Are High Stats Necessary?

[Basket Burner]

For everyone who is complaining about bad stats, take a look at the "elite array", it's the base stats that you are supposed to apply to monsters/NPCs that are supposed to be challenging or be able to handle themselves. These are the proathletes & the academic professors. 15, 14, 12, 13, 10, 8. Anyone who thinks that anything less than a handful of sixteens or an eighteen is unplayable is full of BS.


P.S. That mindbender could try putting the stat increases he gets for leveling into Int. That way he can take the class

Elite array is a great way of generating characters meant to be disposable. This is not a moniker that is meant to apply to PCs.

If you have a non 18 in your primary stat, you take penalties to everything you do. A 15 means -2 to everything you do for example.

Int increases do not retroactively increase skill points. So he basically lowers his Cha even further, assuming that he lives until level 8 (he won't) and is still missing out on nearly half the skill points that Int boost would grant. All that just for something that is a one level dip for Mindsight anyways.

And he went through all that trouble to detail something that only has a 14 and a 16 for remarkable stats, aka will die from a random, meaningless encounter well before the plot goes anywhere.

[Anderlith]

Elite array is a great way of generating characters meant to be disposable. This is not a moniker that is meant to apply to PCs.

If you have a non 18 in your primary stat, you take penalties to everything you do. A 15 means -2 to everything you do for example.

Int increases do not retroactively increase skill points. So he basically lowers his Cha even further, assuming that he lives until level 8 (he won't) and is still missing out on nearly half the skill points that Int boost would grant. All that just for something that is a one level dip for Mindsight anyways.

And he went through all that trouble to detail something that only has a 14 and a 16 for remarkable stats, aka will die from a random, meaningless encounter well before the plot goes anywhere.
No, the elite array is for the "elites", those who are on par with the PC's, they have another stat block for "average joes". Also an 18 is a +4 not a 0. This is explained in the chapter about ability scores.

[Basket Burner]

No, the elite array is for the "elites", those who are on par with the PC's, they have another stat block for "average joes". Also an 18 is a +4 not a 0. This is explained in the chapter about ability scores.

You just missed the point in a manner approximating how a 15 prime stat character would miss things they would otherwise be successful at if they had decent stats.

[Anderlith]

You just missed the point in a manner approximating how a 15 prime stat character would miss things they would otherwise be successful at if they had decent stats.

& you missed my point that a 15 is decent
(What are the Prereq's for this Mindsight thing? I will show you the math of how you can do it)

[Basket Burner]

& you missed my point that a 15 is decent
(What are the Prereq's for this Mindsight thing? I will show you the math of how you can do it)

No, a 15 means -2.

Mindsight requires Telepathy. Mindbender 1 grants Telepathy. So the prerequisites are whatever Mindbender is. Since that is literally the only reason to ever take Mindbender, it goes right back into the original discussion.


Yeah, elite array is 25 point buy, which is the default point buy in the DMG. It's just that like 90% of people play with more.

A lot of apparent balance issues make more sense when you consider that the playtesters were running 25 pb blaster wizards and sword & board fighters.

Not really. Wizards are fine on 25 PB. Weaker classes are not. Using blasting was a problem, but that had nothing to do with point buy.

[Anderlith]

No, a 15 means -2.

Mindsight requires Telepathy. Mindbender 1 grants Telepathy. So the prerequisites are whatever Mindbender is. Since that is literally the only reason to ever take Mindbender, it goes right back into the original discussion.



Not really. Wizards are fine on 25 PB. Weaker classes are not. Using blasting was a problem, but that had nothing to do with point buy.

Have you read the PHB? 6 & 7 is a -2. A 15 is a plus two. (+2)

[The Glyphstone]

Have you read the PHB? 6 & 7 is a -2. A 15 is a plus two. (+2)

I think he's deliberately (mis)interpreting an 18 stat as the bare minimum for effectiveness. Since an 18 is a +4, a +2 is 'relatively' a -2 instead. Though that's like saying if you don't have a car that can go 100MPH, your 80MPH car actually goes -20MPH.

[Basket Burner]

Have you read the PHB? 6 & 7 is a -2. A 15 is a plus two. (+2)

Nope, 15 is a -2. 6 is a -6. But then, no one would put a 6 in their prime stat.


I think he's deliberately (mis)interpreting an 18 stat as the bare minimum for effectiveness. Since an 18 is a +4, a +2 is 'relatively' a -2 instead. Though that's like saying if you don't have a car that can go 100MPH, your 80MPH car actually goes -20MPH.

18 is the baseline by which primary stats are measured, yes. The only reasons why you should have anything less there is either an inability to get an 18 (which you should think long and hard about) or not knowing any better (such as by thinking a mere 15 prime stat is acceptable).

It's like saying your 80 MPH car is too slow by 20 MPH when entering a race in which the other vehicles are going at 100.

[Anderlith]

Nope, 15 is a -2. 6 is a -6. But then, no one would put a 6 in their prime stat.



18 is the baseline by which primary stats are measured, yes. The only reasons why you should have anything less there is either an inability to get an 18 (which you should think long and hard about) or not knowing any better (such as by thinking a mere 15 prime stat is acceptable).

It's like saying your 80 MPH car is too slow by 20 MPH when entering a race in which the other vehicles are going at 100.

But they do not all go 100mph. Almost eveyone of them go 80-ish. Only that one guy who dropped his suspension, fuel reserves, brakes, windsheild wipers, airbags, & seatbelts is able to squeak out 100mph.

18 is not the median, it is the exception.

[Hiro Protagonest]

16 is the average for a primary stat. 4e outright supports it with the standard array.

[Basket Burner]

But they do not all go 100mph. Almost eveyone of them go 80-ish. Only that one guy who dropped his suspension, fuel reserves, brakes, windsheild wipers, airbags, & seatbelts is able to squeak out 100mph.

18 is not the median, it is the exception.

Nope, most of them go 100. The ones that only go 80 were never going to win, or most likely even finish the race anyways. And an 18 prime stat only requires sacrificing everything else if MAD and on a very low PB. But that's just a reason to not play MAD characters and/or not play in very low PB games.

4th edition sets the standard to 20, but is otherwise unchanged. Same for PF, just substitute 4th edition for PF. Same reason even - abundant racial bonuses raise the bar. But -1 or -2, 16 is still taking a penalty.

