PDA

View Full Version : Why do DMs choose low point-buy?



Pages : [1] 2

Godskook
2010-02-21, 01:25 AM
I'm asking cause I'm curious, and also because of a couple of assumptions:
1.low point-buy favors casters. You can get an 18 in your primary casting stat, and 10s in both Dex and Con on a mere 20 point-buy, which is a playable caster, but I cringe at making a melee build with so few points.

2.It encourages non-organic stats in the context of the classes. At 25 point-buy, every wizard is going to be socially inept and weak and every barbarian is going to be dumb as $%*#. Where-as in 40 point-buy, you might see a few strong wizards, a few flexible ones, and a few charismatic ones as well.

3.Aren't adventurers supposed to be 'above average'? Admittedly, 17 point-buy is, strictly speaking, average, but is 30 point-buy far enough away to yield that "I'm better than a common man" feel?

JaronK
2010-02-21, 01:30 AM
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. As such, DMs often find that the stories they want to tell require a lower power level than the game mechanically creates, and they try to do this with lower point buys.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work. A 24 point buy Wizard is still rediculous, and at low point buys the Druid's animal companion makes the Fighter look like a chump. It's far better to use weaker classes and a standard (or even above standard) point buy than to restrict point buy but allow the strongest classes.

JaronK

Splendor
2010-02-21, 01:34 AM
Most DMs give out magical items that are too powerful or DMs give out too many magical items.

14 Str + 4 magical stat bonus + "+3 weapon" = +7 hit
18 Str + no magical bonus + "+1 weapon" = +5 to hit

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.

JaronK
2010-02-21, 01:37 AM
Interestingly, most DMs I know low ball the magic items. Might be interesting to do a survey and found out what's more common.

JaronK

Splendor
2010-02-21, 01:44 AM
Usually in our groups games you can't buy any magical items. People arn't sitting around making them.


“The gold piece limit (see Table 5–2) is an indicator of the price of the most expensive item available in that community. Nothing that costs more than a community’s gp limit is available for purchase in that community. Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical.” – DMG pg 137

So if playing by the rules, and while in a large cities you can pretty much buy almost any item in the book. And I bet you alot of people play that way, just look at most of the posts on here for characters.

Calimehter
2010-02-21, 01:51 AM
I run 25 point buy E6 right now, with a couple house rules that also make HP a bit more valuable than normal. I'll go in reverse order here:

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.

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

Note I'm not really saying that your points are not legit, just that I feel that they are not "game breakers", since they are not breaking my game! :smallbiggrin:

Demons_eye
2010-02-21, 01:52 AM
So if playing by the rules lost me there.


As a DM I dont use low point buy for that reason. Your the HERO! You go out kill the dragon and charm the ladies.

edit:





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.




When I get more points to spend I do put more in charisma or wisdom but only after getting that 16 in strength and constitution or that 16 intelligence 16 dexterity. One hit point a level matter and you would be surprised to find out how many people live, or could have live, by one hit point.

Dr Bwaa
2010-02-21, 02:32 AM
As a DM I dont use low point buy for that reason. You're the HERO! You go out kill the dragon and charm the ladies.

:smallbiggrin:

I like games like this. Frankly, I tend to like high-point-buy games because the PCs are supposed to be special. Also, it lets me feel better about not helping them out very much, and it lets me do silly things like start a campaign where everyone has -500 (that's a negative sign) experience and is a level 1 commoner. The high stats allow you to survive in that situation, because when that's really the only difference between you and everyone else, it's a BIG DEAL. Stats become much less important as the magic and experience levels go up (as has been pointed out), so I like giving characters high stats to make even low-level stuff feel gritty (as in Difficult and Dangerous), but still Heroic.

That said, low point-buys can be fun, too, but only if you have good players--one or two subpar stats can make for a great roleplaying opportunity, but if the players won't make use of it, I think it's generally not worth it for whatever benefit you were hoping to gain from making the characters weaker.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-21, 02:51 AM
I personally dislike low pointbuys or pointbuys in general. I usually do 4d6 best of three re-roll ones and you get one re-roll for your stats. There are other methods on this forum that would probably work too but I don't like pointbuy because it's still really easy to make a good caster from low pointbuy but melee gets screwed. Especially my favorite class, Paladins.

Superglucose
2010-02-21, 02:55 AM
They think that stats = power, but it's really not that true. All characters should be randomly generated from a pool of three-ish sets of stats. Like you said, a 20 point buy is enough for a Wizard (hell, a 16 point buy is enough for a wizard, beyond the 18 int who cares?) but a 20 point buy will absolutley murder a fighter. That means that class = power, so what should really be happening is the tiered point buy suggested in the tier list.

Runestar
2010-02-21, 03:13 AM
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.

It depends. A player might wish to invest some points in int, but only after his physical stats are settled. Too few stat points, and he may just think "screw it, the benefits don't outweigh the costs", forgo improved trip, and focus on a 2-handed weapon fighter with good str, decent dex/con and dumps his mental stats.

Skill points are nice to have and all, but a fighter's class skill list isn't really that great.

To argue that a true "roleplayer" is going to boost his int regardless of the opportunity cost if it fits his backstory is not without merit, but it also means penalizing him unnecessarily.

At least for me, int is a secondary stat at best, I would consider boosting it only after my key stats are taken care of and raised to a comfortable level.

So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. You give fewer stat points because you assume people won't "roleplay" and pump only their core stats. And as it turns out, people end up doing exactly this because they have no points left for int at the end of the day. :smallyuk:

Chaelos
2010-02-21, 03:22 AM
As a DM I dont use low point buy for that reason. Your the HERO! You go out kill the dragon and charm the ladies.

+1

Every DM I've ever played with has thought this way. As an occasional DM, I also think this way. D&D is, at its core, a superhero game, after all, no matter how much it likes to pretend otherwise.

As for magic items, usually we assume you can find most anything you want in a big city, and relatively little in a town or village. Me, personally, I like to make people go on a sidequest for more interesting, rare (read: expensive) magic items, but not always. Usually, I make some sort of die roll to see if there's a certain magic item available, and go from there, but no DM I've ever played with hands out magic items like candy.

Tavar
2010-02-21, 03:23 AM
I prefer high point buys, largely because I prefer gestalt games, and I find that such games benefit from higher stat totals because you can use less synergistic combinations, stat wise, and still come out alright.

Also, I find that in Low Point buy games, people tend to be more conservative in their character choice; more casters or non-stat dependent classes(Warlocks, Dragonfire Adepts). If normal melee classes are used, then they tend to be very focused; for melee, forgoing most interesting feat chains so that they can instead survive. And there is logic to this; I've seen characters who aren't built like this die surprisingly quickly.

Also, I tend to dislike rolling for stats.

Godskook
2010-02-21, 03:58 AM
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.

Munchkins won't ever stop, but regular players will. For instance, I sacrificed a base 18 on my current character to shore up some of his offstats. As a wizard/rogue, I had to have a high int, first and fore most, and at a lower point-buy, I couldn't have even built him, and would've opted for a pure conjurer or rogue instead.


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.

32 point-buy allows 2 18 scores, and is pretty common. I've even seen 40something a few times.

absolmorph
2010-02-21, 04:30 AM
Frankly, I don't understand why people feel the need to make the players weaker. If you want to give them a challenge, make the enemies tougher!
Hell, I gave my players 5d6b3 for stats, and they got lucky in the first battle and were almost taken out in the second (a stroke of luck saved 'em). I plan on eventually giving them gestalt (they'll have to do a series of quests for each of 'em, but it'll happen) because they're the heroes! As Demons_eye said, "You go out, kill the dragon and charm the ladies." We don't want no sissy heroes, we want heroes that can take down any threat to the world that gets thrown at 'em.
Cthulhu got freed and is rampaging around? They'll take care of it by dinner.
A being from the Far Realms got pissed at someone on the Material Plane? Give 'em a couple days.
They're supposed to kick ass, and not feel the need to take names because they're AWESOME. Low point-buy subtracts from that feeling.

grautry
2010-02-21, 04:41 AM
1.low point-buy favors casters. You can get an 18 in your primary casting stat, and 10s in both Dex and Con on a mere 20 point-buy, which is a playable caster, but I cringe at making a melee build with so few points.

Also, it works in the reverse. That is, at a very high end PB a Wizard won't be necessarily all that more powerful than the low PB Wizard.

The difference between a 20 PB and a 40 PB Wizard will be noticeable... but not really all that huge. Both will still be able to break the game with their hands behind their backs if they really want to, the 40 PB Wiz will only be somewhat more flexible in their choice of flavours of game-breaking.

The difference between a 20 PB and a 40 PB Fighter on the other hand will be fairly huge.

In other words, low PB doesn't really limit the already overpowered classes in any significant way and high PB doesn't really make the already overpowered classes that much more overpowered.

On the other hand low PB really limits the already weak classes and high PB makes the weak classes quite playable.

So yeah, it's generally a good idea to err on the side of high PB.

Harperfan7
2010-02-21, 05:24 AM
I think it helps to look at endgame stats.

It took me a long time to appreciate the elite array.

My first character ever had 18, 17, 17, 16, 16, 16.

Then I realized, with elite array, by 20th, you can have 30, 22, 20, 20, 16, 14 or whatever, before spells (righteous might, etc).

Attilargh
2010-02-21, 05:35 AM
I'm one of those weirdos who prefer low point-buy. I just can't see any heroism inherent in being the strongest or the toughest or the most brilliant person in the land. Seeing parties where everyone had at least one score of 18 stomps all over my suspension of disbelief, because if the rulebook is to be believed, these guys are the finest their species can produce, and I'm supposed to just accept they all met in a bar? I'm sorry, but this sounds like the opening to a really bad joke. It gets even worse if you start running into human (or elf or dwarf or halfling or...) opponents, because you're either so far above the peons that they don't pose a challenge or it turns out you aren't the strongest dude in the land after all and your DM just fooled you into thinking that by pointlessly inflating the numbers.

Besides, I happen to be quite fond of the "Everydude O'Farmer picks up a sword and saves the princess" cliché. It's not that impressive if E. O'Farmer can wrestle bears and crocodiles. You can keep your mechanically viable Doc Savages (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DocSavage). :smalltongue:

Kelb_Panthera
2010-02-21, 05:44 AM
I do a 30pt buy in my games, but I also made a house-rule that you can't have any one ability higher than 16 at the end of character creation, not counting the 1pt bump every four levels. I've found that this gets the points spread around more and results in characters closer to the power curve I think the designers expected.

Heliomance
2010-02-21, 06:05 AM
Is that including racial modifiers, Kelb?

Saph
2010-02-21, 06:44 AM
1.low point-buy favors casters. You can get an 18 in your primary casting stat, and 10s in both Dex and Con on a mere 20 point-buy, which is a playable caster, but I cringe at making a melee build with so few points.

This is illusionary. The less stats you have to pump, the stronger your class; relative point buy makes very little difference.


2.It encourages non-organic stats in the context of the classes. At 25 point-buy, every wizard is going to be socially inept and weak and every barbarian is going to be dumb as $%*#. Where-as in 40 point-buy, you might see a few strong wizards, a few flexible ones, and a few charismatic ones as well.

See above. The powergamers will still put 16-18s in Int, Dex, and Con for their wizards, and dump everything else. The non-powergamers will still create balanced characters no matter what they're starting with.

(FYI, my current Wizard in our Pathfinder game has a positive Charisma modifier, and we're using Pathfinder-standard 15 point buy. You don't need to give out ridiculous point buy totals to have variety.)


3.Aren't adventurers supposed to be 'above average'? Admittedly, 17 point-buy is, strictly speaking, average, but is 30 point-buy far enough away to yield that "I'm better than a common man" feel?

Having high stats doesn't make you special, it just means the numbers on your character sheet are bigger.

Now, as for the answer to the question:

The base 3e monsters were playtested against PCs with a 25 point buy, and all have the equivalent of about a 15 point buy themselves. If you power up the PCs, you have to power up the monsters. This levels off the playing field and makes things exactly the same - The only difference being that I, as the DM, can no longer use vanilla monsters out of the Monster Manual, and have to do a whole bunch of stat-crunching just to keep everything normal. Frankly, I've got better things to do with my time.

In addition, going for the "high stats = good" mentality leads into a rat race. Once having an 16 is normal, then to be special, you have to have an 18. Once having an 18 is normal, then to be special, you have to have 18 and other high scores as well. Next is two 18s, and so on, until you end up with players who aren't happy unless EVERY one of their scores is high.

The easiest way to deal with this is to cut it off before it starts. This is why I've always run 28 point buy for my campaigns.

Yora
2010-02-21, 07:26 AM
Default Why do DMs choose low point-buy?

Because it's fun.

Less recources require the players to make more plans and be more careful, and the characters do not automatically win every fight because they are the PCs.
Of course, it's not for every campaign or every group, but it's a viable form of making entertaining games.

Eldariel
2010-02-21, 07:33 AM
This is illusionary. The less stats you have to pump, the stronger your class; relative point buy makes very little difference.

I disagree. It depends entirely on how many stats your character ties abilities to. Of course all stats are somewhat useful to every character, but a class focusing on Wis and Con is going to be stronger than class using Str, Dex, Con & Int in low-PB simply because he can focus his assets.

This will result in relatively bland, but almost-as-powerful-as-higher-PB character, while the Str/Dex/Con/Int-type is gonna be lacking feat access & raw numbers on both offense & defense due to the low PB.

Amphetryon
2010-02-21, 07:36 AM
sustained brilliance from Saph
+1
I was going to post a long rant about escalating arms races and players' artificially created need to worship at the altar of the 18, then I realized that Saph had said everything I wanted to say, and had kept a civil tongue while doing so. Kudos!

Saph
2010-02-21, 07:45 AM
Of course all stats are somewhat useful to every character, but a class focusing on Wis and Con is going to be stronger than class using Str, Dex, Con & Int in low-PB simply because he can focus his assets.

He'll be stronger in high-PB as well. Now, you can compare high-PB/low-PB to three-stat/two-stat and crunch the numbers and maybe you'll be able to find an extra +1 or +2 in it somewhere, but frankly, it simply isn't important enough to worry about. How a character is built and played is vastly more significant, and if you just want to nerf the SAD classes, there are much, much more effective ways of doing it.

Noble Savant
2010-02-21, 07:48 AM
Wizards will always break the game, regardless of point buy. Unless you start with Pointbuy 4 or something like that. Then Warlocks will probably dominate. Don't focus on that aspect.

Personally, I think both aspects have merit. You don't need several big numbers on your character sheet to be a hero. In fact, it probably encourages laziness on the part of the players. If the monsters aren't a challenge, then it isn't going to be very fun. And if the monsters are a challenge, then why did you power up the players in the first place? To let them tower over the peasantry?

The only real benefit I can see to high point buys is that it lets the characters pull off more and more interesting stunts. They have more skill points and higher modifiers for those skills, more class combinations, more everything. And this can really improve upon the game if the players do it right.

In short, I'm happy as long as I don't have to roll stats.

Eldariel
2010-02-21, 07:53 AM
He'll be stronger in high-PB as well. Now, you can compare high-PB/low-PB to three-stat/two-stat and crunch the numbers and maybe you'll be able to find an extra +1 or +2 in it somewhere, but frankly, it simply isn't important enough to worry about. How a character is built and played is vastly more significant, and if you just want to nerf the SAD classes, there are much, much more effective ways of doing it.

It isn't that big immediately on the paper, but if you keep a track, it'll be relevant, especially in the long run. Of course character build and mechanical play is more important, and the more-so the lower the PB; the less you have the work with, the more critical it is to use what you have efficiently.

Saph
2010-02-21, 07:57 AM
It isn't that big immediately on the paper, but if you keep a track, it'll be relevant, especially in the long run.

Everything is relevant in the long run. That doesn't mean it's significant enough to be worth major weight in how you set up a campaign. The difference between 28 point buy and 32 point buy insofar as it affects the relative power of a Wizard and a Fighter is miniscule. Compared to things like tactics, build, cheese factor, and campaign style, it's microscopically small. So arguing for higher PB values on the grounds that it it helps the weaker classes is disingenuous.

Azernak0
2010-02-21, 08:05 AM
It's primarily to keep the power of the classes down. However, the only difference between a 25 point buy wizard and a 40 point buy Wizard is a little bit of HP and slightly better AC and to hit with Ranged Touch Attacks.

As it was stated before, doing a 25 point is going to hinder other classes more than casters because they tend to be SAD. A Druid is going to overshadow the Fighter even more in a core only 25 point buy game. 18 Wisdom, 14 Constitution, and 11 intelligence. The difference between a 25 point buy Druid and a 32 point buy Druid is HP. The difference between a 25 point buy Fighter and a 32 point buy Fighter is damage, hit chance, AC, and HP.

I've actually had DM's restrict point buy systems because they taught that casters were too powerful anyway. The only thing that ended up happening was the Barbarian was clumsy, the Monk was useless, and the Druid was still awesome.

Eldariel
2010-02-21, 08:10 AM
Everything is relevant in the long run. That doesn't mean it's significant enough to be worth major weight in how you set up a campaign. The difference between 28 point buy and 32 point buy insofar as it affects the relative power of a Wizard and a Fighter is miniscule. Compared to things like tactics, build, cheese factor, and campaign style, it's microscopically small. So arguing for higher PB values on the grounds that it it helps the weaker classes is disingenuous.

That's a function of the smallness of the change in pb though. Differences brought up here are much more massive; some are talking 25pb, others 40pb. There's a rather big difference between 25pb Wizard & 25pb Fighter vs. 40pb Wizard & 40pb Fighter.

Now, I'm not necessarily arguing for the higher PBs to support the class balance earlier here, but I do think slight increase in balance is a by-product of higher PBs, and I do think it's worth keeping in mind in these discussions. The biggest differences are in feat access and low-level play. Feat access is a very real limitation for much of your career in low-stat game and might make e.g. Combat Expertise Fighter very difficult to pull off. And low-level game is mostly stat checks as the class-based bonuses are +1-level, so the difference between 18 Str and 16 Str (both, damage and to hit) is larger than the difference between Fighter and Wizard.


The thing I really prefer in higher PB though is that it enables builds you couldn't pull off in lower PB; for example, if you want a swashbuckling-style Fighter expert in mindgames and various combat tricks, you're gonna need at least the Int for Combat Expertise, and prolly want the Cha for Imperious Command. On 25pb though? GL having 15 Cha, 13 Int and sufficient Str, Dex & Con for light-armored melee.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-21, 08:19 AM
Mostly, low point-buy games just restrict what kinds of characters you can play, and increase power disparity, nothing more.

You want a smart, sexy, swashbuckling fighter-type on a 25 point buy? Too bad, cuz Int and Cha are your dumpstats because you need Str, Dex, and Con, and you can't afford the mechanically important stats if you're pumping up dumpstats.

It also restricts access to other options, such as feats and prestige classes, limiting character choices further. No TWF barbarians here, because getting the uber-high Dex required for those builds simply isn't viable considering the overwhelming need to pump Str and Con. And having even mediocre Int, Wis, and Cha are right out, because you simply can't afford to have them otherwise.

Not to mention the fact that the MAD classes tend to need their stats more. A fighter's only class-based defenses are saving throws, AC, and HP (bolstered by his stats, his class abilities, items, and his feats), whereas wizards have all of those, but also have spells to throw in, which are MUCH more effective at giving him immunities, miss chances, and so on. This means that the MAD classes actually need much higher stats, due to not having ways to bolster them via class abilities.

As such, low point-buys encourage stereotypes, curbstomp thinking outside the box on character concepts, and push the (already far more powerful) SAD classes even higher on the power disparity, while pushing the MAD classes (which are considerably less powerful by default) down farther, due to forcing the MAD classes to have lower scores in their requisite abilities (while the SAD classes do just fine with one or two higher scores).

[edit] How did I get ninja'd?

Zen Master
2010-02-21, 08:33 AM
I play with low point buy because I want people to make real choices. Chosing to have high numbers in all stats is no choice.

And so ... wizard dumps stats, laughs with maniacal glee at his power from having 18 int, but learns along the way that having negative modifiers in cha and wis isn't nearly as hot as it looked on the prospect.

Players really are silly. They pump their save dc's, I'll have to pump the npc's saves. That truly, really, honestly is the way it works. Whenever it counts for anything, it's the GM's job to challenge the players - and how he does that is by matching his numbers to those of the pc's.

So ... it's all speed blindness. You look at your impressive numbers, and somehow convince yourself it means anything. But it doesn't.

Of course, pump powelevel enough and you get to talk about taking out Orcus rather than the local goblin blue mastermind. Because higher numbers with a different name on the statblock makes for an inherently better game.

Lower points buy also pushes back the level where skill checks become a formality. To beyond the level at which my group usually plays.

Arakune
2010-02-21, 08:47 AM
Having 8 Str/Wis/Cha is only bad if you go solo. In a team work scenario, the Fighter/Bard/Druid/Cleric can and will fill those roles.

The problem comes when you have to give them challenges: the 18 Int wizard will oneshot most of the important encounters with his higher save DCs (ie. the norm), while the others will have a lot of difficulty. And if said wizard get killed, them most probably the others will have a lot of trouble in between low stats (lower to-hit/damage/hp/AC), one less comrade and the lack of buff/debuffs from said wizard.

Saph
2010-02-21, 08:55 AM
Now, I'm not necessarily arguing for the higher PBs to support the class balance earlier here, but I do think slight increase in balance is a by-product of higher PBs, and I do think it's worth keeping in mind in these discussions. The biggest differences are in feat access and low-level play. Feat access is a very real limitation for much of your career in low-stat game and might make e.g. Combat Expertise Fighter very difficult to pull off.

Is it really so difficult? Str 16 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 13 Wis 10 Cha 8 is 25 point buy. Str 15 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 13 Wis 10 Cha 8 is 25 point buy and using the fixed Elite Array to boot. Both make a perfectly playable Combat Expertise Fighter. Of course they're not going to be as strong as a fighter with higher PB, but that's kind of the point.


The thing I really prefer in higher PB though is that it enables builds you couldn't pull off in lower PB; for example, if you want a swashbuckling-style Fighter expert in mindgames and various combat tricks, you're gonna need at least the Int for Combat Expertise, and prolly want the Cha for Imperious Command. On 25pb though? GL having 15 Cha, 13 Int and sufficient Str, Dex & Con for light-armored melee.

Okay, so obscure fighter build X that requires high Cha and Int isn't going to work. Is this really so very important? And if we're being absolutely honest about it, is this really the reason some players like high PBs? I don't think so. I think players who like high PBs generally like them because they want their characters to be as powerful as they possibly can. The "it's all for the sake of creativity, it boosts the MAD classes!" line is mostly just an excuse, because the kind of people who want high-powered characters aren't going to be playing weak classes anyway!

Eldariel
2010-02-21, 09:00 AM
So ... it's all speed blindness. You look at your impressive numbers, and somehow convince yourself it means anything. But it doesn't.

I hope you're kidding here. Basically, what you're saying is, it doesn't matter what kinds of characters your players are, they always have the exact same chance of success or failure and if someone increases his To Hit, you increase opponent's AC and if someone increases his Save DCs, you increase opponent's Saves? And to extrapolate, what problem is 8 Wis, 8 Cha if you scale opponents to match the players' numbers? Surely you'll ensure all the Sense Motive- and Diplomacy-checks are makeable with those stats too? And if a character has poor saves, just target him with easier save DCs?

It can't be very fulfilling for players to notice that no matter what choices they make, they have no impact since opponents magically scale to match. I don't know about you, but if I make a weaponmaster and specialize in a weapon, I expect to hit better than the generalist without those To Hit bonuses. Why even bother with stats or character sheets at this point? Isn't this basically "roll 1d2, see if it comes up 1 for fail or 2 for success"?


Have you though of other ways to challenge players than make any decisions they make in their character builds trivial? 'cause I can assure you, buffing up numbers is not the only means to challenge PCs. And not every fight, especially later on, should be a challenge anyways.

Runestar
2010-02-21, 09:09 AM
I play with low point buy because I want people to make real choices. Chosing to have high numbers in all stats is no choice.


But is that really what the players end up making? A meaningful choice? My experience has told me otherwise, to be honest.

