combat Reflexes [General]

Benefit

You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity equal to your Dexterity bonus.

With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.

Normal

A character without this feat can make only one attack of opportunity per round and can’t make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.

I'm something of an expert on low-level trip fighters. :) You can play them with Elite Array; in fact, one of the appeals of the build is that it's not stat-intensive.

If you're using everything in the SRD, you can also get around the 13 Int requirement. That lets you start with 14 Dex and 14 Con, giving you three AoOs per round, which should be more than enough - speaking from experience, even the dumbest enemies are usually going to catch on that running through your reach is a bad idea after you kill two of them in one round.

- Saph

Elfin
2009-06-30, 11:43 AM
Simple as the title. I feel stupid for asking since it seems like a common term, but yea. Anybody care to clarify?

An "Elite Array" is a set of ability scores featuring an 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and a 15.

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-30, 11:43 AM
No, combat reflexes gives an additional amount of AoOs equal to your Dex modifier. So, a Dex of 12 and combat reflexes gets two (the normal one and one extra). A Dex of 10 would get no additional AoOs and I suppose a Dex of 8 would theorectically lose their normal one (1 + -1) :smalltongue:

Personally, I'd go with a Str 15, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8 for an elite array chain tripper to get three AoOs myself at the cost of a hp per level.

Teaches me to speed read. Dwarf makes up for the Con loss too.

Mando Knight
2009-06-30, 11:45 AM
You are right, it is a playable Fighter. I feel he would be a better Warblade, but that's just my opinion.

Every fighter is better as a Warblade. Your point is?

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-30, 11:53 AM
Every fighter is better as a Warblade. Your point is?

To quote Fighter: "I like swords".

ericgrau
2009-06-30, 11:59 AM
So, are you saying my "facts" are a way of thinking, rather than my conclusion? Or am I completely misunderstanding your post?

I think the confusing "wants" and "needs" comments explained it nicer than I can. Some people will think it's never effective enough unless it can do everything at the optimal level. I do not.

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-30, 12:11 PM
I think the confusing "wants" and "needs" comments explained it nicer than I can. Some people will think it's never effective enough unless it can do everything at the optimal level. I do not.

Not everything, but its area of expertise should at least be able to contribute a decent amount to the party's odds of survival.

kc0bbq
2009-06-30, 01:29 PM
Not everything, but its area of expertise should at least be able to contribute a decent amount to the party's odds of survival.But that does not really make the story any better. It really bothers me that people who make characters whose advancement is on rails complain about a plot that's on rails, for example. There should be some level of organicness to character development, not just OCD optimization.

Eldariel
2009-06-30, 01:48 PM
I think the idea is that if you necessarily have to play a certain build, then these stats are a must. But you don't have to play the same generic build as everyone else, based on the same stats; you can manage well with lower point buy - so you don't need those extra points to play a fighter, though you need them if you want a specific build. That way, the balance vs. monsters comes more naturally, too.

It makes certain characters unplayable. You can build any number of characters, having stats means there's a large number of mechanical alternatives out of your reach. That is, there are less alternatives as to what you can play in a lower buy game.

It just happens to hurt Fighters worse than many other classes, because inability to pick up the few good feats in Core pretty much makes Fighter's bonus feats worthless. Of course a lower buy also forces a Monk into Weapon Finesse leaving him with precious few offensive alternatives that do anything.


So sure, if you are ok with a given number of mechanical character implementations being unplayable and forcing everyone to few workable builds, lower buy is workable. But if you want to let people play whatever they want and not suck at it, a higher point buy does just that.


@Saph: While that's true if the monsters are actually 1-2 CRs higher than normal, if they are just built in a bit superior manner to account for the PC power increase, it should definitely improve the Grappler's odds to have that 18 in Str.

@kc0bbq: That really comes down to what you think character class represents. Barring extreme cases (such as a priest abandoning his god and engaging in arcane studies), most shifts are perfectly doable without actually switching your classes around at all. If you think of classes as ability sets the character has rather than their professions/personalities/etc, preplanning doesn't feel wrong.

