Why do DMs choose low point-buy?

[Ashiel]

I imagine it must've been really funny when the party accosted by the bandits that had magic, consumables and situational modifiers on their side, then? Because that's what it means to increase the NPC power. In this case, instead of an immediate, arbitrary unnamed bonus added in secret the DM gave them... Named bonuses, and a few intelligently-used spells, which he then proceeded to justify with "they have received military training". The only difference between the two ways of boosting the NPCs is that in the latter case, the DM is being up-front about them having more power than the garden-variety bandit.

Their first encounter with the bandits involved only the experts and warriors. The only situational advantage anyone could have taken advantage of was in fact the wagon the party was pulling itself (and using it for cover). It was otherwise a large open space without any situational modifiers. That didn't stop the bandits from using their pole-arms to flank, or using nets, or locked gauntlets + disarm attempts, or aid-another, or tumbling, and so forth. They did have advantages of the party, but that was because they created advantages.

The military training bit is a back-story bit. It has nothing to do with the actual mechanic pieces, which is why I included it in parenthesis. It was plot relevant at the time, but mechanically it means nothing because they still faced the same CR 1/2 warriors and experts.

Later they did encounter the adepts. Their bless spell did exactly as it was supposed to, and improved their combat prowess. Their sleep spells were also a bit scary because several party members needed to stop and wake their allies up to avoid TPKs.

Please Notice: Unlike adding arbitrary numbers to the NPCs, they're using real in-game effects, real spells, and in the case of magic items, cheap ones that are within their equipment values (a potion here, a scroll there, etc). The party could dispel these effects, or even out-last them (most effects like that only last 10 rounds at that level). If the party ambushed them, then they could loot their consumables for later fights. You'll find that in this manner, nobody is CHEATING or being cheated.

Now here's the funny part. They would have been just that mean whether the party had high ability scores, or if the they didn't. The party's wizard would have still conked out just as many with sleep and colorspray as he did, but our resident monk would have been suffering at least 2-3 points less AC, less accuracy and damage, and less hit points. The party's fighter would have been sporting less HP, AC, and no Combat Expertise > Improved Trip (was wielding a guisarme).


But You have to if you want a a campaign setting in which the pcs are not some kind of superhuman, you may not like such a setting which is your right but to tell others they are "laughable" because they want to play average joe and want to become a hero, instead of being born one is pretty narrow minded.
See, this is why I posted a disclaimer, 'cause I knew someone would read it wrong. Go back, and read it again. Here, I'll make it easy for you by quoting exactly what I said.

The idea that characters having higher than average ability scores somehow makes the game shift to easy mode or makes them godly in some way makes me laugh. It's so foolish that it's laughable.
Since it A) doesn't shift the game into easy mode* (*: discussed further below), and B) doesn't make characters godly (I mean, if you think a +1 here and a +2 there is godly, then I'm not even sure how to respond to that. I guess I would begin asking what your definition of godly is). See, that's what I said. So yeah, I didn't call you, nor others, laughable.

Again I recommend you enjoy playing Harvest Moon for the SNES (or Harvest Moon Back to Nature for the PS1 - it's even better) to help you relax, and enjoy a fun and peaceful RPG; until you feel calm and happy enough to come back and actually read my posts correctly; and respond to them correctly.


Sooo you are telling people not to boost Npcs stats BUT to boost Npcs stats?
wait what? :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

And items that boost their attack power (~stats) and other stuff well above their normal wealth level? And all that so you can say that you didn´t boost their stats? seems awfully complicated to me :smallwink:

Sure it doesn´t seeing that you in essence boost the stats of your creatures too (using consumables) :smallbiggrin:

Yes. I'm telling people not to boost NPC stats Arbitrarily. You see this Arbitrary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary) word means:

- subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
- decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
- having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
- capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
- Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.


See, that's bad. It's bad because it's pretty much cheating. You're breaking the rules. You're throwing standard enemies at the party, and just adding in extra modifiers just 'cause they feel like it. Not because there's an in-game reason. This does not mean that the GM should be like "Oh, well polymorph is an in-game effect, I shall have all my adepts be pre-buffed with Polymorph". Notice in my examples the NPCs were using equipment within their wealth by level. A 1st level adept may have a scroll of Bless, while a 7th level adept may have a wand of lightning bolt.

I was showing how the game already favors NPCs. NPCs played with more intelligence than "Me hit j00" will be strong against players who have above average scores. NPCs can use stuff like oils of magic weapon (a mere 50gp) on their longbow in both high and low point-buy games; and in fact they should. People won't stop using poison because the fighter's only got a 13 constitution, or lightning bolt 'cause the paladin only has a 9 dexterity.

High vs Low Abilities
With high ability score generation, you are capped at just how amazing you can be. Even if you have a 200 point buy, the best you can possibly manage is 18 in everything before applying racial modifiers. You are limited in just how amazing you can be. Humorously, a wizard with strait 18s isn't that much better than a standard wizard with an 18 intelligence. Don't get me wrong; they'll definitely be stronger at practically everything; but a wizard will never notice that like a fighter, monk, or paladin will.

Alternatively, in a low-point buy game, the wizard will still unhinge reality. However, the fighter, monk, and paladin will now be suffering much more. They're hurting to have at least decent stats in multiple ability scores, or else large portions of their abilities cease to function, or cannot function properly, or competitively.

In the latter situation, the MAD classes will suffer even worse. A 1st level monk using standard ability scores or point buy would have been slaughtered during the 1st encounter with the bandit warriors and experts, without question. Again, as noted, the wizard will be able to down them just as easily with the same sleep/colorspray/grease combos (less with grease though, as the experts sported some ranks in balance and tumble).


But You have to if you want a a campaign setting in which the pcs are not some kind of superhuman, you may not like such a setting which is your right but to tell others they are "laughable" because they want to play average joe and want to become a hero, instead of being born one is pretty narrow minded.

Player characters aren't average Joes. They are intentionally better than the norm. You are playing the super heroes when you're playing a typical game of D&D 3.x/Pathfinder or 4E. If you're playing an average Joe, then you should play an Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, or Warrior, and use the non-elite array. Otherwise your words wreak of hypocrisy. If you are playing a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer, or some other PC class, then you are already playing someone who is supposed to be greater than the average Joe. :smallamused:

I specifically said that playing a game consisting of Adepts, Experts, and Warriors can be very fun and rewarding. It's a very low-powered way of playing; and most of your heroic power comes from your increased hit dice rather than a lot of special abilities. Alternatively, you may wish to try games where you begin as these classes and multi-class into PC classes. :smallsmile:

However, since having higher than average ability scores do not allow you to break the limits of ability scores, and do make certain classes much more viable - while offering little extra benefit for the already powerful class options, is pretty much a fact (provable mathematically); I fail to understand why you seem almost angry that I would say so. :smallannoyed:

[Runestar]

That's wonderful. So you really don't interact with your players - you just set a sort of obstacle course, and if their numbers are high enough, they can pass it. If not, they die.

I am curious as to what exactly you mean by interaction.

I won't spring TPKs on them (at least, not intentionally :smallbiggrin:). I do plan my encounters so the party generally has a fair chance of success (but nothing guaranteed).

I would say I interact with them plenty. I just don't see what this has to do with arbitrarily adjusting the power level of my monsters to suit them. I don't see why my challenges have to be perfectly designed to challenge them just right. I expect them to find or make a way to overcome my challenges.

At the end of the day, I don't think our roleplaying has suffered.


A battle where a tricked-out 15th-level party curbstomps a Beholder is boring.

That's because a beholder is like what..? Cr13? Of course a 15th lv party will wipe the floor with it. In fact, if your party is having a problem with it at this stage, then I would say something is very wrong.


A battle where a relatively unoptimised low-level party manages to beat a Gauth is, IMO, way more interesting.

I don't get your gauth example either. It is cr6? A lv6 party should have as much difficulty with it as a 13th lv party would have with a beholder (assuming both are equally optimized). Why would the 6th lv party have a more enjoyable experience overall than the 13th lv party? Unless you are talking about an unoptimized 15th lv party still having problems taking down a gauth? Then I think they better reroll. No amount of roleplaying or mollycoddling will spare them the humiliation. :smalltongue:


It's a fantasy game: of course you can beat any enemy if you dial your power level up high enough! The interesting bit is if you can still manage to win even when your power level is low.

Perhaps, but what I realised with my party is that with character lvs come expectations. If you are of lv X, you generally expect to be able to take on a monster of crX (or ELX fight) with a reasonable degree of success. Metagamey concepts such as ECL, cr, and EL are such an integral part of the game I don't think you can really divorce it from roleplaying.

Thus, it may become frustrating or demoralizing when despite being say lv10, your party apparently still has problems taking on an EL9 encounter. They might start thinking "What the heck is wrong with me? I shouldn't be having so much of a problem".

[Mystic Muse]

I

I don't get your gauth example either. It is cr6? A lv6 party should have as much difficulty with it as a 13th lv party would have with a beholder (assuming both are equally optimized). Why would the 6th lv party have a more enjoyable experience overall than the 13th lv party? Unless you are talking about an unoptimized 15th lv party still having problems taking down a gauth? Then I think they better reroll. No amount of roleplaying or mollycoddling will spare them the humiliation. :smalltongue:



I loled:smallbiggrin:

[Zen Master]

Wow that would be boring, every "challenge" adjusted to your skills.

Endless Tarrasques were not actually suggested, FYI.

Oh, for my info endless tarrasques weren't suggested. By me they were. As an illustration you didn't get, it seems.

... you know? I don't care enough about this discussion to continue. The one point I've made, that I've tried to illustrate in any number of ways, is still this: It is the job of the GM to challenge players.

Whatever else you call it, how much you argue - it is what you do.

Now I've played with the same group for 22 years. I'm sure if they were so terribly bored, I'd have found out by now.

[/end discussion]

[Attilargh]

Unlike adding arbitrary numbers to the NPCs, they're using real in-game effects, real spells, and in the case of magic items, cheap ones that are within their equipment values (a potion here, a scroll there, etc). The party could dispel these effects, or even out-last them (most effects like that only last 10 rounds at that level). If the party ambushed them, then they could loot their consumables for later fights. You'll find that in this manner, nobody is CHEATING or being cheated.
Which is exactly what I'm saying. I don't think anyone's advocating adding arbitrary save bonuses to all monsters everywhere just because the party wizard found a Doohickey of Intelligence. I'm not, at least. That's just cheap, and with the huge amounts of monsters of all CRs available, probably more effort than it's worth, too.


Now here's the funny part. They would have been just that mean whether the party had high ability scores, or if the they didn't.
They obviously would've been meaner had the party had low ability scores, due to lower survivability. But would the encounter have happened the way it did had the party had lower defenses?

I'll try to illustrate my point with an example. Let's consider a pack of coyotes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dog.htm) and a pack of wild huskies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dogRiding.htm). The differences are pretty minor, mostly just one point of attack bonus, one hit die, a different damage die, so on. Now, let's assume that your plot calls for an attack of [wild animals] to let the players know that there's an insane druid around. Would you use the pack of huskies no matter the characters' level, stats or general health, or would you consider using the coyotes if it looks like that the characters might have real trouble with this particular encounter?

Me, I'd go for the coyotes if it really looked like the characters needed a break. This is just a bit of a side-show after all, no need to go out of my way to kill the characters quite yet, they can do it themselves well enough. Sure, the difference between the two is really small, but so's the difference between a second-level Fighter and a third-level Fighter.


However, since having higher than average ability scores do not allow you to break the limits of ability scores, and do make certain classes much more viable - while offering little extra benefit for the already powerful class options, is pretty much a fact (provable mathematically); I fail to understand why you seem almost angry that I would say so. :smallannoyed:
That only hold true if you hit 18, though. Before that, a MAD character just can't catch up to a SAD one, and thus can't possibly contribute as much to the party as the SAD character. You don't even need to compare the Wizard to the Fighter here, comparing a TWF Fighter to a PA Fighter is enough.

Furthermore, I'm having trouble believing your claim that the power difference goes away by using more points. I admit I haven't done any actual maths on the matter, but it would seem logical that with more points, both the bad and the good options get better, and the power ratio doesn't budge.

[Tyndmyr]

Oh, for my info endless tarrasques weren't suggested. By me they were. As an illustration you didn't get, it seems.

... you know? I don't care enough about this discussion to continue. The one point I've made, that I've tried to illustrate in any number of ways, is still this: It is the job of the GM to challenge players.

Whatever else you call it, how much you argue - it is what you do.

No, the primary job of the GM is to run the game, for the purpose of entertaining all concerned. The entertainment isn't just from the GM, of course, but by providing the adventure, he does much of it.

Challenge is one tool in providing this. It's a useful one, but it's hardly the only reason people play. Humor, hanging out with friends, roleplay, etc. Not every encounter has to be about challenge or be of bog standard CR.

[Gnaeus]

Furthermore, I'm having trouble believing your claim that the power difference goes away by using more points. I admit I haven't done any actual maths on the matter, but it would seem logical that with more points, both the bad and the good options get better, and the power ratio doesn't budge.

The power difference doesn't go away, but it narrows. A wizard always beats a paladin or monk. But a paladin or monk NEEDS 4 high stats, is benefited by 1, and has 1 dump stat. A wizard needs 1 high stat, is benefited by 1 or 2 more, and has 3-4 dump stats.

A wizard with an 18 charisma isn't much better than a wizard with an 8 charisma. He is no better in combat, and the 8 charisma wizard can easily bypass his low stat with spells and items if he feels like he needs to (Charm line, dominate line, suggestion, eternal wand of glibness). For a monk, on the other hand, while cha is his least important stat, it is still of value to him, both because he might need to make the investment in cross class UMD to be useful, and because if he is stuck in a social scenario he can't make his weakness go away with magic.

A wizard is very playable at an 18 point buy (8,8,10,18,8,8). His magic is just as strong as a 48 point buy wizard. He didn't want to be in combat anyway, and if he lives to level 5 or so he will shield his weaknesses with spells. A monk is pretty much doomed to unplayability (12,14,12,8,12,8). He can't stand in combat with a 13 ac and 12 con. He can't do damage (or grapple or trip) with a 12 strength. He can't skillmonkey with an 8 int. He is doomed unless the dm takes pity on him and uses nothing but softball encounters or throws WBL out the window. Surely you recognize that a character who is able to fullfill his (lame) party role is closer to a wizard in power than a character who can't do anything with any reasonable chance of success.

[Tyndmyr]

Then please explain to me exactly how you plan to do it differently.

Because you don't. I guarantee you. You will do the exact same thing I do.

I design interesting, challenging encounters. Lots of them. I go quasi-sandbox, so Im not 100% sure which way things will go. It's quite possible the players may end up far over their heads by being careless/aggressive, and then the challenge becomes running away very quickly. Thanks to their specialization, they may be able to defeat some encounters with ease.

So long as you make sure to have a wide degree of variance in the encounters, it's unlikely that any particular specialization will negate them all. So the sorc has boosted his casting stat...monster save mods are still used as appropriate from the book. Some of them have some pretty beefy saves. Some have immunities. The same tactic is not appropriate for all challenges, and if your only response to higher numbers is raising the opposing numbers for the NPCs, you're not bothering to actually challenge them at all. Rolling a favorable number isn't a challenge, that's luck.

[ScionoftheVoid]

To add to the Gauth/Beholder thing. I too would find low level characters beating a Gauth more exciting than 15th level characters beating a Beholder. That's because low level characters would normally have very low odds of beating one (unless "low level" extends to 7 or 8). If a ninth or tenth level party took on a Beholder I would be more interested, however. The risk to the party may be the same but it's still overcoming a more difficult challenge relative to the rest of the world.

To the playing on easy mode comments, that could only be the DM's choice. If my character could handle more then they are going to find more powerful creatures. Our monster party once faced an Ogre at level one, we defeated it (despite the fact that I said I could handle a standard Ogre, not an Ogre with a custom magic item giving it a more powerful version of an Anti-Magic Field in it's square), the DM probably fudged it's stats but he did give it a massive and unexpected advantage. If my character cannot find tougher creatures that is not my fault.

[Saph]

I don't get your gauth example either.

I thought it was fairly simple. The post I was responding to said:


To me beating a Beholder is more inherently awesome than defeating a Gauth.

I don't think defeating any monster is inherently any more interesting than defeating any other monster. What matters to me is relative power level. If your character build can effortlessly kill Beholders, than a fight with a Beholder isn't awesome, it's a speedbump. Defeating a Beholder isn't impressive. Defeating an enemy who's more powerful than you is impressive. And "more powerful than you" is relative.

Which brings us back to low point buys. If you want to be awesome and command respect, a good way to show that is not to need a head start - which is why I put my foot down about only allowing a 28 point buy. In my view, the more extra advantages you start off with, the less impressive your achievements are.

Basically, the point of all this is that I do want it to be impressive to defeat a powerful monster. And the way I make it impressive is by making it difficult to defeat a powerful monster. If it's easy, it's not impressive.

[Yora]

Personally, I more enjoy beating a powerful ogre chieftain in an 8 round combat while barely escaping alive, than to defeat a trio of pit fiends. Because defeating the ogre still seems somewhat humanly possible, if you're really good warriors. If you're not bound by human limits, it's still entertaining, but a very different type of exiting.

Limited rescources mean that your victory was archieved by skill, not just by having more power to bear than the opponent.

[Jon_Dahl]

Not every encounter has to be about challenge or be of bog standard CR.

Sorry to cut this out of context, but if I may say that generally humor, hanging out etc. sound like a really great plan and I do agree that it is the main point of the whole hobby, but if players don't get XP then they start to get edgy.

After few sessions of joking around and few easy challenges with low challenge ratings players might notice that they are nowhere near the next level. Then jokes tend to end.

And of course you can just hand out XP without any real challenges, but that is just boring as hell.

[Yora]

I've played a campaign in which, after 6 session and probably 30 hours of playing, my character had 428 XP. It was a really great campaign!

[Eldariel]

Personally, I more enjoy beating a powerful ogre chieftain in an 8 round combat while barely escaping alive, than to defeat a trio of pit fiends. Because defeating the ogre still seems somewhat humanly possible, if you're really good warriors. If you're not bound by human limits, it's still entertaining, but a very different type of exiting.

Limited rescources mean that your victory was archieved by skill, not just by having more power to bear than the opponent.

How is that linked to your stats though? Sounds like you prefer low-level games. 'cause generally it's levels that say what you can or can't beat. Stats just define what you can or can't build and how good for your level you are.

[RagnaroksChosen]

How is that linked to your stats though? Sounds like you prefer low-level games. 'cause generally it's levels that say what you can or can't beat. Stats just define what you can or can't build and how good for your level you are.

No level has less to do with it it realy has to do with stats and build...

actualy build is realy it...


Yora sounds more like a simulationist who likes things to be as close to the realm of posibility as possible.. that sounded wierd.

Nothing to do with level or stats just yora's opinion.

[Eldariel]

Well, I mean, a level 20 character is generally expected to be able to take on a Pit Fiend, and a level 20 party should have the gas to take on 3. A level 3, not so much. This is with 22pb level 20 character and 60pb level 3 character. It just doesn't matter. You gain abilities that enable you to take on it through leveling. You also gain defenses that mean you won't die to it through leveling. Stats...they won't contribute as much as the levels.

Sure, 60pb level 20 character is slightly stronger and ****tons more versatile than a 22pb level 20 character, but compared to the difference between level 15 and level 20, that's nothing. Of course, build greatly influences how much you make out of those levels which is what some consider 3.5's biggest advantage and others its biggest failure, but the fundamental expectation of what you can take on generally hinges on your level.

[Tyndmyr]

Sorry to cut this out of context, but if I may say that generally humor, hanging out etc. sound like a really great plan and I do agree that it is the main point of the whole hobby, but if players don't get XP then they start to get edgy.

After few sessions of joking around and few easy challenges with low challenge ratings players might notice that they are nowhere near the next level. Then jokes tend to end.

And of course you can just hand out XP without any real challenges, but that is just boring as hell.

So? If players what their characters to get xp and take risks, they can seek those out. If they are content to kill kobolds, that's fine too, but yeah, eventually they'll say, hey...we wanna kill a dragon(or something similar). Its a big world, they can go do that.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Well, I mean, a level 20 character is generally expected to be able to take on a Pit Fiend, and a level 20 party should have the gas to take on 3. A level 3, not so much. This is with 22pb level 20 character and 60pb level 3 character. It just doesn't matter. You gain abilities that enable you to take on it through leveling. You also gain defenses that mean you won't die to it through leveling. Stats...they won't contribute as much as the levels.

Sure, 60pb level 20 character is slightly stronger and ****tons more versatile than a 22pb level 20 character, but compared to the difference between level 15 and level 20, that's nothing. Of course, build greatly influences how much you make out of those levels which is what some consider 3.5's biggest advantage and others its biggest failure, but the fundamental expectation of what you can take on generally hinges on your level.

Under that extreme yes i agree...

How ever a 60 pb and a 20 pb would make the difference for say a group at level 15 or 16. compaired to that group at 20.

[Eldariel]

Under that extreme yes i agree...

How ever a 60 pb and a 20 pb would make the difference for say a group at level 15 or 16. compaired to that group at 20.

I'd say level 20 party of 20pb would easily school a level 16 party of 60pb. Level 15 and 16, that might be close. But e.g. any casters in level 20 party have access to level 9 spells, while level 16 party does not. Also, any stat-based advantages martialists of level 16 party gain are completely eclipsed by level 20 base bonuses (I'm assuming we're not bringing WBL into this; that'd of course add a ton more to this).

I'd say the difference between ~20pb and 40pb is about 1-2 levels. Level higher characters of ~20pb are about the same as the lower level 40pbs. It's of course not that straight-forward, but given there are 20 levels, I'd say the impact of levels is vastly larger than the impact of stats. And the impact of build of course supercedes that; I've taken down level 2 32pb characters with a level 1 character before. I've seen a level 13 character take down a level 20 character before.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I'd say level 20 party of 20pb would easily school a level 16 party of 60pb. Level 15 and 16, that might be close. But e.g. any casters in level 20 party have access to level 9 spells, while level 16 party does not. Also, any stat-based advantages martialists of level 16 party gain are completely eclipsed by level 20 base bonuses (I'm assuming we're not bringing WBL into this; that'd of course add a ton more to this).

I'd say the difference between ~20pb and 40pb is about 1-2 levels. Level higher characters of ~20pb are about the same as the lower level 40pbs. It's of course not that straight-forward, but given there are 20 levels, I'd say the impact of levels is vastly larger than the impact of stats. And the impact of build of course supercedes that; I've taken down level 2 32pb characters with a level 1 character before. I've seen a level 13 character take down a level 20 character before.


Err sorry at work i dont think i made my self clear i was speaking about vs a monster not pvp...

Your example of the balor... I belive that a group around 15-16 could take him with no problem, that is with a high point buy... where as a lower point buy would stuggle more.

[Eldariel]

Err sorry at work i dont think i made my self clear i was speaking about vs a monster not pvp...

Your example of the balor... I belive that a group around 15-16 could take him with no problem, that is with a high point buy... where as a lower point buy would stuggle more.

I'm not sure; high PB level 15-16 group would have a tough fight. Low PB level 20 group would probably have much easier time. Of course, low PB 15-16 would have harder time than high PB level 15-16, but I think they could still win.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I'm not sure; high PB level 15-16 group would have a tough fight. Low PB level 20 group would probably have much easier time. Of course, low PB 15-16 would have harder time than high PB level 15-16, but I think they could still win.

My point exactly.. is that there is a difference. the challange of an encounter can increase or decrease based on point buy.

[Calimehter]

[B]The last time I was going to play a fighter in a low-PB game (ToB wasn't allowed, because it was considered OP; or not D&D enough, or something), I found myself unable to pickup the feats for the finesse/dueling fighter I wanted to get, while remaining viable (needed a 15 dex for dual wielding, a 13 intelligence for combat expertise, and a 13 strength to carry her equipment). Should she have been targeted with any sort of stat-damaging effect, she would have lost half of her class features immediately. She ended up being brick stupid and much less charismatic than I wanted her, merely because I wanted her to do certain things and the meet the requirements for those things left her with few options. If I have to pick between being able to protect my party members and hold my own against monsters so I don't get them killed, or being a fighter with a +1 charisma; well maybe she can try online dating. :smalltongue:


Well, a low point buy game is perhaps not the best place to try out a build that requires you to be super strong, super buff, super quick, and super smart all in one go. :smallwink: Many will say that being able to build a character like this is a strength of a high point buy, but those of us who use the "standard" 25 point buy would come right back and say that not being able to build Buffy the Goblin Slayer *is* a strength of the 25-point buy.

When you set the baseline population to 12-15 points and NPC classes, a 25 point PC-class character is still people who are capable of - nay, destined to do! - great things, so you are getting a heroic feel. Just not a superheroic one. [Until the Tier 1's start their fantastic high level spell tripping, but I run E6, so in my games Wizards still care about all their stats :) ]

To put it another way . . . Aragorn can be done with a 25 point buy. He's ubercool not because he has the strength of Hercules or the charisma of Fleur Delacour. He's cool because he's walked the earth for decades and has epic class levels! You can be a hero without having overpowering stats at first level, and that's the feel that we 25 point build folks go for, even if it means a few MAD builds miss out on a feat tree or two along the way.

[Eldariel]

My point exactly.. is that there is a difference. the challange of an encounter can increase or decrease based on point buy.

But it's greatly eclipsed by the character levels. And if talking about miniscule changes like 25pb - 28pb or 28pb - 32pb, it's just not gonna be that big in the long run. Like, I'm pretty sure that a 32pb party would probably be slightly more versatile against the Balor with few more strategic options, but not strictly numerically notably stronger than the 28pb party.

Like, level 20 party is going to be able to take on a Balor anyways, regardless of the stats. That's just how the game is written. If you want to play a game where you barely defeat an ogre, a level 1 game sounds right. With some extra HP given on 1st level for all if you want for the battle to actually take a while. Level is the solution for keeping scale down, not stats. I mean, sure, a level 1 60pb party will have an easier time vs. the Ogre than a level 1 25pb party, obviously, but not as much easier as e.g. level 3 party vs. level 1 party.


That's the crux of what I'm really saying here, for such a massive difference in scale (making Ogre the big bad vs. defeating 3 Pit Fiends), you're way beyond the realm of influence stats have. As such, tone down levels if you want to keep the feel small. I find the restrictiveness of low PB to be more of a hinderance than an advantage.

[Starbuck_II]

To put it another way . . . Aragorn can be done with a 25 point buy. He's ubercool not because he has the strength of Hercules or the charisma of Fleur Delacour. He's cool because he's walked the earth for decades and has epic class levels! You can be a hero without having overpowering stats at first level, and that's the feel that we 25 point build folks go for, even if it means a few MAD builds miss out on a feat tree or two along the way.

Aragorn also has magic items that make him strong.

[RagnaroksChosen]

But it's greatly eclipsed by the character levels. And if talking about miniscule changes like 25pb - 28pb or 28pb - 32pb, it's just not gonna be that big in the long run. Like, I'm pretty sure that a 32pb party would probably be slightly more versatile against the Balor with few more strategic options, but not strictly numerically notably stronger than the 28pb party.

Like, level 20 party is going to be able to take on a Balor anyways, regardless of the stats. That's just how the game is written. If you want to play a game where you barely defeat an ogre, a level 1 game sounds right. With some extra HP given on 1st level for all if you want for the battle to actually take a while. Level is the solution for keeping scale down, not stats. I mean, sure, a level 1 60pb party will have an easier time vs. the Ogre than a level 1 25pb party, obviously, but not as much easier as e.g. level 3 party vs. level 1 party.


That's the crux of what I'm really saying here, for such a massive difference in scale (making Ogre the big bad vs. defeating 3 Pit Fiends), you're way beyond the realm of influence stats have. As such, tone down levels if you want to keep the feel small. I find the restrictiveness of low PB to be more of a hinderance than an advantage.

I'm not saying level doesn't influence difficulty im saying two equally leveled groups one with 25 pt and one with 32 even including WBL, will be challenged differently by the same monster. Actually if any thing WBL favors the 32 point buy vs the 25 simply because the 25 group will need to spend on more stat enhancing items.

Level is a big influence on how a fight feels but so does stats. mainly like was said before is because it opens up different options. yes melee types will be a bit weaker. yes full casters aren't as hurt. All types have to worry more about stat drain.

Unfortunately this debate will never end as views on what is best can't be quantified. Mainly though it shows at least to me that the GNS scale works very well. I do maintain though that lower stats do add to a feeling of grittiness at any level.


Edit: GNS theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory)

[Tyndmyr]

I have no idea what this has to do with GNS.

Preferences as far as power level don't even seem to fall into their categorization schema(even if we ignore the problem of them redefining words willy nilly).

It's fairly obvious why DMs choose low point buy...because they think it makes the players less like superheros and more believable. So...that answers the original question neatly. And more interesting question is if they are correct.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I have no idea what this has to do with GNS.

Preferences as far as power level don't even seem to fall into their categorization schema(even if we ignore the problem of them redefining words willy nilly).

It's fairly obvious why DMs choose low point buy...because they think it makes the players less like superheros and more believable. So...that answers the original question neatly. And more interesting question is if they are correct.

Err i thought that wiki site had a link to the thread that they use gns theroy on players. Players can be broken up into three groups as well. gamist being more power game oriented players narrative to more story driven simulationist to versimilitude..etc

my bad though about the link...

I see what your trying to explain about weather or not it makes them less like super heros and more real or not I do agree slightly with Eldariel on that point the feeling of super hero or not is more a function of level. However i do belive that lower point buys make it more challanging at the same level. which to me and I belive those gm's that use a lower point buy makes it feel less like super heros.

[Tyndmyr]

Err i thought that wiki site had a link to the thread that they use gns theroy on players. Players can be broken up into three groups as well. gamist being more power game oriented players narrative to more story driven simulationist to versimilitude..etc

my bad though about the link...

Difficulty level at which they play, or desired amount of challenge does not map specifically to any of those three player groups, though.


I see what your trying to explain about weather or not it makes them less like super heros and more real or not I do agree slightly with Eldariel on that point the feeling of super hero or not is more a function of level. However i do belive that lower point buys make it more challanging at the same level. which to me and I belive those gm's that use a lower point buy makes it feel less like super heros.

Level is much more a superhero factor, yes. If you have 20 levels in wizard...you're a superhero. End of story. Point buy is entirely irrelevant to if you are a superhero.

If you're level 1...the world is filled with things tougher than you who could kill you in a heartbeat. It doesn't much matter if you have an 8 con or an 18 con...the same basic fact is still true.

For the same level AND opponent, yes, lower point buy is more challenging. For the melee. I don't see how this is desirable. Crank up the point buy, pick a slightly more challenging encounter, and player vs monster balance is great, without screwing over the player vs player balance.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Difficulty level at which they play, or desired amount of challenge does not map specifically to any of those three player groups, though.


Actualy it does. Seeing the three would aproch it differently

A gamist will look at the stats of a monster and a player. and look to balance things that way. as per what was said before about increase npcs stats due to pcs power gaming.

a narativ-ist would say it doesn't matter what the stats are because all that matters is whats good for the story. I belive some one mentioned that on page 8 or 9.

and a simulationist would say that stats due matter because one would want to create a world as "real" as possible (versimilitude). where high point buy is more akin to super human vs more human-esc. Though IMO a true Simulationist would probebly limit starting stats to below 16 before racial mods.

It's really a look at what constitutes balance and or what not. Though most TO/CO is done from a gamist perspective. Most people fall into multiple catagories.

[Tyndmyr]

Actualy it does. Seeing the three would aproch it differently

A gamist will look at the stats of a monster and a player. and look to balance things that way. as per what was said before about increase npcs stats due to pcs power gaming.

This is the "all x would do y" trap.

No. All gamists are not power gaming, nor are stats the only thing a gamist would look at. Levels are one, CR is another. A gamist may want challenge yes, but point buy and stats are hardly the only way to get a challenge.

Plus, the idea that everyone falls neatly into one of these categories is questionable at best, and GNS is built around the idea that these are relatively discrete groups.


a narativ-ist would say it doesn't matter what the stats are because all that matters is whats good for the story. I belive some one mentioned that on page 8 or 9.

And how do you know he's a narrativist? Because he values the story?

Yay for circular definitions.


and a simulationist would say that stats due matter because one would want to create a world as "real" as possible (versimilitude). where high point buy is more akin to super human vs more human-esc. Though IMO a true Simulationist would probebly limit starting stats to below 16 before racial mods.

Simulation /= realistic in all cases. Hell, the tippyverse could be considered a simulationist exercise.

Yes, some people want to model realism to some varying degree. This says very little about other aspects of their rolelaying style. Limiting stats to 16 doesn't make you better, worse, or more simulationist. It just means you dislike high stats.

[RagnaroksChosen]

This is the "all x would do y" trap.

No. All gamists are not power gaming, nor are stats the only thing a gamist would look at. Levels are one, CR is another. A gamist may want challenge yes, but point buy and stats are hardly the only way to get a challenge.

Plus, the idea that everyone falls neatly into one of these categories is questionable at best, and GNS is built around the idea that these are relatively discrete groups.



And how do you know he's a narrativist? Because he values the story?

Yay for circular definitions.



Simulation /= realistic in all cases. Hell, the tippyverse could be considered a simulationist exercise.

Yes, some people want to model realism to some varying degree. This says very little about other aspects of their rolelaying style. Limiting stats to 16 doesn't make you better, worse, or more simulationist. It just means you dislike high stats.

I never said people fall into neet little categories. I actually said that most people are multiples. There just stereo types that are placed on common ground I would be surprised to see any one fit into one category. that's not the point.

Simualtionist are typically associated with realistic type game play, not all. and yes the tippy verse imo is more gamist then simulationist.. taking the game machinics over a sense of realism. though that could be debated, i'd say it would fall nicely right in between the two.

all they explain is a tendency twords an extreme.