In reality, I realised there really is no/little choice at all. For any class, stats typically have some sort of priority assigned to them (in terms of which stats offer you the most bang for your buck), and players will just allocate stat points in that order until there are none left. For fighters, that is usually str (at least 15-16), con (raise to 14), dex (depends on armour), int (at least 10), wis (sink leftover points or dump), cha (dump).


Players really are silly. They pump their save dc's, I'll have to pump the npc's saves.

Then you would do well to let your players know this beforehand, so they can at least re-allocate those stat points to other stats. I don't know how well your players take to this, but I would personally find it a very despicable move.

The reasonable assumption is that a monster's stats remain static, so you naturally get more returns if you invest more resources in a particular area. Wizards pump int exactly because they want better save dcs and more spells. I fail to see the point in depriving them of the former.

For example, that hill giant shouldn't just suddenly get a free +2 bonus on his will saves from out of nowhere simply because the wizard chose to boost his int to 20 instead of leaving it at 16. Of course, you can replace one of his feats for iron will (in which case, such a choice was not entirely opportunity-cost free).

And assuming you increased the monster's saves uniformly (rather than just apply an ad-hoc bonus on saves vs the wizard), then you potentially end up screwing all the players, including those who did not optimize their stats. What about the cleric who opted not to max out his wis?


but learns along the way that having negative modifiers in cha and wis isn't nearly as hot as it looked on the prospect.

Cha is moot to a wizard anyways. Wis...maybe, but a wizard already benefits from good will saves, and there is always steadfast determination.


So ... it's all speed blindness. You look at your impressive numbers, and somehow convince yourself it means anything. But it doesn't.

It should. Why shouldn't it?

Runestar
2010-02-21, 09:18 AM
And if we're being absolutely honest about it, is this really the reason some players like high PBs? I don't think so. I think players who like high PBs generally like them because they want their characters to be as powerful as they possibly can. The "it's all for the sake of creativity, it boosts the MAD classes!" line is mostly just an excuse, because the kind of people who want high-powered characters aren't going to be playing weak classes anyway!

I can sum it up in 3 letters.

FUN.

DnD is just a game at the end of the day, not an ego-trip for the DM who wishes to impose his vision of how the game ought to be played on the players.

If the players find it fun to run around with strong characters who are a blast to play, then why should the DM deprive them of this?

Everything I have been reading so far has been about the same old refrain, "The DM this, the DM that." Whatever happened to what the players want? :smallconfused:

Attilargh
2010-02-21, 09:24 AM
You want a smart, sexy, swashbuckling fighter-type on a 25 point buy? Too bad, cuz Int and Cha are your dumpstats because you need Str, Dex, and Con, and you can't afford the mechanically important stats if you're pumping up dumpstats.
You seem to be operating under an impression that a Fighter must have, say, Str 17 or his character sheet to be a proper Fighter.

Why? What happens if he doesn't have Str 17? What difference does it make if his statline is 15, 14, 10, 13, 8, 12 instead of 17, 16, 12, 15, 10, 14? Will his character sheet spontaneously burst in flames?

Yora
2010-02-21, 09:25 AM
If the players find it fun to run around with strong characters who are a blast to play, then why should the DM deprive them of this?
Because the gm wants to have some fun as well.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-21, 09:29 AM
Is it really so difficult? Str 16 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 13 Wis 10 Cha 8 is 25 point buy. Str 15 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 13 Wis 10 Cha 8 is 25 point buy and using the fixed Elite Array to boot. Both make a perfectly playable Combat Expertise Fighter. Of course they're not going to be as strong as a fighter with higher PB, but that's kind of the point. Any fighter with a Dex and Con of 12 is likely to not survive the first round of combat. Easy to hit, easy to kill. It's his class's primary responsibility to take the hits and keep moving, which he can't do with scores like that. Fighters have to have high Strength, and Dexterity, and Constitution, which low point-buys don't allow. Adding in Intelligence (for skill points and the prereq for a single [albeit build-central] feat), Wisdom (for Will saves), and Charisma (for character concept) makes this character basically impossible to build in low point-buys.


Okay, so obscure fighter build X that requires high Cha and Int isn't going to work. Is this really so very important? And if we're being absolutely honest about it, is this really the reason some players like high PBs? I don't think so. I think players who like high PBs generally like them because they want their characters to be as powerful as they possibly can. The "it's all for the sake of creativity, it boosts the MAD classes!" line is mostly just an excuse, because the kind of people who want high-powered characters aren't going to be playing weak classes anyway! I like choices. Choosing between an interesting character (either mechanically, RP-wise, or both) or dying due to horrible stat placement (despite matching my character concept) really isn't a choice.

Low point-buy enforces larger amounts of optimization, if only to allow one's character to survive. I prefer to optimize to a theme, rather than survivability and power, and low point-buys enforce optimization to the former at the expense of the former (no high-Cha fighter 4 joo!).


You seem to be operating under an impression that a Fighter must have, say, Str 17 or his character sheet to be a proper Fighter.

Why? What happens if he doesn't have Str 17? What difference does it make if his statline is 15, 14, 10, 13, 8, 12 instead of 17, 16, 12, 15, 10, 14? Will his character sheet spontaneously burst in flames?Sure, why not?

AstralFire
2010-02-21, 09:42 AM
Chalk another one up for extremely high point buy and extremely low magic items.

I want people to be smart or strong because they are smart or strong, and not because all of them have items that give them the [attribute] of ten men! Getting such should be a rare feat.

Saph
2010-02-21, 09:47 AM
Any fighter with a Dex and Con of 12 is likely to not survive the first round of combat. Easy to hit, easy to kill. It's his class's primary responsibility to take the hits and keep moving, which he can't do with scores like that.

Wrong. If you're wearing heavy armour, Dex 12 is pretty much identical to Dex 14. Even in not, it's only +1 AC. Con 14 for a 4th-level fighter is about 10-15% extra HP over Con 12, which is not relevant for the majority of battles. I know that it's possible to build an effective melee fighter with normal PB stats because I've done it. Frankly, from the amount of hyperbole in your posts, it sounds as if you have very experience with actually playing in these sorts of games, otherwise you wouldn't be claiming that having a Dex and Con a couple of points lower inevitably means dying.

Morty
2010-02-21, 09:53 AM
I'm one of the people who have absolutely no preference as far as stat generation is concerned. Low pointbuy is fine. High pointbuy is also fine. Rolling is fine as well. Yes, a low-PB character will be weaker, but so will be the rest of the party, so it's alright. PCs might be supposed to be heroic, but they're supposed to achieve it, not get it handed to them on a silver platter during stat generation. There's a reason I prefer low-powered games. However, if a game happens to have a high pointbuy, then I'm not bothered by it overmuch. It's not like the GM can't give NPCs better stats than it's written if it's necessary - my first GM did and it worked fine.

AstralFire
2010-02-21, 09:57 AM
I'm one of the people who have absolutely no preference as far as stat generation is concerned. Low pointbuy is fine. High pointbuy is also fine. Rolling is fine as well. Yes, a low-PB character will be weaker, but so will be the rest of the party, so it's alright. PCs might be supposed to be heroic, but they're supposed to achieve it, not get it handed to them on a silver platter during stat generation. There's a reason I prefer low-powered games. However, if a game happens to have a high pointbuy, then I'm not bothered by it overmuch. It's not like the GM can't give NPCs better stats than it's written if it's necessary - my first GM did and it worked fine.

You raise a good point. Maybe I should keep low magic items, go to low PB, and allow more permanent stat increases.

Math_Mage
2010-02-21, 09:58 AM
You work with what you get. The GM works with what you get too. Hopefully, you work together well enough that you don't ruin the campaign. It doesn't change just because the point buy does.

Morty
2010-02-21, 10:03 AM
You raise a good point. Maybe I should keep low magic items, go to low PB, and allow more permanent stat increases.

That might work. The simplest way would be to give the PCs an appropriate stat increase when they'd normally be expected to have at least one stat-boosting item.
But I still think the means of stat generation don't mean very much in the long run.

AstralFire
2010-02-21, 10:06 AM
That might work. The simplest way would be to give the PCs an appropriate stat increase when they'd normally be expected to have at least one stat-boosting item.
But I still think the means of stat generation don't mean very much in the long run.

Mechanically, they don't, but in roleplay - they do mean something to me. I feel a pressing need to match my scores as best as I can (as difficult as this in given the tangential relationship to reality they have.)

Morty
2010-02-21, 10:11 AM
Mechanically, they don't, but in roleplay - they do mean something to me. I feel a pressing need to match my scores as best as I can (as difficult as this in given the tangential relationship to reality they have.)

I see. I don't feel such a need, precisely because D&D stats are largely abstract. In this case yeah, I think low PB and frequent stat increases would work for your purposes.

Greenish
2010-02-21, 10:12 AM
You raise a good point. Maybe I should keep low magic items, go to low PB, and allow more permanent stat increases.A side effect in there is that the very early levels will become (even more) dangerous. High PB/low magic gives PCs a nice boost on early game, where it's felt, although it might reduce the feeling of advancement. If you get the permament stat increases later, well, you'll have to survive 'till then with low PB/low magic.

Uhm, and that was my 2 cents of obvious.

Attilargh
2010-02-21, 10:12 AM
Sure, why not?
Because an encounter should be more than a sign saying "only Superman may pass", maybe?

See, I firmly believe that a GM should make his encounters after taking a long, hard look at the players' character sheets and determining if they can actually take on that Ogre/Ogre Mage/Raksasha/Dragon/God he was planning on throwing at them. That's just common courtesy. You just can't throw in monsters capable of one-shotting the party and then wonder why no-one's writing any background for their characters any more. And because of the GM has his players in mind when he's making encounters, stats really, honestly, don't matter.

Do you really think anything changes when you level up? I mean, really? Because one day you'll wake up and realize that although the drow you're fighting now are tougher than the goblins you were fighting at level one, you're still hitting the mooks on a twelve or better and have a fair chance of nailing them in one hit. The Darkness and Faerie Fire and sleep poison and levitating, in the end they're all just window-dressing because you've got tricks of your own to negate them with. It's an arms race that never goes anywhere. The better you get, the bigger the nasties get, and you're still rolling twelve or better to hit the mooks.

And thus the amount of point-buy comes down to personal preference. I just happen to like characters who can't wrestle crocodiles while quoting fights historical.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-02-21, 10:13 AM
Is that including racial modifiers, Kelb?

yes it is. I find it gets the players thinking about how to balance their racial mods rather than simply finding the race with the bonus to their primary ability. A racial +2 saves my players up to 4 points for them to spend on a secondary ability. There's still gonna be a dump stat or two, but it's unusual to see one of my players dump more than 2 abilities.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-21, 10:16 AM
<Stuff>What does any of that have to do with character sheets bursting into flames?


And thus the amount of point-buy comes down to personal preference. I just happen to like characters who can't wrestle crocodiles while quoting fights historical.Steve Irwin could do that.

valadil
2010-02-21, 10:21 AM
I think low PB is more interesting. When we started playing 3rd ed we considered 40 points low. Putting an 18 in your top 2 stats, a 16 in the next, and then arranging what you have left isn't interesting. I'd much rather play at 28 PB and agonize over whether I really need that 18 or what I'd do with the other 6 points if I drop it to a 16.

Attilargh
2010-02-21, 10:22 AM
What does any of that have to do with character sheets bursting into flames?
I believe the technical term is hyperbole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole). I was trying to prod you for more information in a manner I found humorous. I did not mean to offend you, and if I did, I apologise.


Steve Irwin could do that.
I firmly believe his high Grapple modifier was more due to his BAB than Str.

Greenish
2010-02-21, 10:25 AM
I just happen to like characters who can't wrestle crocodiles while quoting fights historical. What do you mean, it's not awesome? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle8px80d2wm3pd?from=Main.WhatDoYouMeanItsNotAw esome)

Calimehter
2010-02-21, 10:28 AM
I can sum it up in 3 letters.

FUN.

DnD is just a game at the end of the day, not an ego-trip for the DM who wishes to impose his vision of how the game ought to be played on the players.

If the players find it fun to run around with strong characters who are a blast to play, then why should the DM deprive them of this?

I favor the low-PB approach as a player as well as a GM. :smallamused: Using stratospheric ability scores to achieve things above and beyond your current class level always felt like cheating the few times I have done it. The Mark McGwire method of roleplaying, if you will.

If some players want to run stat monsters and have fun with it, more power to them. I've smiled along with a few of these campaigns, and even had some fun in them. However, I 'grew up' on grittier-toned games, and so I've always appreciated them just a bit more when run well.

High PB is not always synonomous with "player fun" any more than "low PB and stingy treasure" is always synonomous with gm'ing.

alisbin
2010-02-21, 10:28 AM
i've gotta +1 that low PB exacerbates the imbalance between MAD and SAD classses and limits character design.
i've played in high, low and rolled (generally 4d6 drop lowest) games and played casters and non in both, in the high PBs i was able to design the character i wanted and each member of the party pulled their weight, in the low PBs the warriors were always big stupid fighters or they died VERY often while the caster were pretty much as good as the high pb games. frankly it wasn't as much fun to be a noncaster in low point buy for me but just as much as high PB for casters, every interesting idea based non caster was seriously substandard to the casters.
i mean, go to the insane limit and give all 18s to any character you want as starting stats, a wizard (for example) with those stats will be tough, insanely powerful, and always hit with his ray attacks but you can do that with a 25 point build and there will be relatively little difference. but a fighter with that build can maybe something truely epic, he can take any feat, become a great general, be a finesse fighter, you name it, where as the 25 point build on a fighter can at most do one of those things, if he survives. and forget something thats truely MAD like a paladin or a ranger.

frankly, i'd be in favor of doing variable PB, the better the tier, the lower the PB.

edit: note that i tend to play/DM low magic campaigns, even at epic levels i don't give out/get more then 1 or 2 stat boosting items.

Attilargh
2010-02-21, 10:33 AM
What do you mean, it's not awesome? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle8px80d2wm3pd?from=Main.WhatDoYouMeanItsNotAw esome)
...You make a fair point. Let me rephrase that: I would prefer not to have that as the baseline from where my characters spring. Because it's so much sweeter once you actually get to do it after working hard to achieve it.

Zen Master
2010-02-21, 10:52 AM
I hope you're kidding here.

Of course I'm kidding - everyone knows it's the job of the game master to set a completely arbitrary difficulty level for all encounters. To sometimes crush players with completelt insurmountable odds, and at other times to provide push-over encounters with no shred of challenge.

It's the job of the GM to challenge players. Do you really, truly deny that?

I've said dozens of times that many players on this board play a different game than I do - using the same ruleset - but I always thought there were still some overall similarities.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-21, 11:21 AM
The easiest way to deal with this is to cut it off before it starts. This is why I've always run 28 point buy for my campaigns.

This thread has been arguing high point buy v. low point buy. Quote the golden means fallacy at me, but based on this thread, I really would be inclined to choose medium point buy (i.e. something like 28). It allows more MAD builds (hybrids) to function without being incompetent, it doesn't make outsiders to the group boggle (40 point buy, even if it works, still prompts an innate WTF reaction from me), and it keeps the numbers similar to the WotC-assumed values.

Eldariel
2010-02-21, 11:48 AM
It's the job of the GM to challenge players. Do you really, truly deny that?

I'm saying you don't need to change the oppositions' stats to counter the PCs to accomplish that. I'm also saying some fights should be impossible (to win) and others should be cakewalks. Not every encounter is CR appropriate.

Altering opponents specifically so that they'll have high saves where they are targeted and low AC if the attackers have poor attack bonuses, and overall matching them with the PCs numerically makes for an incredibly unbelievable gameworld and gives players pretty clear metagame expectations for every fight simply because they encounter things engineered for their numbers.

satorian
2010-02-21, 11:51 AM
I've actually chosen not to join games because the point buy was too low. My basic reason is that if I, and most of the people I know, have stats above the norm (mostly, we are well-liked, relatively attractive people with advanced degrees who go to the gym), and we aren't adventurers, why would people seeking to become mighty heroes not have stats at least as high as ours? I just can't justify playing a character with a lower point buy than I would have personally, at least not for anything other than a one-off. This is fantasy! These are heroes! What point buy do you think Odysseus would have had? Why shouldn't every character be, potentially, an Odysseus?

That said, for RP reasons, I rarely start with an 18 in any stat. I'd rather be slightly more charismatic than ultimately strong, at least to start.

This isn't about an arms race. It is about being able to make the character you want to play.

CockroachTeaParty
2010-02-21, 12:15 PM
I'm going to echo Saph here and say I favor low-point buys (or rolling dice to generate scores). I find that players newer to the game, or people who have never DMed, want big, impressive numbers on their sheets. It really doesn't make that big of a difference, though.

I actually get bored as a player when everyone has multiple 18's and 17's. It lowers my sense of suspense and danger. If everyone is awesome, flawless, and strong, then where's the sense of risk?

Also, and this really cheeses me off, but the same people who want 40+ point buys often take 2 character Flaws in exchange for more feats. How is a person with a 60 point buy flawed, in any way? How can you justify mechanical flaws when you have no stat lower than 14? In a 25 point buy game, taking the Pathetic Wisdom Flaw means a great deal more than taking Pathetic twice with a 40 point buy.

In the end, stats mean much less than HD, class features, and spells provide. It's the same reason LA is bad. High LA races will often produce characters with better ability scores than their companions, but high abilities are only so useful in the wake of higher level spells, saves, and attack bonuses.

Eldariel
2010-02-21, 12:29 PM
Also, and this really cheeses me off, but the same people who want 40+ point buys often take 2 character Flaws in exchange for more feats. How is a person with a 60 point buy flawed, in any way? How can you justify mechanical flaws when you have no stat lower than 14? In a 25 point buy game, taking the Pathetic Wisdom Flaw means a great deal more than taking Pathetic twice with a 40 point buy.

You can't take Pathetic if your total score is too high. A composite +8 or higher forbids that flaw, so it's no issue; few 40pb characters qualify. I don't see how it's unbelievable that a man with unearthly wisdom could have poor vision or a nimble man could be slow to react to new threats or any such.

Flaws specifically go beyond ability scores in specificness and allow you to take a specific weakness that would otherwise be impossible to represent due to the broad nature of ability scores. That said, I'm not going to defend the way Flaws are usually used; generally they're simply used for bonus feats. But know why? Because by default, you get too few feats.


On low levels, you have room for exactly one feat. So you can be good at fighting invisible people or you might know how to fight with two weapons. Most of the feats in 3.5 are clearly designed for a system that grants far more feats over the progression than this; stuff like Master of Poisons, Weapon Focus, Silent Spell and so on are all rather low-impact feats for specific situations and ones you simply can't fit if you pick the generally useful feats.

Many builds are completely undoable since the system simply doesn't provide you with enough feats by default and this forces dipping frontloaded feat-granting classes to get enough feats for your PrC and character's basic functioning. Flaws alleviate this. So while they are used "wrong", I think it's really good that they exist since the game by default restricts you too much on that front. Though of course, an alternative solution would be better to enable using Flaws for what they are intended. But they act as a nice bandaid fix for another limitation in the system's expressive power.

oxybe
2010-02-21, 12:29 PM
LOW POINTBUY IS DERE BCUZ THAT MONK IS OVRPOWERD! DID YOU C ALL HIS CLASS ABILITIES?! DO YOU REALLY WANT AN TEAM OF MONKS RUNNING AROUND AND F***ING UP YUR GAYME?????

LAAAAAAAAAAME!

that's why DMs choose low point-buy. because the monk is overpowered:smalltongue:

as for low charisma on wizards... isn't that why the enchantment & illusion schools exist? to trick force people to do what you want & believe what you want them to?

low wisdom stops perception skills (listen & spot) while also making them unable to detect a creature's true intentions. unfortunately, divination school makes up for the low perception in spades while again, the enchantment school can simply make someone tell you their intentions.

a wizard doesn't need to talk nice to people.

CockroachTeaParty
2010-02-21, 12:46 PM
You can't take Pathetic if your total score is too high. A composite +8 or higher forbids that flaw, so it's no issue; few 40pb characters qualify. I don't see how it's unbelievable that a man with unearthly wisdom could have poor vision or a nimble man could be slow to react to new threats or any such.

Flaws specifically go beyond ability scores in specificness and allow you to take a specific weakness that would otherwise be impossible to represent due to the broad nature of ability scores. That said, I'm not going to defend the way Flaws are usually used; generally they're simply used for bonus feats. But know why? Because by default, you get too few feats.


On low levels, you have room for exactly one feat. So you can be good at fighting invisible people or you might know how to fight with two weapons. Most of the feats in 3.5 are clearly designed for a system that grants far more feats over the progression than this; stuff like Master of Poisons, Weapon Focus, Silent Spell and so on are all rather low-impact feats for specific situations and ones you simply can't fit if you pick the generally useful feats.

Many builds are completely undoable since the system simply doesn't provide you with enough feats by default and this forces dipping frontloaded feat-granting classes to get enough feats for your PrC and character's basic functioning. Flaws alleviate this. So while they are used "wrong", I think it's really good that they exist since the game by default restricts you too much on that front. Though of course, an alternative solution would be better to enable using Flaws for what they are intended. But they act as a nice bandaid fix for another limitation in the system's expressive power.

Pathetic flaw aside, then, but my original beef still stands. If you want more feats, talk to your DM, work something out. Hell, when you're playing with a 40+ point buy, why not have more feats for no reason? It's not like it'll make you any less of a demigod.

I just have trouble swallowing a character with stats rivaling a Pit Fiend that has 'shaky hands' or 'murky vision.' If you want to give your character interesting flaws, either make it RP, or crack open the Book of Exalted Deeds or something. It just seems that Flaws as a means for getting more feats is rather silly, especially in high-power games.

ericgrau
2010-02-21, 12:47 PM
I'm asking cause I'm curious, and also because of a couple of assumptions:
1.low point-buy favors casters. You can get an 18 in your primary casting stat, and 10s in both Dex and Con on a mere 20 point-buy, which is a playable caster, but I cringe at making a melee build with so few points.

2.It encourages non-organic stats in the context of the classes. At 25 point-buy, every wizard is going to be socially inept and weak and every barbarian is going to be dumb as $%*#. Where-as in 40 point-buy, you might see a few strong wizards, a few flexible ones, and a few charismatic ones as well.

3.Aren't adventurers supposed to be 'above average'? Admittedly, 17 point-buy is, strictly speaking, average, but is 30 point-buy far enough away to yield that "I'm better than a common man" feel?

This is another reason why I favor rolled stats. Much harder to get an 18 that way, less SAD favoritism. This is going to happen regardless of the point buy number, unless the DM gives out so many points that PCs laugh and say "Hahaha, ok I'll put points in that, I already got plenty of 18s".

As for why the point buy is low, this is the same reason that rolled stats might choose a low method: DMs don't want PCs getting out of hand and smashing the challenge and tension out of their dramatic story. Unfortunately this often gets taken too far and extends to magic items. Which again favors casters. While they may benefit, they are less dependent on them.

My own reasons:
1. Arbitrarily high numbers aren't impressive anymore. Above 10 is above 10. When everyone is special with the same 18, no one is.
2. The game expects regularly rolled stats; high stats make rolls almost automatic for boring auto-hits and save-or-die domination.
3. Bumping up the CR to match only tends to screw things up even more as - instead of negating the stat boost (which would make it pointless anyway) - now the monsters are doing #2 too.

Xenogears
2010-02-21, 12:54 PM
Let's see. With 40pt point buy I could get 3 stats to 16 two stats to 14 and one at 12. So lets make that:
Str:16
Dex:16
Con:16
Int:14
Wis:12
Cha:14

So I'm stronger, faster, and tougher than all but the strongest humans, as smart as an average smart-type person, charming, and a little more aware of my surroundings than the average commoner. Sounds like your average Conan the Barbarian or Aragorn to me.

Compared to say 24pt buy. That would be ummm I'd prolly go with:
Str:14
Dex:14
Con:14
Int:10
Wis:10
Cha:10

So I'm as strong, fast, and tough as your average tough guy and as smart, charming, and aware as your average commoner. I'm the town guard...

40pt buy might be a little higher than I would like but 24 rather low for me. I'd rather go 28-32. Might even go for 40 if I wanted a truly heroic campaign.