In extreme cases (such as what suggested above), I tend to consider retraining the superior option as it keeps the character competent; if you have to switch out to Wizard-levels as an Ex-Cleric on level 10, you're going to suck the rest of the game no matter what you do.

kc0bbq
2009-06-30, 02:44 PM
If you think of classes as ability sets the character has rather than their professions/personalities/etc, preplanning doesn't feel wrong.It does if it in no way reacts to the story. If your advancement reflects in no way the story (i.e. someone wrote a list for you of everything you'll do from level 1 to 20), no matter what, completely unchangingly, it's pretty messed up. Well, this horrible thing happened to me, and rather than take this feat in reaction to that I'll take what's on the list. Because I'm a CRPG character and my advancement was set by a guy at a keyboard early in the game's development. Railroad is railroad. It's not compelling storytelling.

If optimization follows a path of character growth that came out of the story, I have no problem with that. Characters have an ideal they want to live up to, as well. But, rigid advancement wrecks immersion. No experience will change what was preordained. People find all kinds of ways to justify doing it, but it bothers to no end in games I run or play in. Overpowered? Don't care, as long as you're not doing it in a way to steal the spotlight all the time - unless the group wants that. Luckily, I don't have to deal with that with my player pool. Still a pet peeve, though.

warrl
2009-06-30, 03:14 PM
It does if it in no way reacts to the story. If your advancement reflects in no way the story (i.e. someone wrote a list for you of everything you'll do from level 1 to 20), no matter what, completely unchangingly, it's pretty messed up.

I agree. I want my character to make sense in his own terms, in his own life.

Since I was joining a game in progress, the character I'm currently playing began at level 12. So I made him a barbarian who got to level 8 NOT in dungeon crawls or wars or court diplomacy, but out in the wild where barbarians live. Decent at darn near everything, not superlatively good at anything. Then circumstances occurred, moved his whole tribe into the empire, got him more-or-less drafted to be a cleric and a warrior. Now he's level 15 and has just recently begun maximizing selected attributes (Extended Rage, Practiced Spellcaster, tossed an entire level's worth of skill points into Intimidate).

The point is, the character has a history, and his attributes are consistent with that history. He makes sense on his own terms.

Barbarian 11, Diplomacy maxed out - wha?

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-30, 03:24 PM
But that does not really make the story any better. It really bothers me that people who make characters whose advancement is on rails complain about a plot that's on rails, for example. There should be some level of organicness to character development, not just OCD optimization.

Problem: How can you have a coherent plot if the characters keep dying?

If the PCs aren't optimized to a decent level (where any given one of them can solo an equal-leveled encounter with a 65% success rate at minimum) then they are at a serious risk of being unable to finish the story arc, much less the campaign. Even basic optimization, such as doing healing out of combat with efficient wands and Healing Belts and saving spells like Heal for emergency use in combat is enough to show the players are competent and raise the odds of survival.

If you are given the choice between a hammer and a plunger to unclog your toilet, which would you use? Now answer the same question, but replace the hammer with firecrackers and the plunger with a certified plumber. Do you get the metaphor here? Optimization is a basic "Do or Don't" question. Either you do (no matter how little it may actually be) or you don't (and you hold back the party as a a result).

Options require careful consideration, and any RPG with numbers involved has a method of using those numbers to your advantage. Planning out a build is more than picking a class and race and sticking with a concept you have in your head; its about figuring out which combination of abilities gives your concept the best odds of surviving to fulfill that concept. Intentionally not picking the best options for the sake of avoiding optimizing a build is tantamount to suicide on a statistical level. Its only a matter of luck or time before the flaws show themselves and the lack of optimization comes back to bite you in the ass.

There is a balance between the two, however, as the Stormwind Fallacy shows. You're not on one end of the spectrum or the other; you are a point on the graph, somewhere between one of four axises. Like forging a sword, you need to temper the steel just right or the entire thing will bend over backwards under pressure.


It isn't OCD, its basic survival.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-30, 04:12 PM
As for MAD, I'm not sure it really exists. Like an 18 in a PC's high stat, people seem stuck in some mentality that characters absolutely must have something to be effective. That only leads to a lack of character variety IMO.Fixed. In a perfect game, any reasonable character concept would be usable, and any set of stats playable. In D&D 3.x, a Fighter needs to be able to qualify for feats, as feats are the source of his power. Many of those feats have stat prerequisites. Therefore, a Fighter needs certain stats to qualify for his class features. Further, due to monster AC and damage, a Fighter needs other stats to be above certain levels in order to not die in melee. Therefore, a Fighter needs several stats above certain levels in order to be effective. This is MAD.