Obviously no one fits any one category. All i'm saying is that there is no way for us to determine if low point buy or higher point buy is going to be more challanging or more super human because our definition of that is to different i was compairing that to the GNS model because for me most RPers have strong tendednies to one or the other.
When i was younger i used to be more of a Ns though now i consider my self more Sg.

Any way with my revelation that this discussion has now become pointless im done thanks all for the chat.

[Ashiel]

Which is exactly what I'm saying. I don't think anyone's advocating adding arbitrary save bonuses to all monsters everywhere just because the party wizard found a Doohickey of Intelligence. I'm not, at least. That's just cheap, and with the huge amounts of monsters of all CRs available, probably more effort than it's worth, too.

Actually, someone did. I believe it was Acromos (but that's not surprising). As I noted previously, the post wasn't directed at anyone in particular. It was a notation on some of the problems with low-point buy games; and also showing that you don't need to add arbitrary bonuses to enemies because they already have bonuses they should be using in the form of consumables and battle partners (potions of X, adepts casting bless and so forth).


They obviously would've been meaner had the party had low ability scores, due to lower survivability. But would the encounter have happened the way it did had the party had lower defenses?
The monk would have been useless and likely died. Fighter wouldn't have been able to have his feats, so wouldn't do as much, and may have died. The wizard would have still crapped on half the bandits due to their not-so-impressive will saves. The sorcerer the same, just more often. The party's barbarian would have cleaned up the mess. If not, the druid and his animal companion would have.

Pretty much exactly like I said last time. A few of the classes would have been nigh useless in this encounter, or also an encounter with kobolds, or with wolves, or small monstrous spiders.


I'll try to illustrate my point with an example. Let's consider a pack of coyotes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dog.htm) and a pack of wild huskies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dogRiding.htm). The differences are pretty minor, mostly just one point of attack bonus, one hit die, a different damage die, so on. Now, let's assume that your plot calls for an attack of [wild animals] to let the players know that there's an insane druid around. Would you use the pack of huskies no matter the characters' level, stats or general health, or would you consider using the coyotes if it looks like that the characters might have real trouble with this particular encounter?
Loaded question, but here goes. The immediate answer is, "No, I would not send a pack of CR 1 riding dogs against a 1st level party. I would send either 1 or 2, or a pack of 3-6 dogs." The reason? Well, riding dogs are bigger, stronger, tougher, sport an improved tripping ability, have a higher AC, +4 points of average damage, etc.

However, that's because the Riding Dogs (wild huskies) are CR 1, and quite deserving of that CR. They're more dangerous with brute force than those CR 1/2 bandits I tossed at my party before. The dogs are CR 1/3, and aren't very effective against anyone, but in large groups could prove dangerous (thanks to mobbing, aid-another, flanking, and so forth).

The reason I find this to be a loaded question is it's irrelevant to what I was talking about previously. In short, it's based on character level rather than ability score generation. As noted before, it is possible to build playable characters - with certain classes - even with brutally low point buy (as noted earlier), while characters with higher point buys can only get just so much better before they cap and can't be better. In general you're looking at a gain of only +1 or +2 higher than your norm, which is only a 5-10% increase. Furthermore, a 5-10% increase to a non-associated stat means little to most.

In detail: if it was a 25 point buy game, I'd send the coyote if they were level 1 or 2 and I wanted to throw lots of enemies at them. I'd send the huskies if they were level 2-3 and I wanted a few stronger enemies with more tricks. However I would send the same enemies in a 40 point buy game. The only real difference is now the fighter might be able to sport Combat Expertise, and the monks might not be completely useless. Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, and Cleric remains the same.


Me, I'd go for the coyotes if it really looked like the characters needed a break. This is just a bit of a side-show after all, no need to go out of my way to kill the characters quite yet, they can do it themselves well enough. Sure, the difference between the two is really small, but so's the difference between a second-level Fighter and a third-level Fighter.
Technically there are huge differences between dogs and riding dogs. Twice the hit points, higher +hit, higher +dmg, more armor class, battlefield control (they can trip you for free if they hit you, mob you, and rip you to shreds with about a +4 bonus to their attack rolls, and you provoke additional attacks and trips if you try to stand up). Their saves are better as well, making them stronger regardless of your party's point buy versus casters (but also versus monks, sadly).

The funniest part is, no one is going all out. It's just what they do. If you need to pull your punches and throw below-average CR opponents at your party because of your point buy, then you're broke the game in the other direction. You comment that it's just a side show battle, without effort to kill the party - "they can do it themselves well enough". If your 3rd-5th level party cannot handle a pack of normal riding dogs, then they need to turn around and go find something less dangerous to hunt than a mad druid (who is likely sporting one of this big dogs on 'roids, or smokey the grizzly as his buddy of the week); because he will kill them (animal companion + summon nature's Ally I-III), or mob the party with enemies then flee to summon more enemies to mob the party with.


That only hold true if you hit 18, though. Before that, a MAD character just can't catch up to a SAD one, and thus can't possibly contribute as much to the party as the SAD character. You don't even need to compare the Wizard to the Fighter here, comparing a TWF Fighter to a PA Fighter is enough.

It's good to see that you understand. MAD classes cannot even reach the baseline standard for the SAD version of their own classes. Having a fighter who dual wields shouldn't mean you're completely hosed. Ever seen Braveheart? It's a movie based on historical events, and would be a great example of gritty not-super-human warriors. In the movie, Wallace favors a big two-handed claymore and is obviously very strong. He also dual-wields, possesses an impressive intelligence, speaks multiple languages, is his people's tactician, and is mightily charismatic - enough to bring Scotland behind him.

Oh, and he was a farmer. He was a dirt-poor farm boy who his uncle adopted after his father and brother were murdered. He wanted to settle down, but was drawn into adventure for vengeance and justice. What's even funnier, is that he jests about the rumors of his greatness. In one scene, a man doesn't believe he's William Wallace; expecting a man who was 8 feet tall at least.

He replies, "Oh yes. And if I were William Wallace, I would consume the English with fireballs from my eyes, and bolts of lightning from my arse." Humorously; this is pretty much what I've been saying before; since if they just had a 5th level wizard with a 13 intelligence, they could have made William and all of his Scottish soldiers largely irrelevant.

Playing with more points doesn't make you Goku, or some dude from Bleach, or Spiderman (maybe Batman, since y'know, he doesn't actually have any super-power other than just being a smart and athletic badass), and definitely not Superman. Hell, it doesn't even make you Daredevil.

It can let you be William Wallace though; and I don't see how that could possibly be a bad thing.


Furthermore, I'm having trouble believing your claim that the power difference goes away by using more points. I admit I haven't done any actual maths on the matter, but it would seem logical that with more points, both the bad and the good options get better, and the power ratio doesn't budge.

I never claimed the difference goes away. It does however reduce the difference. A fighter gets a ton of feats. In many cases, they don't have the ability scores to actually master multiple feat trees and be combat experts like they are said to. Monks are worse, needing high stat in everything just to function comparatively. Paladins are also pretty useless in low-point buy, as you end up as the guy who wants to be a heroic champion, but you're just a joke compared to the barbarian.

In higher point buy (or with some other equally generous ability score generation system) the fighter can pull some power attack, dodge, and combat expertise related trees with ease. The monk's abilities begin to be comparable to actual wielding weapons and armor. The paladin can afford to pull at least a +2 in most of his scores, allowing his abilities to synergize and make him playable. Everyone's saving throws are benefited a bit, so the NPC casters (whom the game favors) won't be able to one-shot everyone so easily. It narrows the gap between the MAD and the SAD classes because it gives the MAD something to work with.

Story Time
Over the past several weeks, I've been running a tabletop game involving a party who have high ability scores. I have the bard's character sheet with me, so let's see what we're working with here: 14, 18, 18, 14, 15, 16. Wow, that's high, right? It's worth noting that one of the 18s was a 16 before a +2 racial bonus. Next to him is a barbarian who sports no less than a 14 in any stat, a human fighter sporting a high strength, dexterity, and constitution, and a decent wisdom, fair intelligence, and fair charisma. Next to him still, was a human rogue/barbarian/fighter themed as an Iaijutsu duelist; and finally a human psion sporting an 20 intelligence (pathfinder human), and an average of +2 to most other stuff, and a human wizard sporting about the same stats (but the human wizard later swapped out for a monk werewolf; using the WotC web enhancement for by-level progression).

The story began with the party living in a keep, and assisting their local landlord and friend with overseeing the local lands. They were captains, respected retainers, and professionals in their respective fields. One of the lord's enemies decided to make a surprise attack against the keep and came with a small army of conscripts and took their lands. The party fled the odds and ended up in a dense, dark forest, as they tried to evade capture or execution at the hands of their new enemies. Having little more than their gear, some provisions, and their mounts and wagon (a pair of bison, one being the barbarian's war-mount), and a box of possessions of their formal noble family (a signet ring, some noble clothes, etc); they set out to find another population center to regroup at and think of a plan.

Now the forest is infested with giant spiders. These are standard spiders small and medium monstrous spiders (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousSpider.htm). You'll notice that the spiders aren't at all above the party's expected enemy challenges (sporting CR 1/2 and 1 respectively). The party has nearly died on multiple occasions. This is also with them using a house rule of taking HDx2 for your 1st level (d10 becomes 20 + con hp). This is with a war-trained bison who could kill a party member on his own helping them, and a diversely balanced group who all excel at their roles. Despite the fact they've come incredibly close to dying many times, everyone has felt like a hero. Everyone has contributed.

Everyone also hates webs and poison now, but y'know. :smallbiggrin:

Now the party has reached 8th level after quite a few sessions. They still haven't made it out of the forest (yay spider burgers); and have ended up dealing with drow (both as allies and betrayers), and have managed to rise up against the odds. The group wants to get to a town where they can pick up some supplies and convert some of the drow platinum they've picked up into building some magic items. They want to go back and take their keep back. I'm looking forward to that adventure.

As noted before, the Psion has been pretty much exactly what I would expect from a solid caster. Popping grease powers has both helped players escape webs, as well as hold entire groups of enemies at bay; and readied action energy powers managed to disrupt drider and priestess casting by the drow at higher levels. However, this was nothing she couldn't have done in low-point buys. However, I can say everyone else would likely have been dead or nigh useless (at least three players would have died, I'm certain).

High ability scores have just allowed them to be effective, and compete with what the casters are doing. Humorously, the party's wizard ruled the school with the web spell in the middle of a forest. He opted at level 3 that he wanted to play something different, so we worked his character out of the story and let the group encounter a shape-shifting hermit in the woods who opted to help guide them through the forest (his new monk/were-wolf). If anyone's ever read the hobbit, it would be sort of like that.

I can't wait to see what my players will do next game. :smallsmile:

[Calimehter]

Some of [movie version] William Wallace's formative years were spent with his uncle, who was obviously a bit more than a poor dirt farmer and was able to provide a lot more in the way of worldly experiences (or XP if you will) than a normal dirt farmer would have picked up over the years. Its folly to get too detailed when translating real life folks into gaming stats, but I feel pretty safe when I say that he wasn't first level by the time he came back to Scotland. I can't make William Wallace at 1st level with a 25 point buy, but I can sure as heck make a pretty good approximation using a 6th-level E6 build from a 25-point starting buy.

Heck, Adolf Hitler couldn't have been much more than a 22 point buy (good CHA, decent INT, poor to average everything else) and he . . . well, lets just leave it at "he had a big influence in the world" lest we turn this example into a 50-post morality play.

You don't need big point buys to leave your mark in the world.

----------------------------------

I can see how certain MAD character concepts become a bit of a problem. Your earlier version of Buffy the finesse fighter, for instance. My quickie solve that allows for two weapon fighting, the Combat Expertise tree, and some social skill is:

STR 14
DEX 15
CON 10
INT 13
WIS 8
CHA 12

If you're in one of those settings where every city guardsman is a 3rd level fighter with the elite array, yeah, then you suck. If you're in Shadowdale, you're lucky you are alive. However:

- If you are playing a 25 point build, one thing I think that has to be assumed is that the 12-15 point NPC-class build for most of the population is the norm, thus Buffy is already way above the norm and is indeed 'heroic', even if she can't take on quite as many gobbos (or mastiffs, to keep with the current examples, though D&D has been rating attack dogs a bit on the high end of the power scale since 2nd ed.) right off the bat at first level as she otherwise could.

- You've got some options, here, too. The CON is really the only rough part of the build . . . one thing you could do would be to realize that you can wait till 4th level to start the TWF tree, and instead spend your formative feats on the Expertise tree. Then you could go DEX 14 with the intent to build up at Level 4, and spend two more points in CON. Your Fighter4 feat could then be spent on TWF if you were going . . . assuming you weren't optimizing further with levels, in, say Rogue, Swashbuckler, or TOB or something like that.

- The party wizard running rings around you no matter what we do here? It'll still happen at 32 and 40 points, too. Buffy would undoubtably be cooler with a 40 point build, but its not like the party wizard gets NO use out of bumping his CON and DEX into the stratosphere, especially at low levels where the stats actually matter. Heck, those stats make even his spells better even w/o an INT boost, in that he can get closer to the action in a normal CR encounter (and thus open up casting options) w/o worry as much about being pasted. Tier 1 vs. Tier 5 doesn't go away in high point buys, and I'm not sure that it even gets nearly as mitigated as folks claim it to be (though I will admit that group playstyles can have a profound impact on that, as it can on everything else).

---------------------------

One of the more oddly effective mob of minions I've thrown at my E6 players is a mob of 15-point buy NPC monks. Sure, they weren't built with survival in mind as much as a PC build probably would be, but Flurry of Blows and Stunning Fist spammed to levels where "quantity has a quality all its own" proved mighty annoying to them for a few rounds. Optimized? Surely not. Useless and completely incapable of heroism? Not at all. :)
-

[Ashiel]

Some of [movie version] William Wallace's formative years were spent with his uncle, who was obviously a bit more than a poor dirt farmer and was able to provide a lot more in the way of worldly experiences (or XP if you will) than a normal dirt farmer would have picked up over the years.

I can't make William Wallace at 1st level with a 25 point buy, but I can sure as heck make a pretty good approximation using a 6th-level E6 build from a 25-point starting buy.

Fair enough. However, it's worth noting he has has at least a 14 strength, a 15 dexterity, a solid constitution, an above-average intelligence, a decent wisdom, and definitely an above average charisma. This is because he favors the 2 handed weapons (if he didn't have a high strength he should be using a sword & board since he gets little out of a 2 hander). He dual wields effectively, so we're looking at the two-weapon-fighting feat (or two levels in ranger). He's got very noticeable stamina and endurance. He sports an obviously above-average (for the film) intelligence, charisma, and wisdom. Maybe he's actually a ranger, which could perhaps help him with skill points he needs to fulfill his shtick in the movie (being both head warrior and party face). He wears little to no armor so I guess this would work, but he also needs a high dexterity since he dodges more than his armor absorbs stuff.

Otherwise, you're going to need to cross-class some ranks in speak language, heavily cross-class some diplomacy, sense motive, bluff, and still you're going to need to figure out how he qualifies for all of his feats (two weapon fighting being a major one).

Also, assuming the soldiers they're fighting are just standard warriors, once you get up some levels he could take on almost a whole battalion by himself in a strait fight on an open field.

Also, I'm talking about regular D&D. I'm not familiar with E6.

EDIT:
I can see how certain MAD character concepts become a bit of a problem. Your earlier finesse fighter, for instance. My quickie solve that allows for two weapon fighting, the Combat Expertise tree, and some social skill is:

STR 14
DEX 15
CON 10
INT 13
WIS 8
CHA 12

If you're in one of those settings where every city guardsman is a 3rd level fighter with the elite array, yeah, then you suck. If you're in Shadowdale, you're lucky you are alive. However:

- If you are playing a 25 point build, one thing I think that has to be assumed is that the 12-15 point NPC-class build for most of the population is the norm, thus your finesse fighter is already way above the norm and is indeed 'heroic', even if she can't take on quite as many gobbos (or mastiffs, to keep with the current examples) right off the bat at first level as she otherwise could.

- You've got some options, here, too. The CON is really the only rough part of the build . . . one thing you could do would be to realize that you can wait till 4th level to start the TWF tree, and instead spend your formative feats on the Expertise tree. Then you could go DEX 14 with the intent to build up at Level 4, and spend two more points in CON. Your Fighter4 feat could then be spent on TWF if you were going . . . assuming you weren't optimizing further with levels, in, say Rogue, Swashbuckler, or TOB or something like that.


Again, this character also is going to lag behind a "I power attack" fighter, or a barbarian once again. He will still lack luster compared to a less MAD class. At the same time, he's breaking the #1 reason most people are giving for low-point buy; the fact he's not your average Joe. He's superior in stats to a standard 1st level warrior, he's not your average Joe, and he's inferior to SAD classes because of his stats. It is hypocrisy.

The movie begins with him going off and becoming a man, so he can begin the game/movie as a heroic classed character. He's likely no more than 3rd level at the most, and that's pushing it. He comes back to start a farm, get married, and live out his life in peace. The cliche (ironic as it is) family is killed, he wants justice, he kills some low-level mooks with a pair of concealed light weapons, gets his barbarian buddy to lift a gate. Barbarian buddy is hit by an arrow, rages, holds the gate up, all the other low-level mooks come running in; victory. It is easier to make this character with a higher point buy. You've shown you have to be incredibly specific with your points, to the point of gimping yourself in several major ways.

If he were in fact a 6th level character as you suggest, then he wouldn't have even needed anyone else to deal with the soldiers in the beginning. He would be sporting at least 37 hit points assuming a +0 con, and could have had a +10 jump and climb modifier assuming a +0 strength. He could have just jumped onto and over the Palaside wall, killed all the soldiers - who if they could hit him would deal an average of 4-5 damage, and kill the guys with his levels alone.

You also point out that you're best putting off your basic combat style until 5th level so you don't completely suck (since you need those hit points). In higher point buy, you don't need to do that. By those levels you should be picking up stuff to try and keep your two-weapon fighting VIABLE instead of just starting it!

Since, as I pointed out before, having higher scores doesn't make you godly; and doesn't make encounters significantly less dangerous; I'm still failing to see where low-point buy has benefits. Seriously man, the barbarian in my tabletop I mentioned while raging had a strength of 10 due to poison, and later was dropped three rounds into combat by some drow-poison in another encounter). That's not counting him getting entangled by several spiders and ettercaps; nearly pulled into a tree, stuck in a web-spell (while completely entangled with web mine you) and half-eaten by a few giant spiders.

The best anyone has managed to offer for reasoning is proven false by their own reasoning. Unless they're playing adepts, experts, and warriors, and using 15 point buy, then they're breaking their own reasoning. It's provable that low-point buy favors those who are already strong, and craps on those who are already weak - but could be better. No one has offered anything to the contrary yet.



One of the more oddly effective mob of minions I've thrown at my E6 players is a mob of 15-point buy NPC monks. Sure, they weren't built with survival in mind as much as a PC build probably would be, but Flurry of Blows and Stunning Fist spammed to levels where "quantity has a quality all its own" proved mighty annoying to them for a few rounds. Optimized? Surely not. Useless and completely incapable of heroism? Not at all. :)
Again, I don't know what E6 is beyond just a heavily modified version of the standard rules. When I'm speaking here, I'm talking about D&D. E6 is not standard, so if you mention it in the conversation, you should probably draw attention to what is different about it and how that relates to the game.

Despite that, I am not surprised. I never suggested NPCs should have player character stats. Technically, neither has anyone heralding low-point buy either, since they wanna say they're using NPC stats but not.

I did point out that the game favors NPCs despite their low point buys. In one-on-one matches, the monks would get slaughtered. However (partially due to their low abilities), their challenge ratings are low and they were encountered in groups (number and action advantage), and managed to exploit a strong point they shared during the encounter. Seeing as it sounds like they weren't supposed to equal the party's strengths, and likely weren't intended to last through a fight with the party for longer than it took to fight them; everything I've said is true.

The spiders in my previously mentioned game were entirely strait MM spiders. They're hardly capable of fighting a player 1 on 1. Seriously. Have I suggested that each CR 1/2 bandit / spider / whatever is comparable in power to a Level 1 character? No. Have I suggested that they can still challenge and kill a higher-than-average-ability-score character? Yes, yes I have, and they can.

[Ashiel]

Having been talking about it so much; I tossed the idea of rollin' up some regular folk characters tonight for a very low-powered average Joe game. He's going to be playing an expert, and assuming my buddy comes over tonight by chance, we'll probably have a warrior and an NPC adept rounding out the group. I'll post how it goes. :smallsmile:

[Kylarra]

Please don't bring GNS theory into this. That's an entirely different can of worms that doesn't need to be opened again.

[Eldariel]

Having been talking about it so much; I tossed the idea of rollin' up some regular folk characters tonight for a very low-powered average Joe game. He's going to be playing an expert, and assuming my buddy comes over tonight by chance, we'll probably have a warrior and an NPC adept rounding out the group. I'll post how it goes. :smallsmile:

I actually enjoy playing Adepts in normal, low-powered games. They work quite well with PHB classes as long as you don't hold back with the spell use (that is, e.g. use Polymorph 'cause they have so few good spells on their list). And divine caster with familiar is just awesome :)

EDIT: I guess this is just a "That should be fun!"-prop.

[Ashiel]

I actually enjoy playing Adepts in normal, low-powered games. They work quite well with PHB classes as long as you don't hold back with the spell use (that is, e.g. use Polymorph 'cause they have so few good spells on their list). And divine caster with familiar is just awesome :)

Heh, so true. Especially if you play by the rules (where you can purchase items within the community's gold piece limits) so you can collect low-cost or minor spell items, such as scrolls, x/day wands, or wands with few charges. Adepts are great at buffing and can pull a little bit of blasting with lightning bolt. If you can grab the Sculpt Spell and Metamagic School Focus, you can get a lot of diversity from such spells. You're a good buffer and all around party support character.

Not to mention that divine casting, light armor proficiency, and simple weapon proficiency makes you pretty cool for setting things up thematically or even holding your own in a fight (grab a longspear and help your buddies flank!). Also, grabbing Extra Spell from Complete Arcane could grab you some spells that will help you round out anything you're missing (as long as the level is the highest level you can cast -1). :smallsmile:

[Eldariel]

Heh, so true. Especially if you play by the rules (where you can purchase items within the community's gold piece limits) so you can collect low-cost or minor spell items, such as scrolls, x/day wands, or wands with few charges. Adepts are great at buffing and can pull a little bit of blasting with lightning bolt. If you can grab the Sculpt Spell and Metamagic School Focus, you can get a lot of diversity from such spells. You're a good buffer and all around party support character.

Not to mention that divine casting, light armor proficiency, and simple weapon proficiency makes you pretty cool for setting things up thematically or even holding your own in a fight (grab a longspear and help your buddies flank!). Also, grabbing Extra Spell from Complete Arcane could grab you some spells that will help you round out anything you're missing (as long as the level is the highest level you can cast -1). :smallsmile:

Let's not forget that they have some of the very key spells from the Wizard-list in Web, Sleep, Invisibility, Mirror Image & Polymorph. Oh, and to complement their offensive casting, there's Scorching Ray. Really, thanks to access to Wizard-specific buffs and divine casting, they make for fairly decent Gishes too, as long as you gain access to Divine Power somehow. Of course, their low spell levels work against them when dealing with metamagic, and they have low Spells Per Day, but their spell list is really quite solid (with few small lackings).

They don't have Light Armor Proficiencies, but they can use Mw. Studded Leather without penalties anyways. That or Mithril Chain Shirt. Of course, those are rather High Dex armors, but yeah, they work out fine anyways.

[Calimehter]

I should probably wait till I have more time to reply, but what the heck.

- E6 does essentially use all the rules for D&D, but you cap out at 6th level. After 6th level, characters improve by gaining more feats instead of levels. More details can be found here:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=352719

Its fair to say that its coloring my view of the matter at hand, esp. with regards to the ability to save "feat trees" for further down the road, but I was used to spending lots of time at the lower levels in regular d20 anyways, which is closer to our discussion. High level D&D is rather more like Saturday morning Superfriends cartoons that it is Braveheart.

- Getting *too* involved in the particulars of translating William Wallace into D&D is inevitably going to run into problems, as would translating any real life (or even movie style pseudo-real life) into pure D&D 3.5 game terms, especially given my cursory familiarity with non core splatbooks. That's a bit of a cop-out on my part :smallfrown: but its true. The key point I really wanted to make with that example (and the shorter one about Hitler) was really that William Wallace was able to have bold adventures and achieve mighty things just as much because of his levels as because of his starting stats. Statting him out would be an interesting exercise, at least, and I might take a crack at it sometime, but there's probably a limit to how valuable that would be.

----------------


The best anyone has managed to offer for reasoning is proven false by their own reasoning. Unless they're playing adepts, experts, and warriors, and using 15 point buy, then they're breaking their own reasoning. It's provable that low-point buy favors those who are already strong, and craps on those who are already weak - but could be better. No one has offered anything to the contrary yet.

I think what is missing here is the middle ground. Its not a black and white question, its a greyscale question.

When I run low point buys, I'm trying to find that happy (IMO) middle ground between the Average Joes from Dodgeball and the Incredibles. Sure, I can have a first level character whose sheer statistical power can have him arm wrestle ogres or overwhelm hordes of goblins, spiders, bandits, etc. even as a stripling adventurer at first level. Or I can have a character who is well above average but still in the realm of physical plausability, who starts out with an edge but still has to earn his way up in the world before overcome the challenges that a Hercules type can overcome with much less experience.

Yes, 40 point Barbarians have to work for their levels too . . . but not as much as 25 point Barbarians, and it is that feel for being *both* above average and yet having to strive hard to get to one's goal, that I (and I suspect many of the other low-point fans) am looking for. Its a grittier style of game, and it does have a niche and a purpose that is not self-contradictory.

[Ashiel]

I think what is missing here is the middle ground. Its not a black and white question, its a gray scale question.

When I run low point buys, I'm trying to find that happy (IMO) middle ground between the Average Joes from Dodgeball and the Incredibles. Sure, I can have a first level character whose sheer statistical power can have him arm wrestle ogres or overwhelm hordes of goblins, spiders, bandits, etc. even as a stripling adventurer at first level. Or I can have a character who is well above average but still in the realm of physical plausability, who starts out with an edge but still has to earn his way up in the world before overcome the challenges that a Hercules type can overcome with much less experience.

Yes, 40 point Barbarians have to work for their levels too . . . but not as much as 25 point Barbarians, and it is that feel for being *both* above average and yet having to strive hard to get to one's goal, that I (and I suspect many of the other low-point fans) am looking for. Its a grittier style of game, and it does have a niche and a purpose that is not self-contradictory.

Emphasis mine.

The problem is that it doesn't work like you're saying it does. As I pointed out earlier, you're not going to arm-wrestle ogres, overwhelm hordes of anything, especially at 1st level. That's exactly the opposite of what I was showing before. I was showing that even with high scores you cannot do that stuff at low levels. Even if the player has a 20 strength (18 + 2 racial), the ogre still sports a +4 size modifier; and we're talking average garden variety ogre. Not even an ogre warrior or an ogre with a 13 base strength.

The hordes of spiders, bandits and so forth? Yeah, I just got done explaining that they don't get walked all over by people with high scores in multiple abilities. You get diminishing returns for high-off stats.

Your example of a 25 vs 40 point buy barbarian is a poor example. Barbarians are one of the worst examples of a MAD class. Primarily due to their reliance solely on strength and constitution to do things. Their class abilities keep their armor class low, and little AC is often about as useful as no AC; so their dexterity generally doesn't mean much; and their rage pushes their already high Strength and Constitution even further, while buffing their Will saves in addition. A barbarian is in a much better position mechanically than fighters, monks, paladins, and MAD classes because they are limited in options by default and only have a few ways to make them playable. In short, barbarians get a high strength, a high constitution, and a big weapon; this makes them a good barbarian.

25 Pt Barbarian: 17, 10, 14, 8, 12, 8; before racial modifiers. If we choose a half-orc we're going to have a 19, 10, 14, 6, 12, 6. That's a +4 to hit, +6 to damage, +1 to will saves, +2 fortitude, and +2hp per level. Puts 1 skill point into Survival or Jump each level. When the barbarian rages, his strength kicks to 23 for 6 rounds, for +6 to hit and +9 to damage, and another +2 to Will. Quite capable of literally brute-forcing his/her way through encounters. Also, we'll really only need Power Attack to be viable at various levels.

40 Pt Barbarian: 18, 10, 18, 8, 14, 8; before racial modifiers. Again we'll choose half-orc to push it further to 20, 10, 18, 6, 14, 6. Pretty much the same barbarian, except you've got an additional +1 to hit, and +1 damage normal and when raging (since 7 * 1.5 = +10). Will save is +1 higher. Not a whole lot of improvement here. Now, you could instead lower some of your primary scores and try to be a little more well rounded (pulling a +2 in a few other things), and would probably be better than super-specializing.

On the flip side, if you wanted to do something besides wielding big honkin' weapons, and wanted to try a dual-wielding barbarian, or a battlefield control barbarian, or maybe even some sort of barbarian/bard leader-combo, you could actually do that and not suck horribly compared to the 25pt barbarian bruiser, or your 40pt bruiser counterpart.

25 Pt Monk: 14, 14, 14, 9, 14, 8; before racial modifiers. We'll assume human since there aren't any PHB races that really scream monk or anything; and non of their ability modifiers really improve monk abilities without hindering something else (except maybe dwarf actually, since charisma would be your dump stat); and human bonus skill points will help the fact you can't afford intelligence. We're looking an an armor class of 14, a +2 to hit, 10 hit points. You're supposed to fight in melee, and your flurry ability ends up at a +0/+0 if you use it. The barbarian in scale mail has an equal armor class to you, and AC is a barbarian's very own dump-stat. :smalltongue: You are a joke.

40 Pt Monk: 14, 16, 16, 10, 16, 8; before racial modifiers. Still offensively poor, but your armor class is now 16, which is respectable. Your enhanced constitution helps alleviate your low hit die, and your enhanced wisdom can help with your stunning fist. You're still not stellar, but you're definitely better at surviving. You're not going to be overwhelming anyone but you're playable. If a mage buffs you with mage armor, you'll even sport a very respectable AC 20.

The 25 Point barbarian still will be more effective at dealing with most enemies. He'll be more capable of killing enemies stronger than him. He will still be a walking engine of destruction when buffed by the party's wizard and cleric with spells like Bless, Enlarge Person, Haste, Rage, Bull's Strength, Bear's Endurance, and can even cover his AC weaknesses at 5th level with stuff like long-duration mage armor, divine shield, blur, or even some mirror image items. The 40 Point Barbarian doesn't change much.

There's nothing grittier about it. You speak of a middle gray area, but then you offer up stuff that is mechanically disprovable. Your very examples show the problem with low point-buy. It also shows there's not a whole lot of difference between a 25 and 40 pt barbarian; which further illustrates my point.

LOW-POINT BUY FAVORS SAD CLASSES (Not yelling, merely emphasis-enabled)

[Ashiel]

For those who are interested, I've posted the first link to my NPC game; found here: Diary of a low-powered NPC (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143449).

:smallsmile:

[Calimehter]

I will admit that my "Average Joes vs. Incredibles" analogy went a bit overboard in trying to make my point. A 40 point Barbarian is not a *true* Superman, effortlessly smashing all foes at any class level . . . but he is *closer* to that level than a 25 point buy. My gaming group and (again, I can only presume) many of the other low-point folks on this board do feel that the difference is big enough that you get a noticable difference in game style, and it is a grittier style we happen to prefer. Your earlier post with the "why don't you just play NPC classes" made me think there might be some benefit to magnifying the gap between high and low so as to make the middle ground a bit easier to see.

As mechanics go . . .

Just as you say that the Barbarian is a poor example to compare with, I would counter back that a Monk isn't a great one either, since the class has so many problems. The fact that a "all around" Monk is helped more by a points upgrade than a classic "power attack" Barbarian is does *not* mean that the Monk has now caught up to the Barbarian in terms of optimization. I'm rather of the opinion that the gap doesn't change much at all. As you said yourself, the 40 point monk is still offensively poor with the same +0/+0 on the attack. Stunning Fist is now a DC of 11 instead of 10, which makes a difference in one out of every 20 attacks. You make a lot out of the AC upgrade, but if the 25 point Monk gets buffed with Mage Armor from his teammate, then he's also sporting a pretty respectable AC of 18 at Level 1.

Note I'm not saying that the 40 point Monk isn't better . . . just that if he's considered playable despite his inferiority to the better classes, then why isn't he playable at the 25 point build too? MAD is MAD.

Incidentally, the Flurry of Blows problem is also why I suggested it wasn't such a bad idea to wait till 4th level to pick up TWF with your earlier example of the finesse fighter . . . even with just the -2 to hit, she has a hard time hitting at first level. Why not wait till you're hitting more often before taking penalties to add an extra attack, and then you can use the extra 2 ability points this saves you to become better rounded?

I wa hoping to toss a Paladin example in, but I'm out of time again. :smallfrown: To sum up, I like the "feel" of the 25 point game, and I don't believe that I've gimped the MAD classes any more (or at least very much more) than they already are in order to get that "feel".

[Gnaeus]

To sum up, I like the "feel" of the 25 point game

Then that is what you should play.


and I don't believe that I've gimped the MAD classes any more (or at least very much more) than they already are in order to get that "feel".

You are entitled to believe whatever you want. People may look at you strangely, however, since what you believe is in this case mechanically, provably, wrong.