Greenish
2010-02-21, 01:03 PM
Let's see. With 40pt point buy I could get 3 stats to 16 two stats to 14 and one at 12. So lets make that:
Str:16
Dex:16
Con:16
Int:14
Wis:12
Cha:14

So I'm stronger, faster, and tougher than all but the strongest humans, as smart as an average smart-type person, charming, and a little more aware of my surroundings than the average commoner. Sounds like your average Conan the Barbarian or Aragorn to me.Aragorn has higher Wis. You'd be Boromir. :smallwink:

Calimehter
2010-02-21, 01:13 PM
Compared to say 24pt buy. That would be ummm I'd prolly go with:
Str:14
Dex:14
Con:14
Int:10
Wis:10
Cha:10

So I'm as strong, fast, and tough as your average tough guy and as smart, charming, and aware as your average commoner. I'm the town guard...


Not if the town guard was purchased with a 15 point buy. :smallwink:

If 98-99% of the population was built with a 15 point buy, your 24 point build is downright elite with 14's in all three major physical stats, and he didn't even have to become a simpleton or an introvert to do it.

oxybe
2010-02-21, 01:16 PM
wait, people stat out the town guard chumps?

i thought their job (like all good red shirts) is to be bossed around until they go on away missions then get brutally slaughtered as story demands?

Calimehter
2010-02-21, 01:18 PM
wait, people stat out the town guard chumps?

i thought their job (like all good red shirts) is to be bossed around until they go on away missions then get brutally slaughtered as story demands?

Both! :smallbiggrin:

Xenogears
2010-02-21, 01:21 PM
Not if the town guard was purchased with a 15 point buy. :smallwink:

If 98-99% of the population was built with a 15 point buy, your 24 point build is downright elite with 14's in all three major physical stats, and he didn't even have to become a simpleton or an introvert to do it.

Hmmmm 15 pt buy would give:
Str:12
Dex:10
Con:12
Int:10
Wis:10
Cha:9

So now hes slightly stronger and more durable than an average person and a little gruff. Now hes been downgraded from Cop to Rent-a-Cop...

Mystic Muse
2010-02-21, 01:51 PM
This isn't about an arms race. It is about being able to make the character you want to play.

This.

I want to be able to roleplay an intelligent Paladin while still being viable as a class. With low pointbuy the only race I can really use is lesser Aasimar since every other race that gives a stat boost to my key stats penalizes other key stats. While playing this I also want to Survive and actually contribute to the game. I can't do that with low point buy BEcause of sheer MAD. So, with low point buy I can't ever play with my favorite class.

Hiisi
2010-02-21, 02:07 PM
In my games the characters aren't the heroes. In my games characters become the heroes.

My group enjoys playing John Doe, the village guardsman who rises above his peers and takes up the task of killing the big mean ogre that has been harassing the villagers. He might not be the strongest or the smartest guy in the village but he has something the others do not, the heart of an adventurer. He might not be wrestling with dragons or storming the gates of hell, but don't tell it isn't a heroic moment when that lone guardsman returns to the village with the head of that ogre on his spear.

I also can't see how low-point buy would make playing classes with MAD impossible. Sure your paladin might not be as strong in combat as the partys fighter but you're definetly more versatile.

Emmerask
2010-02-21, 02:18 PM
In my games the characters aren't the heroes. In my games characters become the heroes.

My group enjoys playing John Doe, the village guardsman who rises above his peers and takes up the task of killing the big mean ogre that has been harassing the villagers. He might not be the strongest or the smartest guy in the village but he has something the others do not, the heart of an adventurer. He might not be wrestling with dragons or storming the gates of hell, but don't tell it isn't a heroic moment when that lone guardsman returns to the village with the head of that ogre on his spear.

Exactly, I would even say it is much much more heroic then to kill such a creature as a superhuman (ie high pointbuy)

Tavar
2010-02-21, 02:25 PM
I also can't see how low-point buy would make playing classes with MAD impossible. Sure your paladin might not be as strong in combat as the partys fighter but you're definetly more versatile.

Not really, or at least, your versatility comes at a great cost compared to your ability to function as a competent member of the team, so it's pretty much a wash. In fact, getting decent Str, Con, Cha, with a bit of Wisdom if you also want to use your spellcasting is extremely difficult, possibly even impossible on some point buys. Not if you want to also be effective, at least.

Also, in regards to armor. It's hard to get heavy armors before level 3, so that means that Dex is actually pretty important up till that point, and that's also the time when PC's are overall the most fragile. So low stats really do hinder melee at the low levels, and that's generally the time when they're strongest.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-02-21, 03:00 PM
It's far better to use weaker classes and a standard (or even above standard) point buy than to restrict point buy but allow the strongest classes.Or both :smallbiggrin:

Skaven
2010-02-21, 03:08 PM
For my future game,s i'm going to go by the tier system myself:

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0

Essentially, the lower the tier your class is, the more points you will get for your characters stats.

Reasoning: martial classes are much more MAD than others. A wizard can get by with int and a minimum 10 of con and (for some builds) dex and still be godly, while a fighter tends to need STR and CON and 13 INT and some DEX for AC.. etc.

As for the original question: not all DM's really understand just how much some classes rely on differing stats and try and curb character power with it, not realising that its only further nerfing some classes and not affecting others.

After all, melee can't have nice things.

Wizards and Druids don't really care though as long as they can start with their 16+ int/wis.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-21, 03:13 PM
Would a Truenamer with 60 Pb, be useful?
(Tier 7 is Truenamer according to that link)

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-21, 03:16 PM
Wait, what? Truenamer isn't Tier 7. Truenamer is strictly better than Commoner, which is Tier 6. If you gave a Truenamer 60 PB, the "best" thing to do might just be to forget truenaming and build like a Commoner with more class skills. A simple charger build, or something.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-21, 03:23 PM
Wait, what? Truenamer isn't Tier 7. Truenamer is strictly better than Commoner, which is Tier 6. If you gave a Truenamer 60 PB, the "best" thing to do might just be to forget truenaming and build like a Commoner with more class skills. A simple charger build, or something.

I think the reason for Tier 7 is that a Commoner is consistantly useless. A Truenamer starts not much better and gets worse as the day goes on. Without really high optimisation it's hard to hit the Truenaming DC's easily, with it you may as well go for Handle Animal, Diplomacy or UMD. (This is based in what I have read about the class. I've never seen the class itself)

Calimehter
2010-02-21, 03:25 PM
Hmmmm 15 pt buy would give:
Str:12
Dex:10
Con:12
Int:10
Wis:10
Cha:9

So now hes slightly stronger and more durable than an average person and a little gruff. Now hes been downgraded from Cop to Rent-a-Cop...

I may be misunderstanding, but are you inferring that our 24 point hero from the earlier post doesn't have much of a leg up on this guy? :smallconfused:

+2 STR, +4 DEX, +2 CON (and yes, +1CHA) sounds pretty decent to me. That type of adjustment has got to be at least LA +1 or something like that. Add in the likelihood that NPCs using a 15 point build won't get max hit points at 1st level and are more likely to be an NPC class than a PC class, and I'd say our hero is looking pretty heroic by the standard of the masses, even at just Level 1.

Amphetryon
2010-02-21, 03:28 PM
IIRC, Commoner is ranked higher than Truenamer because it gets Handle Animal, which can, with sufficient skill, make a semi-useful pet owner, even if the owner himself is rather fifth-wheel. Truenamer's mechanic "doesn't function properly" per the Tiers posting; it doesn't scale appropriately with level and requires the player to either break the game with cheesy tactics or become exponentially more useless as the party levels.

That's my understanding of JaronK's reasoning, anyhow.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-21, 03:31 PM
IIRC, Commoner is ranked higher than Truenamer because it gets Handle Animal, which can, with sufficient skill, make a semi-useful pet owner, even if the owner himself is rather fifth-wheel. Truenamer's mechanic "doesn't function properly" per the Tiers posting; it doesn't scale appropriately with level and requires the player to either break the game with cheesy tactics or become exponentially more useless as the party levels.

That's my understanding of JaronK's reasoning, anyhow.

Granted, but really Truenamers are sorta a variable Tier: they start around Tier 3-4 but gradually go to 6. At low levels their powers work granting them many options. But since later they can't use any: they are basically commoners.

Fawsto
2010-02-21, 03:33 PM
I must agree with "extra points = more variety"

Ok, Power Gamers will use extra points to achieve extra powers. While this is valid, not every gaming table sees this.

I am the "power gamer" of my gaming table. This actually means that I build my characters so they will contribute to the party, never beeing dead weight to be carried around. Only that. I use my common sense.

I have a taste for a high point buy (by high I mean 28/32) so I can play any character I may conceive. Be it a brawling cleric or a smart and wise barbarian. Low PB murder this. Ok, you can build your character spreading your points, but then I believe you will find yourself with a "less contributive" party member.

This is my OP.

Now, when I DM I limit my players to 32 points and no ability scores may go over 18 (after racial mods). This means that I make them spread their scores around. I find this enough to keep the balance.

Gnaeus
2010-02-21, 03:33 PM
And then if optimized enough to hit their Gate DCs they pop back to about tier 3 when they get their capstone.

Calimehter
2010-02-21, 03:36 PM
As for the original question: not all DM's really understand just how much some classes rely on differing stats and try and curb character power with it, not realising that its only further nerfing some classes and not affecting others.

After all, melee can't have nice things.

Yeeahhh . . . you might want to check out some of the other posts in the thread before saying that. I'm not terribly fond of being called ignorant by someone who has ignored about 1/3 or so of the posts in this thread.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-21, 03:43 PM
Yeeahhh . . . you might want to check out some of the other posts in the thread before saying that. I'm not terribly fond of being called ignorant by someone who has ignored about 1/3 or so of the posts in this thread.

except he's right. with a lot of point buys Melee can't have nice things and Tier 1 classes are amazing. Tell me, how am I supposed to play an even somewhat effective Paladin while still having points for character concept with 24 point buy.

Answer? I can't because I have to dump intelligence to be anywhere near mechanically viable.

Kylarra
2010-02-21, 03:58 PM
except he's right. with a lot of point buys Melee can't have nice things and Tier 1 classes are amazing. Tell me, how am I supposed to play an even somewhat effective Paladin while still having points for character concept with 24 point buy.

Answer? I can't because I have to dump intelligence to be anywhere near mechanically viable.Play a crusader. :smalltongue:

satorian
2010-02-21, 03:59 PM
With a low point buy, you can have real RP and play interesting characters. However, the number of character concepts is limited. It doesn't help a wizard much to have a 12 strength, doesn't really make him any stronger at all. It doesn't help the barbarian to have a high cha (or really anyone except a sorc or bard or pally or cleric). That said, why not just have a higher point buy and let them have that if they want it? It'll make their character more interesting, open up a new set of playable character concepts. Sure a 16str/con 10 everything else CAN be an interesting character. But it shouldn't be the only viable build for a fighter. If it is, every fighter is of average or less intelligence in the whole adventuring world. There can be no Roy.

Honestly, my favorite way to play with a mature group is just to let the players set their initial ability scores to whatever they want, within reason, to reflect their character concepts. Usually this ends up as a 32 point buy-ish, sometimes a little lower (or even surprisingly lower, but rarely below 26) and sometimes, but very rarely, as high as 40. Only once have I seen this generate 2 18s, and the concept was fascinating and called for it. Indeed, this method, while clearly not aimed at balance, usually makes for balanced characters, more so than 4d6. And high ability scores, as several posters above mentioned, are less important than class levels to delineate power.

erikun
2010-02-21, 03:59 PM
The Truename is not Tier 7; it is Tier N/A. The reason is that the class is entirely dependant on their Truespeech skill, which isn't sufficiently increased through standard leveling. If you can get several +20 items to the skill, the class is around Tier 3. If you're stuck with the base skill points and INT modifier, it's worse than the Commoner.

I'm pretty sure that Battletitan cheese was not considered when looking at the Commoner. The Commoner is Tier 6 because almost all other classes do everything they do better. Truenamer is Tier N/A because it can't even do what it's supposed to do.

--

As for the point buy discussion, I'd have to say it depends on the group. If your DM and party enjoys running through dungeons and bashing in dragon heads, then high point buy will allow them to survive (usually) and do so effectively. If your group more enjoys resolving issues they encounter - "The dragon is burnating the countryside!" - then lower point buy encourages solutions beyond just trying to bash some heads.

I don't really have much of a preference, although I am sick of being in low point buy groups that are just dungeon bashing.

Amphetryon
2010-02-21, 04:06 PM
except he's right. with a lot of point buys Melee can't have nice things and Tier 1 classes are amazing. Tell me, how am I supposed to play an even somewhat effective Paladin while still having points for character concept with 24 point buy.

Answer? I can't because I have to dump intelligence to be anywhere near mechanically viable.

I believe the default in 3.0 and 3.5 is a 25 point buy, so examples below that baseline are not necessarily helpful in arguments against the default "low" point buy.

Also, it's perfectly mechanically viable for a Paladin to have starting stats, in order, of 13 8 12 10 14 15. This makes for a wise, charismatic holy warrior in half-plate, no stupider than the common man but guided by an inner voice of reason and able to communicate that voice's message to any who might listen. If the player envisions a weapon held in two hands, swap the 13 and 14 and that gives a solid melee advantage, at the cost of a bit of common sense, spell casting and Will save.

Would the character be *better* at low levels with a higher PB? Yup, no question. It's viable as-is, though.

Also, I'm curious, for those that argue for rolling and against low PB: How many re-rolls do you allow if my rolls end up 15 14 13 12 10 8?

Mystic Muse
2010-02-21, 04:06 PM
Play a crusader. :smalltongue:

Some DMs don't allow ToB:smalltongue:

Kylarra
2010-02-21, 04:11 PM
Some DMs don't allow ToB:smalltongue:
Some DMs don't allow Paladins. Schrodingers defense ftw?

Pronounceable
2010-02-21, 04:13 PM
Because one day you'll wake up and realize that although the drow you're fighting now are tougher than the goblins you were fighting at level one, you're still hitting the mooks on a twelve or better and have a fair chance of nailing them in one hit. The Darkness and Faerie Fire and sleep poison and levitating, in the end they're all just window-dressing because you've got tricks of your own to negate them with. It's an arms race that never goes anywhere. The better you get, the bigger the nasties get, and you're still rolling twelve or better to hit the mooks.

This is it. The motto "DM should be adjusting the game according to player abilites" means exactly this. Therefore, total stats mean squat. What you're arguing back and forth boils down to SADs and MADs. Plus the fairly dumb "character concept" implementation inherent to DnD and its ilk.

I find the idea of point buy fundamentally offensive. Real life isn't "fair", people are not "ultimately equal in some abstract sense". Trying impose such a ridiculously stupid idea on a pseudosimulational game pisses me off to no end.

OTOH, if DM wants to run with X point buy on account of making the game "fair" (as valid a desire as wanting to be the hero) I wouldn't really blame them.
...

Honestly, my favorite way to play with a mature group is just to let the players set their initial ability scores to whatever they want, within reason, to reflect their character concepts.
Ninjad by SENSE! This is the best method. When I DM, I almost always set PC stats myself, but this is basically same, with even less work on my part.

absolmorph
2010-02-21, 04:28 PM
Some DMs don't allow Paladins. Schrodingers defense ftw?
It's far more likely that Crusaders won't be allowed because the ToB isn't available or the DM doesn't fully grasp the mechanics than Paladins won't be allowed because of the same issues.
Since, y'know, paladins are in the PHB and have pretty simple mechanics that are used by other base classes.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-21, 04:31 PM
In my games the characters aren't the heroes. In my games characters become the heroes.

My group enjoys playing John Doe, the village guardsman who rises above his peers and takes up the task of killing the big mean ogre that has been harassing the villagers. He might not be the strongest or the smartest guy in the village but he has something the others do not, the heart of an adventurer.Followed shortly by the ogre having the heart of that same adventurer.

oxybe
2010-02-21, 04:38 PM
real life isn't fair, but remember: this isn't real life. this is a game played by friends to pass the time.

i could care less how "fair" real life is... my is fighting for his life against a tentacle poop monster while riding a unicorn by throwing magical rainbows at it. real life might not be "fair" but this is some F***ed up stuff.

plus the whole linear fighter, quadratic wizards deal.

the problem with leaving everything up to the DM and saying "we'll let the DM handle it" is that few DMs i've met ever actually know how to adjust the game properly for the party. i might just be living in BadDMsBurgh, but i've met far more that say "well, this monster is CR5 and the party is level 5, this should be fair" and left it at that.