If there is any part of that you object to, please, point it out.

kc0bbq
2009-06-30, 04:23 PM
Problem: How can you have a coherent plot if the characters keep dying?

[SNIP]

It isn't OCD, its basic survival.Pretty easily if your DM and players are good at crafting a story instead of a monster grinder.

If characters are dying when they shouldn't be that's a problem with the DM or the players. If your only goal is to win D&D that's pretty boring. Failure can be exceptionally entertaining and really, really good for the story.

If you can almost always solo an equal level encounter head on that's not much of a challenge. It again goes back to winning D&D. Other people like that kind of thing, they can keep it. If I want to get to the point where I just describe how I win I'll play Amber DRPG.

It's video game D&D. It leads to wooden characters. They don't react to the story, they're just a flowchart. I, personally, have a severe dislike for that kind of game.

If life throws the character a curveball, they should react to that. It's not survival, it's completely unnatural feeling.

Eldariel
2009-06-30, 04:38 PM
The way I see it, I craft a build to suit the character I want to play before the game, and if something so radical happens in-game that my original build isn't appropriate anymore, I retrain. It may come from the fact that I used to play AD&D (where "multiclassing" as we know it didn't exist), but when I think of my character, I don't think of his classes, I think of his personality and capabilities. The class(es) merely exist to give me the ability set to match those to the best of their capability.

I think D&D really doesn't lend itself well to the whole "now I received ordered military training so I gain a level in Fighter; now I grew in power in wilderness so I gain a level in Barbarian"-approach, simply because many things require you to plan out much of your character progression to acquire (especially many PrCs), and because rampant multiclassing serves to just make you poor. I find character builds really serve to represent a character concept better than any individual class, and if the needs of the character (what things should be represented in the build) change midgame, I find it best to just make a new build in the fly and retrain into that as appropriate. I can see how you'd feel differently, of course; I just feel the game system lends itself best to playing like this.


Really, organic mechanical development of the character works best in skill-based systems to my experience, as in those games the characters' abilities aren't reliant on having some prerequisites to reach. In D&D, I feel roleplaying the abilities I'm about to gain to work best (you gain feats and classes rarely enough that you can only do so much with them). Again, if the story throws a drastic shift to what my character cares about and pursues, I'm gonna ask for retraining. I feel that's the least painful change of matching exactly what I think the character should be capable of.

Saph
2009-06-30, 10:38 PM
@Saph: While that's true if the monsters are actually 1-2 CRs higher than normal, if they are just built in a bit superior manner to account for the PC power increase, it should definitely improve the Grappler's odds to have that 18 in Str.

Not at all. The basic stats for monsters assume the PCs are using Elite Array. If the PCs all have arrays with two 18s, then the monsters should have similar stat boosts. PCs have a Strength modifier 1 to 2 points higher = Monsters have a Strength modifier 1 to 2 points higher. So instead of your +14 vs his +14, now you're rolling +16 vs his +16. You're not really getting any advantage; it just feels like you are.

Alternately, you can play with normal monsters and high point-buy PCs, but then you should expect the fights to be easy.

Actually, it's my experience that if you want your character to live a long time, it's often in your interests to keep the campaign's power level low rather than high. There are several reasons for this, but it all comes down to the same basic fact that difficulty scales, and you have more of a safety buffer at lower power levels than high ones.

- Saph

aje8
2009-06-30, 11:24 PM
Not at all. The basic stats for monsters assume the PCs are using Elite Array. If the PCs all have arrays with two 18s, then the monsters should have similar stat boosts. PCs have a Strength modifier 1 to 2 points higher = Monsters have a Strength modifier 1 to 2 points higher. So instead of your +14 vs his +14, now you're rolling +16 vs his +16. You're not really getting any advantage; it just feels like you are.
This is not true. Think about it this way, the average encounter is supposed to be 4 PCS of level x versus a monster of CR X. The Cr system is terrible, but assume we use a monster for which it is accurate.