[Eldariel]

For what it's worth, I'd say a 40pb Monk would be better off as:

18 Str
14 Dex
14 Con
10 Int
16 Wis
8 Cha

What you really want is 42pb for 18/16/14/8/16/8. But that'll do; the 18 Str is very key for low-level Monk due to Flurry inherently making hitting a pain (and still being the only real source of damage they have available). You can actually Flurry a Quarterstaff two-handed to rather good effect on level 1; 1d6+6 damage, so:
+2 for 1d6+6
+2 for 1d6+6

Full attack and single attack, +4 for 1d6+6. This combined with ability to Grapple at +8 (against single opponents) is actually a fairly decent array of strategic options. High Str also enables the Monk to Trip and Grapple, which he gets as free bonus feats. The +1 HP just isn't as big as having at least some offense.


18 Strength is just extremely important because that's the only source of To Hit for a Monk of this level, the primary ability for deriving his combat maneuvers and also the only real way he can deal damage (when none of his weapons do over 1d6 per hit).

Now, sure, you only have 15 AC, but Monk was never a very defensive class anyways. He's good at running away and avoiding spells, but old-fashioned attacks are extremely efficient against him between low AC and HP.

But yeah, point being, a low-level Monk really begins to come onto his own around 42-46pb (18/16/14/X/16/8). Under that, you're gonna have serious issues. And even in those numbers, the fact that your Con is relatively dumped sucks. 50pb Monk with 18/16/16/12/16/8 would be fairly solid on low levels tho (and yeah, you could 18 Wis and Dex instead, but I'd say the extra HP and skills are more important for Monk to do what he's supposed to).


Of course, if you specialize in low levels and stop being a Monk (e.g. pick up Armor Proficiency-feat and dump Wis), you'll perform quite well.

[Saph]

What you really want is 42pb for 18/16/14/8/16/8. But that'll do; the 18 Str is very key for low-level Monk due to Flurry inherently making hitting a pain (and still being the only real source of damage they have available). You can actually Flurry a Quarterstaff two-handed to rather good effect on level 1; 1d6+6 damage, so:
+2 for 1d6+6
+2 for 1d6+6

Full attack and single attack, +4 for 1d6+6. This combined with ability to Grapple at +8 (against single opponents) is actually a fairly decent array of strategic options. High Str also enables the Monk to Trip and Grapple, which he gets as free bonus feats. The +1 HP just isn't as big as having at least some offense.

18 Strength is just extremely important because that's the only source of To Hit for a Monk of this level, the primary ability for deriving his combat maneuvers and also the only real way he can deal damage (when none of his weapons do over 1d6 per hit).

For heaven's sake, Eld. This is level 1. You're fighting goblins with 5 HP and kobolds with 4 HP and you feel that you need an 18 strength?

[Eldariel]

For heaven's sake, Eld. This is level 1. You're fighting goblins with 5 HP and kobolds with 4 HP and you feel that you need an 18 strength?

For To Hit, with Monk, yes. No, with a class with BAB and class features that improve To Hit and auxillary damage sources (e.g. Barbarian or even Fighter), 18 Str isn't needed. But Monk? He doesn't have Greatsword proficiency. He doesn't have BAB. He doesn't have Rage (nor reach weapons). He doesn't have anything but his Flurry and proficiencies, along with Improved Grapple. If you want to hit something with Flurry on level 1, you really want 18 Str.

Vs. 15 AC for example (Goblin), +1/+1 Flurry has ~50% chance of landing a hit. +2/+2 has a ~60% chance. It's an almost 5% increase in expected value (which would be 5%) for what you gain compared to other classes. In other words, Monk benefits notably more of high Str thanks to Flurry. And honestly, level 1 encounters aren't all Goblins and Kobolds. Who's to say your party doesn't run into the odd Ogre or Azer? Hell, Ape is perfectly fine by CR. In such an encounter, your damage suddenly became relevant.

2d6+3 (non-raging 14 Str Barbarian with Greatsword) averages more damage than 18 Str Monk (1d6+6 = 9.5 average, 2d6+3 = 10 average), but at least it's close that way. Monk drops to 7.5 average if you cut to 17 Str. Let alone level 2; your damage output doesn't increase by default, but enemies' HP does.

[Tyndmyr]

For heaven's sake, Eld. This is level 1. You're fighting goblins with 5 HP and kobolds with 4 HP and you feel that you need an 18 strength?

Those are some of the least dangerous things available at level 1. Things like a zombie, with DR 5/slashing and plenty of hitpoints are a bit of a problem for a monk. A kobold or human commoner zombie(CR1/2) has 16 hp, and all the usual undead goodies.

You don't *need* an 18 strength, but it does help quite a bit. His justification that you quoted for strength addresses your question, amusingly enough. It's for to hit.

Even the 5 hp orc is a dangerous opponent when he can one hit-drop you with ease, has 15 AC, and you have a lack of to hit.

[Saph]

Even the 5 hp orc is a dangerous opponent when he can one hit-drop you with ease, has 15 AC, and you have a lack of to hit.

Yeah, wouldn't want a monster to be a threat to your character or anything. :P It's just the attitude that amuses me - the idea that a stat at the human maximum should be treated as a minimum requirement.

[Eldariel]

Yeah, wouldn't want a monster to be a threat to your character or anything. :P It's just the attitude that amuses me - the idea that a stat at the human maximum should be treated as a minimum requirement.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind playing 15 Str Barbarian; I'll still be just fine. Hell, I don't mind playing a 14 Str Barbarian - that's equally fine. But you won't catch me dead playing a 14 Str Monk. Well, you'd probably catch me dead if you caught me at all. I was talking about a very specific scenario with a very specific class. One with...well-known issues.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, wouldn't want a monster to be a threat to your character or anything. :P It's just the attitude that amuses me - the idea that a stat at the human maximum should be treated as a minimum requirement.

Well...it's a monk. Starting stats don't usually have to be high.

Lets see exactly what we mean by threat.

We'll assume the monk has 18str, 14 con, 14 dex, 16 wis etc. Good stats. 10 hp total, 15 AC.

Monk flurry of blows. +2 attack bonus against 11 AC. 60% hit chance. Average damage per hit: 1d6+2. So, an average of 2.5 damage gets through, if he hits, per hit. Expected damage per flurry of blows: 3 hp.

Bog standard human commoner zombie has a +2 slam. Monk has a 15 AC. 40% hit rate. Does an average of 5.5 dmg if he hits. Expected damage per turn: 2.2

For the sake of simplicity, we'll ignore other factors, such as that a turn spent charging results in lower average damage for the monk, but higher for the zombie, and just tally up an equal amount of turns. Over five turns, the monk deals an expected 15 dmg, not enough to kill the zombie. The zombie deals 11 dmg, which is plenty to down the monk.

Head to head, a 40pt buy monk still loses to a CR 1/2 mob.

No, he's not a superhuman god because of his point buy. He's just sufficiently less incompetent that he might actually be able to contribute to the party.

[Sinfire Titan]

No, he's not a superhuman god because of his point buy. He's just sufficiently less incompetent that he might actually be able to contribute to the party.

Which is the most important part of building a character.

[Kylarra]

We'll assume the monk has 18str, 14 con, 14 dex, 16 wis etc. Good stats. 10 hp total, 15 AC.

Monk flurry of blows. +2 attack bonus against 11 AC. 60% hit chance. Average damage per hit: 1d6+2. So, an average of 2.5 damage gets through, if he hits, per hit. Expected damage per flurry of blows: 3 hp.Monk should be doing D6+4 damage thanks to that 18 strength though :smalltongue:

Rest of this post rendered irrelevant by laziness to redo maths for DR, although it's still worth pointing out that DR is absurdly useful at low levels before tapering off to worthless.

[Eldariel]

Monk should be doing D6+4 damage thanks to that 18 strength though :smalltongue:

[/Me Points Out Quarterstaff Again]

D6+6. As I said. Now could we PLEASE get back to the thread.

[Kylarra]

[/Me Points Out Quarterstaff Again]

D6+6. As I said. Now could we PLEASE get back to the thread.Well thanks to DR, just smashing with Qstaff two-handed is the most optimal way to do it, but flurrying would put it at only D6+4. Actually the most optimal way to do it would be to just be using a Kama, but that's neither here nor there I guess.

Anyway, I don't really have much to add to the thread anymore. I've already said my piece, and what I do as far as chargen.:smalltongue:


Re: flurrying with qstaff though:
When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired. When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus × 1½ or ×½) to her damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands. The monk can’t use any weapon other than a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows.

[Tyndmyr]

Monk should be doing D6+4 damage thanks to that 18 strength though :smalltongue:

Rest of this post rendered irrelevant by laziness to redo maths for DR, although it's still worth pointing out that DR is absurdly useful at low levels before tapering off to worthless.

Oh, good call. So, odds are actually slightly in favor of the monk. Still, against a CR1/2 mob, that's not very impressive. Other classes could down the zombie with ease. Of course, they could do that at either high or low point buys. If you lower the point buy for the monk, he just becomes spectacularly ineffective.

[Kylarra]

Oh, good call. So, odds are actually slightly in favor of the monk. Still, against a CR1/2 mob, that's not very impressive. Other classes could down the zombie with ease. Of course, they could do that at either high or low point buys. If you lower the point buy for the monk, he just becomes spectacularly ineffective.Actually monk is just fine, DR/Slashing is overcome by the kama which has the same base damage as the unarmed monk and can be flurried with, bringing our damage output up to 7.5*.6 or 4.5 per hit or 9 per round, easily dropping our zombie friend in two rounds.

[Tyndmyr]

Actually monk is just fine, DR/Slashing is overcome by the kama which has the same base damage as the unarmed monk and can be flurried with, bringing our damage output up to 7.5*.6 or 4.5 per hit or 9 per round, easily dropping our zombie friend in two rounds.

Right, but we're going slightly shrodinger here. Kamas are not typically used in monk builds, and its unlikely that a monk is going to pack all types of weapons at level 1.

[Kylarra]

Right, but we're going slightly shrodinger here. Kamas are not typically used in monk builds, and its unlikely that a monk is going to pack all types of weapons at level 1.Well... not really. 2gp for a Kama to overcome DR/Slashing is hardly reconfiguring a build. It's just playing smart for overcoming a common monster's DR. Remember your primary weapon, either your fist or that quarterstaff, is costing you a whopping 0 gp.

I would say that it is perfectly reasonable to believe a level 1 monk has a 2gp weapon. It's not like I'm suggesting partially charged wands and max ranks in UMD out of the blue.

[Ashiel]

I will admit that my "Average Joes vs. Incredibles" analogy went a bit overboard in trying to make my point. A 40 point Barbarian is not a *true* Superman, effortlessly smashing all foes at any class level . . . but he is *closer* to that level than a 25 point buy. My gaming group and (again, I can only presume) many of the other low-point folks on this board do feel that the difference is big enough that you get a noticable difference in game style, and it is a grittier style we happen to prefer. Your earlier post with the "why don't you just play NPC classes" made me think there might be some benefit to magnifying the gap between high and low so as to make the middle ground a bit easier to see.

As mechanics go . . .

Just as you say that the Barbarian is a poor example to compare with, I would counter back that a Monk isn't a great one either, since the class has so many problems. The fact that a "all around" Monk is helped more by a points upgrade than a classic "power attack" Barbarian is does *not* mean that the Monk has now caught up to the Barbarian in terms of optimization. I'm rather of the opinion that the gap doesn't change much at all. As you said yourself, the 40 point monk is still offensively poor with the same +0/+0 on the attack. Stunning Fist is now a DC of 11 instead of 10, which makes a difference in one out of every 20 attacks. You make a lot out of the AC upgrade, but if the 25 point Monk gets buffed with Mage Armor from his teammate, then he's also sporting a pretty respectable AC of 18 at Level 1.

Note I'm not saying that the 40 point Monk isn't better . . . just that if he's considered playable despite his inferiority to the better classes, then why isn't he playable at the 25 point build too? MAD is MAD.

Incidentally, the Flurry of Blows problem is also why I suggested it wasn't such a bad idea to wait till 4th level to pick up TWF with your earlier example of the finesse fighter . . . even with just the -2 to hit, she has a hard time hitting at first level. Why not wait till you're hitting more often before taking penalties to add an extra attack, and then you can use the extra 2 ability points this saves you to become better rounded?

I wa hoping to toss a Paladin example in, but I'm out of time again. :smallfrown: To sum up, I like the "feel" of the 25 point game, and I don't believe that I've gimped the MAD classes any more (or at least very much more) than they already are in order to get that "feel".

Ok, well I'll toss you a Paladin example since monk doesn't do it for you.


Your example of a 25 vs 40 point buy barbarian is a poor example. Barbarians are one of the worst examples of a MAD class. Primarily due to their reliance solely on strength and constitution to do things. Their class abilities keep their armor class low, and little AC is often about as useful as no AC; so their dexterity generally doesn't mean much; and their rage pushes their already high Strength and Constitution even further, while buffing their Will saves in addition. A barbarian is in a much better position mechanically than fighters, monks, paladins, and MAD classes because they are limited in options by default and only have a few ways to make them playable. In short, barbarians get a high strength, a high constitution, and a big weapon; this makes them a good barbarian.

25 Pt Barbarian: 17, 10, 14, 8, 12, 8; before racial modifiers. If we choose a half-orc we're going to have a 19, 10, 14, 6, 12, 6. That's a +4 to hit, +6 to damage, +1 to will saves, +2 fortitude, and +2hp per level. Puts 1 skill point into Survival or Jump each level. When the barbarian rages, his strength kicks to 23 for 6 rounds, for +6 to hit and +9 to damage, and another +2 to Will. Quite capable of literally brute-forcing his/her way through encounters. Also, we'll really only need Power Attack to be viable at various levels.

40 Pt Barbarian: 18, 10, 18, 8, 14, 8; before racial modifiers. Again we'll choose half-orc to push it further to 20, 10, 18, 6, 14, 6. Pretty much the same barbarian, except you've got an additional +1 to hit, and +1 damage normal and when raging (since 7 * 1.5 = +10). Will save is +1 higher. Not a whole lot of improvement here. Now, you could instead lower some of your primary scores and try to be a little more well rounded (pulling a +2 in a few other things), and would probably be better than super-specializing.

On the flip side, if you wanted to do something besides wielding big honkin' weapons, and wanted to try a dual-wielding barbarian, or a battlefield control barbarian, or maybe even some sort of barbarian/bard leader-combo, you could actually do that and not suck horribly compared to the 25pt barbarian bruiser, or your 40pt bruiser counterpart.
Since all of this is still very true, I'll pick up where I left off.

25 Pt Paladin: 14, 10, 13, 9, 14, 14; before racial modifiers. Since there's not really a race that jumps out as a paladin, we'll assume human for the bonus feat and skill points. Let's see exactly what we're looking at here. You've got a +2 to hit and damage, +1 to hit points, just enough wisdom to eventually cast all your spells, and a charisma to use your divine grace class feature. The only feat tree you qualify for in core would be the Power-Attack line of feats, so you're probably best going with a two handed weapon to make use of your higher strength score (getting the +3 bonus to damage). However if you do this you're just going to be doing what the barbarian is doing better - so we need to find you something else that you do well.

You have fewer hit points, comparable AC, less offensive power. Your smite is based on your charisma and only nets you a +2/+1 to hit and damage once per day (much worse than just the Weapon Focus feat). Your saves are +3/+0/+2, which is respectable (though casters will still eat you alive), and once you hit 2nd level, you'll get a +2 bonus to them from your charisma; but at 1st level you don't even have lay on hands, so you'll just be an evil-dar.

It's worth noting that you will become less and less useful as you gain levels compared to the barbarian. The barbarian's damage increases faster (he can afford to pump just strength), is more durable, matches your skill points even with his lower intelligence and your human bonus points, is and faster than you (you're pretty much required to wear heavier armors to try and compensate - then they get fast movement).

Your casting isn't very good and comes late. You could tip your stats around a little bit to maybe get some extra hit points (maybe dumping wisdom), and then raise your stats later through leveling so you can cast all your spells, or rely on wands and magic items instead. However, the barbarian is comfortably pumping his strength and constitution alone.

You could lower your paladin's wisdom, forgoing his spells without magical item assistance, and maybe just purchase wands and such for him to use instead, which could help you bump one of your other stats up by one or two, but you're not really getting much out of it.

You're just not very good compared to the less MAD barbarian.

40 Pt Paladin: 15, 15, 15, 10, 14, 15 or 16, 14, 15, 10, 12, 16; before racial modifiers. I was a little up in the air on their stats (more things to consider with MAD classes you might not expect up-front) so I included two sets. The first set is similar to the 25pt buy in their statistical modifiers, but you can qualify for more feats and your goal is to get as many +1 ability buff magic items (Gauntlet of Ogre Strength +1 for 1,000gp for example) as soon as possible. It provides the most balance, and you'll eventually need magic items to qualify for your spell-casting, which is still something of a drag.

The second set of scores is a defensive paladin with some offensive capability. The 16 strength helps hold his attack and damage at respectable levels (but still not the barbarian's, who sports at good +1/+3 damage over you). Your dexterity is +2, which helps alleviate your poor AC and reflex saves, and will help in being a slightly more competent archer. Your constitution is decent and can be bumped with a +1 ability score item, or your 4th level ability increase to provide you some extra hit points (constitution being your best scaling feature). Finally, your charisma is solid and will make your lay on hands strong enough to provide reasonable healing, and provide a nice +3 to your poor saving throws - making it worthwhile.

Even still, the 25pt buy Barbarian is still better on average than the 40pt buy Paladin. Again, the 40pt buy Barbarian isn't much better than the 25pt buy barbarian, barring a +1 to attack and damage, and a +1 higher Will save. Both are still inferior to the casters at large, but you won't notice as much because :smallsmile:


Yeah, wouldn't want a monster to be a threat to your character or anything. :P It's just the attitude that amuses me - the idea that a stat at the human maximum should be treated as a minimum requirement.

Technically the human maximum isn't 18 anymore. Merely your highest starting score. At 4th level you can have broken this already. Unlike in 2E, an 18 is not the pinnacle of human advancement without magic items. 10-11 is the average for commoners. 12-13 is common in NPC classed characters (with a 9 and 8 in their least stats). Every adventurer can easily sport 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8. Even if only one out of every 100 people had an 18, that still leaves a crap-load of people with an 18 in something.

I just think you might be putting more emphasis on the numbers, rather than how it affects the game, or how it helps you play the character you want to play. I'm not suggesting you're wrong, or doing something wrong, or even criticizing your viewpoint. I just wanted to point out an alternative way of looking at it. :smallsmile:

[Eldariel]

*snip*

While I agree with your point, your stat distributions are heavily questionable:
14, 10, 13, 9, 14, 14

9 Int? Really? Over 14 Con? I'd say:
16 Str
8 Dex
12 Con
8 Int
14 Wis
14 Cha

With Wis and Con as interchangeables.


And 15, 15, 15, 10, 14, 15?
The heck? Why are you buying odd numbers in everything and why is your Dex so high? More like:
18, 10, 14, 10, 14, 16

Cha and Str are sorta interchangeable depending on the focus. And of course, Dex is nice, but definitely not your first, second or third priority as you are a heavy armor wearer.

[Saph]

I just think you might be putting more emphasis on the numbers, rather than how it affects the game, or how it helps you play the character you want to play. I'm not suggesting you're wrong, or doing something wrong, or even criticizing your viewpoint. I just wanted to point out an alternative way of looking at it. :smallsmile:

The truth is I don't really care about stats all that much. That's the reason I let players do 4d6 rolled if they want to. Sometimes they'll get a set of scores way in excess of the 28 point buy standard, sometimes they'll get a crappy set of rolls, but I don't really mind since I know other factors (class, build, and most of all tactics) matter so much more.

It's really more the attitude. I just find that the players who don't have so strong a need to be special are much easier to DM for over the course of a campaign. I don't mind a player having an 18, but I'd prefer it if players don't feel that they need an 18.

[Ashiel]

While I agree with your point, your stat distributions are heavily questionable:
14, 10, 13, 9, 14, 14

9 Int? Really? Over 14 Con? I'd say:
16 Str
8 Dex
12 Con
8 Int
14 Wis
14 Cha

With Wis and Con as interchangeables.


And 15, 15, 15, 10, 14, 15?
The heck? Why are you buying odd numbers in everything and why is your Dex so high? More like:
18, 10, 14, 10, 14, 16

Cha and Str are sorta interchangeable depending on the focus. And of course, Dex is nice, but definitely not your first, second or third priority as you are a heavy armor wearer.

Good points! If you read what I said last time, about the ones with 15 in most stats, it was with the intention of grabbing some cheap +1 stat items early in your career (1,000gp, 500gp to craft) and spreading them out to give you higher overall scores. Also, your suggested set of stats is above 40pb (42 actually, according to this Calculator (http://www.hackslash.net/?p=73). As for the 9 intelligence versus 13 con; the 9 intelligence means you can bump it at 4th to get another +1 skill point per level (something your starving for). The con can be bumped by magic items and give you the same benefits. You're right that it probably could have been optimized better however.

Even with your latter set of 42pb scores, you are comparable to the power of the 25pb barbarian. You just can match his offensive power assuming he's not raging. He can compensate for your lower hit points. Your charisma bonus enhances your saves at 2nd level, making you more defensive rather than destructive. You lack the speed advantage of the barbarian, but you're a bit more stalwart, and you have some backup healing ability.

The barbarian is still more mobile (receiving large bonuses to climb, jump, and swim from strength alone, plus another +4 to jump from his speed increase, not counting his extra skill points which can be put into physical skills), capable of enduring and dishing out much more punishment (he has a 6-8 round buff 1/day for +2/+3 hit/damage and a +2 will save bonus; compared too your 1/day +charisma/+level hit/damage, which only applies to a single attack).

In short, you're comparatively playable next to the 25pt barbarian, who is less MAD. Since - as I pointed out - having higher point buy or generation methods barely budges the barbarian, it is further proof that low-PB games favor certain tremendously; and high-PB games help retain balance and effectiveness with MAD and builds who want to have character flavor without sacrificing in-game effectiveness (IE - make William Wallace or a Fighter who has a solid intelligence and charisma and isn't hosed mechanically).


The truth is I don't really care about stats all that much. That's the reason I let players do 4d6 rolled if they want to. Sometimes they'll get a set of scores way in excess of the 28 point buy standard, sometimes they'll get a crappy set of rolls, but I don't really mind since I know other factors (class, build, and most of all tactics) matter so much more.

It's really more the attitude. I just find that the players who don't have so strong a need to be special are much easier to DM for over the course of a campaign. I don't mind a player having an 18, but I'd prefer it if players don't feel that they need an 18.

I can respect that. :smallsmile:

Sometimes some of us want those 18s 'cause we're paranoid (let's face it, lots of GMs don't play by the rules - I've seen 1st level games with GMs using kobolds with Dragon-bile tipped arrows 'cause they thought it would be a good challenge), and we fear we're not going to be able to function without them. It's not true of course. My brother recently played through a solo-game with a non-elite array goblin expert, and he did fine (link: Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143449)). Admittedly, he had a lot of help from his strategic choices, and never bothered to fight anyone directly; but it works for him. :smallamused:

[Calimehter]

The 25 point Paladin build I was thinking of was more along the lines of 14, 10, 14, 10, 11, 14. You are a competent fighter with these stats, though you can't dish out the raw damage that a raging half-orc Barbarian can. Instead, you get better armour and other special class abilities, including some handy boosts to the Will save and fear effects. You're less specialized, but can handily take on CR-appropriate encounters and have some situational advantages (and not terribly uncommon ones at that) over you rage-ahol consuming teammate.

Where's the Wisdom, you might say? With this build, you would be putting all your "natural" stat increases into Wisdom, which actually gets you access to all your highest level spells at 17 of the 20 class levels. By the time you hit the three levels where you are missing access (11, 14, and 15) you probably have access to stat-boosting items that could get them for you, though I think many would say your WBL is better spent on other things at those levels . . . assuming the Tier 1 casters haven't rendered you irrelevant regardless of your stat values and equipment. :smallwink:

The 40 point build is, of course, better. The 25 point build is still heroic (relative to the population at large) and capable (relative to his heroic teammates).

Compared to a monk who is heroic (to the populace) but not terribly capable (to teammates) at either point build, which is why I wasn't excited about it as an example. One of the other posters mentioned using a 46 point build to make it work . . . heh, it may be true, but I have no way or desire to know for sure.


It's worth noting that you will become less and less useful as you gain levels compared to the barbarian. The barbarian's damage increases faster (he can afford to pump just strength), is more durable, matches your skill points even with his lower intelligence and your human bonus points, is and faster than you (you're pretty much required to wear heavier armors to try and compensate - then they get fast movement).

True. The Paladin's abilities past 6th level don't scale terribly well regardless of stat buy. The 25 point Barbarian gets better than the 25 point Paladin as levels go up. However, so does the 40 point Barbarian when compared to the 40 point Paladin.


Technically the human maximum isn't 18 anymore. Merely your highest starting score. At 4th level you can have broken this already. Unlike in 2E, an 18 is not the pinnacle of human advancement without magic items. 10-11 is the average for commoners. 12-13 is common in NPC classed characters (with a 9 and 8 in their least stats). Every adventurer can easily sport 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8. Even if only one out of every 100 people had an 18, that still leaves a crap-load of people with an 18 in something.

I wonder . . .

I've always thought that the 3d6 system was a way to generate interesting characters for a game whose average came out to the statistical human norm, but that it was not really meant to be a way to generate an entire population distribution curve of stats. I think folks use this to show that large percentages of the population should have 14's and higher for at least one of their stats, and thus you need 40 point builds to stand out.

Think about the stats of people around you. Tempted to assign a bunch of 15's, 16's, and the like to your fellows? Doubly tempted because you are at college and/or your friends are all in AP classes and/or are all on the same football team and are all in the 90th percentile in something . . . and must, therefore, be on the 90th percentile on the 3d6 curve too?

By pure 3d6 rolling, an 18 comes up one out of every 240 throws. So 2.5% of a 3d6 population has at least one 18 out of their six stats, and a whopping 22.5% of the population has at least one 16.

Of course, the converse is true for the lower end of the stat pool, too. 2.5% of the population end up with a 3 in at least one stat, and a whopping 22.5% of the population has at least a 5 or lower in at least one stat.

There are certainly folks out there with various deformities, down syndrome, and what not. But almost 1 out of every 4 people?? Looking at the PHB for some comparisons, do one out of every four people you know have such a colossal flaw in some "stat" of the following magnitudes:

- the bench press of a Tiny-sized spider? Far weaker than that of a hawk?
- the intelligence of a Gray Render or animated plant (Tendriculos)? Far less than that of an otyugh? Can't speak at all and are incapable of learning language?
- The wisdom score of a large mushroom (shrieker)?

. . . .

I think that perhaps people are coming at the stat system (and what constitutes a "good" score) from different perspectives. 3d6 gets you the right average, but I don't think it gets you a good *distribution* of scores to mirror a realistic population - I think it is a much broader than normal distribution designed to make for interesting characters, and that's why it is in the character-generating section of the DMG and not the population-generating section.

I wonder if this different perspective on scores is where some of this disagreement is coming from.

[Tyndmyr]

The 25 point Paladin build I was thinking of was more along the lines of 14, 10, 14, 10, 11, 14. You are a competent fighter with these stats, though you can't dish out the raw damage that a raging half-orc Barbarian can. Instead, you get better armour and other special class abilities, including some handy boosts to the Will save and fear effects. You're less specialized, but can handily take on CR-appropriate encounters and have some situational advantages (and not terribly uncommon ones at that) over you rage-ahol consuming teammate.

No. He's not competent. You don't need to be a half orc barbarian to beat that...any barbarian can dwarf your damage and hp. You can't cast, so, all you really are is a crappy fighter to begin with.

And if you pump all your stat upgrades into wisdom, all you'll manage is almost enough to keep up with the rate you get spells. Forget bonus spells, and your DC will be horrible. Anything with a saving throw wont be worth casting. And the worst part? Since your physical stats stay the same, your character will only get worse and worse as you level.

It's a build that is actually outclassed by a core fighter. Wow.

[Drascin]

The truth is I don't really care about stats all that much. That's the reason I let players do 4d6 rolled if they want to. Sometimes they'll get a set of scores way in excess of the 28 point buy standard, sometimes they'll get a crappy set of rolls, but I don't really mind since I know other factors (class, build, and most of all tactics) matter so much more.

It's really more the attitude. I just find that the players who don't have so strong a need to be special are much easier to DM for over the course of a campaign. I don't mind a player having an 18, but I'd prefer it if players don't feel that they need an 18.

Yeah. But many of us actually do kind of feel that need. It usually depends a lot on the player's previous experiences.

Me, for example, I was, and still am in many ways, a powergamer. I say it with no shame - I feel uncomfortable playing a character who is unable to defend himself to a high degree, or at least packing contingency plans for the better part of all the things he can't defend himself again in straight combat. This might have been very influenced by my first experiences - my first DM, for example, had us fighting swarms of goblins with bows and a Naga, four sessions into my first tabletop campaign ever, this for a party of three people, all three of them newbies, and all of them level four. All of the few DMs I've met outsde of the internet follow similarly ruthless paradigms. So, of course, I turned into a powergamer to adapt to the environment, while becoming a DM myself to try being a little bit more lenient. And so, I was the odd man out among the DMs in my area, and while some players called me out on not threatening them enough, I like to think I mostly managed.

But it took reading in the net, in these same forums and a couple others, to realize that no, even what I thought was lenient DMing would probably be still considered pretty hardcore by many, that for most people encounters with CR 2 above the party's level aren't the standard encounter level, and not every player plays in a completely synergistic, preplanned party of characters where everyone covers up for the others' deficiencies and has their role optimized out of the wazoo - which is what I had been DMing for, and therefore what I had been throwing at them back, of course.

Even though I've mostly moved on, it's kind of hard shaking that gut feeling that any caster with lower than 16 casting score is gimped, and will be horribly eaten by Grues half a dozen sessions in. So many people just work with a much higher power assumption, and obviously desire scores that reflect that power level they envision. So really, the only way is to tell them directly, that your campaign is not going to be that hard, that you really don't have much intention to kill them, and that in your campaign, a score of 14 is a pretty damn good score. Because for many of us, that's been the exception, not the rule :smallwink:.

[Ashiel]

The 25 point Paladin build I was thinking of was more along the lines of 14, 10, 14, 10, 11, 14. You are a competent fighter with these stats, though you can't dish out the raw damage that a raging half-orc Barbarian can. Instead, you get better armour and other special class abilities, including some handy boosts to the Will save and fear effects. You're less specialized, but can handily take on CR-appropriate encounters and have some situational advantages (and not terribly uncommon ones at that) over you rage-ahol consuming teammate.

Where's the Wisdom, you might say? With this build, you would be putting all your "natural" stat increases into Wisdom, which actually gets you access to all your highest level spells at 17 of the 20 class levels. By the time you hit the three levels where you are missing access (11, 14, and 15) you probably have access to stat-boosting items that could get them for you, though I think many would say your WBL is better spent on other things at those levels . . . assuming the Tier 1 casters haven't rendered you irrelevant regardless of your stat values and equipment. :smallwink:

The 40 point build is, of course, better. The 25 point build is still heroic (relative to the population at large) and capable (relative to his heroic teammates).

Compared to a monk who is heroic (to the populace) but not terribly capable (to teammates) at either point build, which is why I wasn't excited about it as an example. One of the other posters mentioned using a 46 point build to make it work . . . heh, it may be true, but I have no way or desire to know for sure.

True. The Paladin's abilities past 6th level don't scale terribly well regardless of stat buy. The 25 point Barbarian gets better than the 25 point Paladin as levels go up. However, so does the 40 point Barbarian when compared to the 40 point Paladin.

You're ignoring the fact that the 40pb Paladin is comparable to the 25pb Barbarian. You're also ignoring the fact that the 25pb paladin is still inferior to the Barbarian in more situations. You draw attention that the paladin must devote all his enhancements at just being able to use his class features, while the barbarian just keeps increasing his more and more. The way you've stated your example Paladin, he is little more than a Warrior with a +2 bonus to saves at 2nd level, and the ability to heal 4 hit points per day. Otherwise he just gets a cantrip at will, an aura that makes him easy to pick out of a crowd with another cantrip, and a 1/day smite for +2 to hit and +level damage, which can miss and be wasted.

Your example paladin is a joke. The barbarian is better or at least equal in virtually every way except maybe his Reflex save, and then it's only because of the Paladin's 2nd level Divine Grace that helps. The barbarian even is better defensively. When not raging, he can Total Defense while walking at normal speed out of combat for a +4 dodge bonus to his AC (retained even in surprise by his Uncanny Dodge). His defense is often the fact he can kill CR-appropriate opponents before they kill him or his party.

It goes to further show my point. 25pb favors the SAD class, and screws over the MAD class. The SAD class is just as brutally efficient as "stronger" Paladin, while being a mere +1 behind the "stronger" version of the Barbarian. The difference between the 40pb Barbarian and the 40pt Paladin is much less, while the difference between the 25pb Barbarian and the 25pt Paladin is much greater. The fact the difference between the 25pb Barbarian and the 40pb is of comparable power is tragic.

See, I think where we're missing in communication is: You're caught up on how someone has a 15 where a commoner has a 11. I'm caught up on how X applies to Y. As far as I'm concerned, it's more about what characters can do, rather than the number on the sheet. A barbarian can do more with less numbers than a paladin can. I just want to see them both be heroic. I don't really give a rats-behind that relatively speaking a town guard has 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 in that order, and compared to that the Paladin's 14, 10, 14, 10, 10, 14 is "above average". It's not "above average" in the context of how it affects the physics of the game. He's brutally average in what he can actually do, and is below average compared to a SAD class with the same options.

It is mathematically provable. I've shown this. You've offered no evidence to the contrary. What you have offered has only shown that the paladin will fall even further behind, and that the Barbarian with overshadow him more and more as time goes on. You've made a wonderful case against low-PB; perhaps more so than the case I've made.


I wonder . . .