Kylarra
2010-02-21, 04:40 PM
It's far more likely that Crusaders won't be allowed because the ToB isn't available or the DM doesn't fully grasp the mechanics than Paladins won't be allowed because of the same issues.
Since, y'know, paladins are in the PHB and have pretty simple mechanics that are used by other base classes.It's far more likely that Paladins won't be allowed due to code of conduct and overbearing morality, than Crusaders being disallowed because of the same issues.
Since, y'know, the crusader doesn't have a code of conduct and doesn't come with a moral obligation to be holier-than-thou to their party members.

~~~~~~~~~~`
All kidding aside, tier power disparity is something I see more often claimed on internet boards than anything I've experienced in real life games. 'sides, even without ToB, "play a cleric". There, you're a better paladin than the paladin in all ways that matter.

Deepblue706
2010-02-21, 04:43 PM
I prefer low point buys simply because I find too many high numbers to be a little boring. With too few points for attributes, or a random set, you are forced to make sacrifices and creative solutions to compensate. And, I think this opens the door to higher chances of failure in a game, which I think leads to a more thrilling experience. A few added perks are that feats with small numerical boosts hold more weight, and races like Half-Orc become viable. Also, in my groups, I find caster PCs are often too afraid to neglect their DEX and CON and as a result tend to have lower INT/WIS/CHA, and therefore spell DCs, which leads to fewer complaints about these guys performing too many One-Shots. But, I'm sure that can vary greatly by group and playstyle.

I think it really just comes down to what I find more refreshing at the time. I'm sure if I were constantly playing low pb, I'd want to play high pb due to the increased amount of freedom in character creation, etc.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-21, 05:03 PM
I find it odd that people think that point buy is equal. Two characters with the same class, options and number of points can be of significantly differing power levels. The person who put 14s in everything is almost certainly less powerful than someone who focused their points into two or three stats.

Personally I like higher point buys just for the "PC's are super-special-awesome" factor. It isn't for everybody but it's my preferred style of play. It does also help in character concepts somewhat. Having all 18's and choosing to add less than you should to be true to concept will probably be met more favourably than adding more than you should to be true to concept.

I like high PB as a DM because I don't have to hold back, I can send stronger foes knowing it won't be a TPK unless the players really screwed up. As a player it's nice being the most X in all the land (having an 18 in stat which covers X), being able to face iconic creatures (and have a chance of defeating them) earlier is also nice. Low levels give plenty of "grittyness" for me and more than I want in most cases.

Being able to play a MAD class without optimal arrangements is enough of a plus to high PB for me to prefer it. Before someone complains that someone who arranges optimally will still be better than me, after a certain point the difference between optimal and not optimal becomes blurred. Having maxed Str and Con on a Barbarian, having Dex to the max I can get to AC due to armour issues, which mental stat is best? Int gets more skill points, Wis raises awareness skills and Will saves, Cha is good for Diplomacy, Handle Animal or UMD cross-class and Intimidate in-class. After a certain point it doesn't matter. The fact that higher PB's give diminishing returns also helps. They are more powerful, but not by as much.

This is all IMO, AFAIK and all that so don't complain too much where I say "probably" or whatever.

Edit: Kylarra a cleric is better, but stat-wise Wis (heh, stat-wise and Wisdom) and Cha switch places and there's still not much room for Int. You can make do on a lower PB but it is nice to have more freedom. *The Halfling returns the point* Your turn to counter.

Edit2: If someone else wants to take the first edit they can. 12 posters on this page, 5 are online. Huh.

Edit3: @\/ Same could be said for physical stats.:smalltongue:

Knaight
2010-02-21, 05:14 PM
I can sum it up in 3 letters.

FUN.

DnD is just a game at the end of the day, not an ego-trip for the DM who wishes to impose his vision of how the game ought to be played on the players.

If the players find it fun to run around with strong characters who are a blast to play, then why should the DM deprive them of this?

Everything I have been reading so far has been about the same old refrain, "The DM this, the DM that." Whatever happened to what the players want? :smallconfused:

Plenty of players prefer to play people who aren't so blatantly above average from the beginning. On another note, most of the reasons to do so come from wanting to play archetypes where a warrior type is clever, or charming, or just perceptive. Had D&D not included mental stats, this would never have been an issue in the first place.

randomhero00
2010-02-21, 05:29 PM
I've been thinking about just saying, you all get

8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 to distribute how you want.

has anyone ever tried this? It keeps casters from getting an 18 and dumping several stats while keeping fighters on equal (well more equal-ish) footing. It also gives them 1 below average, and one average stat for roleplaying purposes (about the most you'd want since hey they're heroes, they really shouldn't be below average in multiple ways.)

My only concern would be that it would take the customization feel out of it.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-21, 05:39 PM
I've been thinking about just saying, you all get

8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 to distribute how you want.

has anyone ever tried this? It keeps casters from getting an 18 and dumping several stats while keeping fighters on equal (well more equal-ish) footing. It also gives them 1 below average, and one average stat for roleplaying purposes (about the most you'd want since hey they're heroes, they really shouldn't be below average in multiple ways.)

My only concern would be that it would take the customization feel out of it.

Without looking it up that's about a 30 PB. Casters can still get an 18 (racial boost), but it's no significant increase. 20 gets an extra 1st level slot and is still possible via aging, so you may want to watch for that. The problem is that MAD classes generally want 3 or 4 stats above average. 4 stats at 12+ leaves you scrounging for races if you want to be more than usually *whatever*. Even than someone can get a 20 in Str with no LA (Orc, and that's off the top of my head). Removing customisation is a significant concern, some people (e.g. me) live for it. It's not bad, but it's barely better than the elite array, which is meant for NPC's and pregenned characters.

oxybe
2010-02-21, 05:41 PM
I
All kidding aside, tier power disparity is something I see more often claimed on internet boards than anything I've experienced in real life games. 'sides, even without ToB, "play a cleric". There, you're a better paladin than the paladin in all ways that matter.

i can attest to the power disparity first hand. we just finished the Savage Tide adventure path, strait from 1-20 gaining our 21st level upon completion.

while our cleric& wizard were always top tier in what they did, once level 6-9 spells hit, it quickly cemented the game into "the Clericzilla & Wizard show, starring Oxybe's crazy Warlock who always seems to kill-steal the bosses"

our fighter & ranger were unoptimized and had a VERY hard time keeping up. they had decent gear but once we met with a mix of casters+DR, the poor fighter types were really starting to struggle... they just did not the big damage that the OP'ed chars did

my warlock got by fine by picking & choosing his spots to blast with and with a little bit of optimizing. i had the flight+invis thing going on, which is nice but as i pointed out the GM that flying+see invis is pretty common at higher levels when he thought the warlocks power was too much. i was a solid contributor throughout the game. though our "cleric"...

the cleric? total min-maxed DMM melee combat munchkin (and i do mean munchkin... he usually "forgot" he was debuffed, and generally tried to get away with lots of things. me, the wizard & the GM generally kept him in line). clericzilla if i ever saw one. only the "boss" monsters managed to put up some sort of fight against him.

the wizard was quite powerful in his own right, though while not dropping the ridiculous fistfulls of d6's the cleric was he proved FAR more useful in most situations with his debuff rays or occasional spot-damage (he was an evoc sp). he didn't even try and the ran the show at times. just a solid wizard with good playing.

when sh*t hit the fan, it was usually up to Wizard+Cleric to solve the problem. ranger & fighter ran for cover & i either flew away, dimensioned door away or shadow walked away. or i telekenisis'd rocks at it that one time (stupid antimagic aura, it can stop my eldrich blasts, but by lord it can't stop the laws of physics. sorta.).

even the one-time druid i played was pretty powerful, i just built him around the theme "BEARSBEARSBEARSBEARSBEARS"

there is a disparity between the classes. if you can't see it, wait a few levels past 12 and the game will start breaking without even trying, less you be running a heavily house ruled game (we play with VERY little houserules)

Starbuck_II
2010-02-21, 05:43 PM
I perfer super elite array (+2 to every elite stat):
17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 10

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-21, 05:43 PM
I've been thinking about just saying, you all get

8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 to distribute how you want.

has anyone ever tried this? It keeps casters from getting an 18 and dumping several stats while keeping fighters on equal (well more equal-ish) footing. It also gives them 1 below average, and one average stat for roleplaying purposes (about the most you'd want since hey they're heroes, they really shouldn't be below average in multiple ways.)

My only concern would be that it would take the customization feel out of it.I find arrays are the way to go. Give players a choice between 2, to distribute as desired. Say, 18, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10, and 16, 16, 16, 14, 12, 10. That way you have stats for SAD classes (the first one) and stats for MAD classes (the second), and the first one gives up a bit in exchange for a single higher stat.

Riffington
2010-02-21, 05:48 PM
BadDMsBurgh,

Only Pittsburgh ends with an h.
Everywhere else is just -burg.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-21, 05:55 PM
not dropping the ridiculous fistfulls of d6's the cleric was

even the one-time druid i played was pretty powerful, i just built him around the theme "BEARSBEARSBEARSBEARSBEARS"

I agree with your post, and I have three points.

The bolded seems out of place in any optimised character bar Rogue (or other precision damage character) or something like the Mailman (though that may use maximise).

The second; I didn't lol cause I'm supposed to be asleep, but it was funny.

@^ Why should spelling of a fictional (I assume) name not be unusual?

JaronK
2010-02-21, 06:05 PM
IIRC, Commoner is ranked higher than Truenamer because it gets Handle Animal, which can, with sufficient skill, make a semi-useful pet owner, even if the owner himself is rather fifth-wheel. Truenamer's mechanic "doesn't function properly" per the Tiers posting; it doesn't scale appropriately with level and requires the player to either break the game with cheesy tactics or become exponentially more useless as the party levels.

That's my understanding of JaronK's reasoning, anyhow.

I didn't rank the Truenamer at all. Commoners are ranked where they are because they're the class offers virtually nothing (though actually Infested with Chickens and Tasty, being Commoner only flaws, give them an edge in certain areas. They are also the only class that can qualify for the Survivor PrC after just one level, for what it's worth). Truenamers are unranked because the whole "assume equivalent optimization" thing doesn't work with them. At high optimization a Truenamer can use his abilities as much as he likes within reason, acting much like a Warlock. At low-mid optimization he can't even use his class abilities at all. So in a low optimization game he's probably in the T6 area, while at high optimization he's probably T3-T4. Other classes really don't do that, so I couldn't rank it at all.

So yeah, Truenamers simply aren't ranked, because they way they work doesn't fit.

JaronK

Superglucose
2010-02-21, 06:13 PM
Everything is relevant in the long run. That doesn't mean it's significant enough to be worth major weight in how you set up a campaign. The difference between 28 point buy and 32 point buy insofar as it affects the relative power of a Wizard and a Fighter is miniscule. Compared to things like tactics, build, cheese factor, and campaign style, it's microscopically small. So arguing for higher PB values on the grounds that it it helps the weaker classes is disingenuous.
Yes, it's minuscule at higher levels, but at low levels (where stats are more important because you can't bring them up with magic, etc.) Wizards just get better and better compared to everyone else the more tricks GMs who use low point-buys use, such as 1) choking wbl, 2) low stats, and 3) "natural" stats.


I think the point people are trying to make is that the use of low point-buy is generally used to lower the power of the game, but as long as the wizard can buy an 18 int, he's fine and dandy and about as powerful as he'll ever need to be, but the same is NOT true of fighters. Fighters need the extra HP and need the extra armor class because they're busy soaking up hits.

Wizards want the extra HP and the extra AC as a buffer zone for when the enemy manages to get through the miss chance and prismatic sphere and the wizard's contingency of the day has been used and the wizard's fly speed isn't quite enough and the wizard was dimensional locked away from using Abrupt Jaunt and Etherealness and Astral Projection and also the summons are down and he can't use Shapechange any more today.

The best example is probably the spiked chain build... with 10/18/10/8/8/8 it's absolutely useless: it won't trip a fly. With 18/10/10/8/8/8 it doesn't get its attacks of opportunity. So it has to go something like 14/16/10/8/8/8... which really hurts it. But the difference between a 8/14/14/18/8/8 wizard and a 8/10/10/18/8/8 wizard is largely academic: you're still unconscious after that first Sleep spell.

Saph
2010-02-21, 06:20 PM
I think the point people are trying to make is that the use of low point-buy is generally used to lower the power of the game

According to who? Low point buy doesn't significantly lower the power of the game, low level lowers the power of the game. If I wanted to nerf spellcasters (which I don't - it's yet to be an issue in my games) pretty much the last solution I'd pick would be to increase everyone's stats.

Tavar
2010-02-21, 06:22 PM
One thing that I'd point out; a wizard with 16-17 Int isn't bad either. Lower than that and you might start having problems, but remember that many of the best low level spells don't give a save, or if they do it's only part of why it's considered so good. Lord knows that I've almost never bought an 18 stat unless it's some kind of ungodly point buy(High 40's and up).

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-21, 06:24 PM
This discussion is getting confusing, and IMO a large part of it is because of the OP. This thread started straight in an argument with the OP's talking points, and the opposition was never clearly stated.

So I wish to pose the question again, for clarification. Why exactly do DMs, specifically the DMs in this thread arguing for lower PB values, choose low point buy?

Saph
2010-02-21, 06:26 PM
So I wish to pose a question, for clarification. Why do DMs, specifically the DMs in this thread arguing for low point buy, choose low point buy?

Define low. As I've said, I do 28 point buy, or 4d6 rolled (which averages out similarly once you factor in rerolls). According to the DMG, that's normal to high, but I've met lots of people who think anything under 32 is low.

Amphetryon
2010-02-21, 06:30 PM
This discussion is getting confusing, and IMO a large part of it is because of the OP. This thread started straight in an argument with the OP's talking points, and the opposition was never clearly stated.

So I wish to pose the question again, for clarification. Why exactly do DMs, specifically the DMs in this thread arguing for lower PB values, choose low point buy?
For me, I choose a 28 point buy - most often - because: 1) it most closely matches the PC power level with how I run MM1 monsters 2) it is sufficient points to make a MAD or SAD player satisfied, if less than thrilled and 3) magic items, level-dependent stat bumps, and spells soon obfuscate the original starting stats in any event.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-21, 06:31 PM
Define low.

I was going to do that, but I really don't think I can. To some people, 28 is low. One person in this thread said 28 was high. I think 28 is normal. If the discussion gets pinned down to a specific set of definitions, its general usefulness declines. The best we can do is make each post with a case-wise definition of what "low" entails.

Basically, I come into this thread and start reading, but by the time I get to the end I've lost the general positions. The sides have started arguing about the smaller, more nitpicky parts of the positions; and I can't find the complete statement of opinion hidden somewhere back on page 2. A restatement of the positions of both sides (inasfar as "sides" exist) would aid clarity.

Frozen_Feet
2010-02-21, 06:37 PM
Also, I'm curious, for those that argue for rolling and against low PB: How many re-rolls do you allow if my rolls end up 15 14 13 12 10 8?

None, because I consider those stats darn good!

Okay, maybe I'm bit of an oddball. My favorite way of determining stats is "roll six sets of stats with 3d6, in order, and pick which suits you the most". I do it for nostalgia, because I began my roleplaying hobby with games where Random Number God created your character, and you made do with what you got.

When I do use low point-buy, it's because I want a gritty, low power game. In those cases, it often takes place in gritty, low power setting where there are no Tier 1, 2 and maybe even 3 classes.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-21, 06:45 PM
The elite array is awfully boring. Too generic, and without the "OOH! BIG NUMBERS" factor to compensate. I'd rather take the best of six 3d6; that would at least have some interesting results.

Esser-Z
2010-02-21, 08:08 PM
Acromos, I have two words for you:

Tucker's kobolds.

Godskook
2010-02-21, 08:22 PM
Define low.

<25 point-buy is what I'd call low.

25-~36 is 'normal'

~36-~70 is high powered

~70+ is bland.

That's a hip-shot estimate, based on 25 point-buy being the elite array standard, 36 being enough to buy two 'high' stats and still have left over for fluff, and 70 being around the point where having four 18s starts being required.

Although in terms of my original question, I'd change the original's wording to:

"Why do DMs choose smaller point-buys"

Just to avoid confusion.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-21, 08:28 PM
IMO 26-32 is normal, 32+ is high (overlap intended), 25- is low. Once you get into the higher regions of high (44+, or so, I've never seen it) you can safely be called "ridiculous". Same if you have significant negative PB.

Kylarra
2010-02-21, 08:35 PM
Edit: Kylarra a cleric is better, but stat-wise Wis (heh, stat-wise and Wisdom) and Cha switch places and there's still not much room for Int. You can make do on a lower PB but it is nice to have more freedom. *The Halfling returns the point* Your turn to counter.
Er, you didn't refute my point in the slightest. A cleric has all the points left over after buying his wis to put into int if he so chooses. Turning is one of those things that's either maxed or marginally ignored in favor of powering feats. Should your concept require you to be a scholar for the gods while also turning undead and smashing things, we've got a cloistered cleric variant who really says "no need to put points into int for skills". If your concept calls for you to be good at everything, well that's a conceptual issue you'll have to take up elsewhere, but 14s all around mean that you'd be good at "everything", relative to the average person, probably not relative to your more "optimized" companions.


stuff*sigh*
I should remember to always caveat things I say on GitP. What I meant to say was that the potential power gaps as advocated by the tier system, while existing, generally does not exist in games, as people should play at the same power level as the rest of the party. Since "ideally" people should "optimize" to be around the same power level as the rest of the party, whatever potential to break the game there is, tends to matter less in practice, than in theoretical debates on the internet. Which is why you have people talking about the "overpowered monk" and why "in their experience" paladins are strong, while people on the internet are toting the virtues of wizards and such and denouncing those who play monks, take more than 6 levels of fighter, etc*.

In your particular case, you have an optimized tier 1 and a moderately optimized tier 1 and an optimized tier 4... paired with unoptimized 4 and 5. It should be a nobrainer that in such a situation your tier 4 and 5 are going to be overshadowed and was never part of my intent to imply otherwise. Note that the difference between "optimized" and "not optimized" is also a large distinction, even within the same "tier" of potential power.


So I wish to pose the question again, for clarification. Why exactly do DMs, specifically the DMs in this thread arguing for lower PB values, choose low point buy?I prefer rolling personally, it's traditional, and out of my playgroup, only one person frequents gaming boards, so over-optimization is never a huge concern. That said, I do offer a 28pb alternative to 4b3 stat rolling, but my friends enjoy rolling dice and finding out what they have to work with more I guess.


*Note that from a strict optimization standpoint, internet people aren't "wrong", they just may not be right for the game in question.

Darcand
2010-02-21, 09:02 PM
I prefer a low PB, but what I particularly like is using lower stat caps. I played a game with a 60 point buy in, but with each ability starting at 0 and capping at 14 before racials. All in all the characters had a very organic feel.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-21, 09:05 PM
I prefer a low PB, but what I particularly like is using lower stat caps. I played a game with a 60 point buy in, but with each ability starting at 0 and capping at 14 before racials. All in all the characters had a very organic feel.

............unless my maths are wrong, isn't that, in normal game terms 12 pointbuy since you'd have to spend 48 points to get each stat up to 8?

Kylarra
2010-02-21, 09:07 PM
............unless my maths are wrong, isn't that, in normal game terms 12 pointbuy since you'd have to spend 48 points to get each stat up to 8?You can live your life knowing that the 10/11 array that commoners get have a higher point total than you.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-21, 09:08 PM
You can live your life knowing that the 10/11 array that commoners get have a higher point total than you.

I'd rather not thanks.

Kylarra
2010-02-21, 09:10 PM
I'd rather not thanks.On a slightly more serious note, I've heard of a similar thing before, but with a higher point total. I've never actually played that way myself since buying up to 18 on a 1:1 exchange basis lends itself to trying to game the system moreso than normal pointbuy.

Calimehter
2010-02-21, 09:34 PM
So I wish to pose the question again, for clarification. Why exactly do DMs, specifically the DMs in this thread arguing for lower PB values, choose low point buy?

The DMG states that 25 point buys are the standard way to go for generating PCs. Thus, one could say that using anything higher than that is the approach that needs to be "defended", and not the other way around. Simply saying that the game works just fine at a 25 point build with no need to deviate from the playtested baseline *is* an answer to the OP.

And that, I think, is where part of the problem lies. Each side seems to be assuming that the other has made some conscious decision to deviate from the "norm".

chiasaur11
2010-02-21, 09:50 PM
wait, people stat out the town guard chumps?

i thought their job (like all good red shirts) is to be bossed around until they go on away missions then get brutally slaughtered as story demands?

That only goes until the Captain stops drinking after hiring a dwarf.

Once that happens, you aren't going to get away with anything.

absolmorph
2010-02-21, 09:55 PM
It's far more likely that Paladins won't be allowed due to code of conduct and overbearing morality, than Crusaders being disallowed because of the same issues.
Since, y'know, the crusader doesn't have a code of conduct and doesn't come with a moral obligation to be holier-than-thou to their party members.

~~~~~~~~~~`
All kidding aside, tier power disparity is something I see more often claimed on internet boards than anything I've experienced in real life games. 'sides, even without ToB, "play a cleric". There, you're a better paladin than the paladin in all ways that matter.
This makes me sad, because it's not only true, but I also really enjoy playing paladins...

Mystic Muse
2010-02-21, 10:06 PM
This makes me sad, because it's not only true, but I also really enjoy playing paladins...

yes. This makes level 300 demonic/celestial dragon sad too.:smallfrown:(that's me by the way)

Amphetryon
2010-02-21, 10:32 PM
That only goes until the Captain stops drinking after hiring a dwarf.

Once that happens, you aren't going to get away with anything.Works best when the dwarf is over 6' tall with a punch even the trolls have learned to respect, as well as the pseudomagical ability to believe that everyone is really a good chap, deep down, so strongly that nobody is willing to disappoint him.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-21, 10:40 PM
Works best when the dwarf is over 6' tall with a punch even the trolls have learned to respect, as well as the pseudomagical ability to believe that everyone is really a good chap, deep down, so strongly that nobody is willing to disappoint him.Except that magic really doesn't work that well.

This works on nearly everyone. Nearly all the time.

It really only doesn't work against madmen and eldritch abominations. And sometimes even then.

Runestar
2010-02-22, 01:43 AM
This reminds me of a thread from another forum.

Give yourself the stats you want. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4461.0)

Which makes sense from a certain POV. I think there comes a point when the DM can only do so much to enforce certain rules and he would be better off trying to work out a gentleman's contract with his players.

Zen Master
2010-02-22, 08:36 AM
Altering opponents specifically so that they'll have high saves where they are targeted and low AC if the attackers have poor attack bonuses, and overall matching them with the PCs numerically makes for an incredibly unbelievable gameworld and gives players pretty clear metagame expectations for every fight simply because they encounter things engineered for their numbers.

Well - now you're just making stuff up. I never said any of those things. Have you actually convinced yourself that my point is to make everything the pc's do succeed?

Explain to me: How can you get that idea when I specifically say that the job of the GM is to challenge players?

Eldariel
2010-02-22, 08:40 AM
Explain to me: How can you get that idea when I specifically say that the job of the GM is to challenge players?

From this line:

So ... it's all speed blindness. You look at your impressive numbers, and somehow convince yourself it means anything. But it doesn't.

If numbers mean nothing...well, I don't see very many ways to make that happen. The only one being to arbitrarily assign all NPC and monster-stats to have bonuses that exactly match said numbers.

Note, I didn't say I assume you make everything the players do succeed, it just sounds to me like you're removing the player-impact from their success or failure leaving it solely up to the dice.

Emmerask
2010-02-22, 08:48 AM
<25 point-buy is what I'd call low.

25-~36 is 'normal'

~36-~70 is high powered

~70+ is bland.


E-Tools definition is pretty good and seeing that it was a licensed product it is what wotc seems to thing pb should be (so it is ~raw):

low-powered: 15
challenging: 22
normal: 25
tougher: 28
High-powered: 32

Zen Master
2010-02-22, 08:49 AM
The reasonable assumption is that a monster's stats remain static, so you naturally get more returns if you invest more resources in a particular area. Wizards pump int exactly because they want better save dcs and more spells. I fail to see the point in depriving them of the former.

That, quite honestly, is not a reasonable assumption.

No - you may not realise it, but you do exactly the same thing I do: You present the party with a relevant challenge.

The more powerful the party - the more powerful the opposition.

It's painfully simple. The only other argument you can claim is, that the more powerful party actually has it easier because you fail to challenge them. Or that the weaker party will simply be squished to paste every time.

I'm quite sure that isn't the point you're trying to make. Which, as far as I can tell, puts you back where I am: You adjust the challenge to the powerlevel of the party.

I think you need to pursue another avenue: You need to convince me higher numbers isn't just speed blindness - that being able to face Orcus is somehow inherently more interesting than facing a goblin shaman.

Xenogears
2010-02-22, 08:52 AM
The DMG states that 25 point buys are the standard way to go for generating PCs. Thus, one could say that using anything higher than that is the approach that needs to be "defended", and not the other way around. Simply saying that the game works just fine at a 25 point build with no need to deviate from the playtested baseline *is* an answer to the OP.

And that, I think, is where part of the problem lies. Each side seems to be assuming that the other has made some conscious decision to deviate from the "norm".

Well considering that a fairly large portion of the internet population maintain the belief that most of the assumptions made by the designers and playtesters are flat out wrong...

I mean if they thought that Druid and Fighter were both equal options than how can we trust them to know whether 25pt buy (also I don't like odd numbered point buys. I always wind up with 1 extra point at the end that I hafta tuck into some random stat) is any better balanced than a different pt buy.

Finally the reason I, personally, like higher Point Buy (anywhere from 30-40 is prolly good for me. A little lower is alright but not preferred. Higher than 40 would hafta be reserved for an Anime-Inspired campaign or something) is because I think it better represents the type of story I want to experience/play/tell. I don't want to play "Bob the Farmer grabs a Sword and shows even the Common Man can be a Hero." I want to play as Conan, Merlin, King Arthur, Aragorn, Obi-Wan, etc. I want to play as someone not just a smidge more powerful than a normal man but someone who starts off leaps and bounds above the people around him and only grows from there.

Emmerask
2010-02-22, 08:57 AM
That, quite honestly, is not a reasonable assumption.

No - you may not realise it, but you do exactly the same thing I do: You present the party with a relevant challenge.

The more powerful the party - the more powerful the opposition.

It's painfully simple. The only other argument you can claim is, that the more powerful party actually has it easier because you fail to challenge them. Or that the weaker party will simply be squished to paste every time.

I'm quite sure that isn't the point you're trying to make. Which, as far as I can tell, puts you back where I am: You adjust the challenge to the powerlevel of the party.

I think you need to pursue another avenue: You need to convince me higher numbers isn't just speed blindness - that being able to face Orcus is somehow inherently more interesting than facing a goblin shaman.


Very true, if you see that equal cr monsters just dont stand a chance you send in cr+x monster(s).
Which in most cases have better saving throws ie mitigating the increased stats or you send in custom made monsters that have increased saves,ac, abilities or give them other bonuses like terrain advantage for example to counter the increased power of the party.


Well considering that a fairly large portion of the internet population maintain the belief that most of the assumptions made by the designers and playtesters are flat out wrong...


Still we have to have a basis for our discussions here and that is RAW and that states 25 as normal ^^

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-22, 09:11 AM
Still we have to have a basis for our discussions here and that is RAW and that states 25 as normal ^^

RAW, as established in the player's handbook, is rolling 4d6 drop lowest. Anything else is DM choice, in which case we should go with what DMs actually choose rather than an ill-defined quasi-RAW. Of course, determining what DMs actually choose is rather difficult.

As I earlier stated, I prefer 28 point buy, because it enables more egregiously MAD concepts to be basically competent in play, while being in line with what I have perceived as the norm amongst my region. It also keeps ability scores sort of "realistic", whatever that means.

Zen Master
2010-02-22, 09:16 AM
If numbers mean nothing...

Higher numbers mean nothing. They are, after all, an abstraction.

Really, you must have noticed this. As your numbers rise, so do those of the enemies. As your level rises, the HD of monsters rises. This applies universally: If your damage output is 10, you will kill approximately the same number of enemies each round as if it is 100. Or 1000.

Now, you convince yourself that as your damage rises, you face tougher monsters. But you don't. That's the speed blindness: You face monsters that are exactly as tough as the weaker ones. They are adjusted to your powerlevel.

We just don't speak about it. Because it's silly. Like I started out saying.

Unless of course - and that's entirely valid - you don't play a roleplaying game, but a squad level, tactical game. But if you do? The GM really should be trying to win, he should try to kill you.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-22, 09:17 AM
I think you need to pursue another avenue: You need to convince me higher numbers isn't just speed blindness - that being able to face Orcus is somehow inherently more interesting than facing a goblin shaman.
No, being able to face Orcus is not inherently more interesting, as a universal factor. That doesn't mean "impressive" numbers are meaningless. You won't always be facing level-appropriate NPCs. Level-appropriate enemies, yeah, but in areas outside of combat, higher numbers do have quite a deal of meaning. Again, this does not translate to "more interesting" (gsbkk has less meaning than Christmas, but one word isn't necessarily more interesting).


As your numbers rise, so do those of the enemies.

Enemies aren't the only things in the game world.

Runestar
2010-02-22, 09:18 AM
That, quite honestly, is not a reasonable assumption.

And you are telling me that expecting the monster's stats to scale in line with the players' stats is?


No - you may not realise it, but you do exactly the same thing I do: You present the party with a relevant challenge.

But we go about it in different ways, and I believe it is this difference which makes all the difference for the players.

Granted, they may not realise straight away that the hill giant has a higher will save than normal, or extra hp to compensate for the fighter's improved damage output. But eventually, they will start to catch on that for all the resources sunk into optimizing their characters, they don't seem to be having an easier time, despite the DM apparently not doing anything differently, and start comparing notes and demanding to see your stat blocks.

I don't know about you or your players, but I certainly do not want to be that DM if/when this occurs.


I'm quite sure that isn't the point you're trying to make. Which, as far as I can tell, puts you back where I am: You adjust the challenge to the powerlevel of the party.

Except I don't do it by arbitrarily giving the foes bonuses to their stats for no good rhyme or reason, thereby invalidating all the hard work my players have put into building their characters. I feel they deserve to get something for all the resources they have channeled into them.

For instance, if I want to challenge my party more, I could throw higher-cr monsters at them, make them more optimized or simply play them smarter. In addition to providing a decent challenge, it also lets them know their efforts at optimization (of which I am not opposed to) are paying off because they are taking down foes stronger than what their lv would otherwise suggest.


You need to convince me higher numbers isn't just speed blindness - that being able to face Orcus is somehow inherently more interesting than facing a goblin shaman.

Assuming the goblin shaman is also cr22? I don't get what you are trying to say here.

If I throw Orcus at the PCs, it will not be because he is overpowered (certainly not for his cr at least), but because he already comes with a lot of established lore and inherent coolness oozing out of every letter of his name. I don't need to expend as much effort fleshing out why Orcus needs to die. Just the mere mention of his name is enough to get my party speculating, and whatever they come up with is likely as good as, if not better than what I can come up with. :smallsmile:

Assuming the shaman's power is a fair indicator of his cr, then he should be just as challenging as Orcus. What's the difference? The party should find either fight just as difficult.

Zen Master
2010-02-22, 09:18 AM
Acromos, I have two words for you:

Tucker's kobolds.

Yea, see - that's supporting evidence for my case. Thanks for that.

Tuckers kobolds are exactly what I'm talking about: Low CR enemies, adjusted to challenge players of a higher level. They have been boosted to be a relevant challenge.

Xenogears
2010-02-22, 09:19 AM
Higher numbers mean nothing. They are, after all, an abstraction.

Really, you must have noticed this. As your numbers rise, so do those of the enemies. As your level rises, the HD of monsters rises. This applies universally: If your damage output is 10, you will kill approximately the same number of enemies each round as if it is 100. Or 1000.