[Hiro Protagonest]

4th edition sets the standard to 20, but is otherwise unchanged. Same for PF, just substitute 4th edition for PF. Same reason even - abundant racial bonuses raise the bar. But -1 or -2, 16 is still taking a penalty.

No, it doesn't! I was wrong saying 16, but you don't have a base 18 in 4e before racial modifiers with the standard array! You have 18 AFTER racial modifiers!

[Shadowknight12]

No, it doesn't! I was wrong saying 16, but you don't have a base 18 in 4e before racial modifiers with the standard array! You have 18 AFTER racial modifiers!

You're not grasping his point. His point is that the median or the standard, or the average, is "the maximum I can get at character creation."

[Anderlith]

It irks me when the DM makes some race/class super important, but leaves others out to dry, without warning.

@ Basket Burner, I am done. The maximum is not the average, & now I think I fear the flawed logic of "power gamers" & will have to watch out for more logical fallacies such as your's when talking to other "power gamers".

[Fortuna]

It irks me when the DM makes some race/class super important, but leaves others out to dry, without warning.

@ Basket Burner, I am done. The maximum is not the average, & now I think I fear the flawed logic of "power gamers" & will have to watch out for more logical fallacies such as your's when talking to other "power gamers"people.

Fixed that for you. There is no position so good that you cannot find an idiot espousing it (not calling Basket Burner an idiot, merely making a point). To allow one person's insistence on such a point to colour your interactions with all others in an arbitrary, poorly defined group (like "power gamers") makes little sense and is unfair to the rest of that group. People argue strange things, sometimes wrongly and sometimes rightly. The correct response is "People", not "power gamers".

[Basket Burner]

You're not grasping his point. His point is that the median or the standard, or the average, is "the maximum I can get at character creation."

Maximum you can get without any effort. In 3.5 you can get racial bonuses too, but you actually have to look for those instead of simply playing the right race (4th edition) or picking anything but the wrong race (PF). And often those come at some sort of significant penalty, unless it's Str in which case you suffer from deflation (it takes a lot more Str to be at par for a melee class than say... Int on a Wizard). Regardless, the baseline in 3.5 is not picking the wrong race. Which means 18 prime stat, 14 con. That's the lowest acceptable numbers. MAD characters are screwed but what else is new?

[Niek]

Maximum you can get without any effort. In 3.5 you can get racial bonuses too, but you actually have to look for those instead of simply playing the right race (4th edition) or picking anything but the wrong race (PF). And often those come at some sort of significant penalty, unless it's Str in which case you suffer from deflation (it takes a lot more Str to be at par for a melee class than say... Int on a Wizard). Regardless, the baseline in 3.5 is not picking the wrong race. Which means 18 prime stat, 14 con. That's the lowest acceptable numbers. MAD characters are screwed but what else is new?

This sort of thinking irks me. Player characters do not need to be the absolute best in their field from the get go. By D&D3.5 RAW, less than .5% of the population has an 18 in a given ability score (1/216 chance on 3d6). Even if you claim that player characters should be above average, the system already provides for that by giving 4d6 drop lowest, which gives a slightly more than 1.6% chance for an 18 in a given stat. Across 6 sets of rolls, this results in less than 10% of characters generated this way have even a single 18 before racial modifiers. And yet many players somehow get this sense of entitlement that tells them that if they can't be in that 10% then they are woefully underpowered.

[Hyudra]

This sort of thinking irks me. Player characters do not need to be the absolute best in their field from the get go. By D&D3.5 RAW, less than .5% of the population has an 18 in a given ability score (1/216 chance on 3d6). Even if you claim that player characters should be above average, the system already provides for that by giving 4d6 drop lowest, which gives a slightly more than 1.6% chance for an 18 in a given stat. Across 6 sets of rolls, this results in less than 10% of characters generated this way have even a single 18 before racial modifiers. And yet many players somehow get this sense of entitlement that tells them that if they can't be in that 10% then they are woefully underpowered.

Sure, but it's a sad fact that some classes just don't work right if they don't get optimal scores for one or more ability scores. A melee combatant with 15 Strength isn't going to cut it - At level one he'd need a 12 or higher on his attack roll to hit a CR 1/3 goblin. Only a 40% chance to hit.

The same goes for, say, a caster, where a lowish spellcasting stat means you may have to fork over large amounts of gold for stat boosting items to keep up with the spell levels available to you. Perhaps a good balancing point for some of the higher tier spellcasters (3.5 Cleric, Wizard), but it's crippling to those who are more MAD and mid-tier (Say, 3.5 Dread Necromancer). If the setting is such that you can't actually buy the specific magic items you want, and are reliant on what you find via. loot or luck, then you may simply lose the ability to progress in class features at mid-high levels. Until the DM throws you a bone, anyways.

You do have the option to, say, take a race that gives a stat adjustment, but this isn't fun or enjoyable for many. If I arrive at the table with a concept in mind for a Knight bodyguard who failed to protect her noble charge from harm and fled her upper class life in shame, turning to life as a fatalistic mercenary, it sucks if I have to resign myself to being a half orc or mechanically incompetent because the highest ability score I rolled was a 15.

'Entitlement' becomes 'necessity' when there are classes out there that are dependent on one or more high ability scores to function.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Remember, the Dark One used elite array. He's now a god.

[Niek]

Sure, but it's a sad fact that some classes just don't work right if they don't get optimal scores for one or more ability scores. A melee combatant with 15 Strength isn't going to cut it - At level one he'd need a 12 or higher on his attack roll to hit a CR 1/3 goblin. Only a 40% chance to hit.

The same goes for, say, a caster, where a lowish spellcasting stat means you may have to fork over large amounts of gold for stat boosting items to keep up with the spell levels available to you. Perhaps a good balancing point for some of the higher tier spellcasters (3.5 Cleric, Wizard), but it's crippling to those who are more MAD and mid-tier (Say, 3.5 Dread Necromancer). If the setting is such that you can't actually buy the specific magic items you want, and are reliant on what you find via. loot or luck, then you may simply lose the ability to progress in class features at mid-high levels. Until the DM throws you a bone, anyways.