If the monster's +2 is in str, making his grapple modifier equal, then he doesn't have the +2 to wisdom needed to make the wizard's saves which are increased by +2 from his Int. See, in order to respond to to every challenge of the PCs, they would need a +2 to ALL stats, not a +2 to one. Additionally, many monsters have much more MAD then PCs compounding the problem.

Saph
2009-06-30, 11:31 PM
If the monster's +2 is in str, making his grapple modifier equal, then he doesn't have the +2 to wisdom needed to make the wizard's saves which are increased by +2 from his Int. See, in order to respond to to every challenge of the PCs, they would need a +2 to ALL stats, not a +2 to one. Additionally, many monsters have much more MAD then PCs compounding the problem.

If that's the case, then you give them more stat boosts than the PCs get, as many or few as are needed, until it's evenly balanced again. Remember, the DM's job is to set an appropriate challenge for the PCs. It shouldn't matter what stats the PCs start with.

- Saph

Deepblue706
2009-07-01, 12:28 AM
Not at all. The basic stats for monsters assume the PCs are using Elite Array.

Are you entirely sure about that? I was under the impression that Elite Array was reserved for "Important NPCs", whereas PCs would have something slightly higher, like 28 points.

Saph
2009-07-01, 01:44 AM
Are you entirely sure about that? I was under the impression that Elite Array was reserved for "Important NPCs", whereas PCs would have something slightly higher, like 28 points.

Well, I haven't got a quote to back it up. But if you look at all the original 3rd edition material, every example PC they use (like the fighter in the original PHB) starts with 15 14 13 12 10 8. I think the iconic PCs (Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, and so on) have the same array too, though I don't have their stat cards.

- Saph

Yora
2009-07-01, 01:50 AM
1st level warriors in the Monster Manual all start with 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, and are adjusted by racial modifiers. Creatures with only racial HD start with all ability scores at 10 or 11.

Edit: Oh, I'm proven wrong:

The kobold warrior presented here had the following ability scores before racial adjustments: Str 13, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8.

The elf warrior presented here had the following ability scores before racial adjustments: Str 13, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8.
That would be boint puy 15. The "elite array" is indeed for PCs.

Colmarr
2009-07-01, 01:57 AM
Well, I haven't got a quote to back it up.

Unless I'm mistaken, the character generation rules in both the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB make it clear that of the point-buy methods, 25-pt is the standard and higher totals are more powerful.

averagejoe
2009-07-01, 02:13 AM
The elite array is to be used for any "unique" monster, as a rule of thumb. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm)


The elite array is most appropriate for monsters who add levels in a player character class.

Deepblue706
2009-07-01, 02:16 AM
Unless I'm mistaken, the character generation rules in both the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB make it clear that of the point-buy methods, 25-pt is the standard and higher totals are more powerful.

It very well could be. I think if all of your rolls are average on a 4d6b3 (12.5, right?), you should have a 27 pt buy. Since I imagine a point-buy ought to be a touch lower than such a supposed average (what with the guarantee that you're actually getting decent attributes), it could make sense.

I only asked about the certainty because I distinctly recall reading the bit about "Important NPCs" somewhere.

Yora
2009-07-01, 02:34 AM
DMG p. 110 and p. 169.

Zeta Kai
2009-07-01, 08:56 AM
I never allow a starting character to have more than a 30PB's worth of ability scores, as it leads to a stat-centric view which I find inimical to good roleplaying & immersive gameplay.

My first DM was obsessed with good numbers. He would fudge die rolls left & right to get good stats for his characters, & he forces me to re-roll a character because her stats weren't good enough. He nevr had a character without at least 2 18's, & I remember one Marty Stu of his had 4 18's. All "naturally", of course. :smallsigh: For this, & other faults of his, I almost never got into the hobby in the first place.

#Raptor
2009-07-01, 12:43 PM
Clerics need Wis and Con (Cha is optional if you don't take Divine Metamagic, but what Cleric doesn't take DMM?).
A DMM Cleric should also have Power Attack, dont'cha think? So you'll need a minimum of 13 Str.