I've always thought that the 3d6 system was a way to generate interesting characters for a game whose average came out to the statistical human norm, but that it was not really meant to be a way to generate an entire population distribution curve of stats. I think folks use this to show that large percentages of the population should have 14's and higher for at least one of their stats, and thus you need 40 point builds to stand out.

Think about the stats of people around you. Tempted to assign a bunch of 15's, 16's, and the like to your fellows? Doubly tempted because you are at college and/or your friends are all in AP classes and/or are all on the same football team and are all in the 90th percentile in something . . . and must, therefore, be on the 90th percentile on the 3d6 curve too?

By pure 3d6 rolling, an 18 comes up one out of every 240 throws. So 2.5% of a 3d6 population has at least one 18 out of their six stats, and a whopping 22.5% of the population has at least one 16.

Of course, the converse is true for the lower end of the stat pool, too. 2.5% of the population end up with a 3 in at least one stat, and a whopping 22.5% of the population has at least a 5 or lower in at least one stat.

There are certainly folks out there with various deformities, down syndrome, and what not. But almost 1 out of every 4 people?? Looking at the PHB for some comparisons, do one out of every four people you know have such a colossal flaw in some "stat" of the following magnitudes:

- the bench press of a Tiny-sized spider? Far weaker than that of a hawk?
- the intelligence of a Gray Render or animated plant (Tendriculos)? Far less than that of an otyugh? Can't speak at all and are incapable of learning language?
- The wisdom score of a large mushroom (shrieker)?

I think that perhaps people are coming at the stat system (and what constitutes a "good" score) from different perspectives. 3d6 gets you the right average, but I don't think it gets you a good *distribution* of scores to mirror a realistic population - I think it is a much broader than normal distribution designed to make for interesting characters, and that's why it is in the character-generating section of the DMG and not the population-generating section.

I wonder if this different perspective on scores is where some of this disagreement is coming from.

On an unrelated note - A tiny monstrous spider who possesses a strength of 3 has a humorously above-average ability to bench-press or carry things because it has more than 2 legs (being at least a quadruped, though truthfully more like an octuped), giving it a bench press of about 22lbs (assuming you can bench press your heavy load). There's that Spidey-strength! :smallsmile:

Back on Topic
I find stating people out in real life to be a humorous process. For example, I don't consider myself to be anything special. Commoner at least. I'm also good at dueling with two weapons; and I participate in mock-battles for fun. I've spent several teenage years in dance class (Ballet, Clogging, Jazz, and Tap) and I'm pretty good at dealing with abstract ideas. I personally don't consider myself to be above the average - but I'm not below the average either. Despite this, D&D would require me to have a 15 Dex to have the Two Weapon Fighting feat and hope to hit someone while doing so - or be a 2nd level ranger (which I'm definitely not).

As far as real-life people go; we tend to be better educated as well. It wouldn't surprise me if most people sported 13s regularly in stats because of conditioning from physical exercise and learning resources. Most people today know as common knowledge stuff that two hundred years ago was cutting edge and esoteric. I probably would end up pegging several people around me as having "high" stats in D&D.

My friend, Jay, for example. He's a beastly big fellow. I'm 6'2 and he's got another few inches on me. His arms are like cannons and his legs like anchors. I'm positive that boy could probably snap my arm in half and then tear it off if he got a mind to do so. I've seen how much he can lift in real life just strait lifting it (not in a backpack or belts or quality distribution like the D&D rules assume for adventures). I'd peg him at no less than a 16 strength, just by the encumbrance rules alone. Then again, by the encumbrance rules, I'm pretty good too.

If you don't like 3d6, then there's the NPC 15 point buy mentioned previously. Of course, you cannot even reach an 18 using that point buy unless you've got a racial modifier! Wow, so 18 is beyond the human ability to achieve at 1st level without rolling. That's kinda fascinating. :smallamused:

Either way, as I've pointed out, I don't care what the numbers look like on the paper. If the paladin has a 15 intelligence, that doesn't mean he's out-smarting everyone, or is more knowledgeable about everything, and so forth than the average NPC. Even the average NPCs get more out of their skills than their scores. I just want to see characters who do what they are supposed to do; how they are supposed to do it, with fairness between the classes.

I've PROVEN (because so far anything said in response has only fueled my position further) until further light has been shed that low-PB favors SAD classes, prevents a number of classes from functioning comparatively, and doesn't scale back the power level of the game in a meaningful way. Furthermore, I've proven that high point buy cannot break the limits of what the low-PB games can already do, but brings more options, versatility, and fairness to the different classes. I don't see what is bad about options and being able to make developed characters in a role-playing game. :smallconfused:

[Greenish]

I don't see what is bad about options and being able to make developed characters in a role-playing game. :smallconfused:Big numbers. *boo* *hiss*

[Deepblue706]

I think it would be good for us to consider that classes like the Paladin in previous editions were hard to be. Were there not hard stat requirements in the past?

With 3.x's standard method for attribute generation being roll 4d6b3 six times, I think it was probably assumed that most who had experience with the earlier editions would be accustomed to staying away from these specialty base-classes without good rolls. Sure, now they could try regardless. But then, Wizards can also try to wear armor.

I think a class like the Barbarian is meant to function at just about any point-buy. I think I even recall an excerpt about how Half-Orc Barbarian is what you do when you roll terribly, including a tip on putting a 3 into Intelligence because it won't drop any lower. It appears it's specifically something built so that you can still play when your attribute array is bad.

Because of factors like this, you're probably not going to get equality at a low point-buy. But, I don't think a high point-buy is free of problems, either. Not only will casters be unafraid to purchase maximum casting-stats, but they can do so with a cushion of high defense-related attributes, making low-level survival a breeze - there goes even the craptastic attempt at balance through Glass-Cannon-At-Low-Levels, Some-Other-Analogy-For-Later-Levels Syndrome (or what I have decided to call GCALLSOAFLLS, pronounced: "Gkallsafills"). Classes whose main feature is grabbing feats, many of which that include only small numerical bonuses will find that a +1 to attack when you can already get beyond +10 at level 3 is fairly underwhelming. And there's also all that other stuff that I don't have the will to write due to laziness. So I guess we can't argue them. Bummer.

In the end, I think it just comes down to what the group at hand can tolerate. Not all issues come up during play, and some are completely unnoticed if there's simply more important stuff is at hand. So, really, if you actually have a problem in a game, at any point buy, in any setting, or with any group, you can always do what I do: threaten to cook and devour your DM's pet fish unless he or she can cook up a delicious D&D session for you to enjoy instead.

[Saph]

But it took reading in the net, in these same forums and a couple others, to realize that no, even what I thought was lenient DMing would probably be still considered pretty hardcore by many, that for most people encounters with CR 2 above the party's level aren't the standard encounter level, and not every player plays in a completely synergistic, preplanned party of characters where everyone covers up for the others' deficiencies and has their role optimized out of the wazoo - which is what I had been DMing for, and therefore what I had been throwing at them back, of course.

Heh, the DMs around my neck of the woods were mostly the same. The games I grew up on averaged about one PC death per session, with usually at least one semi-TPK per campaign. I've written up a few of the more hilarious party wipes here on these boards - this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59790) was a good one (stats wouldn't have made much difference there, to put it mildly). Thing is, though, having adapted to those sort of campaigns, I find nowadays that any games which aren't set to a difficulty level most people would consider fairly ridiculous just aren't much of a challenge anymore.

[Ashiel]

Big numbers. *boo* *hiss*
Lolz. :smalltongue:


I think it would be good for us to consider that classes like the Paladin in previous editions were hard to be. Were there not hard stat requirements in the past?

With 3.x's standard method for attribute generation being roll 4d6b3 six times, I think it was probably assumed that most who had experience with the earlier editions would be accustomed to staying away from these specialty base-classes without good rolls. Sure, now they could try regardless. But then, Wizards can also try to wear armor.

I think a class like the Barbarian is meant to function at just about any point-buy. I think I even recall an excerpt about how Half-Orc Barbarian is what you do when you roll terribly, including a tip on putting a 3 into Intelligence because it won't drop any lower. It appears it's specifically something built so that you can still play when your attribute array is bad.

Because of factors like this, you're probably not going to get equality at a low point-buy. But, I don't think a high point-buy is free of problems, either. Not only will casters be unafraid to purchase maximum casting-stats, but they can do so with a cushion of high defense-related attributes, making low-level survival a breeze - there goes even the craptastic attempt at balance through Glass-Cannon-At-Low-Levels, Some-Other-Analogy-For-Later-Levels Syndrome (or what I have decided to call GCALLSOAFLLS, pronounced: "Gkallsafills"). Classes whose main feature is grabbing feats, many of which that include only small numerical bonuses will find that a +1 to attack when you can already get beyond +10 at level 3 is fairly underwhelming. And there's also all that other stuff that I don't have the will to write due to laziness. So I guess we can't argue them. Bummer.

In the end, I think it just comes down to what the group at hand can tolerate. Not all issues come up during play, and some are completely unnoticed if there's simply more important stuff is at hand. So, really, if you actually have a problem in a game, at any point buy, in any setting, or with any group, you can always do what I do: threaten to cook and devour your DM's pet fish unless he or she can cook up a delicious D&D session for you to enjoy instead.

Y'know, this is probably the best someone has replied with to the contrary I've seen. Kudos my Ultros loving friend. :smallwink:

There's not really any reason for these extra requirements in the modern dynamics of the game however. Paladins were strictly better warriors in previous editions, sporting the same powers as fighters plus some. In the 2E PHB, fighters are only allowed to specialize (++ in a weapon), and rangers and paladins could do this too. Both rangers and paladins received a lot of extra powers as well. Their "drawback" mechanically was they required a higher ability score roll (so not everyone can play them - poor mechanic IMO), and they required more XP per level than a strait fighter (who required only a 9 Str to play). Today, such nonsense is irrelevant to the game; and that's a good thing. Rolling lower or higher should not invalidate your choice to play a class you would like to play.

I realize, after re-reading your post, you're not arguing but making an observation. It's a keen one at that. Barbarian is exactly the type of character who remains mechanically viable even with horrible stats. I think I recall the exact article (or was it the D&D for dummies book?) that you're referencing with the 3 Int note. It further shows low-point buy favors very specific classes over others.

In high-point buy games, it is true that characters can have their cake and survive with it easier by spreading the rest of their points out to cover some of their defenses. A wizard with 40pb can sport a 10, 14, 16, 18, 14, 8. Interestingly, compared to a 25pb who can sport 9, 10, 14, 18, 10, 8. The higher powered wizard will have 7hp instead of 5hp at 1st level, a 12 AC instead of 10, +2 point higher fortitude, reflex, and will. These are nice, but they won't stop a wizard from dying by chance and folly. A basic kobold warrior firing a small heavy crossbow hits with a 55-60% chance and deals an average of 4.5 damage. The most the wizard has achieved is a 10% increase to three different points. This is the biggest advantage that a 40pb wizard has over a 25pb wizard.

Compare again to the 25pb paladin who was pathetic next to the 25pb barbarian. The differences for the paladin isn't just noteworthy but extraordinary comparing the 40pb and 25pb versions. Again the barbarian can pull roughly 10% more on his off-stats, but cannot push his power-game further. While the Paladin could be competent and strong even next to the 40pb Barbarian, since he could have all around better scores, which meant more to him than they did to the barbarian because the paladin has fewer off-stats. He has to go further before higher stats offer diminishing returns.

I never said low-PB was unplayable. I said it was imbalanced, unfair, and invalidates certain classes to the point of being unplayable. Classes that function and can stand proudly, and strongly, next to their Barbarian and Caster counterparts can be rendered pathetic, useless, and little more than NPC classes with pretend class abilities.

:smallannoyed:

[Deepblue706]

Let's just not forget that Paladins of any point-buy arrangement can still command their Mounts to command other like animals.

"Hey, Horsie. Go tell those other, wild horsies to stampede in that direction."

Good times.

[Mystic Muse]

Let's just not forget that Paladins of any point-buy arrangement can still command their Mounts to command other like animals.

"Hey, Dragon. Go tell those other, wild Dragons to eat those badguys."

Good times.

fixed it for you.:smallamused:

[Calimehter]

Heh, I didn't expect the Paladin to elicit such harsh responses. :smalltongue: Well, I'll come to his defense for a brief bit to salve my pride, but yeah, I'll follow that up with a confession:

-----------------

14, 10, 14, 10, 11, 14 . . . oh, what have I burdened poor Sir Hapless with here? In my incompetence, it seems, I failed to min/max him quite as much as Gronk the Barbarian at 17, 10, 14, 8, 12, 8. Sir Hapless has no 8's to boast of and use to crank up his key scores. Rather easily fixable and a naughty oversight on my part in a PvP sort of comparison, but lets stick with it for a bit.

- Standing next to a foe and hitting them with a big stick? Advantage Gronk. Assuming both are wielding a two-hander, Gronk has +1 to hit and +1 damage even *before* rage . . . . and rage trumps smite as temporary boosts go. +2/+2 vs. +2/+1 isn't so bad, but Gronk gets more swings in Rage than Sir Hapless gets with Smite.
- Getting hit by foes while hitting them with a big stick? This comparsion can be tricky, as Sir Hapless's (presumably) better AC given his heavier armour with the same DEX modifier is situational. If it is, say, 3 points better (full plate vs. breastplate, both within reach at 2nd level) then Gronk gets hit 15% more of the time in most fights. By "most", I mean that this advantage can go away if fighting enemies at the extreme high or extreme low of the attack bonus scale (needing 20's to hit both or needing 1's to miss both). So Gronk has 2 + 1/level extra HP (at 2nd level, I can't help but notice how comparable this is to a certain feat that starts with "T" that most CharOp-minded optimizers call you a fool for taking) while Sir Hapless has an effect that acts as a Cloak of Minor Displacement that fell into the bargain bin for a reason but is still useful. Gronk can boost his HP to stay up in a fight with Rage (tho he could be in trouble at the end of one of those) while Sir Hapless can refresh his own HP (though in a minor fashion) between fights. Lets call this advantage Gronk too, though it is a bit trickier.
- Get around. Gronk has fast movement and medium armour instead of heavy, so he gets 10 more feet of movement. Plus he has likely spent more skill points in Climb, Jump, and maybe even Swim than Sir Hapless. Sir Hapless does get his special mount for help with pure movement issues, but lets give this to Gronk too, since the mount doesn't always help and it has to wait a few levels before showing up.

So we've covered hitting and being hit with big sticks. One would hope Gronk did well in this category. Moving around is for Gronk too, on foot at least. Let's try a few other things that heroic characters are sometimes called on to do, even during actual game sessions! Who would you rather be when:

- You have to make a Will save vs. that naughty Kobold Sorcerer who drops Sleep on you? Or Deep Slumber, or Fireball, or Blindness, or Cause Fear, or . . . . well, let's face it, ANY saving throw in the game!! Even Fortitude, unless Gronk happens to be in Rage when he drinks from that poisoned goblet given to him at the royal ball. Grease and Heat Metal are exceptions because of the armour, but there's a *lot* of other spells covered there.
- You have to stabilize your dying teammate at low levels? If you're at -9hp, would you rather your teammate could Lay Hands or Rage?
- You have to talk to pretty girls?
- You have to talk to anyone in town? Parties do leave the dungeon from time to time, I'm told.
- Get your boots on when your mischievous teammates substitute your normal Velcro boots for ones with laces? Or any check at all that requires INT or DEX and doesn't have an armour check penalty?

At higher levels the AC thing goes away and the stick bashing difference between Gronk and Sir Hapless becomes more pronounced, to the point of becoming a big difference maker in fights vs. high CR foes. Fair enough. However, the movement advantage likely goes away some (everyone's got movement items or spells) and the buffing/debuffing/worldbending of the Tier 1's or the WBL magic items are really taking over the game anyways.


When not raging, he can Total Defense while walking at normal speed out of combat for a +4 dodge bonus to his AC (retained even in surprise by his Uncanny Dodge).

Your GM would let you get away with constantly parrying opponents you haven't encountered yet? Well, Sir Hapless can't top that . . . but then again, neither could Gronk in any game I've ever played in. And after the surprise round, they can both do that, anyway. You might find it unfair, but I have no choice but to write that off as a wash due to different gaming styles.


And if you pump all your stat upgrades into wisdom, all you'll manage is almost enough to keep up with the rate you get spells. Forget bonus spells, and your DC will be horrible.

Loads of Paladin spells seem more like pre-combat or first round "buffs" rather than things that worry too much about opponents DCs. Those are the types of spells I assumed most Paladins would go for (especially given that your save DC is going to suck no matter what due to the fact that your spells have a low base level anyways), so if that isn't the case, that's my bad. That was one of the key reasons (though I didn't state it, my bad) that I felt I could keep the WIS low w/o really giving up *too* much in the spell category.

-------------------

Heck, all this assumes I don't fix my dreadful sin and get a little twinkier with Sir Hapless and swap his INT and DEX to 8 to buff one of his STR or even CON up to 16, which narrows the gap in the stick-bashing somewhat w/o making a drop of difference in anything else (except for the Velcro bit). Sir Hapless can't stick bash as well as Gronk, but he *can* stick bash, and do other things besides.

-------------------

Confession time

Lets dump Sir Hapless in the garbage bin and say he's worthless.

All I'm really trying to do here is establish the following:

- at a 25 point buy, you are heroic. MAD suffers when compared to SAD
- at a 40 point buy, you are heroic but much more on roids (either that, or your commoners are too). MAD suffers when compared to SAD.

Yes, at some point the increased point buy has to make a difference. If everyone has all 18's, there is no MAD by definition. If everyone has one 18 and all 10's, SAD rules the roost. So, what's the "curve" look like between these two extremes? My confession is that I'm willing (spirited quixotic defence of Sir Hapless nonwithstanding) to admit that I have underestimated the amount that the gap between MAD and SAD classes closes at the 40 point level vs. the 25 point level.

Is a 40 point paladin as cool as a 40 point barbarian? No. Is a 25 point paladin as cool as a 25 point barbarian? No.

Is the gap between them somewhat reduced, though still not at this famed "equality of classes" level? Yeah, I'll fess up, I believe in it more now than I did before the discussion. :smallbiggrin:

Do I believe that it is a big enough change, based off of all the numbers crunched over the last few pages of this thread, in gap between SAD and MAD to offset the advantages that Saph and others have done a much better job describing when it comes to low point buys?

No, but that's my opinion.

Yes for your group? Cool! Good for you guys. And I mean that, really, or at least more than I would have meant it before this discussion.

[Deepblue706]

Cal, while I'm sure you're very passionate about your arguments I honestly can't read all of that. Can you sum it up in a single word? Or maybe just your favorite letter?

[Deepblue706]

fixed it for you.:smallamused:

No, getting Dragons is cheating. Real Paladins don't do that nonsense.

And besides, if you really want to suggest a cooler alternative, you should be talking about a Pixie Paladin whose mount is like, a rabbit.

[Mystic Muse]

No, getting Dragons is cheating. Real Paladins don't do that nonsense.

And besides, if you really want to suggest a cooler alternative, you should be talking about a Pixie Paladin whose mount is like, a rabbit.

how about a Paladin on a Giant dire bunny?

[Ashiel]

14, 10, 14, 10, 11, 14 . . . oh, what have I burdened poor Sir Hapless with here? In my incompetence, it seems, I failed to min/max him quite as much as Gronk the Barbarian at 17, 10, 14, 8, 12, 8. Sir Hapless has no 8's to boast of and use to crank up his key scores. Rather easily fixable and a naughty oversight on my part in a PvP sort of comparison, but lets stick with it for a bit.

Cute. No really. Cute. It's cute that you write off what I've said by declaring it a PvP environment. I don't do PvP my good sir. I don't like PvP my good sir. My thoughts are that the game's greatest feature is its cooperative nature. If it was a PvP matter, the barbarian would have shoved the Paladin's warhorse where the sun don't shine (since the Paladin cannot take advantage of any of the Barbarian's weaknesses, and the Paladin's strengths such as Divine Grace and Fear immunity mean diddly against the Barbarian). I judge things based on how they compare in an adventuring environment; not paper-rock-scissor games of class and build PvP.

I've tried to be civil, but that comment was so cute that I'm pissed now. :smallmad:



- Standing next to a foe and hitting them with a big stick? Advantage Gronk. Assuming both are wielding a two-hander, Gronk has +1 to hit and +1 damage even *before* rage . . . . and rage trumps smite as temporary boosts go. +2/+2 vs. +2/+1 isn't so bad, but Gronk gets more swings in Rage than Sir Hapless gets with Smite.

Technically, the Barbarian I presented had a +2/+3 bonus over the Paladin; since he actually had 19 Str, and pumped another +2/+3 when he was raging. But yeah, even un-optimized, he's sporting a +1/+1 over the Paladin, and a +2/+3 when raging.


Getting hit by foes while hitting them with a big stick? This comparsion can be tricky, as Sir Hapless's (presumably) better AC given his heavier armour with the same DEX modifier is situational. If it is, say, 3 points better (full plate vs. breastplate, both within reach at 2nd level) then Gronk gets hit 15% more of the time in most fights. By "most", I mean that this advantage can go away if fighting enemies at the extreme high or extreme low of the attack bonus scale (needing 20's to hit both or needing 1's to miss both). So Gronk has 2 + 1/level extra HP (at 2nd level, I can't help but notice how comparable this is to a certain feat that starts with "T" that most CharOp-minded optimizers call you a fool for taking) while Sir Hapless has an effect that acts as a Cloak of Minor Displacement that fell into the bargain bin for a reason but is still useful. Gronk can boost his HP to stay up in a fight with Rage (tho he could be in trouble at the end of one of those) while Sir Hapless can refresh his own HP (though in a minor fashion) between fights. Lets call this advantage Gronk too, though it is a bit trickier.
FIRST: +3 HP isn't bad. +3 HP at the cost of a feat is.

Assuming nothing more than a chain shirt (+4 AC), "Grok" will be hit 50% of the time by an opponent with a +4 bonus to hit. Assuming the Paladin sports a set of full plate, he's got a 20% better chance to avoid getting hit than the Barbarian. I would say in strait AC the Paladin wins out due to his armor. The barbarian could wear a breastplate for a 15 AC, but his 40ft speed is worth more on average.

However, the Paladin's armor also comes with its own set of hindrances in the form of harsh mobility drawbacks. Most opponents are now faster than him, and he suffers harsh penalties to mobility based skills such as Climb, Jump, and Swim. This is compounded by his lower strength score. The barbarian however will suffer a -2 at worst (offset by his strength) or a -1 or -0 if wearing masterwork armor. Sadly; especially as their levels climb, the Paladin's AC will quickly fall behind the average attack rolls of various enemies of different challenge ratings. It also accounts for nothing against grappling opponents.

I would personally say Paladin has the advantage against multiple low-accuracy foes; while the Barbarian has the advantage at tactical movement and dealing with single-strike high accuracy/damage foes.


- Get around. Gronk has fast movement and medium armour instead of heavy, so he gets 10 more feet of movement. Plus he has likely spent more skill points in Climb, Jump, and maybe even Swim than Sir Hapless. Sir Hapless does get his special mount for help with pure movement issues, but lets give this to Gronk too, since the mount doesn't always help and it has to wait a few levels before showing up.

Actually, the Barbarian has Fast Movement and the option for light armor (+4 AC compared to the +5 he could get with a breastplate) keeping his speed a solid +20ft above the Paladin in heavy armor. This speed increase provides an additional +4 bonus on Jump checks above and beyond his +4 from strength and the +4 he could have at 1st level from strength alone. It also allows him to swim faster, and when moving at half speed he's moving at the paladin's full speed. This means he wins if he's on a slippery surface, moving while entangled, moving under-water (you move at 1/4 and 1/2 your land speed with a successful swim check).

The Barbarian also has the option of purchasing a mount instead of that heavy armor. He's got Ride as a skill too, so if he wants to do that he can. Also, he doesn't have to worry about suddenly loosing his speed bonus 'cause a large animal can't fit into something. With a few feats a Barbarian can run at 50ft without trouble. Toss on a pair of Boots of Striding and Springing for 5,500gp, you can be running at 60ft per round. We're talking a +12 total bonus to Jump checks as well from speed, so 'for long you're practically flying.

If you want to talk mounts, you can grab a light warhorse and grab a lance, and have some fun there too. It's a nice option that doesn't cost you anything in feats or abilities; just some gold pieces. Later you can grab a magic item that lets you summon a horse as a mount spell if you want a summon-able expendable horse.


So we've covered hitting and being hit with big sticks. One would hope Gronk did well in this category. Moving around is for Gronk too, on foot at least. Let's try a few other things that heroic characters are sometimes called on to do, even during actual game sessions! Who would you rather be when:

- You have to make a Will save vs. that naughty Kobold Sorcerer who drops Sleep on you? Or Deep Slumber, or Fireball, or Blindness, or Cause Fear, or . . . . well, let's face it, ANY saving throw in the game!! Even Fortitude, unless Gronk happens to be in Rage when he drinks from that poisoned goblet given to him at the royal ball. Grease and Heat Metal are exceptions because of the armour, but there's a *lot* of other spells covered there.

The Paladin you mention sports a +0 bonus on will saves until he gets Divine Grace. Then he only sports a 5% (+1) better chance above the Barbarian with Will saves. Should the barbarian rage, the barbarian gains a +10% further chance to save on will saves. The Barbarian's constitution will grow to be better than the Paladins, and again is better during a rage; again matching the Paladin's divine grace. The Paladin is sporting only a +10% at most against the appropriate saves.

The Paladin wins at this one; which is good. The paladin SHOULD be winning out on saving throws all the time, because one of his class features is essentially save bonuses. He's not winning by enough as far as I'm concerned. Look at what he's given up for what amounts to a +2 (10%) chance increase.



- You have to stabilize your dying teammate at low levels? If you're at -9hp, would you rather your teammate could Lay Hands or Rage?

Considering you can do the same with an orison, we'll say the Paladin wins this. However, when you consider the number of potions of cure minor wounds that the barbarian could have purchased with the cost of the Paladin's full plate armor... :smallamused:


- You have to talk to pretty girls?
- You have to talk to anyone in town? Parties do leave the dungeon from time to time, I'm told.

Neither actually. I'd rather be the bard, or even a sorcerer. The Paladin's charisma isn't really that good. You don't have many skill points, and intelligence is your dump stat. You could pump your Diplomacy since it is a class skill. However you'll be doing so at the expense of skills that could be helping you save those pretty girls' lives, or fighting evil like Paladins theoretically do. Y'know, being a hero. You wanna talk to people in town? Go for it. You don't even have to make checks unless you're trying influence the NPCs; unless you call for constant charisma checks for everyday conversation - in which case, you're not really playing by the rules anyway and have thus made it irrelevant.

While the Paladin is making out like he's a dashing hero and being pretty, ol' Grok will actually be doing something heroic; like killing Ogres and saving pretty ladies (I wonder what the circumstance modifier for that would do for your interactions). :smallamused:


- Get your boots on when your mischievous teammates substitute your normal Velcro boots for ones with laces? Or any check at all that requires INT or DEX and doesn't have an armour check penalty?
I'm going to assume you're not serious here. He ties them, obviously. Nothing says he doesn't, and you're getting further and further into the realm of "making crap up" that has no real effect, merely 'cause you got little that's legitimate. Humorously, the Barbarian is just as good at the Paladin at dexterity checks since he has the same dexterity. Go figure. :smallamused:


At higher levels the AC thing goes away and the stick bashing difference between Gronk and Sir Hapless becomes more pronounced, to the point of becoming a big difference maker in fights vs. high CR foes. Fair enough. However, the movement advantage likely goes away some (everyone's got movement items or spells) and the buffing/debuffing/worldbending of the Tier 1's or the WBL magic items are really taking over the game anyways.

Funny how that goes. A high-PB Paladin actually remains pretty viable. His charisma bonus from Divine Grace make him more viable against the gods - I mean - casters who invalidate people with spells, because he can sport high-end saving throws across the board. The paladin should be sporting at least a +6 in the major saving throw stats by those levels, and a +6 charisma being modest and assuming no +inherent modifiers, bringing him to a +12 before class modifiers which would bring him closer to a +24/+18/+18 before Resistance items. The barbarian can probably pull a solid +21/+12/+12 or +25/+12/+15 when raging without items. So in this case, the Paladin retains an advantage in most situations. Truthfully it's not hard for a Paladin to pull a +8-10 bonus in Charisma by 20th level counting inherent bonuses, pushing his saves a bit further.

This is without mentioning items such as Berserking weapons (for the Barbarian) and Holy Avengers for the Paladin, or anything overly specific like that. Since the gaps between the Paladin and the Barbarian are narrowed by higher point buys at lower levels, and you yourself said that the ability gaps mean less and less as your level rises; you have AGAIN made a great argument for high-PB games over low-PB games.


Your GM would let you get away with constantly parrying opponents you haven't encountered yet? Well, Sir Hapless can't top that . . . but then again, neither could Gronk in any game I've ever played in. And after the surprise round, they can both do that, anyway. You might find it unfair, but I have no choice but to write that off as a wash due to different gaming styles. Since a GM will allow a spell-caster to continue using standard actions to concentrate on a spell, then there is no reason other than personal bias to say a Barbarian or Rogue cannot be constantly on the lookout for danger. It's a dodge bonus and retained while being surprised because of a Barbarian or Rogue's Uncanny Dodge class feature.

Call it being alert, muscle memory, fast reflexes, or Spider-sense for all I care; but the fact of the matter is that is how it works. It is a valid option, it is something you can do, and it's not a bad idea nor does it reek of cheese. You're AC is +4 higher (+6 if you're a rogue with tumble) against surprise assaults, and you go back to being normal when the fight begins.

Yeah, I would allow that as a DM every single day of the week. In fact, I even suggested it to one of my tabletop players a few hours ago because his Barbarian just recently got Uncanny Dodge; and boy he could use it too (this is the same Barbarian sporting an average of +2-3 in most of his stats, who while raging was down to a +0 strength from small spider poison, entangled and wrapped up, and barely saved by his tightly knit party).

Playing off like it's not valid 'cause you're biased doesn't help your case at all.


Loads of Paladin spells seem more like pre-combat or first round "buffs" rather than things that worry too much about opponents DCs. Those are the types of spells I assumed most Paladins would go for (especially given that your save DC is going to suck no matter what due to the fact that your spells have a low base level anyways), so if that isn't the case, that's my bad. That was one of the key reasons (though I didn't state it, my bad) that I felt I could keep the WIS low w/o really giving up *too* much in the spell category.

Agreed. Paladins don't have much in the way of saving throw spells, and I doubt they really should. They are mostly buff spells, and healing spells, and that helps them nicely. On a side note - you can pick up Craft Arms & Armor, Wondrous Items, and even Craft Wand and supply yourself with magic items. I'd recommend it for a core paladin who's hurting for some sort of edge.


Heck, all this assumes I don't fix my dreadful sin and get a little twinkier with Sir Hapless and swap his INT and DEX to 8 to buff one of his STR or even CON up to 16, which narrows the gap in the stick-bashing somewhat w/o making a drop of difference in anything else (except for the Velcro bit). Sir Hapless can't stick bash as well as Gronk, but he *can* stick bash, and do other things besides.

Except, as has been pointed out, he's not stick bashing much better than a common warrior. He's not stick bashing comparatively to a generic fighter. He's not stick bashing anywhere close to the barbarian; not even comparatively. If he does, he's giving up more and more of his class features which rely on different ability scores. He's playing catch up and wouldn't have to if they both just had high scores. Again the difference between a 25pb Paladin & Barbarian is much bigger than a 40pb Paladin & Barbarian, since again the benefit the Barbarian gets to his "off-stats" is diminishing next to the benefit the Paladin gets because he has fewer "off-stats".


Confession time
Lets dump Sir Hapless in the garbage bin and say he's worthless.
He never really had a chance. :smallfrown:


All I'm really trying to do here is establish the following:
- at a 25 point buy, you are heroic. MAD suffers when compared to SAD
- at a 40 point buy, you are heroic but much more on roids (either that, or your commoners are too). MAD suffers when compared to SAD.
1) Firstly, you're putting more emphasis on heroism from stats IMO; rather than what the character can actually do with those stats.
2) At 25 point buy, you MAD suffers poorly regardless. SAD classes still still strong.
3) With higher generation (we'll say 40 for argument), MAD classes even out far more with their SAD counterparts due to A) ability caps, and B) diminishing returns for non-associated abilities.

3.a) Also, you're generally looking at only a 10% better ability over a standard commoner in the higher generation. Even with strait 18s (which is the most extreme example) is only 20% better than an untrained commoner can do. If a high level Barbarian sports a +2 charisma, and needs to make a DC 15 charisma check for something, the commoner needs to roll only 2 points higher for the same effect. At the end of the day, that just means the Barbarian might get to woo the lady; and it didn't come at the expense of surviving the heroic portions of the game where things are trying to EAT HIM

I've shown where MAD classes are more playable with higher generation methods, and are more comparable to SAD classes. I've shown it doesn't unbalance the game. I've shown that SAD classes cannot push their usual limits very far. They could generate more well-rounded characters, but not more powerful characters. I've shown that it allows MAD classes to function. I've shown that it can allow less cookie-cutter characters (y'know, since you might get bored of playing the same power-attack barbarian build) more easily without gimping yourself mechanically. I've shown these things mathematically within the system, using the rules as they are presented to everyone; without cheating and without abusing rules.

On the other hand, you've shown that the disparity between MAD and SAD classes is greater in low-PB. You've shown that a paladin is pathetic and hurting at low levels, and then arguably how bad he'll be at higher levels to boot. You've said that the higher PB makes you godly, but you haven't shown evidence of it. You've said that the Paladin was playable, and then turned around and not only failed to show it but admitted he stunk; being reduced to making up nonsense things that he could be good at instead of being a hero ("woo-hoo, I can tie my shoes 'cause I have a higher abstract number than you; and can overcome something that's not really an obstacle but just a made-up douche move by an imaginary GM. What a great hero I am!"). You've said that the MAD class continues to suffer as badly against a SAD class, but again you've not actually provided anything to back this up.