You do have the option to, say, take a race that gives a stat adjustment, but this isn't fun or enjoyable for many. If I arrive at the table with a concept in mind for a Knight bodyguard who failed to protect her noble charge from harm and fled her upper class life in shame, turning to life as a fatalistic mercenary, it sucks if I have to resign myself to being a half orc or mechanically incompetent because the highest ability score I rolled was a 15.

'Entitlement' becomes 'necessity' when there are classes out there that are dependent on one or more high ability scores to function.

Assuming our 1st level fighter has his abilities something like 15/13/14/12/10/8 and bought himself some scale armor, that same goblin has only a 30% to hit the melee fighter each round, and for less damage, so I don't see how 40% is crippling. For spellcasters, a 15 starting stat is sufficient to ensure that one is able to cast spells at the earliest level available, assuming that one's bonuses every 4th level go into the casting stat.

[The Glyphstone]

And for the fighter anyways, a 40% to hit on the goblin would only increase to 45% with a Strength of 16, and 50% with a strength of 18. The lower strength would only matter in one out of ten attacks, and that goblin isn't going to live through more than two hits top.

[Basket Burner]

This sort of thinking irks me. Player characters do not need to be the absolute best in their field from the get go. By D&D3.5 RAW, less than .5% of the population has an 18 in a given ability score (1/216 chance on 3d6). Even if you claim that player characters should be above average, the system already provides for that by giving 4d6 drop lowest, which gives a slightly more than 1.6% chance for an 18 in a given stat. Across 6 sets of rolls, this results in less than 10% of characters generated this way have even a single 18 before racial modifiers. And yet many players somehow get this sense of entitlement that tells them that if they can't be in that 10% then they are woefully underpowered.

{{scrubbed}}

Edit: Going from a 40% chance to hit and two shotting the goblin sometimes to a 50% chance and always one shotting it is huge, and it only gets bigger when you fight things more significant than goblins. The thing about taking a -2 penalty to everything you do is that it comes up a lot. 1 in 10 means it will almost certainly matter at least once in every single fight.

[Tyndmyr]

This sort of thinking irks me. Player characters do not need to be the absolute best in their field from the get go. By D&D3.5 RAW, less than .5% of the population has an 18 in a given ability score (1/216 chance on 3d6). Even if you claim that player characters should be above average, the system already provides for that by giving 4d6 drop lowest, which gives a slightly more than 1.6% chance for an 18 in a given stat. Across 6 sets of rolls, this results in less than 10% of characters generated this way have even a single 18 before racial modifiers. And yet many players somehow get this sense of entitlement that tells them that if they can't be in that 10% then they are woefully underpowered.

While true, the guy who rolls poorly for int isn't gonna grow up to go to wizard school. Wizards in a given setting tend to be at least slightly rare. A small town might have...one.

So, less than 1/216 people are wizards in just about any setting.

In other words, there is no rarity reason why a wizard school would opt to train people who are of lower than 18 intelligence.

[Hiro Protagonest]

{{scrubbed{{

See: Dark One.

[Silva Stormrage]

See: Dark One.

How is the dark one relevant... He became a god through dying and being loved by his people. Are you saying that you could use dm fiat to get you power?

Note: I do not actually have start of darkness.

[Hiro Protagonest]

How is the dark one relevant... He became a god through dying and being loved by his people. Are you saying that you could use dm fiat to get you power?

Note: I do not actually have start of darkness.

He was 1 out of 1000s. He was revered enough to become a god.

[Niek]

@Basket Burner:

Just because the fighter with 18 strength is more capable, does not mean that the one with 15 strength is incapable. Do we look at programmers and say "You arent as good as John Carmack, therefore you suck"?

@Tyndmyr:

Not everyone with an 18 intelligence is going to want to or be able to study wizardry either. They might not be able to take the time out of their schedule to study, or not be able to afford it, or simply be more interested in developing their skills in another area. On the other hand, someone could potentially buy their way into a wizard school despite being underqualified, or perhaps family tradition demands that every first child study magic regardless of talent.

[Hyudra]

@Basket Burner:

Just because the fighter with 18 strength is more capable, does not mean that the one with 15 strength is incapable. Do we look at programmers and say "You arent as good as John Carmack, therefore you suck"?

One with 15 strength is incapable. In 3.5 at least. As in, "against equivalent level challenges, you'll fail more often than not." You're not reliably hitting their ACs until you hit the mid-high levels where AC is obsolete anyways (at which point one of your class strengths drops off the radar) and/or you're not power attacking or power attacking for as much, so you're not doing substantial damage (add a lower Str to to damage, as well). You're failing at your key role, which is hurting people with weapons.

Many classes necessitate having optimal ability scores to function. Melee among them. Mid-tier casters among them. If they do not have the ability scores, then they fail. Maybe it's hard to notice as their teammates pick up the slack, but they're failing on a fundamental level. And if you're a very aware player or you're someone who cares about doing well and holding their own, you'll notice this and it'll impact your fun.

But my point is, primarily, that this problem, and all the other myriad problems that stem from rolled ability scores are easily avoidable. The issues with point buy are maybe marginally less fun for 50% of the people at the table... but that gets left behind when the actual game gets underway. The issue with rolling stats may arise only occasionally, but these problems carry through the entirety of the game. If you have players on your table who don't like rolling stat, if someone comes to the table with a character in mind they want to play, and fears rolling stats would warp or spoil it... or if someone wants to play with you and requests point buy, and you refuse, I feel it's selfish. Because you're hampering someone's long term enjoyment of the game for your own short term pleasure.

That's irksome.

[Draconi Redfir]

Poor poor 16 and 17, I’m going to go give those forgotten high-rolls a hug now :smallfrown:


also; Just as a note, i would like to point something out.

With point buy, you can get one eighteen, and unless you drain points out of one of your other stats, the most you could get out of the other five is maybe a ten.

With dice rolls, it's entirely possible to have an eighteen, a sixteen, two twelve’s, a nine, and a fifteen. IMHO point-buy may be better for specialization, but really chances are you'll get a much higher stat-load out overall with dice rolls.

[Hyudra]

Poor poor 16 and 17, I’m going to go give those forgotten high-rolls a hug now :smallfrown:


also; Just as a note, i would like to point something out.

With point buy, you can get one eighteen, and unless you drain points out of one of your other stats, the most you could get out of the other five is maybe a ten.