And Int... well. Theres 1 skill you'll absolutely need, concentration. Spellcraft is almost as important, but at least ur arcane caster will have this. Religion Knowledge - well, your party will probably expect you to have this and it actually is one of the better knowledges. Plus, you'll bite yourself in the *boop* if you go epic and don't have K:Religion.
So this means: Humans should have at least 10 Int, nonhumans 12.

The only stat you can really dump is Dex.

DMM Clerics are actually fairly MAD.
Powerful, yes... but MAD too.

Draz74
2009-07-01, 12:57 PM
DMM Clerics are actually fairly MAD.
Powerful, yes... but MAD too.

This example illustrates a good point to consider.

MAD exists ... but is it a bad thing?

I tend to think "no." I think every character should care, at least a little bit, about almost all of their stats. SAD is the problem, not MAD.

I'd like if Wizards had some of their spellcasting power affected by WIS and CHA. I can't really think of a way to make STR relevant for them, so maybe that would remain a true dump stat (like DEX for the Cleric).

Eldariel
2009-07-01, 01:00 PM
This example illustrates a good point to consider.

MAD exists ... but is it a bad thing?

I tend to think "no." I think every character should care, at least a little bit, about almost all of their stats. SAD is the problem, not MAD.

I'd like if Wizards had some of their spellcasting power affected by WIS and CHA. I can't really think of a way to make STR relevant for them, so maybe that would remain a true dump stat (like DEX for the Cleric).

I think this is best achieved by making all stats have base influence that makes them relevant to everyone. For example, deriving speed off Str would suddenly make Str relevant for everyone.

Cha is already relevant for some Wizards who care for spells with Cha-checks like Planar Binding and Charm Monster, but giving Cha a base-relevance outside skill checks would be hot (for example the "extra Action Points"-one or sanity or some such), and deriving saves off the highest of two stats would sorta help too ('cause many guys need neither Wis nor Cha and thus would have the choice).

Also, this'd necessite giving Wis something, like Initiative or some such.

Draz74
2009-07-01, 01:03 PM
I think this is best achieved by making all stats have base influence that makes them relevant to everyone. For example, deriving speed off Str would suddenly make Str relevant for everyone ...

Good thoughts, but probably should be a new thread. My point was just that MAD is actually good for game design, and only causes imbalance when some classes are mysteriously immune to it.

#Raptor
2009-07-01, 01:07 PM
This example illustrates a good point to consider.

MAD exists ... but is it a bad thing?

I tend to think "no." I think every character should care, at least a little bit, about almost all of their stats. SAD is the problem, not MAD.

I'd like if Wizards had some of their spellcasting power affected by WIS and CHA. I can't really think of a way to make STR relevant for them, so maybe that would remain a true dump stat (like DEX for the Cleric).

Huh. Can't say this happens often, but this post really delivered a new perspective. I always thought about it the other way, but that actually makes sense.
May I suscribe to your newsletter?

Draz74
2009-07-01, 02:16 PM
May I suscribe to your newsletter?

LOL, definitely. :smallwink:

Not sure what you meant by this, but I'm always welcoming people who want to review and help build my homebrew system. PM me if you're interested.

lsfreak
2009-07-01, 04:40 PM
Yes, SAD is a problem, as is MAD. With MAD, you have things like monks or paladins that are only really playable when you get into the region of 40-50 point buys (or equivalent rolls). With SAD, you get things like wizards that are little different with 25pb or 50. In my mind, a class should ideally have 1-2 things they *need* and 1-2 things they want, a total of 3. There... aren't many classes that hold up the this. ToB classes, Fax Celestis's stuff, and a handful of the more balanced casters come to mind.

Draz74
2009-07-01, 05:02 PM
And I prefer "about 2 that they *need* and about 3 that they want." I won't argue that the 3.5e Monk, for example, isn't too MAD, when it *needs* about 4 stats.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-01, 10:41 PM
And I prefer "about 2 that they *need* and about 3 that they want." I won't argue that the 3.5e Monk, for example, isn't too MAD, when it *needs* about 4 stats.What about the Warlock, with 5 it wants, but none it needs?

Draz74
2009-07-02, 01:38 AM
What about the Warlock, with 5 it wants, but none it needs?

Maybe not perfect class design, but a heck of a lot better than pure SAD or extreme MAD.