You've said a lot of stuff. You've provided diddly. You've repeatedly thrown around exaggerations, hyperbole, and misdirection in your pursuit to disprove my original post on the effects of high versus low generation. You've used over exaggerations such as comparing the 10-20% difference between a commoner and a PC to that of normal people to super-heroes; repeatedly vetoed your statements, tried to spin them a different way, and quickly the power gap in even your own examples and comments has been diminishing faster and faster.

You've tried to brush off evidence proving your statements wrong by posing it as something it is not. You've tried to discredit, invalidate, and ignore it with excuses instead of evidence and logic. You've effectively used because as if it were a legitimate answer. One must strive to leave their mark sir, and so you have in my eyes.

The rest is just to finish out my responses.

Yes, at some point the increased point buy has to make a difference. If everyone has all 18's, there is no MAD by definition. If everyone has one 18 and all 10's, SAD rules the roost. So, what's the "curve" look like between these two extremes? My confession is that I'm willing (spirited quixotic defence of Sir Hapless nonwithstanding) to admit that I have underestimated the amount that the gap between MAD and SAD classes closes at the 40 point level vs. the 25 point level.

Is a 40 point paladin as cool as a 40 point barbarian? No. Is a 25 point paladin as cool as a 25 point barbarian? No.

More playable. More comparable. Less gimped. 40pt Barbarian is still roughly equivalent to a 25pt barbarian. 40pt Paladin is roughly equivalent to both of them, for the already stated reasons.


Is the gap between them somewhat reduced, though still not at this famed "equality of classes" level? Yeah, I'll fess up, I believe in it more now than I did before the discussion. :smallbiggrin:

Do I believe that it is a big enough change, based off of all the numbers crunched over the last few pages of this thread, in gap between SAD and MAD to offset the advantages that Saph and others have done a much better job describing when it comes to low point buys?

No, but that's my opinion. Math > Opinion. Also, my grandfather taught me something interesting about opinions...


Yes for your group? Cool! Good for you guys. And I mean that, really, or at least more than I would have meant it before this discussion. Thanks, I guess.

[Calimehter]

Math > Opinion. Also, my grandfather taught me something interesting about opinions...

And yet not quite enough . . . a little knowledge is truly more dangerous thatn none at all.

I felt that I provided plenty of statistical elaboration as to how I could make a Paladin that *I* would be happy to play in a 25 point game, even the unoptimized version, and how I felt that his stats would be enough to make a meaningful contribution to a party and certainly enough to survive EL-appropriate encounters, *even* if I was below the Barbarian, and even if I was *even* further below the Barbarian than I would be a 40 points. Most of your bolded points in your last post were not even ones I was contesting (or no *longer* contesting).

In some gaming groups, the (greater) difference at the 25 point buy is too great and I get "Lolz n00b sux"'ed right out the door. Okay. It works in mine, which is all the proof (picture that last word in whatever bolded, capslocked, and funky format you prefer) that I require. I had hoped to share this vision with others, but I did not do a very good job, it seems. We are looking at the same numbers and seeing two seperate things. According to your higher wisdom, some +2 differences are meaningless 10% differences, some +2 differences make you a chump. I guess I can't tell the difference? :smallsigh: Call me ignorant if it gets the job done for you. Tell me I would be laughed out of your better optimized gaming group for my lack of skilz. Knock yourself out.

I actually am sorry that you did not get much out of this discussion. :smallfrown: I fear I lack the concise posting skills of a Saph or a DeepBlue, or at least their vision to see where elaboration is counterproductive and causes the main point to get lost. I fear I have done a disservice to the large numbers of people who enjoy low PB with an unskillful defence of a popular gaming style. Hopefully I have not hardened you against giving it a fair shot sometime down the road.

[Mystic Muse]

Never mind guys. I found the Titanic template.

Why have a giant bunny mount when you can have a Gargantuan bunny mount.:smallamused:

[chiasaur11]

Never mind guys. I found the Titanic template.

Why have a giant bunny mount when you can have a Gargantuan bunny mount.:smallamused:

So you can escalate the situation more slowly?

I mean, you want to save some things for later on.

[Ashiel]

I felt that I provided plenty of statistical elaboration as to how I could make a Paladin that *I* would be happy to play in a 25 point game, even the unoptimized version, and how I felt that his stats would be enough to make a meaningful contribution to a party and certainly enough to survive EL-appropriate encounters, *even* if I was below the Barbarian, and even if I was *even* further below the Barbarian than I would be a 40 points. Most of your bolded points in your last post were not even ones I was contesting (or no *longer* contesting).

Which has little to do with how the game actually functions at different point buys; which was my previous statement. My original post was about the main differences between the high and low point scales; as well as the illusions that low-PB is somehow a balancing factor in the game or an effective way to curb power-gaming.

Further, it's entirely possible to play a character who is drastically sub-par compared to everyone else and still make them playable through system mastery. My 11yo brother has been enjoying playing his level 1 slow-XP progression goblin expert sporting the non-elite array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8). Humorously, he picked Handle Animal, Craft Armor, and Ride as class skills. He picked up Wild Cohort as his first level feat. He purchased Oxen (20gp trade good animal) with his starting cash, made leather armor for them, and trained them for war. He rides a medium sized mount with a 50ft movement speed, and doesn't do much more than total defense + command pets.

I've not suggested that one cannot play under-powered characters and be competent; but mathematically it is hard to suggest that the Paladin in your example is anywhere near equal with the Barbarian. Humorously, my brother's NPC-classed non-elite (commoner) array character is stronger (or more specifically, his trained cohorts are). As I mentioned previously, your Paladin example is little more than a Warrior, and that's just not fair.


In some gaming groups, the (greater) difference at the 25 point buy is too great and I get "Lolz n00b sux"'ed right out the door. Okay. It works in mine, which is all the proof (picture that last word in whatever bolded, capslocked, and funky format you prefer) that I require. I had hoped to share this vision with others, but I did not do a very good job, it seems. We are looking at the same numbers and seeing two seperate things. According to your higher wisdom, some +2 differences are meaningless 10% differences, some +2 differences make you a chump. I guess I can't tell the difference? :smallsigh: Call me ignorant if it gets the job done for you. Tell me I would be laughed out of your better optimized gaming group for my lack of skilz. Knock yourself out.
Emphasis mine.

When you seek to share a vision with people, and you commit to something as to it being true, you must be willing to provide plausible proof. As I noted before, I'm not really fond of anyone being hindered because they're playing a more MAD class. It's not fair. While it may work well for you (I never said no one can enjoy it - and wouldn't say something like that), it doesn't change the fact it affects the way the game is played and how players will be affected in the game.

The difference is simple. Let me see if I can explain it in more strait-forward terms. A +2 bonus to Strength means more to Fighter than it does to a Wizard. It always has, and always will. Strength doesn't improve what the wizard is good at, and will just make him suck a little less at some things; but the wizard - unless something highly unusual is going on - will not be making use of strength based attacks, checks, and so forth if he can help it. In the same way, the barbarian won't be gaining anything special from a +2 higher charisma, especially compared to a +2 Strength or Constitution. Now the Paladin may need that +2 in all three stats; and because these abilities fuel his abilities and features he gets more out of charisma than the Barbarian. The Barbarian and Wizard are suffering from Diminishing Returns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns). In the case of the strong wizard, or charismatic barbarian with a +2 in their off statistics, you're only going to see a 10% difference in their abilities compared to a commoner - which is only equivalent to a 1-2 point difference on the die roll (an 8 rather than a 10). You're not really that much better at actually doing stuff than anybody else.

Why would I tell you that anyone would laugh at you? As noted previously, my brother is playing an Expert in an NPC-classed game I'm running as a side game right now. My group plays with Monks. This idea that, because I can explain the mechanical benefits of granting higher all-around ability scores because it re-enforces fairness between MAD and SAD classes, means you would be treated badly as a player or as if inferior is unwarranted; and both insulting and presumptuous about us both. Also, the whole "lolz n00b sux" and "skilz" thing was really unneeded.


I actually am sorry that you did not get much out of this discussion. :smallfrown: I fear I lack the concise posting skills of a Saph or a DeepBlue, or at least their vision to see where elaboration is counterproductive and causes the main point to get lost. I fear I have done a disservice to the large numbers of people who enjoy low PB with an unskillful defence of a popular gaming style. Hopefully I have not hardened you against giving it a fair shot sometime down the road.

The humorous thing is that you seem to believe I've not given it a fair shot, which must explain my position of explaining the difference in fairness. This amuses me a little bit. I believe in my original posts I gave examples of when I was playing in low-PB games. I've discussed the virtues and vices of both methods. As noted, I'm currently running a game where the players are legitimately normal and average (actually being statistically standard NPCs with the non-elite array of scores) to enjoy a game of "everyday heroes"; and both I as a DM, as well as my players (my younger brother, as well as three other friends spanning the ages of 11yo, 16yo, 19yo, and 23yo) have enjoyed it immensely.

At the same time, I'm also running a game where everyone is playing heroic classed characters. To reduce the MAD hindrances, the ability score generation was significantly higher (4d6, re-roll 1s and 2s). The party consists of a half-orc barbarian, human monk, human bard, human psion, and human rogue/barbarian/fighter (though he only gets to make it every other weekend or so). In this game, the characters stand well next to each other, and have progressed from 1st to 8th level with several near TPKs, more near PKs, and plenty of guts. The players have enjoyed it immensely (same players too, by the way).

I assure you, my good man, that you've not hindered my experiences with the subject at all. :smallsmile:


I fear I lack the concise posting skills of a Saph or a DeepBlue, or at least their vision to see where elaboration is counterproductive and causes the main point to get lost. I fear I have done a disservice to the large numbers of people who enjoy low PB with an unskillful defence of a popular gaming style.

Here is a few tips. I'm not an expert at public speaking or anything, but these are some things I try to get my little brother to remember at all times:

If you say something and it is contestable, or is contested, provide evidence. Be ready to provide proof and/or sources and formulas to showcase this information. Avoid anecdotal evidence when possible (unless expressing it merely as an off-comment separate from your points). If possible, try to use mathematics to show things in a debate; as 1+1=2 is both difficult to contest, and it lends credibility (assuming your math isn't horribly off).
Avoid exaggerations, hyperbole, and gross analogies. Exceptions should be spelled out, such as "It's hyperbole but" or "a more extreme example would be", and so on. Used properly, these tools can be used to drive home the point. Used improperly and you'll hit your thumb and discredit yourself in the eyes of both opponents and onlookers.
Conversation - especially debates - are like a dueling ring. To garner respect for yourself and for your points, you must be clean and respectful. Dishonest tricks such as using straw-man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) tactics, or ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) are the debating equivalents to throwing sand in someone's eyes and sucker punching. Using these methods will not only discredit you as a debater and conversationalist, but also as a person. Additionally, they will only make you look like a fool to those who possess actual knowledge of the subject. Additionally, such dirty actions can be used as references by your opponents to show your inexperience and discredit you. At this point, the gloves are off and you're about to get beaten down by someone who has more experience and skill than you - who is also now angry that you stooped to dirty tricks in your match.
Don't attempt to ignore the subject matter. It may be difficult to address all of it at once, but try to break it down. Never ignore it. Never attempt to side-step it. If you missed something, and they call you on it, address it immediately. Continuing to side-step or ignore evidence will continue to ruin your credibility, and be annoying for everyone. The worst case scenario would be to take something and re-present it as something that it is not/was not to begin with. It's dishonesty that is visible to anyone who views it. Your honor is your life. Loose it and you've lost your credibility. In your case, you made this mistake in your second most recent post; where you presented your Paladin build in one context, then tried to play off its weaknesses by falsely claiming the comparison was based in a PvP context.
As noted before, don't resort to Ad hominem attacks. Don't resort to name calling, or try to imply things about your peers in an attempt to discredit their points, views, or positions. Use facts, not attacks. In your case, you made this mistake several times. In your recent post, your net-speak grammar and spelling seemed to be an attempt to place me into some generalized category of people whom would appear less credible. Also, you made several statements which seemed to be veiled attempts to discredit my credibility as a role-player. It may be that both were accidental; but you should not wish to appear to be doing this.
Should someone continue to dishonor the discussion and their peers, feel free to call them on it. If someone is continually crossing the line, let them know that you are aware of it and let others be made aware. Do not, however, fall into a name calling contest. Continue to debate cleanly. If you feel you must return some spite (and it is hard to resist when someone is continually engaging in dishonest action), try to return it as cleanly as possible. This is usually just done by calling them on it, or letting them know that you're loosing patience with their foolishness. If you are at this point then they are likely breaking many of above rules, and merely demanding that they either step up and provide evidence or stop side-stepping or stand down will press their hand. If they cannot, then they break by default. You've won.
If you cannot provide ample evidence, or cannot properly debate the subject - make it known that your comments are merely anecdotal or personal. If someone disagrees, withdraw until you have further evidence. If someone has bested you, keep your honor and merely stand down. It is better to be wrong or invalidated and have engaged in a clean conversation/debate than to discredit and disgrace yourself. I've stood down on many occasions if I couldn't gain ground. Headbutting contests are for dinosaurs. Just recently I stood down on a subject concerning a book I read (non-RPG related), with a rather vocal and belligerent friend of mine. It was better that I concede to his incorrect statements, as I had nothing to prove them incorrect with. However, having pulled out my copy of the book in question, I proved the case I would have argued previously but was ill equipped to do so. Should he have been correct, I would have accepted that. Arguing on principle is rarely a good idea - or a respectable one.



Never mind guys. I found the Titanic template.
Why have a giant bunny mount when you can have a Gargantuan bunny mount.

Don't forget some bunny slippers of the Zypher, so you can have a flying bunny later on. :smalltongue:

[Tyndmyr]

Heh, the DMs around my neck of the woods were mostly the same. The games I grew up on averaged about one PC death per session, with usually at least one semi-TPK per campaign. I've written up a few of the more hilarious party wipes here on these boards - this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59790) was a good one (stats wouldn't have made much difference there, to put it mildly). Thing is, though, having adapted to those sort of campaigns, I find nowadays that any games which aren't set to a difficulty level most people would consider fairly ridiculous just aren't much of a challenge anymore.

I have this issue too. When I venture outside my usual gaming group, it often feels both easy, and sometimes fake. To me, if characters in game aren't trying their hardest to not die(save in exceptional circumstances, of course), then it detracts from the verisimulitude. You're a fighter who is constantly stabbing people, being stabbed, and in at least some degree of danger, and you've got points in profession:Basketweaving instead of things you actually use every fight. Plus, I find that the paranoia of characters in high-danger campaigns is much more appropriate. If I'm walking through a dungeon filled with horrific monsters and deathtraps, I would be damn paranoid too.

In short, lethality and challenge are great. I love both...but if your campaign is such that you're worried about another couple of points removing that lethality and challenge....you play in a vastly safer game than I do.

[Ashiel]

I have this issue too. When I venture outside my usual gaming group, it often feels both easy, and sometimes fake. To me, if characters in game aren't trying their hardest to not die(save in exceptional circumstances, of course), then it detracts from the verisimulitude. You're a fighter who is constantly stabbing people, being stabbed, and in at least some degree of danger, and you've got points in profession:Basketweaving instead of things you actually use every fight. Plus, I find that the paranoia of characters in high-danger campaigns is much more appropriate. If I'm walking through a dungeon filled with horrific monsters and deathtraps, I would be damn paranoid too.

In short, lethality and challenge are great. I love both...but if your campaign is such that you're worried about another couple of points removing that lethality and challenge....you play in a vastly safer game than I do.

Agreed here. I tend to be very paranoid when I'm playing in games, simply because I realize that even a statistically strong character can easily die given conditions. In an adventuring environment, you can expect being heavily outnumbered, caught by surprise and traps - and that's not counting actual rogue-disarm traps. I mean traps like Spider Webs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousSpider.htm), or Tuckers Kobold situations where enemies are using barrels, murder holes, illusion spells, or even Tiny Huts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/TinyHut.htm) for cover and concealment while shooting at you.

That's not counting poisons, or spells, or similar situations. In the heroic classed game I mentioned in my previous post, the party encountered a few 5th level clerics. Both the Barbarian and the party's Rogue/Barbarian/Fighter (this guy needs Iron Will, heheh) got slammed with some Bestow Curse spells, resulting in a -4 to all checks for both of them, and a 50% chance to loose any action in the case of the 2nd character.

When making saves left and right, you will always be tense about it, and in a sense of danger. If you have to make 5 saves versus DC 13 Blindness/Deafness, you're gonna be sweating it; even if you do have a +5 in that save. The barbarian in the same game (but not the same session) suffered 12 points of strength damage (he was at Str 10 while raging) from little spiders who just got in a lot of bites in an encounter while he was entangled in webs. Later the same barbarian took a drow arrow and biffed the save and dropped in the 3rd or 4th round of combat.

At that moment, everyone was worried about a TPK! :smalleek:
That's not even counting the fact your surroundings (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/dungeons.htm#caveInsAndCollapsesCr8) can kill you even if they aren't hostile. Or nature itself, like with Storms (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/weather.htm#storms) and Avalanches (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#avalanchesCr7).

It kind of makes me wonder what sort of adventure other players are having.

[Calimehter]

I assure you, my good man, that you've not hindered my experiences with the subject at all.

Well, that is good to know.


Here is a few tips.

I knew the gist of them already, though I am far too removed from my college gen-ed-credit-class days to remember their proper names. Knowledge doesn't mean anything if you don't act on that knowledge, though. I am not new to internet forums (I've participated in and even moderated several tabletop wargaming forums over the years) and have generally been very good at avoiding the sorts of problems that came up in this thread.

And yet I still lost my temper.

Part of the problem is that I was wholly unprepared for the reception that my Paladin build generated.

In the adventures I have participated in from 2nd ed. in college and on to now, (most) GMs have gone out of their way to provide adventures and settings that reward non-combat skills and abilities. To take an example, in 2 of the last 3 sessions we have played, my players have been involved in a lot of intrigue in a larger city as they have become entangled in various interrelated shadow wars between a rogue cult, a city "don", and a monotheistic autocracy. The faction that is the most dangerous enemy to the PCs at any given time is not always obvious. Success (or lack thereof) in such skills as Gather Information, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, and even Knowledge: Religion and Forgery played a key role in keeping the players alive and prepared to face their challenges. In these games, the number of dice rolls that were related to "soft" stats (INT, WIS, and CHA) and skills were much higher (relative to the number of rolls done for a combat) than they were in a dungeon-crawl type of scenario, and they could result in far more deadly consequences than a simple Gather-the-next-plot-hook-Information roll or a couple of Diplomacy rolls to haggle over item prices.

The player who was the *least* effective in these two sessions was the player most optimized for combat against deadly beasts . . . his "minor" two point penalties in noncombat skill rolls were now actually far overshadowing his equivalent two point STR-derived combat bonuses. This is not to say that he didn't get his chance to shine, especially on the "fundraising dungeon crawl" the party took to replenish their coffers and take a break from the intrigue, but his specialization ended up hurting him equally as much as helping him over the long haul.

This is but one example of many I've encountered over the years. I run (and tend to play in as a player) campaigns where GMs go out of their way to reward well-rounded . . . . well, at least *less* specialized characters.

To sum up what this all means, and what I believe is the point I've been struggling to prove because I didn't have a solid enough grasp of exactly what it was that I was trying to prove before I got drawn into a detailed discussion about it:

I don't rate the difference between SAD and MAD as highly as others, because I come from a MAD universe.

As does Sir Hapless. He probably should have checked his Fodor's Guide before announcing himself in a SAD universe. In MAD-verse, his Paladinhood marks him as something of a combat/noncombat "gish", who took a stat that was useful in and of its own right (CHA) and got some synergy bonus from it in combat situations because of his Paladin abilities. In SAD-verse, he was being judged (and rightly so, if he is going to be so bold as to venture into it) much more heavily on his synergy bonus alone, and in SAD-verse that actually makes it a hinderance, because it forces him to invest in a less useful stat to take advantage of it.

I should have realized that this is not considered the default situation by many players. Heck, I would daresay *most* players on this forum - I did spend some time lurking before posting, after all - though the precise ratio of players isn't terribly important to the topic at hand. Such people will favor combat effectivness for fighter/barbarian types and will gladly take penalties in stats that do not play a direct role in their combat effectiveness. If you are making many more combat-related rolls than you are non-combat related rolls, and each of these rolls have far deadlier consequences than most of your non-combat rolls, then skills and abilities that do not have at least some direct bearing on your survivability (such as Tyndmyr's Basketweaving example) will and indeed should be rated lower.

I also should have waited to respond to all the baiting I got over my Paladin till I had figured out exactly what it was that I needed to say. And yes, I was baited. Unless people have been editing heavily, there is a posting record in this thread (for those who wish to fact-check) of me being directly called an idiot and a hypocrite, and these were accompanyed by a fair degree of other subtle and unsubtle indirect digs at my intelligence, such as the poster who suggested that poor Sir Hapless made the Warrior class look good. As well as one claim that I was cute, which besides baiting me further also made me wonder if my webcam had been hacked.

Sigmar knows, I've resisted this sort of temptation many times in the past. The combination of the surprise/culture shock and the baiting was too much, though. In I went, and thanks to my temper and my incomplete understanding of why Sir Hapless and I were being so mocked, I did not give a very good account of myself.

----------------------------


In the spirit of giving back to those who have given to me . . .


these are some things I try to get my little brother to remember at all times

Starting out a conversation with an adult with two children of his own with a phrase that can easily be interpreted as "I am going to talk to you as though you were a pre-adolescent" really subverts the impact of the statements that follow, and in the specific case of the tips you provided, directly contradicts some of them. Its either an innocent mistake that could have been avoided, or its a dishonerable dig in a classic WASP-y passive-aggressive fashion that is well-phrased enough that you can't be 100% called out on it. In the spirit of giving, I will assume the former, and simply note that it is especially easy to give offence where none is intended in a situation where tempers have flared and offences from previous posts are still so fresh in everyone's mind.

I'm going to add my own PvP example here. I was not expecting to touch such a cord with it (I'm sorry to say that I was using other digs for that effect) and have not said anything about it till now *not* because I was trying to sweep it under the rug, but because I was (and in some ways still am) truly puzzled by it. At the time, I was merely to express the notion that our discussion devolved into a simple head-to-head race to higher "damage per action" numbers - numbers I was thinking had more to do with "who could kill the ogre faster" than "who could kill each other faster". PvP isn't a dig in the wargaming world I post more frequently in, and is seemingly not nearly as well defined either, so I ended up giving unintended offence. I think. Culture shock again, I guess, but I am still not sure exactly what happened there.

As a similar example, my whole post could be misread as nothing more than a terribly long-winded version of "I should have known better than to get baited into talking character builds with a bunch of powergaming rules twinks on their own forum". That may seem like a reach to many, but that theme is *exactly* what has been suggested to me IRL by a lurker friend of mine, so I don't feel that it is so far out there to fear that people on the forum are assuming that,too. Because of that and because of the tone of the last few posts I want to go a bit out of my way to state that that is not what I am trying to do here, so as not to give unintended bad impressions. Follow my own advice for a change, I will. :smallcool:


Posters I Respect
Lycanthromancer, Tempest Stormwind, Foryn Gilnith, Tavar, Tyndmyr
Posters I Don't
Calimehter

I'm pretty sure that this violates one of your own rules, too, and thereby lessens their value. :smallmad:

[Ashiel]

In the adventures I have participated in from 2nd ed. in college and on to now, (most) GMs have gone out of their way to provide adventures and settings that reward non-combat skills and abilities. To take an example, in 2 of the last 3 sessions we have played, my players have been involved in a lot of intrigue in a larger city as they have become entangled in various interrelated shadow wars between a rogue cult, a city "don", and a monotheistic autocracy. The faction that is the most dangerous enemy to the PCs at any given time is not always obvious. Success (or lack thereof) in such skills as Gather Information, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, and even Knowledge: Religion and Forgery played a key role in keeping the players alive and prepared to face their challenges. In these games, the number of dice rolls that were related to "soft" stats (INT, WIS, and CHA) and skills were much higher (relative to the number of rolls done for a combat) than they were in a dungeon-crawl type of scenario, and they could result in far more deadly consequences than a simple Gather-the-next-plot-hook-Information roll or a couple of Diplomacy rolls to haggle over item prices.

The player who was the *least* effective in these two sessions was the player most optimized for combat against deadly beasts . . . his "minor" two point penalties in noncombat skill rolls were now actually far overshadowing his equivalent two point STR-derived combat bonuses. This is not to say that he didn't get his chance to shine, especially on the "fundraising dungeon crawl" the party took to replenish their coffers and take a break from the intrigue, but his specialization ended up hurting him equally as much as helping him over the long haul.

What you're describing is mentioned in the DMG as one of the extremes of role-playing styles. The opposite style is "Kick in the Door" style. Most games fall in the middle. It specifically notes that often fighters and similar characters will take a back-seat to characters such as rogues, bards, and even spell-casters in these sorts of campaigns. Most of the time diplomatic rolls from off characters will be in the form of aid-another checks to the party's face. Characters who are intended for combat (the DMG uses the Fighter as an example if I recall correctly) are at a disadvantage in this situation. The reverse is true in the kick-in-the-door play.

It is assumed that most games are in the median between these two extremes. I'm actually surprised that rolls and statistics even seem to matter all that much if these are the sorts of games you play most frequently. Then again, it would also explain why there wouldn't seem to be much difference in the characters; since their imbalances tend to show up less frequently in such an environment. I can't comment on your games directly, as I don't know exactly how you're playing them; but it would seem you're basing your previous argument on purely anecdotal evidence. :smallconfused:

For example: In some games, social interaction is mostly on a speaking basis where the GM speaks for the NPC and the player for the PC, and then if negotiations or influencing beyond mere words and basic interaction becomes needed, then they break out the diplomacy checks. In other games, such things are all handled by defaulting to a Diplomacy check. In yet other games, sometimes Diplomacy checks are a last resort or hardly ever used.

It's generally considered in good form to present things based on the defaults of the game. If your campaigns tend to run where the mechanical differences are overshadowed by a particular style or theme, then it would be cool to mention that as part of your discussion. Also, something akin to "This character is built to function better in heavy-social low-combat game, where his ability to contribute as a warrior means less" would have saved you a lot of - admittedly true - responses about the Paladin being little more than the equivalent of an NPC warrior. Of course, it's also a very poor argument for the subject at hand; so I'm kind of torn as to what I think of it.


This is but one example of many I've encountered over the years. I run (and tend to play in as a player) campaigns where GMs go out of their way to reward well-rounded . . . . well, at least *less* specialized characters.
This...I'm not really sure what to say to this without it sounding offensive. This is pretty close to the rule 0 fallacy. If the GM has to go out of their way to reward a player or make them playable, then that is a strike against them. As a GM I can go out of my way to reward a player for playing anything - or make special considerations to make commoners rewarding and useful; regardless of class, abilities, race, or even species.



To sum up what this all means, and what I believe is the point I've been struggling to prove because I didn't have a solid enough grasp of exactly what it was that I was trying to prove before I got drawn into a detailed discussion about it:

No offense, but why would you be trying to prove something without even realizing what you were trying to prove. I mean, I never said anyone could not enjoy low-PB games. If you recall (and I'll even link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7952544&postcount=227) to my original post), I was posting on the mechanical differences between low and high ability generation as well as addressing the topic of high PB characters being "way to powerful" in comparison to their expected obstacles. Additionally, it was intended to draw attention that it was very unneeded to arbitrarily raise statistics on enemies to negate any advantages the party possessed (which was something I believe Acromos had said he did very early in the thread).

I wrote that post in a casual manner. I didn't address anyone in particular, and I didn't name any names. I even posted a warning because I figured someone would get a ladder and a horse and find something wrong with my comments on it. And guess what happened? My very next post involved me telling someone to go re-read what I had posted because they got it wrong. They read it incorrectly and responded to something I didn't say.

Now I'm wondering where you fit into it, considering you jumped in and started talking about builds and Aragorn being epic level: here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7962135&postcount=273). After telling me that I shouldn't have bothered creating the character I wanted to play, and instead offering me a different character, and then telling me how great it was that I couldn't play that character but could get to be a higher level, so the disadvantages of being MAD was OK! Well good to know man, considering it didn't really even have anything to do what I was saying.

So I didn't really bother to say anything about it. I just continued discussing what was then the topic at hand with some other posters; where we were discussing the mechanical ramifications of the high vs low-point buy, encounters and character level, as well as the effects on building characters that are cool and one can enjoy. This was where my Braveheart example came up, as I noted how difficult it would be to stat William out in low-PB compared to a situation where you had the scores to mechanically represent what he does in the film in-game. Link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7963327&postcount=283).

From here you jumped in (link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7963437&postcount=284)) to talk about not needing high ability scores to leave your mark on the world; which again had little to do with me. You went on to try to subvert my earlier Braveheart example by suggesting that you could stat him as a 6th level character to achieve the same effects; though I showed in the following post why that made little sense given the power level of the film. You then tried to use expendable one-trick-pony NPCs as a point for why low-PB is apparently so awesome; which again had nothing to do with what I had been saying (and as noted before only confirmed my previous statements about the system favoring NPCs).

In my next post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7963723&postcount=285), I politely showed you why the Braveheart suggestion didn't hold water. I also, politely, explained again why the system unfairly penalized the Fighter in your post. I explained that to get the flavor you are looking for (in this case, a dual-wielding fighter), you are forced to be incompetent and less useful than if you had just been the same fighter with a different focus. The rest of that post addressed the "characters are godly" bits that had been tossed around by posters. In this I give examples of how CR 1/3, 1/2, and 1 monstrous spiders have dogged to death a tabletop party of mine who are all sporting very high scores; restating this as an expansion of my first post.

In your next post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7965079&postcount=291), you specifically call out that you could have a 1st level character who can overwhelm hordes of goblins, bandits, spiders, and so forth . Without providing any information to back this up, and using the creatures I specifically had just finished explaining are still lethal and frightening to face. You wanna talk to me about baiting?

In my following post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7965483&postcount=292), I show some problems with your statements and how they don't actually match up with the mechanics that you're speaking about. I show you where the mechanics disprove your comments, and you need more than this. Again, also notice I've not shifted from my original piece. I'm answering what you have posted with logic, reasoning, and I've been courteous while doing so.

In your next post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7967260&postcount=294), you reply the monk vs barbarian example wasn't good enough. You suggest Paladin. In my following post, I explain the Paladin vs Barbarian (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7969253&postcount=311) to be more clear. It's more in depth this time. I also have a short chat with Saph which leads to more friendly conversation in a later post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7969808&postcount=314); which incidentally doesn't involve you but merely speaking with others and explaining more on the Barbarian vs Paladin post. Notice it's all very friendly still.

In this Post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7969824&postcount=315) you post your suggested Paladin build for being decent at 25pb, explain again why 25pb is unfair - apparently while trying to herald it - then change the subject again. You begin speaking basely on ability scores in relation to the populace and how apparently important that is; and why it must be getting in the way of our understanding. You end the post with discussing random 3d6 rolling methods for NPCs, which is optional (as NPCs by default use the non-elite or elite array depending on their type); and I'm still not sure what the point of that was.

In my following post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7970280&postcount=318), I try to answer as best I can. I comment on the people around me that I do see on a day to day, as you suggested. I point out their ability scores in relation to D&D. I look at myself, and show some of the problems with using ability scores as a measure of heroic vs non-heroic characters, rather than merely mechanics that make different things work; noting my apparent 15 Dex since I can TWF as easily as with single weapon fighting, and my friend's 16 (at least) strength score (he later commented he believes Charisma would be his dump stat).

The end of the post explains my position on ability scores specifically, and show mechanical reasons why a Paladin with 14 intelligence isn't going to appear to be some sort of genius in the course of how the game functions (it requires much more than that). At this point I'm getting a bit frustrated as I don't know what you're wanting from me. I note that until someone can show some mechanical examples of how you can make more diverse characters, prove higher point buys significantly increase SAD power, or prove they don't significantly increase MAD power, my points stand. In other words, if you're going to keep challenging them, then bring something to the table that holds water.

The next post of mine is in response to DeepBlue who discusses some of the mechanics of previous editions that no longer apply as a consideration for some thought on the subject. Interesting to say the least. :smallsmile: He also comments some mechanical points, which have varying degrees of solidity, but he specifies that they're his opinions and he doesn't really plan to provide anything to support them - so they're available as an anecdotal commentary. Also makes a very humorous comment about fish. :smallbiggrin:

Skipping my next post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7971123&postcount=322) because it is replying to DeepBlue and further discusses what has already been said...

We come to your post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7972267&postcount=325). The post that did finally get me angry. In this post, you attempt to shift the topic to appear as though it was being discussed from a PvP perspective (PvP means Player versus Player); when everything I had said - ever - throughout the thread was entirely based, built, and presented in an adventuring dynamic (cooperative). That pushed it.

From there you belittle the examples I've made with false and hyperbole examples. You misrepresent the numbers I've already presented. In several places you make comments that seem to inflect defense or offense based on an appeal to role-playing as a justification (skirting dangerously close to the Stormwind Fallacy). This also pushed it for me.

Your examples are weak, and in poor context. You make up hyperbole examples that mean nothing. Literally making up something to argue for, with, or about. That's just stupid. Stupid makes me angry.

Also, for the record. For the cost of the Paladin's full plate armor, minus the cost of the Barbarian's chain shirt; the barbarian can be sporting no less than 56 potions of cure minor wounds, available at even small thorps and hamlets to stabalize you when your Paladin bites it.