With dice rolls, it's entirely possible to have an eighteen, a sixteen, two twelve’s, a nine, and a fifteen. IMHO point-buy may be better for specialization, but really chances are you'll get a much higher stat-load out overall with dice rolls.

Most people will play with 30-32 point buy. 28 at the lowest. As you've observed, 25 point buy tends to be a touch restrictive.

[Draconi Redfir]

i'm playing a game with 32 point buy myself, and while i wanted an 18 in my CON, that would have made the rest of my scores too low to be effective, so insted i lowered it to around 16 or 15 and things were a little more balanced.

[Niek]

One with 15 strength is incapable. In 3.5 at least. As in, "against equivalent level challenges, you'll fail more often than not." You're not reliably hitting their ACs until you hit the mid-high levels where AC is obsolete anyways (at which point one of your class strengths drops off the radar) and/or you're not power attacking or power attacking for as much, so you're not doing substantial damage (add a lower Str to to damage, as well). You're failing at your key role, which is hurting people with weapons.

Many classes necessitate having optimal ability scores to function. Melee among them. Mid-tier casters among them. If they do not have the ability scores, then they fail. Maybe it's hard to notice as their teammates pick up the slack, but they're failing on a fundamental level. And if you're a very aware player or you're someone who cares about doing well and holding their own, you'll notice this and it'll impact your fun.

But my point is, primarily, that this problem, and all the other myriad problems that stem from rolled ability scores are easily avoidable. The issues with point buy are maybe marginally less fun for 50% of the people at the table... but that gets left behind when the actual game gets underway. The issue with rolling stats may arise only occasionally, but these problems carry through the entirety of the game. If you have players on your table who don't like rolling stat, if someone comes to the table with a character in mind they want to play, and fears rolling stats would warp or spoil it... or if someone wants to play with you and requests point buy, and you refuse, I feel it's selfish. Because you're hampering someone's long term enjoyment of the game for your own short term pleasure.

That's irksome.

You seem to think I am advocating stat rolling. I am not, instead I am arguing against the tendency for players to expect that they should always be the best of the best in whatever they do.

[Reverent-One]

But my point is, primarily, that this problem, and all the other myriad problems that stem from rolled ability scores are easily avoidable. The issues with point buy are maybe marginally less fun for 50% of the people at the table... but that gets left behind when the actual game gets underway. The issue with rolling stats may arise only occasionally, but these problems carry through the entirety of the game. If you have players on your table who don't like rolling stat, if someone comes to the table with a character in mind they want to play, and fears rolling stats would warp or spoil it... or if someone wants to play with you and requests point buy, and you refuse, I feel it's selfish. Because you're hampering someone's long term enjoyment of the game for your own short term pleasure.

That's irksome.

The thing is, the problems you're talking about aren't inherently from die rolls and can be solved within the die rolling framework. You can have the same problems from a low cost point buy.

[Basket Burner]

See: Dark One.

See: Bunnypancake.gif.


@Basket Burner:

Just because the fighter with 18 strength is more capable, does not mean that the one with 15 strength is incapable. Do we look at programmers and say "You arent as good as John Carmack, therefore you suck"?

Ok, first of all. You're a Fighter. The 18 Str version has it hard enough without screwing yourself over further. That aside... Programmers have a job that involves constructing computer code in various programming languages. If they do their job poorly, they are not killed, and their stuff is not taken.

The same is not true of adventurers, which is why any dangerous real world profession has competence requirements, and further adventuring is more dangerous than any and all of them, including active war zones (modern wars are downright SAFE compared to adventuring).

And that means the people that would be incompetent at adventuring either stay at home and do something safer and saner, or they go out and quickly get killed off to maintain the monster population.


Poor poor 16 and 17, I’m going to go give those forgotten high-rolls a hug now :smallfrown:

Those are -1s.


With point buy, you can get one eighteen, and unless you drain points out of one of your other stats, the most you could get out of the other five is maybe a ten.

25 PB: 18, 14, 11, and 3 8s (which are going to go into stats that don't matter anyways).
28 and 32 can either make the 8s into 10s or boost that Con some more.


With dice rolls, it's entirely possible to have an eighteen, a sixteen, two twelve’s, a nine, and a fifteen. IMHO point-buy may be better for specialization, but really chances are you'll get a much higher stat-load out overall with dice rolls.

And it is 10 times more likely you will get a terrible loadout, that has a lot of wasted stat points. It doesn't matter at all if the Wizard has 8 Str or 14, or if he has 8 Cha or 14. Once Int, Con, and Dex (3.5 only) are covered it doesn't matter anymore. Similar parallels can be drawn to other classes. There just is no reason at all to cripple yourself at character creation. Unless you want to play the character creation game again, in which case you might be better off DMing, as then having your creations killed in seconds of combat is expected.

[Kazyan]

While we're complaining at each other about the number 18, it irks me when rollling stats turns into complaining. Dude, you can't reroll; your total is +2 and you have two 14s. No, you can't send you character on a suicide mission. Wait, DM, are you letting him...everyone has a dumpstat, the 6 isn't really a...oh, he rerolled it into a 17. Lovely.

If we didn't want to deal with the bad side of random chance, we should have just used a point buy. If you have an excluding reaction to the worst cases, but not the best, you shift the average. Standards keep raising. That's why the 1-10 scale is really a 6-9 scale.

[Hiro Protagonest]

In a game I'm in, my character has 16 in four stats and 10 in two. We used 40 point buy. Am I underperforming? No.

[Emmerask]

16 in str with a fighter is enough to be competent 1 more dmg and 5% more to hit chance will never ever make or break a character...

[Anderlith]

So the only people who are good at adventuring are min maxed idiot savants? People who are to frail to fight a field mouse can adventure as long as he is has a PHD in dungeoneering, but the guy that has a more balanced mind & body will die just because he is a few IQ points down?

As counterpoint I give you Indiana Jones. He has maybe 12-13 str & con, an 10-11 in dex, a decent 16 int, a 8-10 wis, & a 14 cha. He is kind of the end all be all of adventure heroes, he doesn't have optimized stats, yet he hasn't died yet.

[Basket Burner]

So the only people who are good at adventuring are min maxed idiot savants? People who are to frail to fight a field mouse can adventure as long as he is has a PHD in dungeoneering, but the guy that has a more balanced mind & body will die just because he is a few IQ points down?