Now, you convince yourself that as your damage rises, you face tougher monsters. But you don't. That's the speed blindness: You face monsters that are exactly as tough as the weaker ones. They are adjusted to your powerlevel.

We just don't speak about it. Because it's silly. Like I started out saying.

Unless of course - and that's entirely valid - you don't play a roleplaying game, but a squad level, tactical game. But if you do? The GM really should be trying to win, he should try to kill you.

What about the people who play Modules? Or games where X monster is in Forest A wether the PC's can barely scratch it or can roll right over it? I've heard lots of poeple talk about playing either game and neither one fights into your model.

Uin
2010-02-22, 09:20 AM
I normally use 32pb. The last compaign I GMed used 28pb, but I'll be switching back to 32. There are too many variables and you just need to feel out which is right for you and your group. My specific group has a minimal grip on the system while I am fond of various levels of practical and theoretical optimisation (I change the feats on set-piece monsters) so they need all the help they can get.

Incidently I also give PCs an extra feat which must be spent on something Racial, Dragonmarked or Action Point based (I run Eberron). I think this is a good way of conveying the fact that the PCs are tough paragons of their races.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-22, 09:21 AM
But we go about it in different ways, and I believe it is this difference which makes all the difference for the players.
Do you have any evidence of how Acromos goes about it? If you do, repost it, please, because it is very relevant to the conversation and it was lost in the flow of posts earlier.


Now, you convince yourself that as your damage rises, you face tougher monsters. But you don't. That's the speed blindness: You face monsters that are exactly as tough as the weaker ones. They are adjusted to your powerlevel.

As my damage rises, the monsters don't grow in power. But as my options rise, and as the dramatic tension of the campaign rises, the DM does indeed ramp up the power. Not much, since power is relative, but I really doubt that there's a perfect correlation to powerlevel - and IMO, to cope with higher-level flexibility (mages especially), the margin of error is towards more power.

Again, enemies aren't the only things in the gameworld. Monsters scale to provide an appropriate challenge. Peasants don't. Higher numbers do have a meaning in areas outside of the specifically abstracted adventure. And higher levels bring more than just higher numbers, they bring more options.

How did we get on this topic from point buy?

Runestar
2010-02-22, 09:29 AM
Yea, see - that's supporting evidence for my case. Thanks for that.

Tuckers kobolds are exactly what I'm talking about: Low CR enemies, adjusted to challenge players of a higher level. They have been boosted to be a relevant challenge.

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I thought the concept of tucker's kobold means their stats are more or less irrelevant. I read the article, and it seems the players may as well have been fighting human commoners. The players were disadvantaged only because they were taken by surprise, not having anticipated such a challenge and thus were poorly built/equipped to take on the challenge.

Simply put, the DM metagamed heavily by creating a scenario which exposed and magnified the party's weakness (which normally should not have been that much of an issue), while going out of the way to neuter their strengths (difficulty aiming fireballs effectively). I could theoretically do the same thing by giving my foes virtual immunity to every tactic they favour.

The foes haven't been boosted insofar that their stats have improved. At this point, you aren't really fighting kobolds anymore, IMO. You are fighting the DM, and the system itself.

Personally, I wasn't impressed by that article. I had high hopes upon hearing everyone raving over it, but its contents were much of a letdown. :smallyuk:

Eldariel
2010-02-22, 09:32 AM
Higher numbers mean nothing. They are, after all, an abstraction.

Really, you must have noticed this. As your numbers rise, so do those of the enemies. As your level rises, the HD of monsters rises. This applies universally: If your damage output is 10, you will kill approximately the same number of enemies each round as if it is 100. Or 1000.

Now, you convince yourself that as your damage rises, you face tougher monsters. But you don't. That's the speed blindness: You face monsters that are exactly as tough as the weaker ones. They are adjusted to your powerlevel.

We just don't speak about it. Because it's silly. Like I started out saying.

Unless of course - and that's entirely valid - you don't play a roleplaying game, but a squad level, tactical game. But if you do? The GM really should be trying to win, he should try to kill you.

As far as I'm concerned, DM's task is to present a believable world and an interesting adventure first and foremost. As such, scaling encounters to match PCs' strengths or weaknesses just doesn't sit well into the game from where I stand. IMHO even players' level shouldn't even have much of an impact on what they fight; what they do should be the bigger factor. Living game world will give them all the challenges they'll ever need.

It doesn't take arbitrarily higher numbers to challenge PCs. Arbitrarily higher numbers aren't even a very interesting way to challenge the PCs. Specifically in 3.5, consumables, traps, surprise, stealth and so on can function much more efficiently as a challenge and regardless of the party's numbers. The numbers enable the party to have a higher chance of surviving, and a greater offensive capabilities, but you don't need to defensively buff the enemies to challenge them.


It's also worth noting that higher stats make for more versatile PCs, with access to feats and abilities lower stat ones wouldn't have. That doesn't flow into any kind of number comparisons; it's a new set of abilities entirely.

Saph
2010-02-22, 09:52 AM
Granted, they may not realise straight away that the hill giant has a higher will save than normal, or extra hp to compensate for the fighter's improved damage output. But eventually, they will start to catch on that for all the resources sunk into optimizing their characters, they don't seem to be having an easier time, despite the DM apparently not doing anything differently, and start comparing notes and demanding to see your stat blocks.

I don't know about you or your players, but I certainly do not want to be that DM if/when this occurs.

Yeah, that would be such a terrible conversation.

Players: "Hey, are these monsters stronger than the ones in the book?"
Me: "Yes."
Players: "Oh. OK."

Yep, that would cause the collapse of my group, right there. :P


Except I don't do it by arbitrarily giving the foes bonuses to their stats for no good rhyme or reason, thereby invalidating all the hard work my players have put into building their characters. I feel they deserve to get something for all the resources they have channeled into them.

For instance, if I want to challenge my party more, I could throw higher-cr monsters at them, make them more optimized or simply play them smarter. In addition to providing a decent challenge, it also lets them know their efforts at optimization (of which I am not opposed to) are paying off because they are taking down foes stronger than what their lv would otherwise suggest.

This is silly. So according to you, using higher-CR monsters is fine, optimising monsters is fine, having monsters using intelligent tactics is fine, but increasing monsters stats is some sort of horrible, horrible violation of the DM's responsibilities?

There's no difference. Improving a monster's feats makes for a harder encounter. Improving a monster's stats makes for a harder encounter. It's the end result that matters; the way you get there is irrelevant. If the final encounter is difficulty level X, I really don't care how the monsters get built to get there.

Xenogears
2010-02-22, 09:56 AM
This is silly. So according to you, using higher-CR monsters is fine, optimising monsters is fine, having monsters using intelligent tactics is fine, but increasing monsters stats is some sort of horrible, horrible violation of the DM's responsibilities?

There's no difference. Improving a monster's feats makes for a harder encounter. Improving a monster's stats makes for a harder encounter. It's the end result that matters; the way you get there is irrelevant. If the final encounter is difficulty level X, I really don't care how the monsters get built to get there.

I think his point is that increasing the monsters stats to match the partys is bad. For example: The Wizard increases his Int and gains +2 on his DCs as a result. Suddenly all monsters gain +2 to all their saves and the wizard has the exact same chance to affect them as before so he wasted his resources. That is a bad thing IMO. It is needlessly artificial, metagaming, and fun-robbing. It also does not seem to be precisely what Acromas was saying he does either so I don't know why it was brought up in the first place.

Zen Master
2010-02-22, 10:10 AM
But we go about it in different ways, and I believe it is this difference which makes all the difference for the players.

No - we go about it in exactly the same way. You do exactly what I do: Say you want your party to face a basilisk. You look at it, maybe do a little math, and realise 'this will be too easy for them' - so you buff it, maybe add a template, maybe it gets a companion, maybe you use elite array for it's stats.

Exactly the same as I do.


Granted, they may not realise straight away that the hill giant has a higher will save than normal, or extra hp to compensate for the fighter's improved damage output. But eventually, they will start to catch on that for all the resources sunk into optimizing their characters, they don't seem to be having an easier time, despite the DM apparently not doing anything differently, and start comparing notes and demanding to see your stat blocks.

I don't know about you or your players, but I certainly do not want to be that DM if/when this occurs.

That's what GM's are expected to do: Challenge the players. You cannot do this without increasing the numbers of the monsters, as the numbers of the players increase.


Except I don't do it by arbitrarily giving the foes bonuses to their stats for no good rhyme or reason, thereby invalidating all the hard work my players have put into building their characters.

Now see - that's you making stuff up. I never said I did it at random without rhyme or reason, did I? I don't think so.

Really, the problem isn't that we do things differently.

No, the problem is that we view what we do differently. You (apparently, to me) cannot separate the numbers from the mental movie you play to your PC's.

The numbers, in themselves, are meaningless except as a measure of how challenging an encounter is for the players. The name atop the stat block is meaningless except to present a given set of numbers to the players.

I can think of no simpler way to explain this.

alisbin
2010-02-22, 10:26 AM
the whole point (IMHO) of building X character is to be good at something and if my DM keeps adjusting all the monsters so i'm (despite my speciality of say, enchantment) equally as likely to succeed with a fear effect (part of my specialty) as a non specialist would if i was not present, three things happen.
1, any non specialists are punished, since they now have to beat a higher save
2, I'M punished in the same way.
3, i lose out on feeling good about my choices benefiting me and the party
so instead of rewarding specialization and not rewarding generalization, your punishing both specialization and generalization when specialization is present, so why specialize your character in something?

i'll give an example of what i consider good DM reaction to optimization.
i'm playing a Telepath heavily optimized for mind affecting powers, my minimum DC is 17, next level it'll got it minimum of 19. now, instead of my DM just buffing everythings will saves (which would punish our sorcerer and warlock as well as me), he rewards me for specializing. he opens up new paths in his story, where i can mind control and mind blast in ways that help the story and RP. yes, sometimes we run into things that are tougher mentally, but it is not the NORM, thats the point, a specialist should normally be better at their specialization, you want to challenge, give a situation that is not conducive toy their specialization, try to to get them to think laterally or rely on party members.
as i understand what whats being said, some of the DMs posting strive to make sure that no matter the situation every PC has about a 50/50 chance of succeeding at something they are likely to try, which as far as i'm concerned is not the way to go, it becomes boring.

as far as PB, i'm solidly in the camp of 32 being average for heroes, if your players really want to play peasants that become heroes then the lower PBs are great for that, but in the end, higher PB makes low levels more survivable so people can continue to play the characters they started with (and in theory prefer, to, say, characters they make when their first char dies) and it means that at really high levels, that fighter who has made it this far and has really cool high stats, has more freedom to try and be relevant vs the mage who started with all 10s and a 17 and can now break the world at will.

Calimehter
2010-02-22, 10:54 AM
as far as PB, i'm solidly in the camp of 32 being average for heroes, if your players really want to play peasants that become heroes then the lower PBs are great for that, but in the end, higher PB makes low levels more survivable so people can continue to play the characters they started with (and in theory prefer, to, say, characters they make when their first char dies) and it means that at really high levels, that fighter who has made it this far and has really cool high stats, has more freedom to try and be relevant vs the mage who started with all 10s and a 17 and can now break the world at will.

As a user of 25 point builds, I've often (but not always) found it to be the case that it is the fighty types who do a better job of surviving the low levels than the mage who overloaded his one prime stat. The base hit die difference becomes more relevant when folks aren't automatically having 3+ bonus HP/level from their high CON alone (or if the wizard does have this, he didn't have the points to do that *and* bump his prime casting stat to the stratosphere) and the wizards spells aren't yet quite powerful or numerous enough to prevent the HP difference from being meaningful.

YMMV of course.

joe
2010-02-22, 11:25 AM
As a DM, I've always been a fan of 36-point buy, which is admittedly higher than what is recommended for High-Power Campaigns. The most often built character with this is two 16s, two 14s and two 10s.

I also have a tendency to encourage powergaming among my PCs and item creation, as I'm generally very light on giving out magic items and tend to send high powered monsters.

Overall it generally seems to work effectively.

alisbin
2010-02-22, 11:46 AM
@calimehter:
i'm mainly referring to higher levels. as far as low level survivability and HD, i picked up a house rule from a friend that i like, when you level up you roll your HD but you keep rerolling until you better then 50% of your possible HD, which gives a real bonus to warrior classes (so a fighter can get 5-10, rogue 3-6, wizard 2-4) high con can essentially move you up a bracket, but thats about it.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-22, 12:10 PM
I only quickly skimed the posts in this thread so sorry if it has already been stated, however
Would not a good gm create his story/campain without any of the players in mind? That's how we have always done it. I know my self and other gms have occasionaly given warning to players if they pick a class that may not be hugly usfull(rogues in an undead campain for example)

if a campains made like that then a lower or higher point buy has a larger impact on how things are handled. Having a lower point buy makes things more leathal where as a higher point buy makes things easyer.

Kylarra
2010-02-22, 12:14 PM
Would not a good gm create his story/campain without any of the players in mind? I'd have to say no. An experienced DM could, but a good DM would not.

Eldariel
2010-02-22, 12:18 PM
I'd have to say no. An experienced DM could, but a good DM would not.

I disagree. In my opinion, planning around the players lessens immersion without any real gain. Of course, this is a matter that comes heavily down to opinion, but I vastly prefer DMs who don't start to plan around the party and instead create a world where the party can adventure.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-22, 12:20 PM
I'd have to say no. An experienced DM could, but a good DM would not.

I know alot of old school gms did that.

Its the same as picking up an adventure. I would argue that a Good gm should make his campain independent of said adventure. it creates versilitude or however you spell it.

I knwo it has been an age old debate about custom making your campains to your players or leaving the world static.

Kylarra
2010-02-22, 12:25 PM
I disagree. In my opinion, planning around the players lessens immersion without any real gain. Of course, this is a matter that comes heavily down to opinion, but I vastly prefer DMs who don't start to plan around the party and instead create a world where the party can adventure.He said with the players in mind, not their characters. You game to your audience, if your players are hack and slashers, you don't play a game of courtly intrigue, unless of course you've told them ahead of time and they disregard your warning.

To an extent, I'm just arguing semantics, since I prefer a sandbox style system myself, but I still keep my players in mind when designing the world and what potential hooks there are at the beginning.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-22, 12:34 PM
He said with the players in mind, not their characters. You game to your audience, if your players are hack and slashers, you don't play a game of courtly intrigue, unless of course you've told them ahead of time and they disregard your warning.

To an extent, I'm just arguing semantics, since I prefer a sandbox style system myself, but I still keep my players in mind when designing the world and what potential hooks there are at the beginning.

err sorry i ment players characters... as in ya generaly if my players like hack and slash i keep it hack and slash if they like both i do both... i still sandbox it generaly i just start them in a position that could generate one or the other with more probebility.

Totally Guy
2010-02-22, 12:50 PM
Meh.

25 Point Buy.

Stat 1 is +4 to +1
Stat 2 is +3 to +0
Stat 3 is +2 to -1
Stat 4 is +2 to -1
Stat 5 is +1 to -1
Stat 6 is +1 to -1

32 Point Buy.

Stat 1 is +4 to +2
Stat 2 is +4 to +1
Stat 3 is +3 to -1
Stat 4 is +2 to -1
Stat 5 is +2 to -1
Stat 6 is +1 to -1

That's not so different.:smalltongue: [/naive]

25 Arrays
18 15 9 8 8 8
18 14 11 8 8 8
18 14 10 9 8 8
18 14 9 9 9 8
18 13 12 8 8 8
18 13 11 9 8 8
18 13 10 10 8 8
18 13 10 9 9 8
18 13 9 9 9 9
18 12 12 9 8 8
18 12 11 10 8 8
18 12 11 9 9 8
18 12 10 10 9 8
18 12 10 9 9 9
18 11 11 11 8 8
18 11 11 10 9 8
18 11 11 9 9 9
18 11 10 10 10 8
18 11 10 10 9 9
18 10 10 10 10 9

17 16 10 8 8 8
17 16 9 9 8 8
17 15 12 8 8 8
17 15 11 9 8 8
17 15 10 10 8 8
17 15 10 9 9 8
17 15 9 9 9 9
17 14 14 8 8 8
17 14 13 9 8 8
17 14 12 10 8 8
17 14 12 9 9 8
17 14 11 11 8 8
17 14 11 10 9 8
17 14 11 9 9 9
17 14 10 10 10 8
17 14 10 10 9 9
17 13 13 10 8 8
17 13 13 9 9 8
17 13 12 11 8 8
17 13 12 10 9 8
17 13 12 9 9 9
17 13 11 11 9 8
17 13 11 10 10 8
17 13 11 10 9 9
17 13 10 10 10 9
17 12 12 12 8 8
17 12 12 11 9 8
17 12 12 10 10 8
17 12 12 10 9 9
17 12 11 11 10 8
17 12 11 11 9 9
17 12 11 10 10 9
17 12 10 10 10 10
17 11 11 11 11 8
17 11 11 11 10 9
17 11 11 10 10 10

16 16 13 8 8 8
16 16 12 9 8 8
16 16 11 10 8 8
16 16 11 9 9 8
16 16 10 10 9 8
16 16 10 9 9 9
16 15 14 9 8 8
16 15 13 10 8 8
16 15 13 9 9 8
16 15 12 11 8 8
16 15 12 10 9 8
16 15 12 9 9 9
16 15 11 11 9 8
16 15 11 10 10 8
16 15 11 10 9 9
16 15 10 10 10 9
16 14 14 11 8 8
16 14 14 10 9 8
16 14 14 9 9 9
16 14 13 12 8 8
16 14 13 11 9 8
16 14 13 10 10 8
16 14 13 10 9 9
16 14 12 12 9 8
16 14 12 11 10 8
16 14 12 11 9 9
16 14 12 10 10 9
16 14 11 11 11 8
16 14 11 11 10 9
16 14 11 10 10 10
16 13 13 13 8 8
16 13 13 12 9 8
16 13 13 11 10 8
16 13 13 11 9 9
16 13 13 10 10 9
16 13 12 12 10 8
16 13 12 12 9 9
16 13 12 11 11 8
16 13 12 11 10 9
16 13 12 10 10 10
16 13 11 11 11 9
16 13 11 11 10 10
16 12 12 12 11 8
16 12 12 12 10 9
16 12 12 11 11 9
16 12 12 11 10 10
16 12 11 11 11 10
16 11 11 11 11 11

15 15 15 9 8 8
15 15 14 11 8 8
15 15 14 10 9 8
15 15 14 9 9 9
15 15 13 12 8 8
15 15 13 11 9 8
15 15 13 10 10 8
15 15 13 10 9 9
15 15 11 11 11 8
15 15 11 11 10 9
15 15 11 10 10 10
15 14 14 13 8 8
15 14 14 12 9 8
15 14 14 11 10 8
15 14 14 11 9 9
15 14 14 10 10 9
15 14 13 13 9 8
15 14 13 12 10 8
15 14 13 12 9 9
15 14 13 11 11 8
15 14 13 11 10 9
15 14 13 10 10 10
15 14 12 12 11 8
15 14 12 12 10 9
15 14 12 11 11 9
15 14 12 11 10 10
15 14 11 11 11 10
15 13 13 13 10 8
15 13 13 13 9 9
15 13 13 12 11 8
15 13 13 12 10 9
15 13 13 11 11 9
15 13 13 11 10 10
15 13 12 12 12 8
15 13 12 12 11 9
15 13 12 12 10 10
15 13 12 11 11 10
15 13 11 11 11 11
15 12 12 12 12 9
15 12 12 12 11 10
15 12 12 11 11 11

14 14 14 14 9 8
14 14 14 13 10 8
14 14 14 13 9 9
14 14 14 12 11 8
14 14 14 12 10 9
14 14 14 11 11 9
14 14 14 11 10 10
14 14 13 13 11 8
14 14 13 13 10 9
14 14 14 13 10 8
14 14 14 13 9 9
14 14 14 12 11 8
14 14 14 12 10 9
14 14 14 11 11 9
14 14 14 11 10 10
14 14 13 13 11 8
14 14 13 13 10 9
14 14 13 12 12 8
14 14 13 12 11 9
14 14 13 12 10 10
14 14 13 11 11 10
14 14 12 12 12 9
14 14 12 12 11 10
14 14 12 11 11 11
14 13 13 13 12 8
14 13 13 13 11 9
14 13 13 13 10 10
14 13 13 12 12 9
14 13 13 12 11 10
14 13 13 11 11 11
14 13 12 12 12 10
14 13 12 12 11 11
14 12 12 12 12 11

13 13 13 13 13 8
13 13 13 13 12 9
13 13 13 13 11 10
13 13 13 12 12 10
13 13 13 12 11 11
13 13 12 12 12 11
13 12 12 12 12 12

32 Arrays
18 18 8 8 8 8
18 17 11 8 8 8
18 17 10 9 8 8
18 17 9 9 9 8
18 16 14 8 8 8
18 16 13 9 8 8
18 16 12 10 8 8
18 16 12 9 9 8
18 16 11 11 8 8
18 16 11 10 9 8
18 16 11 9 9 9
18 16 10 10 10 8
18 16 10 10 9 9
18 15 15 8 8 8
18 15 14 10 8 8
18 15 14 9 9 8
18 15 13 11 8 8
18 15 13 10 9 8
18 15 13 9 9 9
18 15 12 12 8 8
18 15 12 11 9 8
18 15 12 10 10 8
18 15 12 10 9 9
18 15 11 11 10 8
18 15 11 11 9 9
18 15 11 10 10 9
18 15 10 10 10 10
18 14 14 12 8 8
18 14 14 11 9 8
18 14 14 10 10 8
18 14 14 10 9 9
18 14 13 13 8 8
18 14 13 12 9 8
18 14 13 11 10 8
18 14 13 11 9 9
18 14 13 10 10 9
18 14 12 12 10 8
18 14 12 12 9 9
18 14 12 11 11 8
18 14 12 11 10 9
18 14 12 10 10 10
18 13 13 13 9 8
18 13 13 12 10 8
18 13 13 12 9 9
18 13 13 11 11 8
18 13 13 11 10 9
18 13 13 10 10 10
18 13 12 12 11 8
18 13 12 12 10 9
18 13 12 11 11 9
18 13 12 11 10 10
18 13 11 11 11 10
18 12 12 12 12 8
18 12 12 12 11 9
18 12 12 12 10 10
18 12 12 11 11 10
18 12 11 11 11 11

17 17 14 8 8 8
17 17 13 9 8 8
17 17 12 10 8 8
17 17 12 9 9 8
17 17 11 11 8 8
17 17 11 10 9 8
17 17 11 9 9 9
17 17 10 10 10 8
17 17 10 10 9 9
17 16 15 9 8 8
17 16 14 11 8 8
17 16 14 10 9 8
17 16 14 9 9 9
17 16 13 12 8 8
17 16 13 11 9 8
17 16 13 10 10 8
17 16 13 10 9 9
17 16 12 12 9 8
17 16 12 11 10 8
17 16 12 11 9 9
17 16 12 10 10 9
17 16 11 11 11 8
17 16 11 11 10 9
17 16 11 10 10 10
17 15 15 11 8 8
17 15 15 10 9 8
17 15 15 9 9 9
17 15 14 13 8 8
17 15 14 12 9 8
17 15 14 11 10 8
17 15 14 11 9 9
17 15 14 10 10 9
17 15 13 13 9 8
17 15 13 12 10 8
17 15 13 12 9 9
17 15 13 11 11 8
17 15 13 11 10 9
17 15 13 10 10 10
17 15 12 12 11 8
17 15 12 12 10 9
17 15 12 11 11 9
17 15 12 11 10 10
17 15 11 11 11 10
17 14 14 14 9 8
17 14 14 13 10 8
17 14 14 13 9 9
17 14 14 12 11 8
17 14 14 12 10 9
17 14 14 11 11 9
17 14 14 11 10 10
17 14 13 13 11 8
17 14 13 13 10 9
17 14 13 12 12 8
17 14 13 12 11 9
17 14 13 12 10 10
17 14 13 11 11 10
17 14 12 12 12 9
17 14 12 12 11 10
17 14 12 11 11 11
17 13 13 13 12 8
17 13 13 13 11 9
17 13 13 13 10 10
17 13 13 12 12 9
17 13 13 12 11 10
17 13 13 11 11 11
17 13 12 12 12 10
17 13 12 12 11 11
17 12 12 12 12 11

16 16 16 10 8 8
16 16 16 9 9 8
16 16 15 12 8 8
16 16 15 11 9 8
16 16 15 10 10 8
16 16 15 10 9 9
16 16 14 14 8 8
16 16 14 13 9 8
16 16 14 12 10 8
16 16 14 12 9 9
16 16 14 11 11 8
16 16 14 11 10 9
16 16 14 10 10 10
16 16 13 13 10 8
16 16 13 13 9 9
16 16 13 12 11 8
16 16 13 12 10 9
16 16 13 11 11 9
16 16 13 11 10 10
16 16 12 12 12 8
16 16 12 12 11 9
16 16 12 12 10 10
16 16 12 11 11 10
16 16 11 11 11 11
16 15 15 14 8 8
16 15 15 13 9 8
16 15 15 12 10 8
16 15 15 12 9 9
16 15 15 11 11 8
16 15 15 11 10 9
16 15 15 10 10 10
16 15 14 14 10 8
16 15 14 14 9 9
16 15 14 13 11 8
16 15 14 13 10 9
16 15 14 12 12 8
16 15 14 12 11 9
16 15 14 12 10 10
16 15 14 11 11 10
16 15 13 13 12 8
16 15 13 13 11 9
16 15 13 13 10 10
16 15 13 12 12 9
16 15 13 12 11 10
16 15 13 11 11 11
16 15 12 12 12 10
16 15 12 12 11 11
16 14 14 14 12 8
16 14 14 14 11 9
16 14 14 14 10 10
16 14 14 13 11 10
16 14 14 12 12 10
16 14 13 13 13 9
16 14 13 13 12 10
16 14 13 13 11 11
16 14 13 12 12 11
16 14 12 12 12 12
16 13 13 13 13 10
16 13 13 13 12 11
16 13 13 12 12 12

15 15 15 15 8 8
15 15 15 14 10 8
15 15 15 14 9 9
15 15 15 13 11 8
15 15 15 13 10 9
15 15 15 12 12 8
15 15 15 12 11 9
15 15 15 12 10 10
15 15 15 11 11 10
15 15 14 14 12 8
15 15 14 14 11 9
15 15 14 14 10 10
15 15 14 13 13 8
15 15 14 13 12 9
15 15 14 13 11 10
15 15 14 12 12 10
15 15 14 12 11 11
15 15 13 13 13 9
15 15 13 13 12 10
15 15 13 13 11 11
15 15 13 12 12 11
15 15 12 12 12 12
15 14 14 14 14 8
15 14 14 14 13 9
15 14 14 14 12 10
15 14 14 14 11 11
15 14 14 13 13 10
15 14 14 13 12 11
15 14 14 12 12 12
15 14 13 13 13 11
15 14 13 13 12 12
15 13 13 13 13 12

14 14 14 14 14 10
14 14 14 14 13 11
14 14 14 14 12 12
14 14 14 13 13 12
14 14 13 13 13 13

I might have missed a few, I was using the stupid method...
I found 185 25 point arrays.
I found 222 32 point arrays.
But remember... stupid method.