You then go on to dismiss the barbarian's option to always be on guard and gain benefit of it for his Uncanny Dodge class feature. You're stacking the deck in favor of whatever you're trying to say, and you're doing a bad job of it. This also makes me angry.

In my post where I've had enough (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7973208&postcount=329), I begin calling you on your behavior. I begin with your shift-stepping of the subject matter. I call it cute, because it is when people think it's legitimate. Also, cute is far milder than anything else I wanted to say about it. My post then proceeds to fix your equations, fix your examples, provide honest examples from both sides, and poke holes in your logic-balloons. I refute your dismissal of using total defense, with examples from the rules and from role-playing and story telling perspectives (keep the bases covered, right?). The rest of the post is just me calling you on all the dragon-bile you've been throwing around. And since you still haven't actually refuted anything I've said throughout this whole blasphemed thread, I'm suffering to see the point! I can't figure out why in the nine you're still pushing it without a leg to stand on; and it's pissing me off.


I should have realized that this is not considered the default situation by many players. Heck, I would daresay *most* players on this forum - I did spend some time lurking before posting, after all - though the precise ratio of players isn't terribly important to the topic at hand. Such people will favor combat effectivness for fighter/barbarian types and will gladly take penalties in stats that do not play a direct role in their combat effectiveness. If you are making many more combat-related rolls than you are non-combat related rolls, and each of these rolls have far deadlier consequences than most of your non-combat rolls, then skills and abilities that do not have at least some direct bearing on your survivability (such as Tyndmyr's Basketweaving example) will and indeed should be rated lower. Except, y'know, the Barbarian with a +2 charisma over a +0 only has a 10% better chance to succeed at a charisma based check. Just taking skill focus (Diplomacy) or even the Open Minded (+5 skill points) covers your butt on that one. The Paladin needs that junk to make his stuff work.


I also should have waited to respond to all the baiting I got over my Paladin till I had figured out exactly what it was that I needed to say. And yes, I was baited. Unless people have been editing heavily, there is a posting record in this thread (for those who wish to fact-check) of me being directly called an idiot and a hypocrite, and these were accompanyed by a fair degree of other subtle and unsubtle indirect digs at my intelligence, such as the poster who suggested that poor Sir Hapless made the Warrior class look good. As well as one claim that I was cute, which besides baiting me further also made me wonder if my webcam had been hacked.

Man, feel free to go back and re-read everything I've posted here. I've not edited anything except to fix typos. You wanna talk about baiting? Let's talk. You wanna talk about being called an idiot? Show me where. You wanna talk about being called a hypocrite? You better be ready to sit down and stuff it, because the only time in the thread I used hypo-anything was when I was talking about the general hypocrisy of claiming to be like "average Joe" hero, and playing PC-classes and not using the non-elite array. If there's been a hit against your intelligence; then it was a self-inflicted wound. I've been more than accommodating to you. Oh look, another self-hit. I never said you were cute, I said you action was. Go back and re-read it again. Do I tell you that you have cute eyes, cute lips, cute hair, or pretty teeth? You wanna inflect on some more stuff, or take things further out of context? :smallyuk:

I'm game if you are. :smallamused:


Starting out a conversation with an adult with two children of his own with a phrase that can easily be interpreted as "I am going to talk to you as though you were a pre-adolescent" really subverts the impact of the statements that follow, and in the specific case of the tips you provided, directly contradicts some of them. Its either an innocent mistake that could have been avoided, or its a dishonerable dig in a classic WASP-y passive-aggressive fashion that is well-phrased enough that you can't be 100% called out on it. In the spirit of giving, I will assume the former, and simply note that it is especially easy to give offence where none is intended in a situation where tempers have flared and offences from previous posts are still so fresh in everyone's mind.

Seeing as I'm the role-model for my little brother, and I was being honest, go ahead. If you want to interpret it that way, be my guest. It's advice I would give anyone, but it would be good for a young person. Considering your behavior, why not? You wanna talk passive aggressive? Lemme pull that Post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7972267&postcount=325) out again. Hm...okay.


I'm going to add my own PvP example here. I was not expecting to touch such a cord with it (I'm sorry to say that I was using other digs for that effect) and have not said anything about it till now *not* because I was trying to sweep it under the rug, but because I was (and in some ways still am) truly puzzled by it. At the time, I was merely to express the notion that our discussion devolved into a simple head-to-head race to higher "damage per action" numbers - numbers I was thinking had more to do with "who could kill the ogre faster" than "who could kill each other faster". PvP isn't a dig in the wargaming world I post more frequently in, and is seemingly not nearly as well defined either, so I ended up giving unintended offence. I think. Culture shock again, I guess, but I am still not sure exactly what happened there.

In a higher damage race, the barbarian will always win. If higher damage was the determining factor to balance, then it is likely that spell-casters would be pretty low on the totem pole; since blasting rarely as effective as "insert sword A into face B". The paladin is an off-warrior. That is, he can fill the role of a warrior but be slightly inferior to another warrior who is more focused but has other tricks to fall back on. As noted previously, without the proper ability scores, the Paladin not only is far more than slightly worse but also has little to fall back on.

Also, I'm surprised. Having enjoyed some Warhammer fantasy (Lizardmen FTW!), I don't know how to categorize it as anything but PvP - so I'm not sure what you mean by the Wargaming world reference (unless you mean RTS games, and I'm still confused 'cause I play those too). I'm not sure what this Culture Shock you're speaking of is, or where it comes from.


As a similar example, my whole post could be misread as nothing more than a terribly long-winded version of "I should have known better than to get baited into talking character builds with a bunch of powergaming rules twinks on their own forum". That may seem like a reach to many, but that theme is *exactly* what has been suggested to me IRL by a lurker friend of mine, so I don't feel that it is so far out there to fear that people on the forum are assuming that,too. Because of that and because of the tone of the last few posts I want to go a bit out of my way to state that that is not what I am trying to do here, so as not to give unintended bad impressions. Follow my own advice for a change, I will. :smallcool:

It's worth noting, again, that I answered you honestly and without bias for quite a number of posts; until you actually did begin to exhibit a theme that seemed much like that. You were very aggressive, fallacious, and began criticizing things on a plane outside of the topic at hand - several times in ways that were difficult to take any other way that badly. Go back and re-read everything if you want. You'll see I'm telling the truth. Anyone can see the pattern that was going on, and when I snapped back.


I'm pretty sure that this violates one of your own rules, too, and thereby lessens their value. :smallmad:
I've been posting here for quite a while. I've been slowly adding people to my signature that have invoked a higher amount of respect from me. Tempest Stormwind being so respected that I've never even seen him on this board and I pay respects to him from when I knew his postings on the WotC boards years ago; as too to Lycanthromancer who was quite keen on the WotC Psionics boards way back when. I have engaged in discussions and debates with many people. I have disagreed with many more.

But you're special. You're a first for me. A week ago I wouldn't have considered my current signature. You broke new ground. You discovered new land. You should be proud. You're the first ever. You're not the rule; you're the exception. :smallsmile:

[The Glyphstone]

*massive walls of text crit The_Glyphstone for over 9000 damage*

[Tyndmyr]

I LIKE PIE AND CANNOT FIND MY PANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I should not have found this nearly as funny as I did. Well played, sir.

[Xenogears]

I BEAT KITTEN DO DEATH WITH PUPPY AND THEN GIVE THE BAG OF THE CORPSES TO ORPHANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This reminds me of when Peter Pan threw a bag full of tiger and pirate heads to the other Lost Boys. Why couldn't that part have been in the movies...

[The Glyphstone]

They're both spelled wrong?:smalleek:

EDIT: Actually, I think necrophiliac is the right spelling, so never mind.

[Vampire D]

I agree with Ashiel, and as one of his players(Who's name was incorrectly place....Not 16 or 19/ and on a another note I'm the fighter with rouge tendencies and acts like a bard). Our group often talks about the remifications of heros vs. commoners(vs. different variations[low and high] of PB).
And as Ashiel has pointed out low PB can be fun, but the reason is not just the mechnic aspect of it. But the fact that it is an awsome game, and thats something that i think has gotten lost in trying to make a point.
Players + Game = a good time
This formula always held true even in the previous editions of D&D witch was just a description of how a giant monter killed you.

[Nohwl]

so does that also mean that players = a good time - game or
game = a good time - players?? im confused???

i would guess so, but ive had some pretty bad dms where that wasn't true.

[Tyndmyr]

Players + Game = a good time
Game = A good time - Players
Players = a good time - Game

How many players?

Player = (a good time - game)/x, where x is the number of players.

Math is not a pithy way to express something you like.

[Emmerask]

I've been posting here for quite a while. I've been slowly adding people to my signature that have invoked a higher amount of respect from me. Tempest Stormwind being so respected that I've never even seen him on this board and I pay respects to him from when I knew his postings on the WotC boards years ago; as too to Lycanthromancer who was quite keen on the WotC Psionics boards way back when. I have engaged in discussions and debates with many people. I have disagreed with many more.

But you're special. You're a first for me. A week ago I wouldn't have considered my current signature. You broke new ground. You discovered new land. You should be proud. You're the first ever. You're not the rule; you're the exception. :smallsmile:

Well I believe you really should rethink your signature.
You may not like that he disagrees with you or the way he presents his arguments or both. Still singling him out and basically telling everyone in every thread you have posted and will post in that this person is "stupid" should be left to other forums the wow boards are a good place for such things for example.

[The Glyphstone]

the wow boards are a good place for such things for example.

You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy...

[Optimator]

You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy...

Youtube comments? 4chan?

[Xenogears]

Well I believe you really should rethink your signature.
You may not like that he disagrees with you or the way he presents his arguments or both. Still singling him out and basically telling everyone in every thread you have posted and will post in that this person is "stupid" should be left to other forums the wow boards are a good place for such things for example.

Well to be fair all he is saying is that he does not respect the person. That does not mean the person is stupid just that he doesn't respect them. Not directly a flame or an attack.

[Drascin]

Youtube comments? 4chan?

4chan depends on board, really.

Yes, the WoW forums are so bad most of 4chan is actually less brainhurt-inducing. Please reflect on that for a moment :smalltongue:.

[Lycar]

Well, that was a long post from Ashiel but what it really boils down to:


This...I'm not really sure what to say to this without it sounding offensive. This is pretty close to the rule 0 fallacy. If the GM has to go out of their way to reward a player or make them playable, then that is a strike against them. As a GM I can go out of my way to reward a player for playing anything - or make special considerations to make commoners rewarding and useful; regardless of class, abilities, race, or even species.

Yes, D&D 3.x is a combat game with some RPG elements. You are rated on your ability to kill stuff. Everything else is window dressing.

Woe onto those who would dare to run a storytelling heavy game with these rules, for they are playing the game wrong! And shall be endlessly ridiculed.

Maybe, coming to think of it, a game that doesn't even have gods of fields and harvests in it's basic setting isn't really meant to be played as anything but a combat game.

Fortunately there are many, many other games which do a so much better job to make that style of gameplay possible.

Or one could *gasp* stop bitching about the 'rule 0 fallacy' and just make 'the Windows of the RPGs' work as one wants it to. And no naysayers and detractors on any one board can stop you.

Yes, it takes a lot of work. But most importantly, it takes the right set of people. Those who value story over combat will make even D&D work. SAD or MAD be damned.

And those who like them their Fantasy Combat Sim (with attached roleplaying elements) can live in peace.

But both sides need to stop telling the other side that they are playing the game wrong.

There is only one right way to play a game: So that it is fun for all players. This includes the GM. If this boils down to Hack&Slash or story-heavy roleplaying is a matter of personal tastes.

You can do both with D&D. It is just heavily biased towards Hack&Slash.

Lycar

[Gametime]

Yes, D&D 3.x is a combat game with some RPG elements. You are rated on your ability to kill stuff. Everything else is window dressing.

Woe onto those who would dare to run a storytelling heavy game with these rules, for they are playing the game wrong! And shall be endlessly ridiculed.

Maybe, coming to think of it, a game that doesn't even have gods of fields and harvests in it's basic setting isn't really meant to be played as anything but a combat game.

Fortunately there are many, many other games which do a so much better job to make that style of gameplay possible.

Or one could *gasp* stop bitching about the 'rule 0 fallacy' and just make 'the Windows of the RPGs' work as one wants it to. And no naysayers and detractors on any one board can stop you.

Yes, it takes a lot of work. But most importantly, it takes the right set of people. Those who value story over combat will make even D&D work. SAD or MAD be damned.

And those who like them their Fantasy Combat Sim (with attached roleplaying elements) can live in peace.

But both sides need to stop telling the other side that they are playing the game wrong.

There is only one right way to play a game: So that it is fun for all players. This includes the GM. If this boils down to Hack&Slash or story-heavy roleplaying is a matter of personal tastes.

You can do both with D&D. It is just heavily biased towards Hack&Slash.



But he didn't tell anyone they were playing the game wrong. He told someone that changing the rules doesn't make the original rules any better. In this case, boosting a paladin isn't a bad thing to do or contemptible - but you can't use a world specifically tailored to making a paladin good to support the premise that paladins are good in abstraction, which is what Ashiel (I think) was contesting.

There is often a tendency to assume people are attacking your style of play when instead they are attacking your assumptions about your style of play. I doubt anyone on these boards would dare say you are playing the game wrong - there is no wrong way to play the game. It is a game. Whatever is fun for you is, by definition, correct.

But there are still falsehoods to be expressed about the game, and "Paladins are not more severely penalized by low point buy than many other classes" is one of them.

If you play a paladin and your DM works to make sure it's fun, that's a good thing. It means your DM is actively working with you to make your character work, which is arguably the ideal expression of the DM-player relationship. It's awesome when things work that way. What is isn't is a vindication of the failures of the system, which - while not impossible or even difficult to overcome - are very real.

We gain nothing by ignoring these failures, or by somehow equating them with "powergaming." We do not benefit the discussion by creating a false dichotomy of roleplayers and munchkins.

[Lycar]

But he didn't tell anyone they were playing the game wrong. He told someone that changing the rules doesn't make the original rules any better. In this case, boosting a paladin isn't a bad thing to do or contemptible - but you can't use a world specifically tailored to making a paladin good to support the premise that paladins are good in abstraction, which is what Ashiel (I think) was contesting.

So in other words, one side said that the game can work for MAD classes too, if you set the game up accordingly.

The other side basically said that this is not how the game works and assuming so is wrong.

Guess which side provided more contribution about how to make the game fun for everyone...


I doubt anyone on these boards would dare say you are playing the game wrong -

Unfortunately, this very thread proves (again) that there is a deep divide between the two camps. Yes, the amount of roll vs. role is more of a sliding scale. But there is almost no middle ground here, and I am no exception.

I like D&D. The tactical combats are fun and can be pretty intense and exciting. But the limited out-of-combat performance of the system leaves me somewhat dissatisfied.

And then there are people who tell me that you can run a social/storydriven game to. And they tell me how they do it. From that I can learn.

But the next post invariably is one to the effect of: 'D&D doesn't work that way'. Always.


But there are still falsehoods to be expressed about the game, and "Paladins are not more severely penalized by low point buy than many other classes" is one of them.

All a certain someone pointed out is that a paladin gets abilites that can be very usefull outside of combat. One can play a game in which such things matter. In these games, it is not so terrible important that the paladin can not hit as hard as the barbarian or the fighter. Yes, he is a holy warrior. But as long as the 'holy' part matters, being less then perfect in pure combat ability is not that much of a liability.

That was all that a certain someone said.


If you play a paladin and your DM works to make sure it's fun, that's a good thing. It means your DM is actively working with you to make your character work, which is arguably the ideal expression of the DM-player relationship. It's awesome when things work that way. What is isn't is a vindication of the failures of the system, which - while not impossible or even difficult to overcome - are very real.

So, people just enjoy yammering on how much D&D sucks, but as soon as someone tries to offer a way to make it work, he gets shouted out because.. why? Seriously, why?

The fact that the game is unbalanced isn't exactly newsworthy. So instead of re-chewing the same decade-old arguments over and over again, offering a few new angles and insights on how to make the game actually playable for things it isn't very good at out of the box might actually be a good thing? Just maybe?

Yes the flaws are there. I know. I don't need anyone to tell me that anymore. Guess what? I was on the receiving end of this when we first played 3.0 and I was the guy with the fighter. My friend was the cleric. Enter Complete Divine...

After that, I switched to a psychic warrior. 3.0 version. Tables turned.

We took a long break from D&D after that. Until our DM learned to reign in certain aspects of the game.

And every time, someone here posts something about the ways he went to make his game work, I learn something new. My DM learns something new. And maybe it helps make our game work better too.

But all the people who endlessly rehash the same old arguments why SAD rules and MAD sucks? Wasted bandwith as far as I am concerned.

The old saying? Better to light a candle then to curse the darkness...


We gain nothing by ignoring these failures, or by somehow equating them with "powergaming." We do not benefit the discussion by creating a false dichotomy of roleplayers and munchkins.

This is not about role vs. roll so much as about how to make both work.

It has been pointed out by some posters, in loving detail, how the various point buys affect certain mechanical aspects. What was not pointed out by these people was a way to deal with the problem. Because, you know, 40-point-buy isn't really the answer...

Some others offered insights and suggestions about how they did it. They may not have the math down as well as the first group, but, well, that doesn't seem to stop them from enjoying their game. Others... seem to be content to keep harping on about the problems.

Guess which one's posts are more useful?

Lycar

[Ashiel]

Well, that was a long post from Ashiel but what it really boils down to:

Yes, D&D 3.x is a combat game with some RPG elements. You are rated on your ability to kill stuff. Everything else is window dressing.

Woe onto those who would dare to run a storytelling heavy game with these rules, for they are playing the game wrong! And shall be endlessly ridiculed.

Maybe, coming to think of it, a game that doesn't even have gods of fields and harvests in it's basic setting isn't really meant to be played as anything but a combat game.

Fortunately there are many, many other games which do a so much better job to make that style of gameplay possible.

Or one could *gasp* stop bitching about the 'rule 0 fallacy' and just make 'the Windows of the RPGs' work as one wants it to. And no naysayers and detractors on any one board can stop you.

Yes, it takes a lot of work. But most importantly, it takes the right set of people. Those who value story over combat will make even D&D work. SAD or MAD be damned.

And those who like them their Fantasy Combat Sim (with attached roleplaying elements) can live in peace.

But both sides need to stop telling the other side that they are playing the game wrong.

There is only one right way to play a game: So that it is fun for all players. This includes the GM. If this boils down to Hack&Slash or story-heavy roleplaying is a matter of personal tastes.

You can do both with D&D. It is just heavily biased towards Hack&Slash.

Lycar

Lycar, my good man (or woman); please read the posts in question before you take my words out of context. You want to discuss bitching about the rule 0 fallacy (Orboroni if I spelled it correctly)? That's cool man. However, considering my post was addressing arguments that Calimehter had put forth to subvert my earlier posts, and then recoiled back beneath the feeble guard of rule 0, it was the logical conclusion that it would come up. In short, it was warranted. You just don't pull crap like that. If you're going to argue mechanics and how they relate the game, you do not then turn around and claim your points are entirely valid because "the GM can fix it" or because "rules are a guideline" or because you can ignore them.


Woe onto those who would dare to run a storytelling heavy game with these rules, for they are playing the game wrong! And shall be endlessly ridiculed.

Maybe, coming to think of it, a game that doesn't even have gods of fields and harvests in it's basic setting isn't really meant to be played as anything but a combat game.

You skirt along presumptious edges my friend. You're implying something that you have no way of knowing about me. Since it may appear relevant to some; let me break it down for you here.

D&D 3.x is probably my favorite RPG system. I've been role-playing and focusing on story-heavy games since I was 13. When I was younger, I would read the books for fun and make up random characters and give them names, personality, and histories. Many of these just for fun, and they would never see the light of gameplay.

Much of my role-playing games occurred on PbP boards like www.nexus-city.net (http://www.nexuscity.net/). It's virtually impossible to play hack & slash effectively in this medium. Role-playing heavy is the name of the game.

In my tabletop games, I've have entire games go by without a single combat. I've had players who were playing fighters who acted like Paladins; who gave children in town rides on his warhorse, and gold to poor widows.

Wanna talk about intrigue? One of the games I had some months back involved a man trained by his uncle in the ways of assassins, for the purpose of taking down the head of the assassin guild in a large city. Convinced he was the hero fighting the bad guys. Little did he realize his family was the head of the assassin's guild, and his uncle wanted to overthrow his sister and subverted her son (who was innocent) into a counter-assassin. In the party with his man was a spy of the assassin guild, looking for the mysterious person who had been killing off low-ranking members of the guild and working his way up. Next to them, a character whose family was killed by the first character's uncle and the murder framed on another - who the orphaned character is hunting for, believing that character to be the culprit.

How's that for a web of intrigue? I don't think that they encountered more than two combats in the first two sessions; and one of those combats was initiated by the anti-assassin trying to kill the mage framed for killing the orphan's parents because he found she was an informant of the assassin guild he was trying to overthrow. It humorously ended without the death of anyone involved; even the NPCs.

Take your post elsewhere, my friend. You presume much of me, and honestly it's unwarranted. You speak heavily as if you know me, and yet out of context of everything my previous post (or any of my posts) have said. You use my post as your example for something that my post did not say. It is dishonesty or confusion. You speak of something that is irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything I've said and I'm just horribly confused as to why. :smallconfused:


But he didn't tell anyone they were playing the game wrong. He told someone that changing the rules doesn't make the original rules any better. In this case, boosting a paladin isn't a bad thing to do or contemptible - but you can't use a world specifically tailored to making a paladin good to support the premise that paladins are good in abstraction, which is what Ashiel (I think) was contesting.

There is often a tendency to assume people are attacking your style of play when instead they are attacking your assumptions about your style of play. I doubt anyone on these boards would dare say you are playing the game wrong - there is no wrong way to play the game. It is a game. Whatever is fun for you is, by definition, correct.

But there are still falsehoods to be expressed about the game, and "Paladins are not more severely penalized by low point buy than many other classes" is one of them.

If you play a paladin and your DM works to make sure it's fun, that's a good thing. It means your DM is actively working with you to make your character work, which is arguably the ideal expression of the DM-player relationship. It's awesome when things work that way. What is isn't is a vindication of the failures of the system, which - while not impossible or even difficult to overcome - are very real.

We gain nothing by ignoring these failures, or by somehow equating them with "powergaming." We do not benefit the discussion by creating a false dichotomy of roleplayers and munchkins.

Thank you. :smallsmile:

[Xenogears]

I love how this whole page is filled with back and forth heated arguments and yet everytime I check on it the first post I see is Kyuubi drooling at the thought of Gargantuan Bunny mounts... Sometimes I really love this forum...

[Mystic Muse]

I love how this whole page is filled with back and forth heated arguments and yet everytime I check on it the first post I see is Kyuubi drooling at the thought of Gargantuan Bunny mounts... Sometimes I really love this forum...

eh, I'm over it.

Gargantuan Squirrels for the win!

Or, maybe a Gargantuan wolf! I could be riding Fenrir!

hehehehehehehehe.

[Lycar]

Lycar, my good man (or woman); please read the posts in question before you take my words out of context.

....

If you're going to argue mechanics and how they relate the game, you do not then turn around and claim your points are entirely valid because "the GM can fix it" or because "rules are a guideline" or because you can ignore them.

Quite frankly, I don't care about these endless arguments about mechanics. Rule 0 is there for a reason. If it doesn't work, fix it.

The only thing that matters is to pinpoint the issues that break your own, personal game and adress those.

As I said, you pointed out how the mechanics work by RAW, that is, out of the box. In that way you offer insights into the exiting problems. Only that these problems are already well known and offer nothing new to me. Therefore, I disregard them. And the arguments about them.

What I do care about are the assumptions that your opponent made to make his version of the game work. I care not if his math is flawed if the basic assumptions point me into a direction that helps me overcome the existing flaws of the system. Because this helps me enjoy my own, personal game better.

You went to deride and dismiss your oppnent's suggestions because they didn't fit your math. And you didn't offer counter-suggestions about how to achieve the lofty goals your opponent set out for.

Now, don't get me wrong: Dissuading someone from flawed assumptions is a good thing. But your eloquence does not hide the fact that you seem to like debating more for the sake of debating then for the sake of learning something new.

Yes, I am making assumptions about you, the only way I can: By reading your posts and trying to read past the words to get your meaning. So far I have only uncovered deconstructionism. But I am searching for something more, well, constructive. So I am, sadly, less then impressed with your argumets so far.

Your opponent on the other hand offered ideas. Not very well thought out may be, but still a refreshing change.




D&D 3.x is probably my favorite RPG system. I've been role-playing and focusing on story-heavy games since I was 13.

...

Much of my role-playing games occurred on PbP boards like www.nexus-city.net (http://www.nexuscity.net/). It's virtually impossible to play hack & slash effectively in this medium. Role-playing heavy is the name of the game.

...

In my tabletop games, I've have entire games go by without a single combat. I've had players who were playing fighters who acted like Paladins; who gave children in town rides on his warhorse, and gold to poor widows.

...

How's that for a web of intrigue? I don't think that they encountered more than two combats in the first two sessions; and one of those combats was initiated by the anti-assassin trying to kill the mage framed for killing the orphan's parents because he found she was an informant of the assassin guild he was trying to overthrow. It humorously ended without the death of anyone involved; even the NPCs.

And yet you find yourself unable to provide some insight about how these games worked for you, but instead insist on meticulously disassembling your opponent? This is sad. Such a wealth of actual gaming experince but you don't want to share?

Now I would appreciate it if you would spend your time and energy (and writing skills) into sharing your insight with us.

What do you, from your own personal and anectdotal experience, think does it take to make a story-focused game work?

Besides players who actually want to play such a game in the first place that is? (And no, 'system mastery' isn't the answer. Unless you mean it in the sense of knowing which issues need fixing and how to do it.)


Take your post elsewhere, my friend. You presume much of me, and honestly it's unwarranted.

I do not mean to insult you. But I can only judge you by what I know about you. And all there is are the posts on these very boards. They left me with a certain impression. And unless further posts will change that impression, I am afraid, we both are stuck with it.

If you feel inclined to share your gaming experince with us, please do so. This should offer a much better insight into your own motives and opinions.

And if you have questions in return, feel free to ask.

Lycar

[elonin]

In my opinion low point buy is a (poor) way to keep characters under control. My preference is for a more powerful game.

[Lycar]

In my opinion low point buy is a (poor) way to keep characters under control. My preference is for a more powerful game.

And do you propose the GM should find a better way to 'keep characters under control'?

If so, is there something you would suggest? Something that worked at your table maybe?

Otherwise, how do you play? Does everybody take only classes of the same (or nearly the same) 'tier'? If not, how do you play, so that everybody still has fun?

Lycar

[Mystic Muse]

And do you propose the GM should find a better way to 'keep characters under control'?

If so, is there something you would suggest? Something that worked at your table maybe?

Otherwise, how do you play? Does everybody take only classes of the same (or nearly the same) 'tier'? If not, how do you play, so that everybody still has fun?

Lycar

Banning Tiers? Banning spells? asking players to stop when they go over the line?

Wizards only need ten points to break the game. low pointbuy doesn't help rein in the SAD classes it just penalizes the MAD ones

[Ashiel]

So in other words, one side said that the game can work for MAD classes too, if you set the game up accordingly.

The other side basically said that this is not how the game works and assuming so is wrong.

Guess which side provided more contribution about how to make the game fun for everyone...
The side that was explaining a system based consideration, and how that pertains to the flow of the game. Guess which one that was?


Unfortunately, this very thread proves (again) that there is a deep divide between the two camps. Yes, the amount of roll vs. role is more of a sliding scale. But there is almost no middle ground here, and I am no exception.
You're barking up the wrong tree. You're trying to draw a correlation to the role-player vs roll-player concept from where this is none. My OP was about the mechanical considerations of high and low-PB, and has been about nothing else. When you come and argue mechanics, then fail, and then fall back under the rule 0 fallacy; then you've made a mistake. When you come in and try to suggest that our whole conversation has been a state of "roll-player vs role-player", you've made another mistake.


I like D&D. The tactical combats are fun and can be pretty intense and exciting. But the limited out-of-combat performance of the system leaves me somewhat dissatisfied.
And then there are people who tell me that you can run a social/storydriven game to. And they tell me how they do it. From that I can learn.
But the next post invariably is one to the effect of: 'D&D doesn't work that way'. Always.

Considering the topic had nothing to do with any of that...uh, sure? I mean, I can play an RPG where you flip coins to decide the outcome of things, and only have 3 ability scores (or non at all). I've done so. My brother and I played a SW adventure with his action figures and a pocket of change while on vacation out of town. We prefer D&D thought since it has more stuff for out-of combat situations (various in-depth skill checks like Forgery, or rules for environmental effects, and so forth).

Since no one actually did anything you're talking about, it seems irrelevant to me. If you want to introduce a thread that teaches players how to ignore the rule pit-falls of the system, go for it. My post was explaining how one can have mechanics and room for RP based characters without mechanical punishment for it. Feel free to go check it again.


All a certain someone pointed out is that a paladin gets abilites that can be very usefull outside of combat. One can play a game in which such things matter. In these games, it is not so terrible important that the paladin can not hit as hard as the barbarian or the fighter. Yes, he is a holy warrior. But as long as the 'holy' part matters, being less then perfect in pure combat ability is not that much of a liability.

That was all that a certain someone said.

If a certain someone is Calimehter, then he showed how anyone with a slightly higher charisma could more useful (I wouldn't say very) outside of combat, but it came at the great expense of other factors of the character, and didn't really enhance the non-combat mechanics very well anyway.

If a certain someone is me, then I'm confused as to where the problem comes in; since I've said you can RP regardless, but that one mechanic allows for an smoother play experience. I don't think you mean me though, because I didn't say what you said was said.



So, people just enjoy yammering on how much D&D sucks, but as soon as someone tries to offer a way to make it work, he gets shouted out because.. why? Seriously, why?

The fact that the game is unbalanced isn't exactly newsworthy. So instead of re-chewing the same decade-old arguments over and over again, offering a few new angles and insights on how to make the game actually playable for things it isn't very good at out of the box might actually be a good thing? Just maybe?
Do you have something that's actually about the discussion we were having?


Yes the flaws are there. I know. I don't need anyone to tell me that anymore. Guess what? I was on the receiving end of this when we first played 3.0 and I was the guy with the fighter. My friend was the cleric. Enter Complete Divine...

After that, I switched to a psychic warrior. 3.0 version. Tables turned.

We took a long break from D&D after that. Until our DM learned to reign in certain aspects of the game.

Wait...what? You mean you had mechanical problems and you coped or something? Good for you. What does this have to do with what's been the subject of discussion? What do you want?


The old saying? Better to light a candle then to curse the darkness...




This is not about role vs. roll so much as about how to make both work.

It has been pointed out by some posters, in loving detail, how the various point buys affect certain mechanical aspects. What was not pointed out by these people was a way to deal with the problem. Because, you know, 40-point-buy isn't really the answer...

Some others offered insights and suggestions about how they did it. They may not have the math down as well as the first group, but, well, that doesn't seem to stop them from enjoying their game. Others... seem to be content to keep harping on about the problems.

Guess which one's posts are more useful?


Where are these insights and suggestions about how they did? Calimehter didn't offer any advice for what I'm interpreting your words to suggest. It didn't provide anything beyond trying to poke holes into my posts without cause or reason. He didn't adjust anything, or offer tips for dealing with low-PB characters. If you're not talking about me or Calimehter, then why are you quoting my recent post on the subject?

You're pointing fingers in the dark my friend. Your role-play versus roll-play would be better served in another thread, or if you like this thread, in relation to someone else's conversations therein. :smallconfused:

EDIT: Ninja'd so...


Quite frankly, I don't care about these endless arguments about mechanics. Rule 0 is there for a reason. If it doesn't work, fix it.
I don't think I've suggested otherwise.


The only thing that matters is to pinpoint the issues that break your own, personal game and adress those.

As I said, you pointed out how the mechanics work by RAW, that is, out of the box. In that way you offer insights into the exiting problems. Only that these problems are already well known and offer nothing new to me. Therefore, I disregard them. And the arguments about them.

What I do care about are the assumptions that your opponent made to make his version of the game work. I care not if his math is flawed if the basic assumptions point me into a direction that helps me overcome the existing flaws of the system. Because this helps me enjoy my own, personal game better.

You went to deride and dismiss your oppnent's suggestions because they didn't fit your math. And you didn't offer counter-suggestions about how to achieve the lofty goals your opponent set out for.
Except I did. I already did. I showed how the lofty goals of a non-gimped role-playing character could exist in a game that you have defined as hack & slash driven. My very first post I did this. I showed EXACTLY the mechanical adjustments you might need to rule 0 (in this case a higher ability generation method of some sort) to fix some of the disparity created by the situation at hand. Stop lying to me about what I did or did not do.

Calimehter may provide anything he wants. He's not even arguing against some sort of "RAW" definition of something. If you want to say I'm dismissing him, rather than answering to what he says, then you better put up some proof. Damnit, I demand it. I'm so sick and tired of this crap. If you say I said something, you better be able to produce the note man.


Now, don't get me wrong: Dissuading someone from flawed assumptions is a good thing. But your eloquence does not hide the fact that you seem to like debating more for the sake of debating then for the sake of learning something new.
I was answering his posts which were directly related to mine. He was offering nothing new to me. What is it you think he has to offer me then? At what point, when I was answering his posts against mine, did you decide I was shutting him out? When someone is posting little more than flawed math, then you cannot rightfully expect me to try to interpret more than that from it.


And yet you find yourself unable to provide some insight about how these games worked for you, but instead insist on meticulously disassembling your opponent? This is sad. Such a wealth of actual gaming experince but you don't want to share?

Now I would appreciate it if you would spend your time and energy (and writing skills) into sharing your insight with us.

What do you, from your own personal and anectdotal experience, think does it take to make a story-focused game work?