Idiot savants? Hardly. Good at what they do? Yes. Str is such a meaningless stat that even if an 8 were really that much worse than a 10, you could still turn it into... 55 if you cared, so who cares? And for other classes, similar parallels can be drawn. Not to mention it only means having 8s if on a low PB, on higher values you could very well run around with only 1 8.


As counterpoint I give you Indiana Jones. He has maybe 12-13 str & con, an 10-11 in dex, a decent 16 int, a 8-10 wis, & a 14 cha. He is kind of the end all be all of adventure heroes, he doesn't have optimized stats, yet he hasn't died yet.

Single author fiction is never a valid example for anything.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/004/777/O-28-01-1.png


16 in str with a fighter is enough to be competent 1 more dmg and 5% more to hit chance will never ever make or break a character...

A 36 isn't enough to be competent. What makes you think a 16 is? You are so far behind that putting yourself in any worse of a situation completely disqualifies you.

And know what irks me? When people think that monster races are better than the normal ones. Most powerful general purpose race in D&D: The unmodified, PHB human. Monster races are near universally terrible, because of LA and/or RHD.

[Anderlith]

Indiana Jones has plot armor. He has DM-fiat "Anyone who shoots at you will hit a nearby wall/railing" cover, among other benefits.

In any case, you're exaggerating my point. I said there's some classes that are dependent on optimal stats to carry their own weight. If they don't have such, then class features and focuses stop working properly.

If your DM enforces a particular stat generation method that makes good stats unlikely, it hampers the choices you have at your disposal, in addition to the myriad other problems it can cause.


The DMG & not the DM say that a 15-16 is good enough. The only ones saying it is bad are the players (who can never be happy)

[Basket Burner]

The DMG & not the DM say that a 15-16 is good enough. The only ones saying it is bad are the players (who can never be happy)

WotC books also tells you that the Fighter is "The questing knight, the conquering overlord, the king’s champion, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary, and the bandit king—all are fighters." Granted that is the PHB and not the DMG, but it's still core and still WotC. So you can probably understand why experienced players don't take that seriously.


I always hated super human characters.

I've been gaming for a while, and until recently this has never been a problem. It was normal in the old days to have 'low' stats. The 2E Players Handbook even gives the example stats of 8, 14, 13, 13, 7, 6 for a character. It was normal in my games to have 'low' stats, you'd see fighters with 'only' strengths of 14 and clerics with 'only' wisdoms of 12.

But with 3E everyone demanded they must be superhuman. That is no stat at all below 12 or so, except for maybe a single dump stat. And so every one wanted characters with at least 17's or 18's in every stat they felt was important. I've seen players fail to get a single 18 while they roll and refuse to play that character and want to roll up another one.

Older editions had a wider range of stats that granted no bonuses or penalties. The suicide due to bad stats thing was also a lot more common then, particularly since higher stats did grant more... to put it another way, the bonuses from high stats were more concentrated, so while a 14 is basically useless, an 18 is better than a 3.5 18 both absolutely and relatively. But the stats you aren't using don't matter at all.

[bloodtide]

Older editions had a wider range of stats that granted no bonuses or penalties. The suicide due to bad stats thing was also a lot more common then, particularly since higher stats did grant more... to put it another way, the bonuses from high stats were more concentrated, so while a 14 is basically useless, an 18 is better than a 3.5 18 both absolutely and relatively. But the stats you aren't using don't matter at all.


It's not 'suicide' to have low stats. I can point too tons of low stat character over the years that survived. Having a +2 to and ability rather then a +1 does nothing to make the character survive.

And Old School did not care about 'not getting' anything. So you had a 12 Strength fighter? Big deal, you just sat down an played the game. Sure you did less damage with a hit, but you did not judge your whole character on that one single thing.

And yes an Old School gamer might fail at things more....but guess what, that's a lot more fun and interesting.

New School:''The DC to jump over the pit is 20? Oh, I get like +20 from all my super human stats and optimization, so I just auto jump over it..and like heck anything and everything in the world."

Old School:"I need a DC of 20? I'll have to roll a high number to make it'' Rolls dice...everyone watches the dice as it slowly lands on '8'. ''Nooo..you fall into the pit filled with snakes!'

[Tyndmyr]

It's not 'suicide' to have low stats. I can point too tons of low stat character over the years that survived. Having a +2 to and ability rather then a +1 does nothing to make the character survive.

That entirely depends. An 8 con on an elvish wizard? Yeah, that does somewhat resemble suicide, unless fairly steep optimization is in play. A CR 1/2 orc can take you from fully healthy to entirely dead in a normal swing with a good damage roll. Any crit is curtains. Also, they crit on 18-20.

[Basket Burner]

It's not 'suicide' to have low stats. I can point too tons of low stat character over the years that survived. Having a +2 to and ability rather then a +1 does nothing to make the character survive.

At best they survive the Monk way, also known as being too weak to be worth the effort of killing. That is still far from a ringing endorsement however. Though since we're talking about prime stats both +2 and +1 are far too low.


And Old School did not care about 'not getting' anything. So you had a 12 Strength fighter? Big deal, you just sat down an played the game. Sure you did less damage with a hit, but you did not judge your whole character on that one single thing.

And you weren't going to give your character a name until level 4 anyways, so you use them to find traps, and then try again with something better. Particularly given that example, where literally all that you are is a dart delivery system.


And yes an Old School gamer might fail at things more....but guess what, that's a lot more fun and interesting.

Gygaxian mentalties are not a virtue.


New School:''The DC to jump over the pit is 20? Oh, I get like +20 from all my super human stats and optimization, so I just auto jump over it..and like heck anything and everything in the world."

Old School:"I need a DC of 20? I'll have to roll a high number to make it'' Rolls dice...everyone watches the dice as it slowly lands on '8'. ''Nooo..you fall into the pit filled with snakes!'

Try:

New School: Oh, a Jump check. Those things that don't matter past low levels. I fly over the pit.

Old School: LEEROY... *falls into pit* And it's full of snakes. That sounds an awful lot like suicide from having bad stats. Well the next character should have better!

In one of these, the player is attached to their character. In one of these, the player has no choice but to regard their character as a disposable comedy device.

Guess which promotes a better game?