Yora
2010-02-22, 01:35 PM
Would not a good gm create his story/campain without any of the players in mind? That's how we have always done it.
Your double negative question confuses me.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-22, 01:40 PM
Your double negative question confuses me.

I was basicaly saying that a good gm should not take the players characters into account just the players style.

Yora
2010-02-22, 01:46 PM
In that case, I don't agree.

I usually sit down with the players before planning anything for the campaign and have them agree on what types of characters they want to play. It's not going to be much fun if I make a campaign centered around a plot to influence the succession for an elven throne, when half the players want to play dwarven berserkers. And in a game that includes a psionic PC, I'd definately include some psionic opponents, and I wouldn't send the party into the underdark for most of the campaign if they make paladin and mounted fighters.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-22, 02:00 PM
In that case, I don't agree.

I usually sit down with the players before planning anything for the campaign and have them agree on what types of characters they want to play. It's not going to be much fun if I make a campaign centered around a plot to influence the succession for an elven throne, when half the players want to play dwarven berserkers. And in a game that includes a psionic PC, I'd definately include some psionic opponents, and I wouldn't send the party into the underdark for most of the campaign if they make paladin and mounted fighters.

Ehh, to each his own... I come from a more grizzled old school GM's from 1st and 2nd ed where we made characters and we had to figure out ways to get our characters to work...
Dwarven beserkers... better keep your tongue in the elven court. IT allows for some interesting role play situations.

actualy funny you mention paladins and the under-dark... we had a game where every day the wizard would have to shrink the paladin and his mount so that he could still charge down corridors... It was alot of fun.



Though sounds to me like your more of a dramatisist, where as me and the gms i've played with tend to be more simulationists or gamist.

Zen Master
2010-02-22, 02:36 PM
This can be in only one of a totalt of three different ways.


Either the GM does not challenge players. Optimized characters have it easy, and go from boring, unchallenging victory to unchallenging victory, earning xp they don't deserve.

Or the GM challenges players. Whatever level of optimization involved, this works, the game is fun and challenging.

Or the GM crushes the pc's over and over again. Might possibly be fun for a GM sadistic enough.


Now, I do realise that some players like the first option. It's entirely valid to get a feeling of being powerful from ganking something measurably less powerful. I do suspect it gets hollow rather fast. But still.

I honestly imagine no one likes the third option.

And at a random guess, 99-100% of everyone plays according to the second option. You may stick different words on it, but I'm truly, honestly convinced this is the case.

I know of sandbox campaigns, where if you venture south, you meet the cr5 goblin tribes, and if you venture north you encounter the Arch Lich of Inescapable Doom (cr ... oh lets say 100). But that doesn't change anything - the lich may be there, but the players will not go there until they can face it.

This whole discussion is like a haunted village. We all know there are ghosts, but we don't talk about it. Everyone adjusts encounters to the party. Really. No one thinks 'oh hey, there should be a group of 1hd goblins here' if the party it's designed to challenge are all level 19.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-22, 02:55 PM
I know of sandbox campaigns, where if you venture south, you meet the cr5 goblin tribes, and if you venture north you encounter the Arch Lich of Inescapable Doom (cr ... oh lets say 100). But that doesn't change anything - the lich may be there, but the players will not go there until they can face it.

This whole discussion is like a haunted village. We all know there are ghosts, but we don't talk about it. Everyone adjusts encounters to the party. Really. No one thinks 'oh hey, there should be a group of 1hd goblins here' if the party it's designed to challenge are all level 19.

I disagree about the adjusting enounters... When we sandbox some times the party does kill things way below or above there cr thats the point...

For example: this one time my PC's strolled into a village that had been recently harrassed by a hobgoblin tribe. (cr 1/2-cr 3, not including women and children). After some rp the pcs decided that this was a decleration of war against the kingdom(which it was) and proceded to slaughter all the men of the tribe. The pcs where caught off gaurd a bit at the ease, though after that session when i explained to them that the tribe was a lower cr they all understood.... the pcs where level 8 at the time.

True sandbox has both lower and higher CR areas.. it realy is what ever makes sense.
a tribe of goblins thats been harrased by humans neer by for centuries shouled be higher CR then a tribe thats lived remotly in a mountian somewhere who's only real oposition is a roc.

Fhaolan
2010-02-22, 03:11 PM
Ehh, to each his own... I come from a more grizzled old school GM's from 1st and 2nd ed where we made characters and we had to figure out ways to get our characters to work...

Being one of those old-school grizzled GM's (30 years or so), this confuses me slightly with respect to the topic of 'high stats on average vs low stats on average'.

If people are willing to avoid situations that they believe their character can't handle with intelligent playing, why do so many insist that their playing skill runs out the second they have any stat below 12 and don't have at least two at 18 or above?

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-22, 03:30 PM
Being one of those old-school grizzled GM's (30 years or so), this confuses me slightly with respect to the topic of 'high stats on average vs low stats on average'.

If people are willing to avoid situations that they believe their character can't handle with intelligent playing, why do so many insist that their playing skill runs out the second they have any stat below 12 and don't have at least two at 18 or above?

Mainly IMO because they had no skill to begin with.
I prefer low stats.

Also that comment was in regards to static worlds vs tailored games. Not nesssarily regarding the stat issue..


Though i do belive that a low stat game makes for more interesting ones. I like how it forces players to try to get every bonus they can by setting them selves up for ambushes and what not to take down bigger foes.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-22, 03:50 PM
Mainly IMO because they had no skill to begin with. A single lucky hit with a dagger can down a low-Con level 1 (or even 2) fighter, you know. "Skill" has nothing to do with unfortunate die rolls.

Hiisi
2010-02-22, 03:55 PM
Who says you need to start at low levels with low point buy? :smallbiggrin:

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-22, 04:04 PM
A single lucky hit with a dagger can down a low-Con level 1 (or even 2) fighter, you know. "Skill" has nothing to do with unfortunate die rolls.

Agreed,

There is an element of randomness...
However skill would have not gotten hit or would have some way to protect against that.
Though sometimes you get jumped, low stat games i find pc's tend to only engage enemies when they have the utmost advantage. Where as in higher level games there's more forgiveness if you execute tactics wrong.

On a side note.
A lucky hit from said dagger doing 1d4 mabye 2d4 on a crit won't down a fighter with con 10(which is low/average).

Kylarra
2010-02-22, 04:04 PM
A single lucky hit with a dagger can down a low-Con level 1 (or even 2) fighter, you know. "Skill" has nothing to do with unfortunate die rolls.well yes, using the elite array on an npc could give us a 15 str for D4+2 base damage crit for a total of 10. So yes, that can drop our hapless base 10 con fighter. Note that is also drops all 14-15 con D8 classes, and the full 18 con D6 classes, not to mention the D4 classes which are just generally screwed by this max damage bad luck, so... stats really don't have much to do with it either.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-22, 04:16 PM
On a side note.
A lucky hit from said dagger doing 1d4 mabye 2d4 on a crit won't down a fighter with con 10(which is low/average).

Well, technically, there's a strength modifier in there as well. So yes, a lucky roll can one shot a level 1 fighter with a poor con mod. Characters with lower hit die are in more danger. Worse, most CR 1 and lower monsters tend to come with weapons that deal higher damage than a dagger.

For example, the classic example of an orcish falchion. Bog standard orcs deal 2d4+4 dmg on a normal hit. It doesn't even take a crit to put your con 10 fighter down...merely a decent damage roll. With a +4 attack, the odds of such an attack hitting are pretty decent.

Stats are most important in the early levels. 20 levels down the line, it won't be particularily important if the wizard or the fighter has great dex in addition to their primary stats(though it will likely still help the fighter more)...but every AC and hp can be of critical importance in the rocket tag levels.

I prefer quite high point buys. 32+. SAD characters are tempted to experiment with interesting backup options(pumping cha for social encounters on a wizard? Could be good stuff.) and MAD characters function better. It helps the weakest tier classes more by making class relatively less important(to some degree...it doesn't fix the issue entirely). Therefore, mechanically, high point buys are just generally better. The issue of grittiness is one I find to be entirely seperate, and you can and should customize your campaign in order to get it, regardless of the numbers, which are inherently metagame info anyway.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-22, 04:18 PM
Well, technically, there's a strength modifier in there as well. So yes, a lucky roll can one shot a level 1 fighter with a poor con mod. Characters with lower hit die are in more danger. Worse, most CR 1 and lower monsters tend to come with weapons that deal higher damage than a dagger.

For example, the classic example of an orcish falchion. Bog standard orcs deal 2d4+4 dmg on a normal hit. It doesn't even take a crit to put your con 10 fighter down...merely a decent damage roll. With a +4 attack, the odds of such an attack hitting are pretty decent.

Stats are most important in the early levels. 20 levels down the line, it won't be particularily important if the wizard or the fighter has great dex in addition to their primary stats(though it will likely still help the fighter more)...but every AC and hp can be of critical importance in the rocket tag levels.

I prefer quite high point buys. 32+. SAD characters are tempted to experiment with interesting backup options(pumping cha for social encounters on a wizard? Could be good stuff.) and MAD characters function better. It helps the weakest tier classes more by making class relatively less important(to some degree...it doesn't fix the issue entirely). Therefore, mechanically, high point buys are just generally better. The issue of grittiness is one I find to be entirely seperate, and you can and should customize your campaign in order to get it, regardless of the numbers, which are inherently metagame info anyway.

I assumed that it was an equaly low str score.

I agree though for what you said.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-22, 04:37 PM
It does have a pretty big factor in survival rates...I totally agree with that part of your point.

2d4+2(lets say a dagger crit with a bit o' str)

Possible outcomes:
1/16 4dmg(Only drops sorcs/wizards without con)
2/16 5dmg(Only drops sorcs/wizards without con)
3/16 6dmg(Only drops d4-d6 without con. drops d4 w some con)
4/16 7dmg(Only drops d4-d6 without con. drops d4 w con)
3/16 8dmg(Only drops d4-d8 without con. drops d4 w con, possibly d6)
2/16 9dmg(Drops d8 and lower without con. drops d4/6 classes with decent con)
1/16 10dmg(Drops everyone without con cept barbs. Drops low hit die folks regardless)

Stat boosts tend to help those with moderate/high hit dice most. The difference between 4 and 5, or even 6 hp is...minimal against a crit. Most of the time, you're down, but not dead anyway. With higher damage weapons and higher str, this becomes even more noticable, as while the few extra hp may or may not help high hit die characters, it's very unlikely to keep up a caster.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-22, 04:56 PM
If people are willing to avoid situations that they believe their character can't handle with intelligent playing, why do so many insist that their playing skill runs out the second they have any stat below 12 and don't have at least two at 18 or above?

Well, to the first part of the statement, it's not always possible to perfectly avoid situations that intelligent playing can't handle. And for the second statement, I've never seen anyone (let alone "so many") that has that bizarre viewpoint.


This whole discussion is like a haunted village. We all know there are ghosts, but we don't talk about it. Everyone adjusts encounters to the party. Really.

Encounters aren't the only thing in the game world. In the context of encounters, yes, stat boosts are relatively meaningless due to DM-enforced balance. In the context of everything else but combat, higher stats = higher power = different effects on your social position in the world.

Runestar
2010-02-22, 05:30 PM
Now see - that's you making stuff up. I never said I did it at random without rhyme or reason, did I? I don't think so.

You flat out admitted it in this post.

And so ... wizard dumps stats, laughs with maniacal glee at his power from having 18 int, but learns along the way that having negative modifiers in cha and wis isn't nearly as hot as it looked on the prospect.

Players really are silly. They pump their save dc's, I'll have to pump the npc's saves. That truly, really, honestly is the way it works. Whenever it counts for anything, it's the GM's job to challenge the players - and how he does that is by matching his numbers to those of the pc's.

So ... it's all speed blindness. You look at your impressive numbers, and somehow convince yourself it means anything. But it doesn't.

And you seemed to be taking pride in doing it too.


Yeah, that would be such a terrible conversation.

Players: "Hey, are these monsters stronger than the ones in the book?"
Me: "Yes."
Players: "Oh. OK."

Yep, that would cause the collapse of my group, right there. :P

More like...

Players: Can we take a look at your monsters' stat blocks? They seem tougher than usual. Hey! They are stronger!

DM: You optimized your characters, so I needed to boost their stats to compensate.

Players: So it wouldn't have made a different whether we optimized or not? The monsters would still have been just as challenging (relatively speaking)?

DM: Pretty much, yeah.

Players: So I would have been better off lowering int from 18 to 16, and putting it in dex instead?

DM: Yeah.

Players: And you never told us.

DM: Yeah.

Players: You just screwed us over, man.

Fhaolan
2010-02-22, 05:38 PM
A single lucky hit with a dagger can down a low-Con level 1 (or even 2) fighter, you know. "Skill" has nothing to do with unfortunate die rolls.

Yes, actually, it does. Skill in any wargaming or RPG's combat system involves knowing when and how to engage an opponent so as to minimize that opponent's advantages and maximizing your own. You die from a single luckly dagger hit? Then don't be there to get hit. Work the terrain to get all the bonuses from cover and concealment you can. Use ranged weapons from places that the opponent can't reach. Setup traps and ambush points. Trick NPCs to come along and be living speedbumps. Dig through every rulebook for every little bonus or penalty that can be applied. Bluff the DM as to what rules apply where. That's what skilled players do.

Petitioning the DM to allow for a higher point-buy for PCs is one of those tactics, of course. It's just that unskilled players don't follow through with the other half of the tactic. The 'skill' comes in convincing the DM that the opponents and monsters *shouldn't* benefit from similar bonuses to increase their challenge level. In fact, they need to be *reduced*. Use the killer housecat for example to convince the DM to reduce all monster's stat arrays across the board. That's the ticket. Remember that it's a game, and every game can be won. Especially when you are willing to cheat.

[Note: A cookie for those would can identify *every* point of sarcasm in there. There's a few on both sides of the argument, because it amused me. :smallsmile:]

Tyndmyr
2010-02-22, 05:40 PM
Bluff the DM as to what rules apply where. That's what skilled players do.

Our definition of skilled players certainly varies.

Sarcasm aside, mitigation of risks is part of skill...but if mitigation of ALL risks is possible, then you have a very, very boring game ahead of you. A game in which not all risks can be, or should be, avoided, makes a much better adventure.

Fhaolan
2010-02-22, 06:11 PM
Well, to the first part of the statement, it's not always possible to perfectly avoid situations that intelligent playing can't handle. And for the second statement, I've never seen anyone (let alone "so many") that has that bizarre viewpoint.

I have. Lots, over many, many years. It's all 'but I can't be heroic if my character can't armwrestle an Ogre at 1st level!', or 'but I can't play my Paladin/Sorcerer//Bard/Monk gestalt with stats like that!" in both cases followed by "How dare you restrict me!'. I get about one a month on average, so I'm a little tired of it. I send them over to play Exalted with a group I know across town. [Note to self: Susie's starting to get annoyed at me doing that. I should ask Rico if he minds.]

Unfortunately I usually see them the next week when I'm browsing the shelves at the gaming store, whining that "My uber-character is just like all their other characters over there. I need to be *special* to be heroic." After 30 years of running RPG games of various kinds, I've come to the conclusion that I just don't want to game with people who think that way. Stating that my games run with standard level point-buy (which is described as 'low' in this thread) when we do play 3.X D&D, tends to filter out all of those people nicely. If it accidentally filters out a couple of cool players, oh well, I'll live.

Fhaolan
2010-02-22, 06:18 PM
Our definition of skilled players certainly varies.

Sarcasm aside, mitigation of risks is part of skill...but if mitigation of ALL risks is possible, then you have a very, very boring game ahead of you. A game in which not all risks can be, or should be, avoided, makes a much better adventure.

Yep. :smallsmile: I agree.

However, I do want to mention that you either have to mitigate a risk, or accept it. If you are unable to mitigate it, and you are unwilling to accept it, then you're likely playing the wrong game. Having low stats means that the risk is higher. I, personally, find that the game feels more heroic when I accept that risk, and still manage to have my characters survive. I don't find it more heroic when I can have my characters wade into battle without concern.

Edit: It's the Superman problem. Many people see Superman as heroic. I usually don't find effectively immortal, invulnerable, uber-characters to be heroic simply because whatever they're doing, there's little or no risk. Whenever Superman manages to get into a fight with someone who actually challenges him in some way, all the other characters in the comic book get all emo, weepy, acting like old-time stories where people tear at their clothes and put on hair-shirts. Oh no, Supes got a boody nose! Something actually managed to *hurt* him! Oh calamity! Oh horror! And I just go *meh*.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-22, 06:28 PM
You can have a game that is risky with or without low stats, though. Thing of it is, some people prefer different types of risk. For example, the risk of death after making a foolish decision is one that most players will accept, and often enjoy. The risk of death due to nothing more than unfortunate luck is less popular.

Low level combat is already somewhat rocket tag like in nature...but on top of that, most characters will have comparatively few options. This results in, when things go wrong, the player not having anything they can really do in the way of choices.

Higher stats won't entirely prevent all that, but it makes death by unfortunate accident less likely. If you wish, you can increase overall encounter level to make the overall risk the same, but change the type of risk. For example, using eight kobolds is a significantly higher CR than only two orcs...but a kobold crit tops out at a rather unlikely 10dmg(2d6-str with the stronger weapon), and the regular damage is highly unlikely to kill anyone. If someone dies, it's generally due to taking multiple hits. The orcs, on the other hand, have a regular hit of 2d4+8, which will down players pretty much whenever they hit, and crits tend to translate to death. By swapping to kobolds, you've changed the encounter to one favoring not getting surrounded, and evaluating if it's worth the current risk or not, and generally making more decisions, and more interesting ones. The orcs either die without doing anything of note, or someone likely ends up dead.

Higher stats generally give you more competence per character, and thus, a wider range of interesting encounters.

Fhaolan
2010-02-22, 06:43 PM
You can have a game that is risky with or without low stats, though. Thing of it is, some people prefer different types of risk. For example, the risk of death after making a foolish decision is one that most players will accept, and often enjoy. The risk of death due to nothing more than unfortunate luck is less popular.

I've never been one to do things just because they are popular. :smallsmile:

Kidding aside; if I was to keep to the current D&D model of gaming, to increase diversity of options I still wouldn't increase the base stats. I'd increase the starting level instead.

But really and truely, my gaming groups only use D&D now for beer and pretzels level gaming when it's all about blowing things up and messing around. When they want to do serious gaming and want to *care* about their characters, we use other systems.

It's like you said, D&D low-level combat is somewhat rocket-tag in nature. We just feel that the rocket-tag nature doesn't ever go away really.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-22, 06:46 PM
Rocket tag isn't inherently bad...it's just more fun when it involves a lot more strategy and decision making. To use a MTG example, think of it as one of those lovely stacks when two control decks duke it out, until someone manages to actually get that killer spell to resolve. It can be relatively intense. Caster battles end up like this at high level/high optimization, imo. Can be quite rapid, yes, but it's an entirely different feel than low level rocket tag.

But yeah...starting at a higher level is another valid solution to the low level issue. Whichever you prefer, really.

Saph
2010-02-22, 07:07 PM
Players: So it wouldn't have made a different whether we optimized or not? The monsters would still have been just as challenging (relatively speaking)?

DM: Pretty much, yeah.

There, you see? Now you're getting it. :smallamused:


Players: You just screwed us over, man.

Bzzzt. You are not a winner.

Listen, Runestar, don't assume that everyone else has the same hang-ups that you do. I DM for a wide range of players. Some go in for optimisation, some don't, and I adjust the encounters accordingly, and regardless of party power level I try to put most encounters into the "dangerous-but-beatable" bracket, because that's the bracket I most enjoy DMing and because in my experience that leads to the most fun games. Optimising is not inherently virtuous and optimisers don't "deserve" to win simply because they're starting with a more powerful character.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-22, 07:11 PM
I think people are getting hung up on different methods of challenging players.

If the player gets +2 to his save DCs, and you add +2 to all monster saves in response....you are a jerk.

If in response to a good tactic, you respond by giving everything immunity to said tactic, you are also a jerk.

If you notice the party is flattening everything they face without an issue, and toss something a bit harder in general at them, you're quite reasonably challenging the players.

It's quite possible to challenge players without making specialization meaningless, or being a jerk. In fact, any DM should get pretty decent at it with practice.

ZeroNumerous
2010-02-22, 07:42 PM
So: Since when was D&D about challenging players rather than tell a good story?

In the end, if your players want a high power game where they're all Large Hams taking Refuge in Audacity then shouldn't your story and games reflect that? Conversely, if your players want a game where Anyone Can Die and everyone frequently does(Maybe due to a desire to Kill 'Em All) then you should try to shoot for that ideal.

Not every DM comes to the table with the intent of "me versus the players" and "I must challenge them", as some of us come to the table with the idea of "what do my players want to do?" If you want to challenge your players, then why start by coming to the table with a confrontational attitude?

Roderick_BR
2010-02-22, 07:45 PM
I think it's better to make characters more "believable", and work hard for their victory, not just relly on high stats.

I try to add stuff so a wizard with only a 18 int will be as useless as a fighter with only a 18 str.