Besides players who actually want to play such a game in the first place that is? (And no, 'system mastery' isn't the answer. Unless you mean it in the sense of knowing which issues need fixing and how to do it.)
Unable, no. Unrequested, yes. That wasn't the focus of the topic you are referring to. If you wish, I can write a more detailed post for another thread in which to give some tips or anecdotal considerations; but that will be in another thread. I mentioned my games here because some people seemed to be calling the quality of my games into question, or implying something akin to a roll/role-player fallacy here.

Considering Calimehter didn't request anything, and just pushed incorrect and unfounded posts around; I fail to see what your problem with the situation is.


I do not mean to insult you. But I can only judge you by what I know about you. And all there is are the posts on these very boards. They left me with a certain impression. And unless further posts will change that impression, I am afraid, we both are stuck with it.

If you feel inclined to share your gaming experince with us, please do so. This should offer a much better insight into your own motives and opinions.

And if you have questions in return, feel free to ask.

Lycar
I've been insulted indirectly and directly for understanding how the game functions on a mechanical level many times. People literally started calling me names in one instance because, in a non-forum environment, I commented on the mechanical problems 3.5 brought to the Fighter class that were overshadowed in the 3.0 mechanics.

Since I don't believe I've said anything against role-playing, and have merely been speaking in terms of mechanics in a discussion about mechanics, I am a bit disappointed that you would judge me for apparently related reasons. I have shared some of my gaming experiences throughout my posting history. If not for the role-playing, then there is little reason to play a tabletop RPG over a PC game, or a console hack & slash such as Gauntlet or Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance II (great game by the way).

If I feel inclined to post about my personal gaming habits, methods, and experiences, then I shall do so. Since you seem to be requesting it, I will write a thread about it in a little while (most likely after I've had a shower). At the moment I'm uncertain exactly what to say in such a thread because there's a lot that I could focus on here and there; and I wouldn't wish to present a scattered mix-mash. A specific topic would probably help more, but I'll do my best. If possible, what specifically do you want a thread about? How to run games for low-powered PCs; what considerations should you take when dealing with mechanical imbalances between low-PB or high-PB characters; advice on building a story; advice on making interesting encounters; advice on strategy; advice on building characters to fit a particular role; or something else?

Finally, I'm not certain what this impression is I've left you with; but I will just have to live with it I guess. I'm not even sure where you were getting most of your subject matter, or how it relates to me or Calimehter. It doesn't really matter to me though, as I don't know what I'm being judged about. :smalltongue:

[Gametime]

Quite frankly, I don't care about these endless arguments about mechanics. Rule 0 is there for a reason. If it doesn't work, fix it.

The only thing that matters is to pinpoint the issues that break your own, personal game and adress those.



...So those of us who are interested in discussing the game in abstraction for purely theoretical reasons are using the forums wrong?

Good to know. Here I thought that our opinions were being offered freely to those who wished to view them, as a purely optional conversation that needn't infringe on anyone's enjoyment of their own game. :smalltongue:

[elonin]

Banning Tiers? Banning spells? asking players to stop when they go over the line?

Wizards only need ten points to break the game. low pointbuy doesn't help rein in the SAD classes it just penalizes the MAD ones

I agree with this 100%. I haven't been able to table top recently, but the groups I've played with had shared ideas about what power level is right for the group. Those that couldn't do that broke up anyway.

I'd go a step further and say that low point buy drives players to go to the tier 1 classes just from avoiding MAD classes.

[Calimehter]

I do not have time for the wall of text format today, but I did want to address this particular point briefly, since others seem at least somewhat interested in it:


What you're describing is mentioned in the DMG as one of the extremes of role-playing styles. The opposite style is "Kick in the Door" style. Most games fall in the middle. It specifically notes that often fighters and similar characters will take a back-seat to characters such as rogues, bards, and even spell-casters in these sorts of campaigns. Most of the time diplomatic rolls from off characters will be in the form of aid-another checks to the party's face. Characters who are intended for combat (the DMG uses the Fighter as an example if I recall correctly) are at a disadvantage in this situation. The reverse is true in the kick-in-the-door play.


It is assumed that most games are in the median between these two extremes. I'm actually surprised that rolls and statistics even seem to matter all that much if these are the sorts of games you play most frequently. Then again, it would also explain why there wouldn't seem to be much difference in the characters; since their imbalances tend to show up less frequently in such an environment. I can't comment on your games directly, as I don't know exactly how you're playing them; but it would seem you're basing your previous argument on purely anecdotal evidence.

It's generally considered in good form to present things based on the defaults of the game. If your campaigns tend to run where the mechanical differences are overshadowed by a particular style or theme, then it would be cool to mention that as part of your discussion. Also, something akin to "This character is built to function better in heavy-social low-combat game, where his ability to contribute as a warrior means less" would have saved you a lot of - admittedly true - responses about the Paladin being little more than the equivalent of an NPC warrior.

Bolding my emphasis

So, in a game where the Fighter is head and shoulders above a CHA-based class in game effectiveness, you are playing pure "Kick-in-the-door", or very close to it, correct? And the "Deep-Immersion Storytelling" style flip-flops this situation, making the CHA-based class a superior choice to the fighter when it comes to influencing the outcome of the game.

So, what happens, as it so often does in my games, when the CHA-based class and the Fighter are of equal value when it comes to in-game contributions?

Does this not logically imply that we are now gaming in the region the DMG calls "Something In Between", a style that the DMG also describes as the "style of play in most campaigns"? Why then was I to assume that my style of playing was outside the norm, thereby rendering my discussion of inter-class balance useless to the majority?

[Greenish]

So, what happens, as it so often does in my games, when the CHA-based class and the Fighter are of equal value when it comes to in-game contributions?

Does this not logically imply that we are now gaming in the region the DMG calls "Something In Between", a style that the DMG also describes as the "style of play in most campaigns"? Why then was I to assume that my style of playing was outside the norm, thereby rendering my discussion of inter-class balance useless to the majority?Um, didn't you just earlier tell us how your campaign was interaction-heavy, and that the person build for combat was less effective than others?

[Edit]: Yeah, here, this might've misled some:
To take an example, in 2 of the last 3 sessions we have played, my players have been involved in a lot of intrigue in a larger city as they have become entangled in various interrelated shadow wars between a rogue cult, a city "don", and a monotheistic autocracy. The faction that is the most dangerous enemy to the PCs at any given time is not always obvious. Success (or lack thereof) in such skills as Gather Information, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, and even Knowledge: Religion and Forgery played a key role in keeping the players alive and prepared to face their challenges. In these games, the number of dice rolls that were related to "soft" stats (INT, WIS, and CHA) and skills were much higher (relative to the number of rolls done for a combat) than they were in a dungeon-crawl type of scenario, and they could result in far more deadly consequences than a simple Gather-the-next-plot-hook-Information roll or a couple of Diplomacy rolls to haggle over item prices.

The player who was the *least* effective in these two sessions was the player most optimized for combat against deadly beasts . . . his "minor" two point penalties in noncombat skill rolls were now actually far overshadowing his equivalent two point STR-derived combat bonuses. This is not to say that he didn't get his chance to shine, especially on the "fundraising dungeon crawl" the party took to replenish their coffers and take a break from the intrigue, but his specialization ended up hurting him equally as much as helping him over the long haul.This could fool someone into thinking that your style is not intermediate.

[Mystic Muse]

Um, didn't you just earlier tell us how your campaign was interaction-heavy, and that the person build for combat was less effective than others?

I seem to recall him saying that player had a -2 penalty to social skills which also probably means the player didn't put any skill ranks in the social skills either.

[Ashiel]

Um, didn't you just earlier tell us how your campaign was interaction-heavy, and that the person build for combat was less effective than others?

I think that's what I heard. Isn't that what you heard? ... Ed? :smallamused:
(Anyone who doesn't get the joke, watch this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeoVA9XElMs).)

http://www.lionking.org/~tlkpride/images/ed.jpg

[Calimehter]

I did mention that we did a dungeon crawl in the midst of all that intrigue, and did mention this too:


his specialization ended up hurting him equally as much as helping him over the long haul.

Bolded for emphasis, with the implication being that the combat stats were not useless any more than the other stats were.

But yeah, seeing as how I was using that bit to emphasize the role of non-combat skills and powers, I can see where folks might have mistaken my post as describing a campaign where interaction was dominant over combat instead of being merely equal to it. Fair enough, greenish, sorry for the confusion. :)

[Lycar]

OMG... chinese wall of text.. spoilered for sake of sanity. :smalleek:



The side that was explaining a system based consideration, and how that pertains to the flow of the game. Guess which one that was?
Wrong. All you (re)stated was that SAD classes outperform MAD classes.
Which is the case but hardly a new discovery.

Someone else offered an example how, in his own game, the character who was über in combat and the suxx in social encounters effectivly balanced nicely with the paladin who only could afford middling stats overall because of MAD.

Which tells us: If your game isn't all about killing things, non-combat skils and abilities matter.

Okay, granted, this isn't exactly a noble price worthy but when I look back at the thread I find that for the most part the discussion revolves about the viability of builds in combat.

So, pointing out that the game called D&D does not neccessarily have to be all about combat was a refreshing change.


You're barking up the wrong tree. You're trying to draw a correlation to the role-player vs roll-player concept from where this is none. My OP was about the mechanical considerations of high and low-PB, and has been about nothing else.
And there you err: The difference is all about role vs. roll.

In a low point buy, mechanical considerations (usually limited to pure combat power) dictate that a 8 point build wizard (who gets 19 INT just a level before he needs it) is still vastly more powerful then any other character.

This does not change in a 40 point buy game. The 40 point non-wizards might suck less, but the underlying problem has not changed.

Now, a roleplayer might want to actually sacrifice some points in INT (after all, you can level up and earn those stats) to have a, say, non-grouchy (that is non-charisma-dumped) wizard.

The rollplayer will still max INT and not give a damn about the other stats. Or raise the other stats in order of power. DEX & CON or vice versa.

Yes, most real people lie somewhere between the extremes.

But for the discussion at hand it requires relevant that low point buys put 'roleplayers' in the situation of having to make tough choices while not bothering 'rollplayers' at all. Max the important stats, dump the rest, done.

All you suggested is to raise the point buy. Great. As others have already mentioned, why not give everybody an 18 in everything? The problem is that, as long as some classes play another game then the others (melee vs. casters), no amount of stat buy will change that.

Even giving caster types a reduced amount of buy points compared to non-casters won't do much as long as wizards can break the game at 8 points stat buy.

But with low point buy, 'roleplayers', who agonize over every aspect of their beloved alter-ego and feel pain when they can not make their invisioned concept work, are affected.

Unfortunately, even for them a high point buy is not neccessarily a valid solution. Because some of them feel that past a certain threshold, you could as well stop pretending and play Exalted or something [/hyperbole]


Considering the topic had nothing to do with any of that...uh, sure? I mean, I can play an RPG where you flip coins to decide the outcome of things, and only have 3 ability scores (or non at all). I've done so. My brother and I played a SW adventure with his action figures and a pocket of change while on vacation out of town. We prefer D&D thought since it has more stuff for out-of combat situations (various in-depth skill checks like Forgery, or rules for environmental effects, and so forth).

Good. So you played mechanically less stringent games. What does this tell you about the mechanical implications of stats in non-combat situations? Is an extra +1 or +2 to a skill such a dealbreaker? Or not?

And no, the D&D skill system is not in-depth. It is simplified for easy access and to speed through the non-combat sections of the game. Which is a good thing for certain playstyles. And a bad thing for others. But it is not in-depth.

But yes, this is a bit beside the point here.


Since no one actually did anything you're talking about, it seems irrelevant to me. If you want to introduce a thread that teaches players how to ignore the rule pit-falls of the system, go for it. My post was explaining how one can have mechanics and room for RP based characters without mechanical punishment for it. Feel free to go check it again.

Your suggestion was to raise point buy, so that everybody can be 'a strong, agile, handsome swashbuckler' if he/she wishes to be so. At lv 1.

Unfortunately, has has been mentioned previously, this doesn't really solve anything. Where does 'strong' start? At STR 12? At STR 13 maybe? After all, that is the prerequisite attribute score for the Power Attack feat. Which no fighter can do without. At all. Must have. Totally. So... maybe 13 isn't that strong at all, eh? So what now, STR 15 is 'strong' now? How about 18? Now that is as strong as it gets. Strong enough for you?

What about DEX? Again, 13 qualifies for certain feats. 15 required for TWF.
What is TWF again? Mechanically, doubles numbers of attacks, at the price of needing light weapons and lowering your to-hit.

To put things into perspective: In some systems, the art of fighting with two weapons in a way that grants a discernable mechanical advantage is not attainable by starting characters. Maybe it would be a nice change of pace to, you know, actually work your way up the level ladder to qualify for such an exclusive skill? Oh but rangers get that for free you say? Well, either that or they get archery feats. It is a class feature. As are spells. For caster types. Oh, and unlike fighters, rangers don't even need to meet the DEX requirements.

Not to put too fine a point to it but what is and is not 'above average' is a pretty subjective matter. Technically, a score of 11 is above average. At 12, you get an actual modifier. In a 24 point buy game, you can be 'above average' in all your stats. Some people just trade their 'above averagenes' in some stats away to be, say, exceptional in some.

But some people consider a 18 starting stat as a baseline, not the pinnacle of what is possible for a character (outside of racial modifiers of course).

Now about those 'mechanical punishments'. Some classes absolutely must have positive modifiers to get anything at all out of their class features. Like paladins. Or monks.

Oh yeah, monks... you know what? Even a 40 point buy can't save them. Read any monk thread.

No, higher stat buy simply isn't the answer...


If a certain someone is Calimehter, then he showed how anyone with a slightly higher charisma could more useful (I wouldn't say very) outside of combat, but it came at the great expense of other factors of the character, and didn't really enhance the non-combat mechanics very well anyway.
So being better at something requires sacrifices in other areas. Next you are going to tell me it gets colder in the winter...

But wait, on the southern hemisphere, it actually gets warmer in the winter.

Guess what? They play a different game. As did a certain someone who did not neglect to point out that the social usefulness of the paladin came at a price. And who also took the pains to add that, overall, the combat specilaized character and the paladin averaged out. One got to shine in combat, the other outside of it.

What can we learn from this? Play the right kind of game and even paladins can matter. I wonder if this works for monks too...


Do you have something that's actually about the discussion we were having?

I don't know what discuassion you believe to be having. I am arguing that low point and high point buys are a matter of taste. So-called 'roleplayers' think that low point games force meaningful sacrifices on you which enhance your roleplaying experince. So-called 'rollplayers' want to have all-high stats, so they must not suffer the indignity of being anything less then totally awesome.

Most real people lie somewhere in the middle but everybody tends toward one side or another.

Basically, some just want to have fun and kill stuff, others want to play their character and fights just happen.


Wait...what? You mean you had mechanical problems and you coped or something? Good for you. What does this have to do with what's been the subject of discussion? What do you want?
I was merely pointing out that I, personally, in my own game, had problems that no amount of point buy would have made go away.

Oh okay, with lower stats the psychic warrior would not have been so ridiculous. But the fighter would still be meh next to DMM-persist cleric guy.

So yeah, one more strike against 'high point buy solves the balance issues of the game'.


Where are these insights and suggestions about how they did?
He mentioned putting a combat-optimized character and a, well, paladin into both combat and social situations and how nicely it turned out to allow both players to shine and suck roughly equally. Both made their choices, both got something for their choices.

So if someone puts ranks into basketweaving? As the GM, try to make it matter in the game. Even in small way. Because that validates that character and that player's choices. And that is a good thing.

And to be reminded of that little often ignored fact of social gaming activities is Calimehter's merit.

Your contribution? 'Raise buy points.' Yeah...


You're pointing fingers in the dark my friend. Your role-play versus roll-play would be better served in another thread, or if you like this thread, in relation to someone else's conversations therein. :smallconfused:
Reread the first page of the thread:

post #2

I believe it's an attempt to lower the overall power of the game. D&D is honestly far more powerful than the fluff suggests... a 10th level Wizard is supposed to be legendary, but endless wishes and things are well above what they're supposed to be able to do.

...

JaronK
In regard to how low-point buys might be used as a way to reign in that problem. The problem being both mechanical and fluff related. Fluff is the roleplaying aspect.

post #3

...

which is more important stats or magic?

If you play where magic can freely be bought then stats are a problem. If you play were magic cannot just be bought then stats really don't matter as much.
For the roleplayer: 'What is more important? What I am or what I have?'

post #6


3. It works if 25 points makes the characters more heroic than the rest of the world. I use 15 point buys for common folk, and only VIP NPCs get builds in the 22-25 point range. Being heroic relative to the common folk is all about where you set the baseline.

2. Well, there are reasons to spend limited points in other areas than your prime stats. Fighty-types do get some benefit from, say, INT 13 . . . besides the extra skill points, you get access to the Expertise feat tree. This knocks one of the 3 physical stats down. Knocking one of your physical stats (say, CON) down a bit to afford said INT boost just costs you a 1 HP per level and -1 to Fort Saves. It might not be good from an optimization purists point of view, but it is still viable.

Also, would a player who is intent on min-maxing his stats really stop min-maxing them if his build went up to 32 from 25? No, he'd just put more points into STR/DEX/CON and ignore the others. A player who *wants* to spend the points on non-prime stats will do so, and one who doesn't want to won't, regardless of the total point value allowed.

1. Casters have it easier no matter how many points you set, since they are not MAD. Unless you start going so high that folks can hit the maximum in multiple scores.

Oh look: It is Calimehter, your old nemesis. Or are you his nemesis?

No matter, look what he said:
-High point buys don't stop casters from ruling supreme.
-Roleplayers will feel challenged by low point buys more then Rollplayers.

Does it dawn to you now why, yes, the topic is actually very relevant for the old role vs. roll debate?

post #283


In detail: if it was a 25 point buy game, I'd send the coyote if they were level 1 or 2 and I wanted to throw lots of enemies at them. I'd send the huskies if they were level 2-3 and I wanted a few stronger enemies with more tricks. However I would send the same enemies in a 40 point buy game. The only real difference is now the fighter might be able to sport Combat Expertise, and the monks might not be completely useless. Wizard, Sorcerer,
Druid, and Cleric remains the same.

Someone else saying that the difference between a 25 and a 40 point buy game would only be that the non-casters would suck less. And that it doesn't solve the overall problem of class power disparity.

(Do you happen to know that person? Name sounds familiar.. oh, wait...)

Roleplaying aspect: If some people just are enamoured with a certain class, for whatever reason, then that class being mechanically weak may ruin their enjoyment of the game.

Possible solutions:
- Find better classes/class combos to represent, on a mechanical level, what you want your character concept to be. Example: Strike monk, set unarmed swordsage.

- Agree on a certain level of optimization for the whole group. If even a tricked-out monk can be only so good, maybe it would be a fun change of pace to play a blaster wizard instead of God/Batman for a change? You know, the old 'don't be a ****' routine...


I don't think I've suggested otherwise.
When you argue that someone who says, 'you can use rule 0 to fix stuff', is ignoring the problem then... yeah...

Okay, maybe it is just the language barrier acting up and I am misinterpreting you there. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


Except I did. I already did. I showed how the lofty goals of a non-gimped role-playing character could exist in a game that you have defined as hack & slash driven. My very first post I did this. I showed EXACTLY the mechanical adjustments you might need to rule 0 (in this case a higher ability generation method of some sort) to fix some of the disparity created by the situation at hand. Stop lying to me about what I did or did not do.

First: Stop calling people liars. You managed to avoid being obviously rude so far. I suggest you do keep that track record clean.

Second: Again, your 'solution' to solve the class-balance problem was high point buy. Which you admitted yourself does not solve the problem, merely makes it less noticeable.

Also, your example was limited to combat. You did not mention anything about non-combat encounters at all.

Someone other then you, however, mentioned how the disparity in sheer combat prowess can be mitigated if the less capable combat characters are given opportunity to shine outside of combat. This requires a lot of DM intervention (or fiat if you will) but can be made to work. It did work for Calimehter apparently.

All you have to offer is 'raise point buy' and 'excpet, it doesn't really work'.

Let us look at another post snippet of yours:

I've shown where MAD classes are more playable with higher generation methods, and are more comparable to SAD classes. I've shown it doesn't unbalance the game. I've shown that SAD classes cannot push their usual limits very far. They could generate more well-rounded characters, but not more powerful characters. I've shown that it allows MAD classes to function. I've shown that it can allow less cookie-cutter characters (y'know, since you might get bored of playing the same power-attack barbarian build) more easily without gimping yourself mechanically. I've shown these things mathematically within the system, using the rules as they are presented to everyone; without cheating and without abusing rules.
Yes, you have shown that higher point buy makes MAD classes suck less compared to SAD.

Again, as long as a certain class only needs to pump 1 stat to break the game, this still does not solve the underlying problem.

If certain classes must have at least 14s in 3 scores to be 'viable' (for a given definition of viable, mind you!) and others don't, the the game is just unbalanced.

However, if someone was to invole rule 0 to the point where the classes in question no longer are 'not-viable', even if they do not have high stats...

Paladin with middling scores who gets to use his, say Lay on Hands or Remove Disease to make a difference in the game outside of combat (only works without a cleric taking the cake instead of course).

Or you could simply run a less combat-heavy game, where the norm isn't 4 encounters per day but, say, 1 encounter a week. And where it is okay for the wizard to be a blaster. Who can go nova in that one encounter to show off a bit. And keeps some utility magic ready to help solve problems, not turn the game into a one-wizard-show.

What I condemn you for is that you do not offer solutions.
'Raise the point buy' is NOT a solution. It is a band-aid at best. You yourself said as much!

So stop calling people liars and reread your own posts maybe. :smallmad:



Calimehter may provide anything he wants. He's not even arguing against some sort of "RAW" definition of something. If you want to say I'm dismissing him, rather than answering to what he says, then you better put up some proof. Damnit, I demand it. I'm so sick and tired of this crap. If you say I said something, you better be able to produce the note man.
Dismantling flawed math is one thing.

post #333 however...

Here is a few tips. I'm not an expert at public speaking or anything, but these are some things I try to get my little brother to remember at all times:
[LIST]
You take the time and effort to type down 7 paragraph to tell your opponent basically one thing:

"You suck at this, Calimehter."


I mentioned my games here because some people seemed to be calling the quality of my games into question, or implying something akin to a roll/role-player fallacy here.
See, that is another thing: You obviously have played games in which class imbalances didn't matter. Regardles of any point-buy issues.

But instead of contributing towards the solution of the problem of class imbalances, you chose to do... what? Bolster your resume?

Stop holding back. How did those games work different from your 'standard' D&D game? What can we learn from your experience to change our games for the better?


I've been insulted indirectly and directly for understanding how the game functions on a mechanical level many times.
Yes, you do have a working understanding of the math behind the mechanics.

Unfortunately, all you draw from this is the conclusion that D&D is borked, no amount of point buy will change that.

Just to clarify:
You say that a high point buy allows less cookie-cutter characters.

This is only true for a certain mindset of players: The 'Rollplayer'.
Because once he has maxed the 'must-haves', he has points to spare for window dressing.

The 'Roleplayer' on the other hand will try to make a character that fits his vision, so-called 'optimization be damned, no matter what the point buy.

Again, real people fall between those two extremes. Nobody wants to have a character who can not contribute at all. Contributing less then the specialists is one thing. Being totally ineffective is another.

Higher stat buys help, but do not solve the problem: That some classes can make others irrelevant for the game. This usually only happens at certain levels and so some poeple avoid palying at those levels.

But you know what would help even more? Finding ways to make the problems go away.

Shifting the focus of the game away from combat seems to work for some people. It may work for others too.



Since I don't believe I've said anything against role-playing, and have merely been speaking in terms of mechanics in a discussion about mechanics, I am a bit disappointed that you would judge me for apparently related reasons. I have shared some of my gaming experiences throughout my posting history. If not for the role-playing, then there is little reason to play a tabletop RPG over a PC game, or a console hack & slash such as Gauntlet or Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance II (great game by the way).
And yet you seem to fail to understand what my beef with your arguments is really about. But then again, this ought to me my fault, since it is up to me to clarify. So maybe it is about time I sum it up:

-The OP wondered why some people favour low point buys, even if this does nothing to make casters less 'über'

-People argued that low point buys are supposed to keep the power level of the game lower, to make the game 'grittier' or more 'believeable'

-There is some dissent about what does and what does not constitute a 'heroic' character.

-There appears to be consent about the fact that the power imbalance between casters and melee can make the game unfun.

-Since playing a game is basically a social contract between players to engage in an activity that ought to be enjoyable by all participants, this is a bad thing.

What your posts boil down to are: 'Yes, the game is unbalanced, I can prove it.' You are doing this very well, even eloquently but... er...

Do you know that joke about that guy in the hot air ballon who gets lost in the mist and asks a random stranger about his whereabouts?

G: "Hey you, can you tell me where I am?"
S: *ponders* "... You are in the gondola of a hot air balloon."
G: "... you don't happen to be a mathematican?"
S: "Why, yes, I am! How do you know?"
G: "Your answer was completely correct and at the same time totally useless."


Anyway, the point is: From someone who is obviously an intelligent person, who also has years of experience playing various games, RPGs and others, and can put his mind into eloquent words I expect more then the rehashing of decade-old arguments.

If you can not contribute to solving the problem at hand, you are wasting your potential. And that is just sad.

With your (proven) undertanding of the mechanical aspects of certain classes, I would expect you to also provide ideas and suggestions how to fix the glaring problems. Beyond a 'raise stat buy' which doesn't even work!

I refuse to believe that you do not have better ideas then that. You are holding back on us! You could have ideas and insights that might help people on these very boards to fix our games! And you are not sharing! Stop that! :smallannoyed:



If I feel inclined to post about my personal gaming habits, methods, and experiences, then I shall do so.

...

A specific topic would probably help more, but I'll do my best. If possible, what specifically do you want a thread about? How to run games for low-powered PCs; what considerations should you take when dealing with mechanical imbalances between low-PB or high-PB characters; advice on building a story; advice on making interesting encounters; advice on strategy; advice on building characters to fit a particular role; or something else?

How about:
Combat & Social encounters: How to make CHA worth something

Or:
Casters: How to make them play nice with melee


Finally, I'm not certain what this impression is I've left you with; but I will just have to live with it I guess. I'm not even sure where you were getting most of your subject matter, or how it relates to me or Calimehter. It doesn't really matter to me though, as I don't know what I'm being judged about. :smalltongue:
You sit on your hoard of experience and ideas like a dragon. You don't share. So I am going to charge at you lance down untill you spill your guts.

Maybe I'm charging a windmill.

But sometimes, even windmills need charging. :smallamused:

Lycar

[Lycar]

...So those of us who are interested in discussing the game in abstraction for purely theoretical reasons are using the forums wrong?

Good to know. Here I thought that our opinions were being offered freely to those who wished to view them, as a purely optional conversation that needn't infringe on anyone's enjoyment of their own game. :smalltongue:

Erk, no.

But in this very instance, I feel that potential for helping people fix their games is wasted in idle rehashing of decade-old arguments.

Waste is bad. So, if I can rile some people up enough that they actually tell us how they made their game work...

###
Okay, to stay a bit more on-topic:

This has already been touched at before but what do people consider to be 'above average' in their games?

So far, 24 point buy is already above average, since NPCs usually only get Elite Array. And is also the default assumption for point buy in the DMG.

Still, many people feel that most classes (read: non-casters and maybe non-barbarians) absolutely must have 14s in all stats to be 'viable'.

So... how many people care about how many goblins(dragons, balors) their characters (or the combined party) can kill in one session and how many people believe that fights are just things to mix up the storytelling a bit?

(As much as I like a powerful character (and I'd be lying if I said I don't), I'd rather not have to consider every fight to be pitched battle for survival.

Reminds me too much of sports. Put me off chess too.)

Lycar

[Gametime]

Erk, no.

But in this very instance, I feel that potential for helping people fix their games is wasted in idle rehashing of decade-old arguments.

Waste is bad. So, if I can rile some people up enough that they actually tell us how they made their game work...



...So, you feel like we're discussing the wrong thing. We're wasting our time posting our thoughts and opinions, in essence, and it's okay for you to be rude about it because if we get angry enough we'll start posting the right things.

One would think that if the means of playing a game are fundamentally subjective and not subject to scrutiny about value, discussions about that game would follow suit. (At least, insofar as the scrutiny focused on the content of the discussion and not the tone. It seems perfectly reasonable to condemn someone for being rude or overly aggressive, but that doesn't seem like the main thing you object to in Ashiel's posts.)

[Ashiel]

But in this very instance, I feel that potential for helping people fix their games is wasted in idle rehashing of decade-old arguments.

Waste is bad. So, if I can rile some people up enough that they actually tell us how they made their game work...
Are you aware that there's more monk threads going on right now asking questions that us more experienced board posters have known the answers to for what feels like forever? Somebody who doesn't know comes and asks, and the questions get answered. What may be common knowledge to some is a well kept secret to others. It's not like they teach this geek-speak in school.

What you consider common knowledge doesn't mean others cannot draw from it. To say so is both foolish and arrogant.


Wrong. All you (re)stated was that SAD classes outperform MAD classes.
Which is the case but hardly a new discovery.

Someone else offered an example how, in his own game, the character who was über in combat and the suxx in social encounters effectivly balanced nicely with the paladin who only could afford middling stats overall because of MAD.

Which tells us: If your game isn't all about killing things, non-combat skils and abilities matter.

Okay, granted, this isn't exactly a noble price worthy but when I look back at the thread I find that for the most part the discussion revolves about the viability of builds in combat.

So, pointing out that the game called D&D does not neccessarily have to be all about combat was a refreshing change.


I never said it was all about combat. Also, the mechanical functions don't change. The fact that a +2 charisma does not make the paladin much more relevant than a Barbarian still remains. Unless he's devoted ranks into social based skills then he's still pretty useless at being the party's face; and given he only has room for 2-3 skills worth of focus (unless he spreads himself very thin), he might end up with Ride, Diplomacy, and Knowledge Religion (since we can hope a Paladin would know about this sort of thing).

The way I see it, is that in low point buy games you can either A) specialize and be effective in your chosen situation, or B) you average yourself out and not be good at anything. Considering the fact that when the dangerous part of the game (say Calimehter's dungeon crawl) generally threatens to get your player eaten, most people will choose not.

With this in mind, why would the Barbarian player bother to reduce his ability to protect his party and survive to try and get a higher charisma that will provide little benefit; especially if someone else in the party like the party's bard or sorcerer or rogue who invested in some social skills, or sports such an amazingly high charisma by default, can do it for you. This is the classic party dynamic of specialization covering weaknesses of the group.

In short, yeah, we never said it did. Telling someone D&D isn't all about combat isn't new news either, and has been endlessly rehashed over and over again because - frankly - it's true. No one said it wasn't. What he did say was that the party's combat specialist sucked in the social parts of the game, and rocked in combat part of the game; ignoring the fact that his original Paladin's not going to be much good in either case. I'm so glad you can praise his efforts and original thinking; but some of us are unimpressed.


And there you err: The difference is all about role vs. roll.

In a low point buy, mechanical considerations (usually limited to pure combat power) dictate that a 8 point build wizard (who gets 19 INT just a level before he needs it) is still vastly more powerful then any other character.

This does not change in a 40 point buy game. The 40 point non-wizards might suck less, but the underlying problem has not changed.

Now, a roleplayer might want to actually sacrifice some points in INT (after all, you can level up and earn those stats) to have a, say, non-grouchy (that is non-charisma-dumped) wizard.

The rollplayer will still max INT and not give a damn about the other stats. Or raise the other stats in order of power. DEX & CON or vice versa.

Yes, most real people lie somewhere between the extremes.

But for the discussion at hand it requires relevant that low point buys put 'roleplayers' in the situation of having to make tough choices while not bothering 'rollplayers' at all. Max the important stats, dump the rest, done.

All you suggested is to raise the point buy. Great. As others have already mentioned, why not give everybody an 18 in everything? The problem is that, as long as some classes play another game then the others (melee vs. casters), no amount of stat buy will change that.

Even giving caster types a reduced amount of buy points compared to non-casters won't do much as long as wizards can break the game at 8 points stat buy.

But with low point buy, 'roleplayers', who agonize over every aspect of their beloved alter-ego and feel pain when they can not make their invisioned concept work, are affected.

Unfortunately, even for them a high point buy is not neccessarily a valid solution. Because some of them feel that past a certain threshold, you could as well stop pretending and play Exalted or something [/hyperbole]


No it's not about role versus roll playing. It's about roll playing and how it functions with role playing. Not in competition of but in conductivity of. I was explaining how high point generation reduces the disparity between characters who were built with a particular non-standard concept in mind (such as a dual-wielding barbarian versus a power attack barbarian, and my explanation of being able to create a mechanically represented version of William Wallace from Braveheart). Later Calimehter and you made it into a fight about role-playing and roll-playing; which again has been rehashed endlessly, and had little to do with my original post on the subject (which as I noted before angered me).

Furthermore, while it doesn't put characters on equal terms with spell-casters (and likely won't unless you give them the ability to twist reality like kitten with a ball of yarn) it does help reduce the disparity - which was all I ever said it did. It keeps the MAD classes more playable and doesn't punish them for being interesting and different from the norm. As you've pointed out, giving characters lower point buys don't curb power in classes that are strong; it only hurts the MAD.

I also never said it did. You're arguing against a straw man (if you don't know what that is, check my posting rules in my signature for details). You're arguing something I wasn't arguing. This makes you either ignorant or stupid. I'm going to assume the first for sake of fairness.

For those who agonize over building their character without so much disparity but complain that their characters are godlike with a few more +1s to different places; well I can't do anything for them except show them mathematically how they might consider looking at it so they can have their cake and eat it too.