[bloodtide]

It's not like 'death' even matters in modern games. Few DM's kill PC's anyway. Modern DMs are around to ''tell a story'', and they can't do that with dead PCs, so they will auto live through everything anyway.

[Emmerask]

A 36 isn't enough to be competent. What makes you think a 16 is? You are so far behind that putting yourself in any worse of a situation completely disqualifies you.

So if 36 is not enough then you actually agree that 16 vs 18 str makes no difference? ^^

Competent in that case has to be read in the context of how competent a fighter can be of course :smallbiggrin:
An 18 or a 16 does not really make any noticable difference in competence.

[Jeopardizer]

It still makes a difference: useless form slightly-less useless! :D

[Basket Burner]

So if 36 is not enough then you actually agree that 16 vs 18 str makes no difference? ^^

Competent in that case has to be read in the context of how competent a fighter can be of course :smallbiggrin:
An 18 or a 16 does not really make any noticable difference in competence.

What I am saying is that even with the maximum possible stat you still face a steep uphill battle both ways to contribute anything at all. So to deliberately put yourself in a less than perfect position when even the most optimal one still screws you over is the same as saying that you are giving up on the character idea entirely.


It's not like 'death' even matters in modern games. Few DM's kill PC's anyway. Modern DMs are around to ''tell a story'', and they can't do that with dead PCs, so they will auto live through everything anyway.

Says who? Yes, some do this which is very unfortunate. Others, while not deliberately setting out to kill anyone will not prevent it from happening in any instances in which it would occur. And if that means the entire party gets taken out by a random encounter, then that's really bad characters, or really bad luck, or really bad play or SOMETHING is at fault other than the DM most likely. It's possible it's his fault if it's some super high level encounter, but aside from that?

As for monster advancement, it's kind of funny.

As a PC, you are better off taking LA 0 RHD 0 races and class levels to get powerful as opposed to monster races.

As a monster (being run by the DM) you are better off advancing as your creature type than taking class levels in the vast majority of cases as the 2-4:1 returns means that racial HD and associated bonuses do more for you than class levels. There's a few cases in which class levels are better, typically involving using the nonassociated class rules to their fullest but still, it is extremely rare.

[Emmerask]

What I am saying is that even with the maximum possible stat you still face a steep uphill battle both ways to contribute anything at all. So to deliberately put yourself in a less than perfect position when even the most optimal one still screws you over is the same as saying that you are giving up on the character idea entirely.


Ac is pretty much a none issue at higher levels and at lower levels there are more then enough options to actually get a reasonable 75% chance to hit vs even CRd enemies.
Flanking the enemy, get magic weapon from your friendly party wizard etc

As for the 1 dmg you can deal more, if it really is the rare case where this 1 dmg point makes the difference either the dm willl just say the monster is dead or well tough luck but it happens very rarely so no real problem there.

At later levels other things are of far greater concern for your fighter, fly, blur, blink, invisibility, mirror image etc but no amount of strength will actually change your miss chance or ability to attack them there.

So yes to me even with pb a fighter with 16 str might very well be superior to the fighter with 18 str because the 16 str means that you might actually be able support umd skillpoints ( if you put those points into int for example) or some other stuff that makes you more then a I can hit stuff fighter....

[Anderlith]

WotC books also tells you that the Fighter is "The questing knight, the conquering overlord, the king’s champion, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary, and the bandit king—all are fighters." Granted that is the PHB and not the DMG, but it's still core and still WotC. So you can probably understand why experienced players don't take that seriously.


This has no place in this discussion, you are comparing fluff to mechanics, also this argument has no substance even if it were on point

[Basket Burner]

Ac is pretty much a none issue at higher levels and at lower levels there are more then enough options to actually get a reasonable 75% chance to hit vs even CRd enemies.
Flanking the enemy, get magic weapon from your friendly party wizard etc

No one wastes time flanking, you just kill in one hit, and then target next enemy.

No Wizard wastes slots on +1 to hit for one person for one minute, especially not when he can be casting Color Spray.

That leaves you going from a 50% chance of a one shot success to a 40% chance of hitting, and sometimes taking two hits. That's huge. That's crippling, even. And that's just goblins. At level 1. The situation that favors weak classes the most, because it's so easy even a cavefighter can do it.

I'm not sure why you even brought up AC, as I never claimed it was worth anything.


As for the 1 dmg you can deal more, if it really is the rare case where this 1 dmg point makes the difference either the dm willl just say the monster is dead or well tough luck but it happens very rarely so no real problem there.

If you require the DM to cheat for you to compensate for your weakness, not only does it not disprove that weakness, but it actively highlights it for all to see. And I recall at LEAST three separate incidents offhand in which someone dealing damage did exactly ONE less point than was required, and then the side doing that damage was entirely screwed over, for lack of a single additional damage point. And there are probably many more than that. HP are all or nothing, and you need every little edge you can get to make it more all and less nothing.


At later levels other things are of far greater concern for your fighter, fly, blur, blink, invisibility, mirror image etc but no amount of strength will actually change your miss chance or ability to attack them there.

Which is better:

Having to counter the various mid and high level abilities despite not having any of your own.
Having to do that, and still being screwed over even if you can?

Once again, you're at such a huge disadvantage that taking even the slightest additional penalty breaks that camel's back and that's that.


So yes to me even with pb a fighter with 16 str might very well be superior to the fighter with 18 str because the 16 str means that you might actually be able support umd skillpoints ( if you put those points into int for example) or some other stuff that makes you more then a I can hit stuff fighter....

I don't think the Giacomo argument is going to convince anyone, particularly given that cross class UMD isn't that hard to pull off anyways.


This has no place in this discussion, you are comparing fluff to mechanics, also this argument has no substance even if it were on point

It has every place in this discussion as it proves that WotC's judgment cannot be trusted, therefore when they say other things like 15s are fine, they really aren't. It is simply a matter of considering the source. And given that the source consisted of horribly built playtest characters that were only able to defeat stupidly played enemies because the DM was actively cheating on their behalf, and that wouldn't last 1 round in a real campaign it is safe to conclude that a 15 prime stat is nowhere near sufficient, as a +2 modifier is secondary stat material.

I could have used some other example, and there are many of those to select from such as pointing out the part where they tell you that parties need a Fighter and a Rogue in addition to a Cleric and a Wizard to succeed when in fact that is one of the worst parties you could possibly build. I chose that one though, and the point is the same regardless.