I'd say a 25 point buy IS above average, but since WotC uses it for it's npcs (that are, still, adventurers), I use the 32 point buy, more if I particulaly feel like a silly high powered game where the wizard can kill commoners with his bare hands.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-22, 07:49 PM
So: Since when was D&D about challenging players rather than tell a good story?

I see no particular reason that these goals need to be at odds.

Fhaolan
2010-02-22, 08:01 PM
So: Since when was D&D about challenging players rather than tell a good story?

Since about 1974 or thereabouts. RPGs as a storytelling venue is relatively recent development, I'd say the late 80's/early 90's.

Artemiz
2010-02-22, 08:30 PM
Admittedly, I didn't read all seven pages of replies, but I would like to say this:

I don't necessarily find that the majority DM's favor low point-buy, as opposed to 28+, but any that do might just be going for an old-style, perhaps more realistic campaign (if wizards and dragons could be considered realistic). As the versions progress, we see more heroic, well, heroes. Older versions of D&D have "weaker" characters who might need to be a bit more careful and tactful than a normal 3.5 character or a 4e character. Then again, this method can be very dangerous, because the game is balanced as is, and weaker characters will quickly fall behind the monsters and challenges they're asked to defeat.

As to your comment regarding low-point buy favoring casters, I'd say a 24 point 16-14-14-8-10-8 Fighter isn't to shabby, especially for a low-power campaign.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-22, 08:36 PM
As to your comment regarding low-point buy favoring casters, I'd say a 24 point 16-14-14-8-10-8 Fighter isn't to shabby, especially for a low-power campaign.

FIghter? no. Something hugely MAD like a Monk or Paladin? heck yes.

Brennan
2010-02-22, 08:42 PM
So: Since when was D&D about challenging players rather than tell a good story?

In the end, if your players want a high power game where they're all Large Hams taking Refuge in Audacity then shouldn't your story and games reflect that? Conversely, if your players want a game where Anyone Can Die and everyone frequently does(Maybe due to a desire to Kill 'Em All) then you should try to shoot for that ideal.

Not every DM comes to the table with the intent of "me versus the players" and "I must challenge them", as some of us come to the table with the idea of "what do my players want to do?" If you want to challenge your players, then why start by coming to the table with a confrontational attitude?

I, personally, come to the table with the thoughts that I want to give them a challenge and a good time. I create my encounters so that the risk of death is there, but still give the players the benefit of the doubt if they start rolling crap. I compare combat in my campaigns to a strategy RPG (think Final Fantasy Tactics) set on the second-to-hardest mode, if the computer controlling the enemies occasionally fudged the rolls.

TL;DR, challenge them, but don't slaughter them.

Emmerask
2010-02-22, 10:35 PM
In the end, if your players want a high power game where they're all Large Hams taking Refuge in Audacity then shouldn't your story and games reflect that?


No, because I have as much right to have fun as everyone else at the table has. I would not dm such a campaign nor would I participate as a player because its boring to me :smallwink:
The players of course have the right to look for a dm who wants to master such a campaign I would not complain :smallwink:

absolmorph
2010-02-22, 10:52 PM
In the end, if your players want a high power game where they're all Large Hams taking Refuge in Audacity then shouldn't your story and games reflect that?
No, see, I'M the one who is a Large Ham (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LargeHam) taking Refuge in Audacity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RefugeInAudacity), my players are pretty tame in comparison.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-22, 10:55 PM
No, see, I'M the one who is a Large Ham (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LargeHam) taking Refuge in Audacity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RefugeInAudacity), my players are pretty tame in comparison.

you linked to Tvtropes...........

Say hello to the deep end of the alignment pool:smallamused:

Piedmon_Sama
2010-02-22, 11:10 PM
I frequently give my players point buys of 28. Once I almost went up to 30, but that campaign didn't happen so we'll never know what madness would have ensued!

Why? Because I put a lot of work into the story and roleplaying aspect of my campaign, and it's a lot more rewarding with flawed characters who are human (or sufficiently human-like), not superheroes or ubermenschen. There's nothing wrong with superhero stories, mind. I'm actually a fan of them. But it's not what I want to do with the story; I prefer a grounded setting and characters who are believable as well. Sure, in the real world there are people who are olympic level athletes and MIT grads, and maybe they're even charming too. But that's not me, or anyone I know, and the same goes for pretty much everyone who's going to read this.

Pretty much all my games are either somewhat horrific or at least heavily suspense driven. Rambo and He-Man do not feel suspense. They never meet anyone they can't handle. They will never have to hide in a closet trying to hold their breath while the enemy who just tore apart all their friends gingerly sniffs the air for the scent of their wounds. Nobody gets to be Rambo or He-Man in my campaign.

It just comes down to what you're playing the game for. There's a lot of drama in being an "ordinary" person--a bookish aristocrat and his fat gardener challenging a Dark Lord, an ordinary woman against the deadliest creatures in space, an adolescent swineherd against an evil god, etc. If you play the game for that tension, then characters with more grounded abilities are totally reasonable. And don't say "Stormwind Fallacy," you can of course always up the ante (and I have, as my 10th level PCs are now facing bigger threats than ever) but you still lose something when your characters are simply badasses instead of recognizably human. That's why Rambo is not as deep a movie as Full Metal Jacket, it's a large part of why Doom sucked and Aliens is a classic. It's what the first Predator movie was a subversion of: it gives you a whole squad of uber-muscled 80's action heroes, and they all get slaughtered horribly until one of them thinks outside the box and kills the monster with a Craft: Trapmaking check and a Coup de Grace.

Anyway I've ranted enough!

Kylarra
2010-02-22, 11:24 PM
No, see, I'M the one who is a Large Ham (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LargeHam) taking Refuge in Audacity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RefugeInAudacity), my players are pretty tame in comparison.... I had plans for that half hour...

Beelzebub1111
2010-02-22, 11:27 PM
3d6 straight down the line, no rerolls.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-22, 11:42 PM
3d6 straight down the line, no rerolls.

pfft! and you call yourself chaotic good.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-23, 07:35 AM
I frequently give my players point buys of 28. Once I almost went up to 30, but that campaign didn't happen so we'll never know what madness would have ensued!

Why? Because I put a lot of work into the story and roleplaying aspect of my campaign, and it's a lot more rewarding with flawed characters who are human (or sufficiently human-like), not superheroes or ubermenschen.

Ya'll are giving stats way too much credit. A 28 pt buy and a 30 pt buy are not significantly different in terms of superheroism. If a player wishes, they can grab the tier 1 class of choice and be a superhero on essentially any point buy. The class, the player, the backstories and the setting are all far more important to the level of heroism or flaws than another +1 in a stat is.

Zen Master
2010-02-23, 08:56 AM
You flat out admitted it in this post.

And so ... wizard dumps stats, laughs with maniacal glee at his power from having 18 int, but learns along the way that having negative modifiers in cha and wis isn't nearly as hot as it looked on the prospect.

Players really are silly. They pump their save dc's, I'll have to pump the npc's saves. That truly, really, honestly is the way it works. Whenever it counts for anything, it's the GM's job to challenge the players - and how he does that is by matching his numbers to those of the pc's.

So ... it's all speed blindness. You look at your impressive numbers, and somehow convince yourself it means anything. But it doesn't.

And you seemed to be taking pride in doing it too.



More like...

Players: Can we take a look at your monsters' stat blocks? They seem tougher than usual. Hey! They are stronger!

DM: You optimized your characters, so I needed to boost their stats to compensate.

Players: So it wouldn't have made a different whether we optimized or not? The monsters would still have been just as challenging (relatively speaking)?

DM: Pretty much, yeah.

Players: So I would have been better off lowering int from 18 to 16, and putting it in dex instead?

DM: Yeah.

Players: And you never told us.

DM: Yeah.

Players: You just screwed us over, man.

I have not, at any point, admitted to anything. And there's nothing to admit. Here, I'll say it again: The GM's job is to challenge players.

There. That's it. That is all of it, ok? Whatever you think you read me saying elsewhere - if it's anything else, you misunderstand me. Possibly because I'm being unclear, but my total point is right there, bolded.

Your interpretation is your own, by the way. Don't put words in my mouth (or in this case, emotions in my heart).

And yes, it is really simple: If you know, for a given encounter, that the wizard will render it futile unless the monsters have a chance of resisting his save DC for Spell X, then you make it so.

No one sits down and deliberately makes senseless encounters. No one plans on not presenting a credible challenge.

Are you really going to claim that?

Tyndmyr
2010-02-23, 08:58 AM
I have not, at any point, admitted to anything. And there's nothing to admit. Here, I'll say it again: The GM's job is to challenge players.

Nobody is challenging that. They are saying that the specific way in which you opt to do that is, if it makes stats and specialization meaningless, bad.

Greenish
2010-02-23, 09:20 AM
There's a lot of drama in being an "ordinary" person--a bookish aristocrat and his fat gardener challenging a Dark Lord,Sam wasn't fat!

That's why Rambo is not as deep a movie as Full Metal Jacket,That is a matter of opinion. Rambo is about the protagonist trying to handle his war traumas and return into everyday life. :smalltongue:

satorian
2010-02-23, 10:03 AM
As I go back in my 20+ year gaming history, several campaigns arise in my mind as the "best" campaigns I've ever played in. Not a single one of them was great because of how challenging the combat was. They were, without exception, so wonderful because of the story, because of our investment in our characters. If I want to play a combat sim, I'll play a better combat sim (and I don't).

The best campaigns had conflicts placed in our path, sure, but many of them were placed there without concern for our CR. If we wanted to slaughter weaklings, we could have (didn't: I like playing good heroes), since mostly we bumped into things weaker than us in the wilderness. Usually we just left them alone. Sometimes we bumped into things and ran away, to fight another day.

Playing even a 40 point buy is not playing a superhero (higher, um, not sure). As I said above, more real people I know than not would be a 30+ point buy, and they aren't adventurers.

Nai_Calus
2010-02-23, 12:05 PM
Ya'll are giving stats way too much credit. A 28 pt buy and a 30 pt buy are not significantly different in terms of superheroism. If a player wishes, they can grab the tier 1 class of choice and be a superhero on essentially any point buy. The class, the player, the backstories and the setting are all far more important to the level of heroism or flaws than another +1 in a stat is.

Except in 3.5, as numerous people in this thread has pointed out, for non-tier 1 classes, that +1 can make the difference between 'usefulness' and 'dead'.

I played a 3.5 character once who, under 25 point point buy/elite array, would have died. Literally. He got knocked to -6 HP from a critical hit and went to -8 before someone got him stabilized. The elite array is the only allocation of stats under 25 point point buy that would have made any sense at all for him, and the only place the 10 could have gone for him to work at all with that would have been into CON. His CON was 12 under 32(14/18/12/14/8/14 at L9 when this happened, and he needed every bit of all of that in a still-miserable-even-then campaign with basically no magic gear) point point buy and a 10 CON in that situation would have killed him since 9 less HP would have sent him straight to -15 and Dead(We didn't even have reliable healing in that campaign except my crappy three Cure spells a day).

The DM didn't adjust encounters to be suitable challenges at all, incidentally. And frequently railroaded us into them so we couldn't avoid them by being clever, and was surprised the times when we managed to be clever anyway. (Mage Hand and Mirror Image are the best spells ever, by the way.)

Of course, all of this sort of thing is exactly why I no longer play 3.5 at all and now play 4E, where the standard 22 point buy is designed to allow for actually being awesome to begin with.

(I'd put myself, for the record, as 11/9/16/14/11/10. I'm about average on strength, common sense and social ability, a bit clumsy, but rather intelligent and I never get sick or have health problems and can take a good amount of punishment, keep going, and work a physically demanding job all day. That incidentally works out to a 25 point point buy. My adventurer who goes out and kills stuff for a living had damned well better be more of a badass stat-wise than I am, because the idea of me being any sort of bounty hunter is utterly laughable.)

And if you want luck to be a factor in things, why are you even using point buy to begin with? Have them all roll dice.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-23, 12:22 PM
Except in 3.5, as numerous people in this thread has pointed out, for non-tier 1 classes, that +1 can make the difference between 'usefulness' and 'dead'.

I played a 3.5 character once who, under 25 point point buy/elite array, would have died. Literally. He got knocked to -6 HP from a critical hit and went to -8 before someone got him stabilized. The elite array is the only allocation of stats under 25 point point buy that would have made any sense at all for him, and the only place the 10 could have gone for him to work at all with that would have been into CON. His CON was 12 under 32(14/18/12/14/8/14 at L9 when this happened, and he needed every bit of all of that in a still-miserable-even-then campaign with basically no magic gear) point point buy and a 10 CON in that situation would have killed him since 9 less HP would have sent him straight to -15 and Dead(We didn't even have reliable healing in that campaign except my crappy three Cure spells a day).

The DM didn't adjust encounters to be suitable challenges at all, incidentally. And frequently railroaded us into them so we couldn't avoid them by being clever, and was surprised the times when we managed to be clever anyway. (Mage Hand and Mirror Image are the best spells ever, by the way.)

Of course, all of this sort of thing is exactly why I no longer play 3.5 at all and now play 4E, where the standard 22 point buy is designed to allow for actually being awesome to begin with.

(I'd put myself, for the record, as 11/9/16/14/11/10. I'm about average on strength, common sense and social ability, a bit clumsy, but rather intelligent and I never get sick or have health problems and can take a good amount of punishment, keep going, and work a physically demanding job all day. That incidentally works out to a 25 point point buy. My adventurer who goes out and kills stuff for a living had damned well better be more of a badass stat-wise than I am, because the idea of me being any sort of bounty hunter is utterly laughable.)

And if you want luck to be a factor in things, why are you even using point buy to begin with? Have them all roll dice.

I think your over doing your ability scores there a bit... seeing as average joe has 10-11's

I don't know you so obviously i can't tell what you are or are not..

But if 18 is human perfection..
and olympic athletes are like 15's
then i would doubt that a normal person is any where above 12.

the non elite array which is supposed to be slightly above average is
13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8

or 15 point buy

the elite array is using the 25 point buy... which if i remember correctly(away from books right now) is the lowest point buy the phb/dmg suggests.

Which is "standard".

Using the non elite array is still functional just will be harder.

Artemiz
2010-02-23, 04:45 PM
Ahh, when you could have mediocre numbers on your sheet and still kick some ass with the help of some good roleplaying... Those were the days...

ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-23, 04:57 PM
Ahh, when you could have mediocre numbers on your sheet and still kick some ass with the help of some good roleplaying... Those were the days...

I would struggle to trust another person to judge whether I roleplayed well enough (which is entirely subjective) to acheive an affect, even if the rules stated this was how these things were resolved. A random, neutral variable (e.g. a die) deciding an outcome I can cope with. A person who can screw you over just 'cause they've had a bad day? Not so much. It's like my main complaint with "good" or "bad" roleplaying giving bonuses or penalties to social skills. It's completely arbitrary and often not carried over to other things. So you can keep "the days". I'd rather have fun.

I'm not saying that you could not have fun playing in such a way, merely that there are reasons why the system was changed.

Frozen_Feet
2010-02-23, 05:26 PM
This thread has inspired me to play Incursion (http://www.incursion-roguelike.net/) with all-tens paladin / monk. I'll come back to you after I've won the game... again. Maybe it's just me, but in my playing group SAD and MAD have never really been issues, because player stupidity tends to overwrite character benefits. It's a common occurrence in our table that players with a less optimized characters outperform players with more optimized ones, simply by virtue of roleplaying their character better. As in "I would never commit crimes in broad daylight, under the noses of town guards. I have no relation to that powertripping wizard there, no sir. If he says otherwise, he's clearly mad."

Eldariel
2010-02-23, 05:30 PM
This thread has inspired me to play Incursion (http://www.incursion-roguelike.net/) with all-tens paladin / monk. I'll come back to you after I've won the game... again. Maybe it's just me, but in my playing group SAD and MAD have never really been issues, because player stupidity tends to overwrite character benefits. It's a common occurrence in our table that players with a less optimized characters outperform players with more optimized ones, simply by virtue of roleplaying their character better. As in "I would never commit crimes in broad daylight, under the noses of town guards. I have no relation to that powertripping wizard there, no sir. If he says otherwise, he's clearly mad."

Right, but not all players with optimal characters are idiots. In fact, I'm rather tempted to say there's no correlation between lacking common sense and building powerful characters.

Frozen_Feet
2010-02-23, 05:49 PM
Right, but not all players with optimal characters are idiots. In fact, I'm rather tempted to say there's no correlation between lacking common sense and building powerful characters.

True and agreed with. I brought it up for the other side of the coin - that a person with paltry little knowledge of game mechanics can be effective by applying common sense. How much benefit a player gets from high stats is often a matter of player skill, and mechanical optimization isn't the extent of that.

faceroll
2010-02-23, 06:21 PM
I would struggle to trust another person to judge whether I roleplayed well enough (which is entirely subjective) to acheive an affect, even if the rules stated this was how these things were resolved. A random, neutral variable (e.g. a die) deciding an outcome I can cope with. A person who can screw you over just 'cause they've had a bad day? Not so much. It's like my main complaint with "good" or "bad" roleplaying giving bonuses or penalties to social skills. It's completely arbitrary and often not carried over to other things. So you can keep "the days". I'd rather have fun.

I'm not saying that you could not have fun playing in such a way, merely that there are reasons why the system was changed.

Sounds like you need new friends.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-23, 06:31 PM
But if 18 is human perfection..
and olympic athletes are like 15's
then i would doubt that a normal person is any where above 12.
I use 3d6 bell curve for stats. So his 14 is anywhere from the 85th to the 92nd percentile for toughness. Impressive, but not unbelievable. I think that most olympic athletes could manage the 1/216 for an 18, and variances come from circumstance modifiers (training regimens), custom feats, etc. And don't forget the level-based stat boosts.

Human perfection is somewhere like 21ish, with levels in Human Paragon. Goes up to 24 for mental stats.

faceroll
2010-02-23, 06:39 PM
Olympic gold winners likely have an 18 in their relevant ability score. How many people win gold medals out of 6 billion? They probably have scores above 18.

Knaight
2010-02-23, 07:07 PM
I have not, at any point, admitted to anything. And there's nothing to admit. Here, I'll say it again: The GM's job is to challenge players.

There. That's it. That is all of it, ok? Whatever you think you read me saying elsewhere - if it's anything else, you misunderstand me. Possibly because I'm being unclear, but my total point is right there, bolded.

Your interpretation is your own, by the way. Don't put words in my mouth (or in this case, emotions in my heart).

And yes, it is really simple: If you know, for a given encounter, that the wizard will render it futile unless the monsters have a chance of resisting his save DC for Spell X, then you make it so.

No one sits down and deliberately makes senseless encounters. No one plans on not presenting a credible challenge.

Are you really going to claim that?

Why should all encounters be planned. Why shouldn't there be futile ones? Sometimes in a story the protagonists steamroll through something, other times they fail. The difficulty of the encounters should be based entirely on setting constraints, if the PCs attack a small village somewhere they should be able to take on the local guards fairly easily past a certain level. If, an in-game month after a failed assassination attempt, they try an assault then they will probably lose unless they have powered up in the meantime, as new security is logical. Why scale it to the PCs? The security available all depends on the setting. If the guy is filthy rich, or has powerful contacts, the fight is harder.

Since really, as long as you are consistent and have a well thought out setting the PCs will find their own scale in the story soon enough, and tweaking the encounters so they are always challenging both renders irrelevant mechanical choices, as well as decisions they make that alter the conditions. If the emperors guards are given a boost because the PCs started the fight with collapsing a ceiling on them and lighting it on fire, and the resultant fight has hit points and such modified to make it challenging, then that action is rendered irrelevant. The only upside is that the scene becomes more interesting.

Furthermore, in addition to screwing with the encounters to making them challenging undermines choices in the setting, as they all become equal, and developing that habit is just asking to become a railroad GM. Granted, this works much better in systems and settings with less of an implied power range than D&D, where even the toughest of characters will fall before an army. Still, arguing that the GMs job is only to make challenging encounters is absurd. It is to make a good, interesting, verisimilitude using setting. The backdrop is critical, and interesting characters in a boring world only works with certain genres. Action, adventure, and such are typically not among them.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-23, 07:41 PM
Still, arguing that the GMs job is only to make challenging encounters is absurd.I'd say that part of making the world interesting is providing challenges, but if the players find their primary challenges (and fun) in finding tactical advantages that render the challenges you present them with far less dangerous, that itself is a win if you do, indeed, provide them.

However, you're spot-on in your insistence that scaling challenges to render player choices completely irrelevant is bad DMing; otherwise, you might as well just start flipping coins...it'd be about as rewarding.

Dairun Cates
2010-02-23, 08:40 PM
I prefer the standard 25 point buy myself. It might just be my literary upbringing, but invincible heroes are, for the most part, boring to me. Characters that I've seen other people become endeared to, I find frustrating because they never lose or even suffer drawbacks. What really makes a character heroic is coming across great adversity (emotional, metaphorical, or physical) and overcoming it. A character that always has the means to trounce their encounters without strategic thinking is essentially just a bully that happens to work for the good guys.

So yeah. In ANY campaign, I'm going to make the feeling the same. The only difference is how different in capability the average peasant is from the character, and I like the characters in my campaigns to still be humans. For the most part, this is why I just don't like Exalted as a system. The system as a whole encourages you to be a powerful jerk that doesn't care about the average person while pretending to fight for them. An army of peasants can't take down one character. So, the characters feel free to do whatever they want without any consequence of their actions.

Basically, I just see the extra points as pointless. It's a lot like these supposed campaigns where characters reach something like level 40 I hear about on these forums and from other players near me. I don't see the point. If you want that much power, free-form roleplay, don't melt the rules to the point that they're worthless.

I don't play or GM to hear how many imaginary dudes a guy can kill. If I wanted pointless slaughter, I'd play Dynasty Warriors.

Nai_Calus
2010-02-23, 08:45 PM
And your literary upbringing causes to to assume that everyone using higher than 25 point point buy is engaging in nothing but pointless slaughter... How?

Dairun Cates
2010-02-23, 09:02 PM
And your literary upbringing causes to to assume that everyone using higher than 25 point point buy is engaging in nothing but pointless slaughter... How?

That's not what I said at all, but I don't particularly see a point to having higher point buy unless you want more powerful characters. At least, I can't see any other reason.

It's a small difference compared to class skills, but the general mentality in this thread on having high point buy is "my character is special and should powerful and the best at what he or she does". The system already partially assumes that. Besides, your characters are either going to slaughter everything in their path at that point or will need to face relevant challenges. So, suddenly you start seeing everything with the same array. It starts to stretch credibility when everyone you encounter is "beyond human perfection". It starts resembling a major problem with Shonen anime at that point. So, the thing seems like a moot point unless you're here to just blow through your challenges.

Now, this still might not be true, but with some of the people I hang out with, I have players that always want to have more powerful characters and constantly complain about not having enough. On the occasions where they've had it given to them, they just complain more about wanting more power.

I suppose it's complex, but I just quite frankly see no point to the whole thing. You're either making more work for the GM for the same effect just because the players want to see higher numbers on the sheets or you're doing it to defeat bigger and more ridiculous challenges. That's fun in and of itself, but if you want that, you should play a system that's built for it, and not just start bending the rules so heavily of the one you're using.

And the point has been made that if you want to play powerful characters, you'll generally want to play equal or more powerful characters next time. It's rare someone will want to play less powerful characters. The whole thing really starts to inflate out of control until you start hearing stories of players do things that go past awesome cool and just go into ridiculous and farcical.

Also, the example used doesn't just apply to violence. It applies to any level of challenge. I find SUPER diplomats boring too.

Once again, correct me if I'm wrong, but people do high point buy to play more powerful characters. I don't think a character needs to be all powerful to be interesting. Can a character be all powerful AND interesting? Sure, but that doesn't mean everyone wants to play one. The topic creator seemed to be mystified by the fact that some groups actually LIKE playing average joes. It's a different style of story-telling.

So yeah. I was just mostly confirming that I and my groups actually like playing weaker characters and building from there.

By the way, I don't appreciate the not so subtle jab. When I used the phrase literary background, I simply meant that I grew up on stories of everyday heroes and not superpowered badasses.