I don't know what discuassion you believe to be having. I am arguing that low point and high point buys are a matter of taste. So-called 'roleplayers' think that low point games force meaningful sacrifices on you which enhance your roleplaying experince. So-called 'rollplayers' want to have all-high stats, so they must not suffer the indignity of being anything less then totally awesome.

Most real people lie somewhere in the middle but everybody tends toward one side or another.

Basically, some just want to have fun and kill stuff, others want to play their character and fights just happen.

I'm quickly loosing patience with your offensive fallacies and you telling me what I am and am not talking about as if you were somehow privy to some sort of greater knowledge or understanding. This strikes a cord with me especially because I'm living proof that it's complete stinking cloud.


Guess what? They play a different game. As did a certain someone who did not neglect to point out that the social usefulness of the paladin came at a price. And who also took the pains to add that, overall, the combat specilaized character and the paladin averaged out. One got to shine in combat, the other outside of it.
I'm getting really sick of this. I was talking D&D general, you're talking D&D specific. In general the mechanics prove what I'm saying. If Calimehter's game is so different (but according to him not different) that these facts don't mean much in his game, then why in Celestia are you two doing this? WHY!? I don't understand it! What have I done that you would be so belligerent when you're not even discussing the same topic that I am!?


First: Stop calling people liars. You managed to avoid being obviously rude so far. I suggest you do keep that track record clean.

Second: Again, your 'solution' to solve the class-balance problem was high point buy. Which you admitted yourself does not solve the problem, merely makes it less noticeable.

Also, your example was limited to combat. You did not mention anything about non-combat encounters at all.

Someone other then you, however, mentioned how the disparity in sheer combat prowess can be mitigated if the less capable combat characters are given opportunity to shine outside of combat. This requires a lot of DM intervention (or fiat if you will) but can be made to work. It did work for Calimehter apparently.

All you have to offer is 'raise point buy' and 'excpet, it doesn't really work'.
As long as people are lying, I will continue to call them on it. As I noted above, I never said it gets rid of the difference but lessens it. Never once did I claim it completely removed the disparity between the classes, but that it was a solid method for reducing the disparity and being able to build mechanically viable characters who weren't limited in their fluff opportunities.

You're lying again, so yes, I call LIAR.

In the case of Calimehter's example, he points that the GM has to go out of their way. This is the rule 0 (Orboroni?) fallacy; and is also irrelevant to the post and topic that was at hand - you can double check, I linked everything a few posts ago. The reason my examples pertained to combat was because they were in response to the idea that high generation characters were head over heels more effective against monsters such than normal. I wasn't discussing their ability to role-play in those examples because it was independent of their effectiveness at combat.

The party's bard was their face (his performance was public speaking actually - a few inspiring words - he wasn't much for the song and dance routine) and they backed him up with their aid-another checks when needed. They encountered drow both on friendly and unfriendly terms (when the drow later betrayed them), and got a lot of social based gaming in as well - but this was irrelevant to the point I was making before. I guess I could have pointed out that should they have been a party of MAD based characters spread thin, they would likely have failed in both aspects of the game (dieing in the combat early on and never event meeting the drow, or managing not to die and have little ability to influence the drow).


Yes, you have shown that higher point buy makes MAD classes suck less compared to SAD.

Again, as long as a certain class only needs to pump 1 stat to break the game, this still does not solve the underlying problem.

If certain classes must have at least 14s in 3 scores to be 'viable' (for a given definition of viable, mind you!) and others don't, the the game is just unbalanced.

However, if someone was to invole rule 0 to the point where the classes in question no longer are 'not-viable', even if they do not have high stats...

Paladin with middling scores who gets to use his, say Lay on Hands or Remove Disease to make a difference in the game outside of combat (only works without a cleric taking the cake instead of course).

Or you could simply run a less combat-heavy game, where the norm isn't 4 encounters per day but, say, 1 encounter a week. And where it is okay for the wizard to be a blaster. Who can go nova in that one encounter to show off a bit. And keeps some utility magic ready to help solve problems, not turn the game into a one-wizard-show.

What I condemn you for is that you do not offer solutions.
'Raise the point buy' is NOT a solution. It is a band-aid at best. You yourself said as much!

So stop calling people liars and reread your own posts maybe.
It's a patch (band-aid) that tends to work. It tends to work for me. It tends to work in the math. Changing your ability score generation is an option and a step towards adjusting the disparity. As noted before (rehashing those age-old help-no-one things we all know) the game isn't amazingly balanced out of the box (it's pretty badly balanced out of the box actually). I showed how something can be used to help restore this balance. Something that impacts the SAD classes minimally and greatly boosts the MAD classes. No one fix will solve everyone's problems, and if you think I should be offering such, then you need to just lower your expectations.

And screw your condemnation my good sir. I said what tends to fix it for my group; and it didn't involve banning a lot of spells or changing a lot of classes; or intentionally putting more or less combats into the game regardless of what it calls for for the story; or calling for everyone to intentionally hold back and play blaster wizard instead of summon big monster wizard or Evard's hentai specialist wizard; or purposely placing situations in the game to reward or punish characters because of their mechanical limitations. Screw that I say.

Finally, I re-read all my posts and Calimehter's and linked to them in THIS POST RIGHT HERE (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7988072&postcount=337).


Anyway, the point is: From someone who is obviously an intelligent person, who also has years of experience playing various games, RPGs and others, and can put his mind into eloquent words I expect more then the rehashing of decade-old arguments.

If you can not contribute to solving the problem at hand, you are wasting your potential. And that is just sad.

With your (proven) undertanding of the mechanical aspects of certain classes, I would expect you to also provide ideas and suggestions how to fix the glaring problems. Beyond a 'raise stat buy' which doesn't even work!

I refuse to believe that you do not have better ideas then that. You are holding back on us! You could have ideas and insights that might help people on these very boards to fix our games! And you are not sharing! Stop that!

You sit on your hoard of experience and ideas like a dragon. You don't share. So I am going to charge at you lance down untill you spill your guts.

Maybe I'm charging a windmill.

But sometimes, even windmills need charging.

Props for the windmill reference. :smallsmile:
Also, thanks for the kind words. I do appreciate them despite everything that has been said in our previous posts. :smallsmile:

Also, if you're wondering why I've skipped to this part of your post, it's because I'm getting pressured by my sister and brother to play some Legend of Zelda: The Four Swords with them, so I'm sort of trying to keep the post brief (I'm such a failure :smalltongue:).

Ultimate it comes down to this. I answered a thread that was about ability score generation. I presented my experiences based on the subject of ability scores; and I provided math to show I wasn't talking out of my rear-end. :smalltongue:

If the subject had been "Combat & Social encounters: How to make CHA worth something", or "Casters: How to make them play nice with melee" as you suggest, then I would likely have approached it from that point. If you want an anecdotal guidebook; I've got nothing better to do.

You could just ask the silly dragon instead of lancing y'know. :smalltongue:
I'll see if I can't throw together that guidebook later tonight. I'm not sure how much anyone will consider it to be worth, but if you think it will help, then I'll give it a try.

Also...that Balloon joke is hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

[Brainstomper]

OK kids.. This post has gone on and on to the point of being the equivalent as picking at a scab to see if it will still bleed. A vast many number of posters have given their input on point buys, character optimization and real world vs. fantasy. SO WHAT! We are talking about a game. A game I love and have played for nearly 30 years. I remember when the Bard was a broken power gamer class. But what concerns me is how we as a role-playing community allow ourselves to repeatedly get pulled in such vehement pedantic arguments over roll playing details. This post in particular has come down to “I know I’m right and I’m willing to research and make up data all day to prove I’m right.” I’m not taking any ones side although I firmly support one side. I’m saying that it is this kind of behavior in a public place that still leads to the negative portrayal of gamers. Seriously this entire thread could have been boiled down to “OK we disagree, but your player/dm are a good fit, so you have fun at your table and I’ll have fun at mine.” I would pay money for Calimehter and Ashiel to DM and play in each other’s games. And I would sell the rights to AFV. Separate yourself and your identity from a game. It doesn’t matter. Think instead to how your actions, even on a forum like this, affect your life outside of gaming. Alpha male gamers that are willing to send 12-13 pages of forum space because they are unwilling to separate their personal pride from someone suggesting that they might do something different. How does that reflect on you, your gaming group and how you represent gamers as a whole to the public? The amount of education you have, your age, marital status and gender are meaningless. If you are willing to put yourself and others through this level of argument and interpersonal spite over a matter of opinion on a game mechanic, what are you like IRL? Believe it matters. I have played D&D with Dave Arnson before he died at the Source in St. Paul. The man co-created D&D for those of you too young to remember. Every night he GM ‘d some kid that found out who he was would come over and start with “Mr. GOD to Gamers let me tell you about my 134 level half human half mind flayer mage fighter cleric of Loki, anti paladin assassin and how he killed Thor in one round.” And Dave would say “NO. Tell me a story about your character.” Most of them had none. Dave’s core group had been gaming bi-monthly or monthly for 12 years and the highest level character was around 7th level because he felt the story and problem solving took precenance over hack and slash. There was combat but it was more on an organic scale. It s too complex to get into now anyway. All the elements make the game, but Dave said it was the social interaction and growth as people, not pieces of paper that he felt was the soul of the game. I’ve had my core gaming group for about 15 years. We started off as gaming friends, but I have been in weddings with them, seen their kids born etc and etc... The game brought us together but it made us more than that. We are lifelong friends and we owe to D&D and Battletech 1st Ed. We don’t always agree but we compromise and adapt to make the gaming experience better for all of us. So please boys and girls put away your toys act your age or older, let things go because it’s never personal even when it’s meant to be and go on with your lives. Let this thread die, you don’t need the last word. And try to let the game be about fun and friends rather than ego and matagaming, munchkin twinks.

Owen Brainstomper

[Ashiel]

Well said Brainstomper; well said.

It must have been magnificent to have played with Dave Arneson. You have experienced something many of us could only dream of; and you carry honor very well. :smallsmile:

[Brainstomper]

Then remove the posters I dont respect from your signature.

Owen Brainstomper

[Ashiel]

Then remove the posters I dont respect from your signature.

Owen Brainstomper

As you wish. :smallsmile:

[Gametime]

OK kids.. This post has gone on and on to the point of being the equivalent as picking at a scab to see if it will still bleed. A vast many number of posters have given their input on point buys, character optimization and real world vs. fantasy. SO WHAT! We are talking about a game. A game I love and have played for nearly 30 years. I remember when the Bard was a broken power gamer class. But what concerns me is how we as a role-playing community allow ourselves to repeatedly get pulled in such vehement pedantic arguments over roll playing details. This post in particular has come down to “I know I’m right and I’m willing to research and make up data all day to prove I’m right.” I’m not taking any ones side although I firmly support one side. I’m saying that it is this kind of behavior in a public place that still leads to the negative portrayal of gamers. Seriously this entire thread could have been boiled down to “OK we disagree, but your player/dm are a good fit, so you have fun at your table and I’ll have fun at mine.” I would pay money for Calimehter and Ashiel to DM and play in each other’s games. And I would sell the rights to AFV. Separate yourself and your identity from a game. It doesn’t matter. Think instead to how your actions, even on a forum like this, affect your life outside of gaming. Alpha male gamers that are willing to send 12-13 pages of forum space because they are unwilling to separate their personal pride from someone suggesting that they might do something different. How does that reflect on you, your gaming group and how you represent gamers as a whole to the public? The amount of education you have, your age, marital status and gender are meaningless. If you are willing to put yourself and others through this level of argument and interpersonal spite over a matter of opinion on a game mechanic, what are you like IRL? Believe it matters. I have played D&D with Dave Arnson before he died at the Source in St. Paul. The man co-created D&D for those of you too young to remember. Every night he GM ‘d some kid that found out who he was would come over and start with “Mr. GOD to Gamers let me tell you about my 134 level half human half mind flayer mage fighter cleric of Loki, anti paladin assassin and how he killed Thor in one round.” And Dave would say “NO. Tell me a story about your character.” Most of them had none. Dave’s core group had been gaming bi-monthly or monthly for 12 years and the highest level character was around 7th level because he felt the story and problem solving took precenance over hack and slash. There was combat but it was more on an organic scale. It s too complex to get into now anyway. All the elements make the game, but Dave said it was the social interaction and growth as people, not pieces of paper that he felt was the soul of the game. I’ve had my core gaming group for about 15 years. We started off as gaming friends, but I have been in weddings with them, seen their kids born etc and etc... The game brought us together but it made us more than that. We are lifelong friends and we owe to D&D and Battletech 1st Ed. We don’t always agree but we compromise and adapt to make the gaming experience better for all of us. So please boys and girls put away your toys act your age or older, let things go because it’s never personal even when it’s meant to be and go on with your lives. Let this thread die, you don’t need the last word. And try to let the game be about fun and friends rather than ego and matagaming, munchkin twinks.

Owen Brainstomper

I'm not sure presenting gamers as condescending problem-solvers, descending from the heavens to fix the problems of the ignorant masses, is really any better than presenting them as a group of people passionate about what they do and willing to defend what they see as the truth from people who would rather pander to half-false compromise.

Nor it is to our benefit for the world to place us in a false dichotomy of people who care about game mechanics and people who care about stories, especially when neither group was represented in this discussion except as fictional strawmen being dragged in to prove a point.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not sure presenting gamers as condescending problem-solvers, descending from the heavens to fix the problems of the ignorant masses

I don't think anyone seriously advocated this position, ever. At most, it arose as a straw man. That said, some solutions are better than others. Everyone who simply said "Just use rule 0" is the equivalent of people who come into an optimization thread and say "Just make Pun pun".

Yes, that can fix it. But it's a sledgehammer to kill a gnat, and it's hardly a good solution. Discussing if a higher or lower point buy is preferable is a good topic, and one that need not rely on rule 0.


Nor it is to our benefit for the world to place us in a false dichotomy of people who care about game mechanics and people who care about stories, especially when neither group was represented in this discussion except as fictional strawmen being dragged in to prove a point.

Right. All of you claiming that a desire for roleplay is all you need...guess what, roleplaying doesn't fix balance. You even get powergaming in freeform games that are...very distant from hack and slash.

Likewise, a diverse game does not remove the MAD problem. You can make a pretty SAD wizard or sorc that will do awesome in combat and social settings. This wiz/sorc will be pretty good at it regardless of point buy. Your monk or pally will need a pretty good point buy to cover both. Str is pretty useless in social settings, but mad chars typically need it for melee. Int or Cha are great social stats, and casters are gonna pick those up anyway.

[Gametime]

I don't think anyone seriously advocated this position, ever. At most, it arose as a straw man. That said, some solutions are better than others. Everyone who simply said "Just use rule 0" is the equivalent of people who come into an optimization thread and say "Just make Pun pun".

Yes, that can fix it. But it's a sledgehammer to kill a gnat, and it's hardly a good solution. Discussing if a higher or lower point buy is preferable is a good topic, and one that need not rely on rule 0.



I was actually referring to Brainstomper's post, which (while well-intentioned and advocating a position with which I broadly agree) came across as unnecessarily condescending, including talking down to the people involved in the thread as though we are children and reducing our discussion to absurd parodies of the actual points that were made.

Coming into a thread and saying "Stop arguing about this, stupid power gamers!" is hardly good for the gamer PR he's supposedly interested in, after all.

I'm actually a big fan of people helping each other out on message boards, and I've rarely encountered condescension from people talking about mechanics. It does happen, and that's terrible (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle643yzv8u?from=Main.AndThatsTerrible). But much more often, condescension comes from people who seem to think any discussion of mechanics is a complete waste of time and the people engaging in such are one-minded idiots.

[Gnaeus]

I agree with Gametime.



OK kids.. This post has gone on and on to the point of being the equivalent as picking at a scab to see if it will still bleed. A vast many number of posters have given their input on point buys, character optimization and real world vs. fantasy. SO WHAT! We are talking about a game. A game I love and have played for nearly 30 years. I remember when the Bard was a broken power gamer class.

I think a lot of people here have been playing since 1st ed. I have. It doesn't really mean anything as far as how authoritative one's opinion is.


But what concerns me is how we as a role-playing community allow ourselves to repeatedly get pulled in such vehement pedantic arguments over roll playing details. This post in particular has come down to “I know I’m right and I’m willing to research and make up data all day to prove I’m right.” I’m not taking any ones side although I firmly support one side. I’m saying that it is this kind of behavior in a public place that still leads to the negative portrayal of gamers.

What? Like some anti-gamer mafia is going to come to a gaming site and try to post this as if anyone not interested in D&D would read it? Fans argue about their fandoms. I don't care if they are gamers or literary fans or political junkies or sports fans. No one else cares.



Believe it matters. I have played D&D with Dave Arnson before he died at the Source in St. Paul. The man co-created D&D for those of you too young to remember.

Thats very impressive. I never lived near St. Paul so I never met Dave Arnson. I have lived mostly in Texas and Atlanta, so I have met Steve Jackson and several of the White Wolf developers. Unless they assumed their alternate forms while I was away, they were distinctly human. As a group, I found them intelligent and generally well educated, but not uniquely qualified to tell anyone else what made a good game. Some of them are opinionated jerks. Gary Gygax certainly made public statements on gaming that ranged from the incredibly useful to the extremely stupid.



Every night he GM ‘d some kid that found out who he was would come over and start with “Mr. GOD to Gamers let me tell you about my 134 level half human half mind flayer mage fighter cleric of Loki, anti paladin assassin and how he killed Thor in one round.” And Dave would say “NO. Tell me a story about your character.” Most of them had none. Dave’s core group had been gaming bi-monthly or monthly for 12 years and the highest level character was around 7th level because he felt the story and problem solving took precenance over hack and slash.

Yeah, I have had that conversation too. Now imagine it continues like this...
Dave: “NO. Tell me a story about your character.”
Gamer: "Well I had this monk once, he was [insert moving backstory describing a wonderful 3 dimensional character with meaningful goals and dreams]"
Dave: "Thats great! Then what happened?"
Gamer: "Not much. He got eaten by wolves on his first day outside town. Turns out low point buy monks can't fight very well."
Dave:........

You see, the mechanics help to forge the story...


All the elements make the game, but Dave said it was the social interaction and growth as people, not pieces of paper that he felt was the soul of the game. I’ve had my core gaming group for about 15 years. We started off as gaming friends, but I have been in weddings with them, seen their kids born etc and etc... The game brought us together but it made us more than that. We are lifelong friends and we owe to D&D and Battletech 1st Ed. We don’t always agree but we compromise and adapt to make the gaming experience better for all of us. So please boys and girls put away your toys act your age or older, let things go because it’s never personal even when it’s meant to be and go on with your lives. Let this thread die, you don’t need the last word. And try to let the game be about fun and friends rather than ego and matagaming, munchkin twinks.

Yes, Yes. I suspect that most of us (who are old enough) have lifelong gaming friends. I highly doubt that my relationships with them will be in any way altered by this forum.

[Brainstomper]

Let it go. Seriously. Let it go. If you don't like my post PM me. Don't turn it into another poster war about who said what and how. It my opinion. Disagree with it. Go outside and play. The so called anti gaming mafia is alive in the form other social politcal and religious movements that still to this day view rolplying as evil and devil worship. How you act on the forums often reflect how you act IRL and people most definately myself included, should look long and hard in an objective, not reactive manner, on tone, motive and objective behind what and how they post. It will make us all better people. For some reading this post and my previous post agree, some don't and some don't care. It doesn't bother me at all. All I was trying to do is have people step back and take a look at them selves and how they present thier postions. And for the record IRL people generally don't like. I'm bit off. I'm ok with that.

[Tyndmyr]

Let it go. Seriously. Let it go. If you don't like my post PM me. Don't turn it into another poster war about who said what and how.

Why do you feel it's fit for you to disagree with others publicly, but ask that they disagree with you in private?


It my opinion. Disagree with it. Go outside and play.

The "go outside and play" is somewhere between off-topic and insulting. At any rate, you're certainly not addressing the issue.


The so called anti gaming mafia is alive in the form other social politcal and religious movements that still to this day view rolplying as evil and devil worship.

Yeah, lets not go there. Real world religious/political topics are generally verboten, and in any case, terribly off topic. Lets steer the topic back toward point buys, shall we?


How you act on the forums often reflect how you act IRL and people most definately myself included, should look long and hard in an objective, not reactive manner, on tone, motive and objective behind what and how they post. It will make us all better people. For some reading this post and my previous post agree, some don't and some don't care. It doesn't bother me at all. All I was trying to do is have people step back and take a look at them selves and how they present thier postions. And for the record IRL people generally don't like. I'm bit off. I'm ok with that.

You didn't actually defend your own position though. You just stated your opinion. Saying "just my opinion" or "Im just saying" doesn't support anything. Ironically, some of the above is worded amusingly badly.

If you have a position on point-buys, please, state it, and justify it. We can have a conversation about the details. If you are not interested in the topic, please avoid insulting all of those who are.

[Gnaeus]

Go outside and play.

But I'm a gamer because I don't like playing outside. The daystar burns...


The so called anti gaming mafia is alive in the form other social politcal and religious movements that still to this day view rolplying as evil and devil worship.

I don't think this 12 page discussion would fit well into a pamphlet. I doubt I could get my wife to read it, let alone strangers that I was trying to persuade regarding the evils of roleplaying. It isn't really that exciting. I'm pretty sure that you could cut and paste passages from the BoVD that would be way more on point than a thread involving point buy disputes :-).

[Ashiel]

So please boys and girls put away your toys act your age or older, let things go because it’s never personal even when it’s meant to be and go on with your lives. Let this thread die, you don’t need the last word. And try to let the game be about fun and friends rather than ego and matagaming, munchkin twinks.

Emphasis mine.

At first, when I read your post Brainstomper, I was overwhelmed with a sense of awe. It was a bit foolish of me, and I lost my head. My personal opinion that it would have been so amazing to meet Gygax and Anerson before they died clouded my opinion of the rest of your post. Last night after re-reading it, that awe-based illusion faded away.

Thinking about it further, I realized you still didn't say anything that contributed to the topic; merely that it was bad for people to argue and that we have better things to do. Well, that's nice. I can respect that. Other people have commented on the condescending nature of portions of your post, so I won't, but I will say the last line in your post has repeatedly made me question your wisdom. Also, while I appreciate your 30 years of gaming, I tend to avoid throwing around my gaming years for the same reason I tend to avoid throwing around my living years: being older or around longer doesn't mean the young'uns aren't right. :smalltongue:

I will leave Calimehter out of my signature though.


I don't think this 12 page discussion would fit well into a pamphlet. I doubt I could get my wife to read it, let alone strangers that I was trying to persuade regarding the evils of roleplaying. It isn't really that exciting. I'm pretty sure that you could cut and paste passages from the BoVD that would be way more on point than a thread involving point buy disputes :-).

This made me laugh. :smallbiggrin:

[Gametime]

Let it go. Seriously. Let it go. If you don't like my post PM me. Don't turn it into another poster war about who said what and how. It my opinion. Disagree with it. Go outside and play. The so called anti gaming mafia is alive in the form other social politcal and religious movements that still to this day view rolplying as evil and devil worship. How you act on the forums often reflect how you act IRL and people most definately myself included, should look long and hard in an objective, not reactive manner, on tone, motive and objective behind what and how they post. It will make us all better people. For some reading this post and my previous post agree, some don't and some don't care. It doesn't bother me at all. All I was trying to do is have people step back and take a look at them selves and how they present thier postions. And for the record IRL people generally don't like. I'm bit off. I'm ok with that.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but your opinion can't really be "Other people shouldn't express their opinions." I doubt that's the message you're actually trying to put across, but that's what it seems like.

I think, and I don't want to trivialize you here or anything, that your opinion is formed by a holistic view of this discussion. It's understandable - this thread has grown into a pretty ugly beast. A lot of people have said some very rude things. I don't blame you for wanting to stop the flames (which, thankfully, seem to have receded more or less on their own).

But looking at the thread as a whole doesn't give a lot of important details. Details about how this conversation developed, how it evolved, what people said in isolation and what they said in reaction. A lot of things that seem terribly out of place make a lot more sense in context, recognizing that they were responding to certain statements and hadn't yet seen statements to come.

This discussion didn't grow out of a vacuum. When people say things, in a public area, that you find to be untrue, you have two choices. You can shrug, leave it alone for fear of starting an unnecessary fight, and enjoy the game you know you love. That's fine, and I don't think anyone would condemn you for it.

On the other hand, some people think that as long as this forum is public, we should try to make it truth-preserving. Not everyone is as educated as everyone else about D&D, and while opinions are always subjective, facts aren't. Leaving falsehoods lying around isn't particularly helpful to anyone. I think it's admirable, that some people want to make sure other players of the game they love are knowledgeable about it.

I remember a quote (about political parties, which shall be bleeped for the sake of not starting THAT discussion) that seems pertinent. Some people love [Dungeons & Dragons] like a child loves its mother: fully, wholly, and without question. Other people love [Dungeons & Dragons] like one spouse loves another: passionately, but with acknowledgement of his or her failures and shortcomings.

There is little to be gained from pretending D&D is perfect. There is no reason we can't all love the game, and love playing it, and still realize where it needs patching up.

If someone says "I love to play monks!" then no one has any right to tell them otherwise. They can't decide what you enjoy, and it isn't their place to tell you you're "wrong" to enjoy it. But, and this is an important distinction, if someone insists that "Monks are overpowered!" or something to that effect, we have left the realm of protected opinions. We are now in the realm of substantiated fact, and it should not be a surprise to anyone supporting a fact in a public forum that it may be contested.

If I believe it is a falsehood that monks are overpowered, I have the aforementioned two options. I could let it go, and let the other poster enjoy his misinformed view. It is unlikely to detract from his enjoyment of the game, and certainly won't detract from mine.

Or I could decide that knowledge is a good. I could respectfully, politely, let him know that I think he is wrong, and why I think he is wrong. If I have the time, I would probably be well-served by explicitly noting that this shouldn't impact his enjoyment of monks, if they work out in his group.

You are welcome to contest my views, and my arguments. You are welcome to think, and to say, that I should not post at all on this issue. You will, no doubt, excuse me if I respond not with acquiescence but with rebuttal.

[Caphi]

snip


I've been trying to keep myself out of this thread, but I have to say I think you're now my hero for the day.

[Ashiel]

I've been trying to keep myself out of this thread, but I have to say I think you're now my hero for the day.

Agreed. :smallsmile:

[ScionoftheVoid]

I've been able to keep myself out of this thread, but I have to say I think you're now my hero for the day.

Not quite as idolising but I do agree with Gametime.

I stand by my earlier support for high point-buy, both because it enables more unusual concepts to be more than dead weight and because of the "I don't want to play someone not cut out to be an adventurer who dies because of it" thing. PCs are stated to be the exception and I like it that way. I like gestalt for these same reasons. My liking high PB also has the advantage of being factually more balancing (see: diminishing returns, just about everything Ashiel has written).

[Calimehter]

Real life finally released me from its clutches for a bit. :smallamused: There's loads I could say with this new-found free time, I guess, but really this:


Originally Posted by Brainstomper
Let this thread die, you don’t need the last word.

seems good enough for me, personally, at this point for this particular topic. My energy level for it is all taxed out.

I'd feel bad if I failed to make reference to this, though:


Originally Posted by Tyndmyr
Everyone who simply said "Just use rule 0" is the equivalent of people who come into an optimization thread and say "Just make Pun pun".

since it really deserves a +1 shout-out. Its a simple enough quote, and maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I think it really captures in a nutshell IMO the dangers of oversimplifying one's analysis of other people's approach to the game. :smallcool: As Tyndmyr and others have noted, this doesn't mean there isn't room for discussions to occur and numbers to be compared and even conclusions to be drawn . . . just that its awfully easy to write off other people's game experiences as "deviant extremism" and one's own experiences as "the happy norm", and its a sneaky sort of trap that can start subtly and is easy to fall into without even realizing what has happened until it is too late.

[Ashiel]

The "happy norm" you speak of is explained in the DMG; where it discussed the average expectancies of things like encounters. The DMG has a wonderful treasure trove of information on running games, setting the slyle and feel of your games (Deep immersion, kick in, humor, etc), building worlds and all sorts of things. All people will have games that deviate from these basics at least a little, because not every adventure will sport X CR Y encounters or equivalents for the story and people at hand.

All anyone can debate is facts, and occasionally logic. Opinion is something that isn't easily - or cleanly - debated. Therefor we must attempt to stick to facts and occasionally logical problems. This is why I generally attempt to keep my games out of debates unless I'm drawing attention to a particular piece of that game that shows mechanical evidence for what I'm saying; and only as far as it relates to the rules.

Example 1: Person A says that having a higher modifier of +X in Y statistic doesn't noticeably affect the limits of the game but improves the average of the game; then notes that the existing CR equivalents in the system are perfectly capable of challenging the stronger SAD classes, and thus can still challenge the stronger MAD classes with higher Y statistics. Person A then explains an example where a high score party is heavily challenged by the expected challenge ratings, while the MAD classes were much closer or equal to the SAD classes in terms of effectiveness.

Example 2: Person B says that it is of his opinion that having higher than average ability scores makes characters overpowered, but cannot or does not explain how or why. Person B then explains this is how he has always seen it, or that he believes them to be overpowered, but gives neither proof nor even a solid baseline to determine what "over-powered" is.

Example 3: Person C says that being specialized as a SAD class in effects that your class is based is neither a help nor hindrance. She gives as an example, that goes on to say that the higher modifiers for the SAD class doesn't matter because they don't get to make use of those modifiers in her game. A higher attack modifier doesn't help as much because it's not rolled as often. A higher diplomacy doesn't help as much because it's not rolled as often. Fireball doesn't help much because there are rarely any groups of weak enemies.

Example 4: Person D says that having high ability scores is bad role-playing. He then provides nothing suggesting this as evidence, and demands person A, B, and C adhere to his opinion and stop trying to argue it with facts or anecdotes because he isn't listening.

The poster in Example 1 is giving a factual post based on the mechanics shared by everyone, and the default assumptions for the game as expressed in the core rules that are assumed to be the default. Poster A provides mathematical evidence; followed by anecdotal examples of this evidence in an actual game. Poster A notes that these are based on the default assumptions.

The poster in Example 2 is giving an entirely opinion based post, and thus is debating nothing. Merely stating an opinion that, while interesting, is unfounded; nor does he say what overpowered/unbalanced means to him. Poster B says

The poster in Example 3 is giving an opinion post, and attempting to prove it with anecdotal evidence which deviates from the default assumption. In poster C's game power of classes vary greatly because their primary focuses don't come up as often as is expected in the default rules. Poster C expresses these are the default assumptions.

The poster in Example 4 is giving an opinion post and declaring it fact. He dismisses everything the previous posters have said, regardless of fact or anecdotes, and declares everyone wrong because they disagree with him. Poster D refuses to provide evidence to his claims, and demands others stop acting inappropriately by showing evidence to the contrary.



Merely something worth everyone considering.

[Calimehter]

The "happy norm" is indeed described in the DMG as the "Something in-between" style, but it describes a range of gaming styles between the two extremes.

As an example, I do not consider my style of GM'ing to be outside this norm (and still don't, based off of the wording of the DMG and my experiences in groups other than one in which I currently GM) just because the 10% differences in combat skills between two characters are offset (or at least close to offset) by the 10% differences in non-combat skills. We still roll lots of dice, and combat skills still matter. However, I think lots of folks might classify me as falling squarely under your Example 3 if I use examples based off of my experiences, just as I might classify those same folks who favor those differences in combat skills as falling under it too, since their game could be described as too close to "Kick in the Door" style to be considered in the "happy norm" if combat skills are all that matter in a mechanics discussion.

Your examples are something worth considering before any RPG-mechanics post. :smallsmile: Seperating fact from opinion is important.

I am really only adding that I think Tyndmyr's cautionary comment about how easy it is to overestimate someone else's deviance from "the norm" is something to keep in mind, too, before quickly classifying someone under one of those 4 categories. I know from recent experience how easy it is to fall into that trap :smallwink: without even realizing it right away, and it just ends up muddying the waters in the end.

[Ashiel]

The "happy norm" is indeed described in the DMG as the "Something in-between" style, but it describes a range of gaming styles between the two extremes.

As an example, I do not consider my style of GM'ing to be outside this norm (and still don't, based off of the wording of the DMG and my experiences in groups other than one in which I currently GM) just because the 10% differences in combat skills between two characters are offset (or at least close to offset) by the 10% differences in non-combat skills. We still roll lots of dice, and combat skills still matter. However, I think lots of folks might classify me as falling squarely under your Example 3 if I use examples based off of my experiences, just as I might classify those same folks who favor those differences in combat skills as falling under it too, since their game could be described as too close to "Kick in the Door" style to be considered in the "happy norm" if combat skills are all that matter in a mechanics discussion.

Your examples are something worth considering before any RPG-mechanics post. :smallsmile: Seperating fact from opinion is important.

I am really only adding that I think Tyndmyr's cautionary comment about how easy it is to overestimate someone else's deviance from "the norm" is something to keep in mind, too, before quickly classifying someone under one of those 4 categories. I know from recent experience how easy it is to fall into that trap :smallwink: without even realizing it right away, and it just ends up muddying the waters in the end.

Very true, very true.

On the thread subject; it's worth noting that I wasn't trying to suggest social skills were useless or anything; or that your games were "wrongbadfun" or something. :smalltongue:

Just that a character shouldn't have to make a choice between being borderline useless, especially in their primary role (such as holy warrior for the paladin), and being able to make use of their class features or skills.

D&D is both a game and it is a role-playing game. I feel the mechanics are there to help facilitate the role-playing, not to punish it. Low-PB mechanics punish. Higher generation (point buy or higher rolling or other methods) facilitate different roles and concepts better mechanically, and thus reward everyone involved. Ultimately D&D is mechanics because you can role-play without those mechanics, or even without dice (you could use coins or LARP for example); and in the end it's all about having fun.