[Friv]

Once again, you're at such a huge disadvantage that taking even the slightest additional penalty breaks that camel's back and that's that.

Okay, dude, we get it. You don't like that playstyle. This has nothing to do with the thread anymore, LET IT GO. :smallfurious:

Actually, wait, it kind of does involve this thread, because while it is a general fact it comes up in RPGs all the time. It irks me when people can't accept that other people do things differently sometimes, which covers most of the fights in this thread. So one person finds low-level games a pain to play, and another person loves going from weak to strong. So what? Can't we all just say, "Oh, that's interesting, isn't it nice that we can all be fans of games with such diversity of experiences in them?" instead of spending untold amounts of effort trying to convince each other that we are wrong about what we enjoy doing?

[Basket Burner]

Okay, dude, we get it. You don't like that playstyle. This has nothing to do with the thread anymore, LET IT GO. :smallfurious:

The thread topic is "Those things that just irk you". Pointing out that games assume a baseline of competence, and in D&D that means 18 prime stats is a factual statement. When someone claims otherwise, instead making dismissive arguments about how I'm just not liking some playstyle or another, that qualifies as one of those things that just irk me. When someone stubbornly insists their normal guy can do extraordinary things, and won't get beaten down for it, that qualifies as another one of those things that just irk me. And that in turn means it has EVERYTHING to do with the thread.


Actually, wait, it kind of does involve this thread, because while it is a general fact it comes up in RPGs all the time. It irks me when people can't accept that other people do things differently sometimes, which covers most of the fights in this thread. So one person finds low-level games a pain to play, and another person loves going from weak to strong. So what? Can't we all just say, "Oh, that's interesting, isn't it nice that we can all be fans of games with such diversity of experiences in them?" instead of spending untold amounts of effort trying to convince each other that we are wrong about what we enjoy doing?

In that case no, as low levels ARE objectively flawed, in that it is pure luck as to whether or not you will get past it and get to the parts of the game in which actions do matter. Now you can say that you like them anyways, but you cannot say that they are not flawed, because that is wrong.

Other systems don't matter because:

Other systems do not use the same stat generation methods, which means that when discussing a D&D stat generation method, you can generally be assumed to be discussing D&D.
Other systems still have baselines of competence. They're probably different, and differently defined but they are there, and the consequences for not meeting them are not so different.
Other systems just don't have the playerbase to form a valid argument as anything more than an obscure edge case. Even the more popular non D&D systems can be charitably described as a niche within a niche. If you divided players into the groups of D&D and Other, where D&D consists of anyone that plays a 3.x based system and Other consists of anyone that plays any non D&D system, the first group would still likely be larger. If you made the groups D&D 3.x and Other, where Other consists of all systems that are not D&D 3.x including earlier and later editions of D&D... it might be even.

[Friv]

The thread topic is "Those things that just irk you". Pointing out that games assume a baseline of competence, and in D&D that means 18 prime stats is a factual statement. When someone claims otherwise, instead making dismissive arguments about how I'm just not liking some playstyle or another, that qualifies as one of those things that just irk me. When someone stubbornly insists their normal guy can do extraordinary things, and won't get beaten down for it, that qualifies as another one of those things that just irk me. And that in turn means it has EVERYTHING to do with the thread.

I half-agree with you, but it's the other half that has wasted the last ten pages of discussion.

You are absolutely in the right to say "D&D demands baseline competence, and this bothers me". Anyone telling you that you aren't allowed to be bothered by that is wrong, because they are telling you that their playstyle is right and yours is wrong.

They, however, are absolutely in the right for saying "I played a character with a prime stat of 15 and had a ton of fun, fighting plenty of monsters at my CR and contributing fully to the game". By insisting that they are wrong for having a different style of play than the high-optimization that you appear to prefer, you are, in fact, becoming one of the things that irks people.


In that case no, as low levels ARE objectively flawed, in that it is pure luck as to whether or not you will get past it and get to the parts of the game in which actions do matter. Now you can say that you like them anyways, but you cannot say that they are not flawed, because that is wrong.

Ehn, high levels are equally flawed, just in different ways. The whole game is flawed. That doesn't make it not fun.


Other systems don't matter because:

Other systems do not use the same stat generation methods, which means that when discussing a D&D stat generation method, you can generally be assumed to be discussing D&D.

Valid.

Other systems still have baselines of competence. They're probably different, and differently defined but they are there, and the consequences for not meeting them are not so different.
I disagree with your earlier argument about baselines of competence.


Other systems just don't have the playerbase to form a valid argument as anything more than an obscure edge case. Even the more popular non D&D systems can be charitably described as a niche within a niche. If you divided players into the groups of D&D and Other, where D&D consists of anyone that plays a 3.x based system and Other consists of anyone that plays any non D&D system, the first group would still likely be larger. If you made the groups D&D 3.x and Other, where Other consists of all systems that are not D&D 3.x including earlier and later editions of D&D... it might be even.

How are we doing this dividing? By what people play primarily, by what games are being played? Just about every gamer I've met has played both D&D and non-D&D games. And I admit that I don't have the numbers to back up my belief that White Wolf, Steve Jackson, and Palladium would outnumber D&D if you combined their numbers, never mind if you added the untold number of other systems out there, but I'm willing to bet that you don't have them either. Palladium had the numbers to make back a million dollars, and White Wolf had the numbers to get video games and a TV show made, so I'm pretty sure they're not edge cases.

[Traab]

In that case no, as low levels ARE objectively flawed, in that it is pure luck as to whether or not you will get past it and get to the parts of the game in which actions do matter. Now you can say that you like them anyways, but you cannot say that they are not flawed, because that is wrong.

Nobody said low level gaming is flawless, they just say they like it anyways. There is no such thing as a flawless game, and personal tastes are just that. Personal. They like playing the role of adventurers just starting out. They like having to meet up with their group and actually form a group instead of hearing the dm say, "Its been 15 years since the party started adventuring together, and their bonds of brotherhood have never been stronger" or whatever. They like the struggle to survive of being newbie heroes out to save the world. All starry eyed and excited about the grand adventure that is about to take place. There is nothing inherently wrong with starting out at mid to high levels either, its all a matter of personal preference.