Ashiel
2010-02-23, 11:01 PM
Disclaimer: After about the 4th or 5th page of this thread, I skipped the rest to throw in a few coppers on the subject anyway. If I missed your post, sorry; but this isn't really in response to anyone in particular anyway. :smallsmile:

In most of my games, I ask the players what sort of ability score generation do they want to use. I have three options by default.

- 4d6, re-rolling 1s and 2s.
- All stats begin at 10, with 26 points to spend on a 1:1 basis (so and 18 costs 8 points).
- Everyone gets 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, place as desired.

One thing that's undeniable is that these methods of ability scores are much higher than the standard 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8 variety; and often higher than even mid-high point buy ranges. Why? Because I don't want ability scores to stand in the way of what a player wants to play.

I've seen people discussing it, and I really can't see where people think some point buys are perfectly fine for every class. In a low-point game, monks are every bit the jokes they are made to be on boards like these. Paladins are close behind them. Spell-casters are still pretty awesome. In low-point games, classes with shape-changing opportunities are even more awesome, and pets are even more awesome when compared to the party melee characters.

Seriously, look at a riding dog. They have a 15, 15, 15, 2, 12, 6, and if it's a pet, it's directed by a master to deal with the tactical decisions such as who to attack or defend. My younger brother usually buys a few of these at low levels, puts some cheap armor on them, and literally unleashes the hounds on stuff. They come with a built-in tripping ability, an average damage of 7 per hit, 13hp, and a 16 AC naked (but can easily be up to 20 with just a chain shirt armor, leaving them with a 40ft speed, or higher with a 30ft speed).
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:

High average ability scores favor non-casters better than casters. It helps them keep up. It's true that a wizard with a 13 strength, 18 intelligence, and 16 charisma isn't much better than a wizard with 10 strength, 18 intelligence, and 8 charisma. However, for a monk, it would be a godsend. Repeat with fighter, paladin, and other classes. Because stats cap at 18 + modifiers, high point generation favors the MAD classes who need it the most.

Notice: The following may seem offensive to some people (it shouldn't, but if you're offended by it, go outside, take a deep breath, and play Harvest Moon on the SNES 'till you feel better. It's all for fun after-all.).

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. The idea that because the party can pull 16, 16, 16, 14, 14, 13 in their scores means you need to increase NPC power, is likewise, laughable.

This game favors NPCs. It is so easy to challenge players with the toolset that is 3.x that it is literally effortless to come up with something that's appropriate for characters without making them arbitrarily stronger. I've had players, using one of the stat generation methods above, who considered a group of CR 1/2 bandits to be dangerous. They had run into them a few times, and been hurt bad. Been scared too. Pushed to the limit, and concerned as to what would happen if they outnumbered them with better odds. For the record, these were little 1st level human adept, warrior, and experts, using the non-elite array (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#abilityScoreArrays) of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. The party feared these people, because they were using strong tactics, teamwork, and making clever use of equipment (they were being led by an ex-military trained 5th level fighter). The adepts were particularly feared 'till the party was completely immune to sleep spells, because they were sporting a DC 14 save or lose spell.

That's not counting consumable items. A potion of Magic Weapon or even Greater Magic Weapon is incredibly cheap, and is great for NPCs who can apply it to their weapons as needed (being able to choose the weapon for the occasion). Potions of Enlarge Person are also cheap and effective methods for making NPCs more dangerous. A potion of Bull's Strength is like having a +4 giant strength belt for 3 hours. All of it easily fits into their gear values.

That's not counting poison, magic arrows (which are pretty cheap if they only have a couple), wands (give an adept a wand of lightning bolt with a few charges for some "lols"), mounts, and so forth. It's also not counting tactical and numeric advantage that NPCs often possess; traps in the middle of encounters (kobolds shooting from the other side of on a trap-littered doorway), and so forth.

Really, giving the fighter or monk a few more +1s and +2s here and there isn't going to make the whole world fall apart. Really, if you feel like they're not being realistic or down to earth enough; why not take the next logical step and have everyone play warriors, experts, and adepts? It can actually be pretty fun; and would be a great throwback for those who like simplified role-playing. :smallsmile:

Zen Master
2010-02-24, 03:21 AM
Nobody is challenging that. They are saying that the specific way in which you opt to do that is, if it makes stats and specialization meaningless, bad.

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.

Attilargh
2010-02-24, 05:16 AM
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. The idea that because the party can pull 16, 16, 16, 14, 14, 13 in their scores means you need to increase NPC power, is likewise, laughable.
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.

Jon_Dahl
2010-02-24, 05:49 AM
I didn't read the whole thread but here are my 2 coppers:
- Low point-buy encourages specialization. If one guy has high INT and the other has high STR, they compliment each other
- Look at Elite array. It's enough that players can reach Elite array with low point-buy and it doesn't take much really
- Low point-buy encourages thinking

Here is my point-buy system:
All abilities are 5 in the start.
You get 45 points.
Abilities 6-13 = 1 point per raise
Abilities 14-16 = 2 points per raise
Abilities 17-18 = 3 points per raise
Maximum is 18 before adjustments.

Emmerask
2010-02-24, 06:00 AM
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. The idea that because the party can pull 16, 16, 16, 14, 14, 13 in their scores means you need to increase NPC power, is likewise, laughable.


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.



That's not counting consumable items. A potion of Magic Weapon or even Greater Magic Weapon is incredibly cheap, and is great for NPCs who can apply it to their weapons as needed (being able to choose the weapon for the occasion). Potions of Enlarge Person are also cheap and effective methods for making NPCs more dangerous. A potion of Bull's Strength is like having a +4 giant strength belt for 3 hours. All of it easily fits into their gear values.


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



That's not counting poison, magic arrows (which are pretty cheap if they only have a couple), wands (give an adept a wand of lightning bolt with a few charges for some "lols"), mounts, and so forth. It's also not counting tactical and numeric advantage that NPCs often possess; traps in the middle of encounters (kobolds shooting from the other side of on a trap-littered doorway), and so forth.


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:



Really, giving the fighter or monk a few more +1s and +2s here and there isn't going to make the whole world fall apart. Really, if you feel like they're not being realistic or down to earth enough; why not take the next logical step and have everyone play warriors, experts, and adepts? It can actually be pretty fun; and would be a great throwback for those who like simplified role-playing. :smallsmile:

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

Runestar
2010-02-24, 06:14 AM
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 don't. At least not entirely.

The thing is that I love to optimize my monsters (and encounters), tinkering with the rules, partly to assuage my frustration at not being able to test them out as a PC. You can argue that as a DM, I shouldn't need to, I have the power to simply give my npcs whatever stats I want. But for me, playing around with their stats while staying within the boundaries of the rules is half the fun.

And my players know that if they don't optimize themselves, they aren't going to last very long. I make it known in no uncertain terms I don't pull punches or make accommodations for "weaker" characters. (I even roll my dice in the open so I don't have to agonize over whether to fudge that crit from a greataxe-wielding orc).

You can't roleplay if you are dead, and in my games at least, it is not the most beautifully roleplayed PC which saves you from being toasted by a red dragon's breath, but cold hard stats (ie: having a good enough reflex save + reflex or tons of hp).

I am also considering just letting my players decide on whatever stats they want, but am not quite sure if they are responsible enough not to abuse the system, plus I admit it would be extremely subjective.:smallsmile:

Zen Master
2010-02-24, 07:16 AM
I don't. At least not entirely.

The thing is that I love to optimize my monsters (and encounters), tinkering with the rules, partly to assuage my frustration at not being able to test them out as a PC. You can argue that as a DM, I shouldn't need to, I have the power to simply give my npcs whatever stats I want. But for me, playing around with their stats while staying within the boundaries of the rules is half the fun.

And my players know that if they don't optimize themselves, they aren't going to last very long. I make it known in no uncertain terms I don't pull punches or make accommodations for "weaker" characters. (I even roll my dice in the open so I don't have to agonize over whether to fudge that crit from a greataxe-wielding orc).

You can't roleplay if you are dead, and in my games at least, it is not the most beautifully roleplayed PC which saves you from being toasted by a red dragon's breath, but cold hard stats (ie: having a good enough reflex save + reflex or tons of hp).

I am also considering just letting my players decide on whatever stats they want, but am not quite sure if they are responsible enough not to abuse the system, plus I admit it would be extremely subjective.:smallsmile:

Now ... really. I did not say I just randomly increased stats. You all made that conclusion for yourselves, because you don't like what I'm saying.

In fact, as I said, you all do the exact same: You adjust monsters, npc's and encounters to be challenging for your players.

Now, quite honestly I don't care how you arrive at stats sufficient to challenge your players. Optimizing, equipping, templating, advancing - call it what ever you want. You do - what I do.

You just really, really want optimizing to matter. You are affected by the speed blindness. You dislike the idea that higher numbers on one side automaticall must lead to higher numbers on the other. But it is a fact. Either that - or one side always, invariably, loses. And in that case there is no game.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-24, 07:37 AM
Except in 3.5, as numerous people in this thread has pointed out, for non-tier 1 classes, that +1 can make the difference between 'usefulness' and 'dead'.


I'm one of those people. However, the difference between dead or not dead in a specific situation is very different from superhero and realistic.

The idea that a 28pt buy is fine, but a 30pt buy means we're playing with superheros and gods is....questionable.

Eldariel
2010-02-24, 03:36 PM
You just really, really want optimizing to matter. You are affected by the speed blindness. You dislike the idea that higher numbers on one side automaticall must lead to higher numbers on the other. But it is a fact. Either that - or one side always, invariably, loses. And in that case there is no game.

This is just plain bollocks. Numbers don't matter as much as you make them out to. Challenge does not depend solely on numbers beyond extreme cases. Mostly, challenge is a factor of tactics. Also, standard advancement means optimization still matters since advancement is not balanced; other aspects in characters advance faster than others so as long as I know what I'm doing, the party still has better chances of winning every fight being able to target oppositions' weaknesses even if opponents are tougher.

And frankly, the difference between solid characters and not-so-solid characters is what they can do. A weak character is limited in scope of how he can approach encounters. A strong character is not. Higher stats fuel this by enabling additional feat (and thus PrC) options to expand your options for dealing with situations. There's a world of difference between just being able to attack opponent's AC, and being able to attack AC or all of the saves. There's a world of defense between having high AC and having contingent teleports to make rolls unnecessary in the first place. Are you saying none of that matters if DM uses stronger opposition?


And if you read what Rune said, he said he always uses tougher-than-MM opponents. That's regardless of the party. In other words, he doesn't weaken opponents for weaker parties. So optimization matters. A lot. Else you'll just die.

In my case? It matters even more 'cause I generally don't even care what your party is when I think what I throw at you (beyond what the causes of said attacks know). The stronger you are, the likelier you are to survive. The better at misrepresenting your abilities to hostile organizations you are, the likelier you are to survive. Cunning players with weak characters can survive too, but it's survival of the fittest either way.

For one specific DM type, what you say might be true. The only way I see for a DM to accomplish optimization not mattering is arbitrarily matching every single ability the PCs have with a monster's counterability and every single stat increase and decrease with equivalent increase or decrease in monster abilities. If you do anything else, then yes, it matters. No, it's not "speed blindness".

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-24, 03:55 PM
I'm one of those people. However, the difference between dead or not dead in a specific situation is very different from superhero and realistic.

The idea that a 28pt buy is fine, but a 30pt buy means we're playing with superheros and gods is....questionable.


I think the question is between 25 and 30 which is a bit more significant.

28-30 is like yous aid questionable.

Standard point buy is 25. I belive.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-24, 04:09 PM
I think the question is between 25 and 30 which is a bit more significant.

28-30 is like yous aid questionable.

Standard point buy is 25. I belive.

So? If casters wish, they can still play superheros. You can have a 20pt buy and play core, and casters can fly, teleport, avoid most attacks and destroy most things at will. Fighters are ineffective guys with sticks.

Or you can have a 40pt buy, toss in ToB and all sorts of good stuff. Casters are...mostly the same. The fighters are at least now really effective with their sticks.

It's not matter of if you're playing superheroes or not. Casters, by definition, ARE superheros in 3.5. The guy who can fly and create fire with his willpower alone is a superhero by any reasonable definition of the word. The exact numbers on his character sheet are not really relevant to that.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-24, 04:28 PM
So? If casters wish, they can still play superheros. You can have a 20pt buy and play core, and casters can fly, teleport, avoid most attacks and destroy most things at will. Fighters are ineffective guys with sticks.

Or you can have a 40pt buy, toss in ToB and all sorts of good stuff. Casters are...mostly the same. The fighters are at least now really effective with their sticks.

It's not matter of if you're playing superheroes or not. Casters, by definition, ARE superheros in 3.5. The guy who can fly and create fire with his willpower alone is a superhero by any reasonable definition of the word. The exact numbers on his character sheet are not really relevant to that.

Agreed at higher levels stats don't matter its just getting there.

Lower stats meens you won't be able to pump a score as high..

at lower levels caster will be frailer.


I think people who use lower point but are hoping there players don't drop an 18 in one stat and keep every thing at 8's... there hoping for more arrays that are well rounded or that mabye have a +2 at most...

Tyndmyr
2010-02-24, 04:32 PM
Uh, you get fly at level 5. That isn't traditionally considered high level.

And yknow, it really doesn't matter if that wizard has a 16 before racials. He has 1 lower on his DC...he'll have one less bonus spell. So? He's still not weak. It still has pretty much nothing to do with playing superheroes.

Likewise, that fighter is not a superhero regardless of if his Str is 15 or 18. He just does more or less hp damage. Numbers do not a superhero make.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-24, 04:49 PM
Uh, you get fly at level 5. That isn't traditionally considered high level.

And yknow, it really doesn't matter if that wizard has a 16 before racials. He has 1 lower on his DC...he'll have one less bonus spell. So? He's still not weak. It still has pretty much nothing to do with playing superheroes.

Likewise, that fighter is not a superhero regardless of if his Str is 15 or 18. He just does more or less hp damage. Numbers do not a superhero make.

Fly does not make you a super hero.
Fly last minutes per level.
If you have a 16 int your other stats will be lower as well.

And you can cast it what twice for a total of 10 minutes a day at 5th hardly godlike.

the god like of wizards realy doesn't start untill you start getting 4th + spells and even then only getting 1 or 2 a day isn't game breaking ... ya it can end encounters quick. but only a few times a day.

Less spells and lower dcs definetly help balance things out... Completly no... but it significantly brings them down.

There is a bigger difference of play when using 20-25 point buy then using 30+

Tinydwarfman
2010-02-24, 05:06 PM
Fly does not make you a super hero.
Fly last minutes per level.
If you have a 16 int your other stats will be lower as well.

And you can cast it what twice for a total of 10 minutes a day at 5th hardly godlike.

the god like of wizards realy doesn't start untill you start getting 4th + spells and even then only getting 1 or 2 a day isn't game breaking ... ya it can end encounters quick. but only a few times a day.

Less spells and lower dcs definetly help balance things out... Completly no... but it significantly brings them down.

There is a bigger difference of play when using 20-25 point buy then using 30+

Even if I accepted your argument (which I don't, but this is off topic), the fighters rely much more on those precious stats. If you compared a 40pt buy fighter to a 20 pt buy one, there would be no question of who is by far more powerful. 20pt and 40pt buy wizard they won't be so different past level 5. And most campaigns start at at least three(by looking at that recent thread)

Yora
2010-02-24, 05:10 PM
By my experience, gms and players who frequent rpg forums are a very different bunch from most actual gaming groups. Most "problems" with systems only exist in these forums, while almost never coming up in actual games.

Zen Master
2010-02-24, 05:40 PM
This is just plain bollocks. Numbers don't matter as much as you make them out to.

This game is two things, and two things only: Numbers and fluff. What you call tactics - is numbers. Or ... lets call it using the numbers in a tactical way, but it's still numbers.


And if you read what Rune said, he said he always uses tougher-than-MM opponents. That's regardless of the party. In other words, he doesn't weaken opponents for weaker parties. So optimization matters. A lot. Else you'll just die.

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.

Well - I guess that's fine. Computer games are the same way, and they have more players than RPG's.

Personally though, I like the guys I play with. I'd never set challenges without considering what they have to counter them with. But thats just me, being nice. Splattering them because I never considered the fact that they would be unable to beat an endless barrage of Stormtrooper Tarrasques just isn't my style.

Knaight
2010-02-24, 06:04 PM
I'd say that part of making the world interesting is providing challenges, but if the players find their primary challenges (and fun) in finding tactical advantages that render the challenges you present them with far less dangerous, that itself is a win if you do, indeed, provide them.

As I said, the PCs will find their scale eventually, and challenges will happen. Unless things can't deteriorate to the point where they are outclassed, there will be challenges. They might be sandwiched immediately between a series of near effortless fights, and an impossible one (Sniping guards is easy, as soon as you miss one life gets hard, and as soon as your choke point is gone basically impossible), but challenging encounters is an inevitability. And if you go beyond just challenging encounters, and into challenging situations, you have a lot more. Fighting a would-be usurper from some old royal family and his top guards is a challenging encounters. Figuring out how to politically replace that usurper with someone who is at least believed to be of the royal family without igniting a bloodbath is a challenging situation. In general campaigns with challenging situations are much more interesting than those with only challenging encounters, and in many cases artificial balance to encounters is detrimental to the challenge of the situation, as all paths become the same. So if some encounter should be steam rolled because of how a part of the situation was handled, don't inflate the stats.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-24, 06:16 PM
Personally though, I like the guys I play with. I'd never set challenges without considering what they have to counter them with. But thats just me, being nice. Splattering them because I never considered the fact that they would be unable to beat an endless barrage of Stormtrooper Tarrasques just isn't my style.

Wow that would be boring, every "challenge" adjusted to your skills. Haven't you argued against the Tippyverse due to verismilitude before (just wondering, if you feel this is good suspension of disbelief)? That's probably a bit too far, forgive me, you probably do provide challenges which may defeat the PC's on occasion (as is suggested to be done by the DMG, etc.). Having challenges which are either clearly to be run away from or are matched to the characters abilities does seem to stretch things a bit, however.

I'm fairly sure any player upon seeing a Stormtrooper Tarrasque (even just one as opposed to an "endless barrage") would either fly, hide or flee.

Endless Tarrasques were not actually suggested, FYI. That's far more of an exaggeration than the other side made about your style of play (as far as I know). If there were endless Tarrasques in the gameworld the players would be expected to kill disable (stupid Tarrasque death clause) them easily, run away or die horribly. Hopefully the players know which their character's are capable of. Deliberately putting challenges that are beyond the PC's skills in their path and not letting them escape is, IMO, bad Dming. That is not what was being proposed. Occasionally the PC's will run into something that they cannot handle. Unless the world is run like some computer RPG's (right back at you) this is good suspension of disbelief.

To me beating a Beholder is more inherently awesome than defeating a Gauth. This is not speed blindness, it is merely that a Beholder is more powerful than a Gauth, assuming all else is equal. I like being able to defeat more challenging things. Saying that they are basically the same challenge because you will only find them if they are a reasonable chaalenge for you (e.g. level 8 you fight a Gauth, level 13 a Beholder) is just not true for some games. If my players wandered into a known Beholder lair at level 5 they had better be prepared to fight, or flee from, a Beholder, damnit! If they wander into a random cave they had better be ready for anything. If I were going to be given things that I would have an even chance of surviving I'd roll up a stereotypical high elf, have him walk into a dwarf bar and finish knitting a "Hope the stumpy drunk can't read this" sweater and ask for XP. My character is at as much or more risk as they would be if they went in a dungeon, so why not?

Edit: @Knaight: I think I agree (not at a time when I can safely judge) but I like nitpicking. What you call a situation is (by the DMG, I think) supposed to be just another kind of encounter. An encounter is basically anything where you have enough of a failure chance that you would be asked to roll a die (you may not need to actually roll one due to taking ten or something similar, however). That is not an official definition but it will do unless WoTC decide to come back and give a better one (or someone on these forums does better than my attempt. My attempt being made at twenty-five to twelve makes this a significant possiblility).

Eldariel
2010-02-24, 06:45 PM
This game is two things, and two things only: Numbers and fluff. What you call tactics - is numbers. Or ... lets call it using the numbers in a tactical way, but it's still numbers.

Ah, but you're oversimplifying. There are so many ways these "numbers" (honestly, talk about "mechanics" if that's what you mean, 'cause "numbers" only covers a miniscule part of what falls under mechanics) fall that both sides being stronger doesn't somehow magically become the same as both sides being weaker.

There's a reason people talk about the nature of the game changing around level 10; the abilities that appear just change everything. So no, playing with weak characters against weak monsters is not the same as playing with strong characters against strong monsters.


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.

Well - I guess that's fine. Computer games are the same way, and they have more players than RPG's.

Personally though, I like the guys I play with. I'd never set challenges without considering what they have to counter them with. But thats just me, being nice. Splattering them because I never considered the fact that they would be unable to beat an endless barrage of Stormtrooper Tarrasques just isn't my style.

I interact with my players all the time. I don't directly interact with their characters. I control the world that interacts with their characters. Enemies don't magically scale to match their levels, it isn't impossible for them to get in over their necks and not every fight requires effort to win.

Verisimilitude is much more important to us than plain challenge. There's too much...computer game-likeness in a world that pretty much revolves around the characters. The world interacts with them. That means there's still much balance. Higher-up entities have no interest in the PCs on low levels and as such, it probably requires effort for them to get in over their heads. Also, higher-up entities are rare. You don't accidentally stumble upon a Great Wyrm.

And it's not an obstacle course. It's a fantasy world. Not everything is out to kill them. Most of the game is non-combat interaction. But that's just how I prefer it. I understand wargames appeal to some people; if you want to run the game as a series of encounters tailored to challenge the PCs, that's of course fine too.

Saph
2010-02-24, 07:27 PM
To me beating a Beholder is more inherently awesome than defeating a Gauth.

This is where I disagree. I don't think there's anything particularly awesome about defeating any monster. I hear lots of powergamer-types brag about how easily they can kill tough monster X, and it doesn't impress me at all, because I know they're generally starting with a massive advantage. Reading the stats of a monster and then building a character that exploits loopholes in the rules to defeat the monster effortlessly is, in my view, about as impressive as completing an FPS on Easy mode. (And then going online and being surprised when you don't get any respect for it.)

A battle where a tricked-out 15th-level party curbstomps a Beholder is boring. A battle where a relatively unoptimised low-level party manages to beat a Gauth is, IMO, way more interesting. 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.

Fhaolan
2010-02-24, 08:06 PM
This is where I disagree. I don't think there's anything particularly awesome about defeating any monster. I hear lots of powergamer-types brag about how easily they can kill tough monster X, and it doesn't impress me at all, because I know they're generally starting with a massive advantage. Reading the stats of a monster and then building a character that exploits loopholes in the rules to defeat the monster effortlessly is, in my view, about as impressive as completing an FPS on Easy mode. (And then going online and being surprised when you don't get any respect for it.)

Yeah, this reminds me of way-back-when, when bragging about killing Tiamat was the big deal of the day. I showed up at a local gaming club meeting... must have been in the early 80's in Chatham, Ontario... and this dude cornered me with endless stories of how his character killed Tiamat five or six times. He was so very impressed with himself.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-24, 08:15 PM
This is where I disagree. I don't think there's anything particularly awesome about defeating any monster. I hear lots of powergamer-types brag about how easily they can kill tough monster X, and it doesn't impress me at all, because I know they're generally starting with a massive advantage. Reading the stats of a monster and then building a character that exploits loopholes in the rules to defeat the monster effortlessly is, in my view, about as impressive as completing an FPS on Easy mode. (And then going online and being surprised when you don't get any respect for it.)

A battle where a tricked-out 15th-level party curbstomps a Beholder is boring. A battle where a relatively unoptimised low-level party manages to beat a Gauth is, IMO, way more interesting. 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.


That reminds me of the time we where running an underdark game i think need undermountain... and we where under geared at the time... level 10 i think and we stumbled onto a beholders cave... well by stumbled i meen we kinda new it was coming... eaither way it was an epic battle...

I know the first time i through a gauth against my players they still remember it. there fight was awsome... what is it about beholders that rock so much.

Colmarr
2010-02-24, 08:18 PM
He was so very impressed with himself.

Or those players who boast about their character being level 180, or being able to cast a 100d6 (or some other arbitrarily large number) fireball.

It doesn't make them good. It just means they're playing a different game.