[Sith_Happens]

*drags everyone back into the off-topic argument that it looked for a second like the thread had weaseled its way out of*

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

[Emmerask]

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

Nice :smallbiggrin:

[Basket Burner]

I half-agree with you, but it's the other half that has wasted the last ten pages of discussion.

You are absolutely in the right to say "D&D demands baseline competence, and this bothers me". Anyone telling you that you aren't allowed to be bothered by that is wrong, because they are telling you that their playstyle is right and yours is wrong.

They, however, are absolutely in the right for saying "I played a character with a prime stat of 15 and had a ton of fun, fighting plenty of monsters at my CR and contributing fully to the game". By insisting that they are wrong for having a different style of play than the high-optimization that you appear to prefer, you are, in fact, becoming one of the things that irks people.

You can say that you enjoyed yourself despite having an inept character. You can even say that that character succeeded because they were very lucky, or the DM was deliberately nerfing enemies, or the campaign didn't last long enough for anything bad to happen. But when they say it like that, it is saying that there are no baselines of competence, and that is an objectively false statement. Because to acknowledge their existence means acknowledging that things are above and below it, and then it is simple to objectively prove that 15s don't meet it.


Ehn, high levels are equally flawed, just in different ways. The whole game is flawed. That doesn't make it not fun.

Low levels are flawed to the point of being unplayable due to the sheer randomness drowning out all player choice and actions. High levels are flawed, sure but it doesn't reach unplayable until epic. Not equally flawed.


How are we doing this dividing? By what people play primarily, by what games are being played? Just about every gamer I've met has played both D&D and non-D&D games. And I admit that I don't have the numbers to back up my belief that White Wolf, Steve Jackson, and Palladium would outnumber D&D if you combined their numbers, never mind if you added the untold number of other systems out there, but I'm willing to bet that you don't have them either. Palladium had the numbers to make back a million dollars, and White Wolf had the numbers to get video games and a TV show made, so I'm pretty sure they're not edge cases.

I was thinking of by games, but by sales also works. A million dollars, when game books cost 30 or 35 comes out to be about 30,000 books. That's really not a lot at all when you consider that is nation or worldwide, and there is a book to table ratio greater than 1:1. Costs wise, books are cheap. Writers are paid by the word, and not very much. It maybe costs a few thousand to produce a book, then it's simply a matter of copying and binding it.

White Wolf is near going out of business, which happens when you aren't selling well.

[Draconi Redfir]

Low levels are flawed to the point of being unplayable due to the sheer randomness drowning out all player choice and actions.

Gee, all those low-level games i've been in must have been terrible then! I wonder why i can't remember them as such....:smallconfused:

[Anderlith]

snip


If I create a character using the elite array, & fight another creature using the elite array we are matched stat-wise. As WotC do not give creatures much more or less than the elite array I can assume that most creatures have the same base stats, augmented by size & such. That means that I am never out matched stat-wise. Therefore I do not need to have an 18. An 18 is nice & gives me advantage, but the game's mechanics are based on not being "exceptional" but being "elite". As for your tirade against WotC's playtest, show me proof & I might believe you. As for the "it's best to bring a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard" it means you needs someone for non-magic damaging, skills, magic assist & healing. As the classes in the book at the time of printing did not include all the varied classes that exist, WotC stuck with the basics.

[Basket Burner]

If I create a character using the elite array, & fight another creature using the elite array we are matched stat-wise. As WotC do not give creatures much more or less than the elite array I can assume that most creatures have the same base stats, augmented by size & such. That means that I am never out matched stat-wise. Therefore I do not need to have an 18. An 18 is nice & gives me advantage, but the game's mechanics are based on not being "exceptional" but being "elite". As for your tirade against WotC's playtest, show me proof & I might believe you. As for the "it's best to bring a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard" it means you needs someone for non-magic damaging, skills, magic assist & healing. As the classes in the book at the time of printing did not include all the varied classes that exist, WotC stuck with the basics.

Except that you are fighting one of the following:

A caster. You lose, because your stats are terrible.
A monster. You lose, because it's better at full attacking you than you are at it.

You might beat humanoid non casters, but so do blind, paraplegic commoners so that's meaningless.

The proof is everywhere, starting with enemies and allies. Blaster Wizards, Healbot clerics, 10 Str non wild shaping Druids that melee...

Non core classes have nothing to do with it. I was assuming core only. And there, doing HP damage is something easily worked around in any number of ways, and skills didn't mean much to begin with. So you'd be better off with a Cleric, a Wizard, and two other casting classes in your party as you suffer no real penalties and gain plenty of benefits. Or even Cleric, Wizard, and no third and fourth members at all.

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: This is a continuation of the discussion from this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217832) thread. Please continue to abide by the Forum Rules.

[Anderlith]

A wizard has a d4 HD, if a rogue of equal level sneak-attacks him, he is dead. Also they can run out of spells.

[faceroll]

A warlock doesn't really need high stats, nor does a druid.

[Hiro Protagonest]

A wizard has a d4 HD, if a rouge of equal level sneak-attacks him, he is dead.Rouges get SA?

Yes, SA kills him good regardless of dex score.

Also they can run out of spells.

See the "I won a thread" part of my sig. Level 5+, you can cast more than one spell/encounter.

[Kenneth]

Ohh. i actually have a opinion on this.


For me the ones who think they need an 18 and that 16, 15 or even a 13 in their prime means they have a useless character fall under the following category


they are terrible players, nabel to actually play the game using their skill is thoughtful and inovative ways


Its is soo easy for one to i'll take an real life example here. be a 6th level warmage ( altered to not allow armor but make Int you caster stat) with an int of 16 (put my 4th levle point into Con to make it a 14) against a 18 Wis Cleric.

we were playing return to the temple of elemtnal evil
the party conissted of myself, the cleric, and a fighter/rouge.


the fighter/rogue had a 13 str and a 16 dex.

teh cleric was all angry about us being useless , much like the Op is whining about non 18s

so when we found out that the evil cult was in teh mill's basement we went, (except for the cleric who said it was a suicide mission)


long story short the DMed rolled the encoutner dice and sure enough EVERY NPC was there at that exact moment turning that into a CR 9 encounter. wemanaged to get an acolyte ( a levle 3 cleric) to come with us. the encounter sterted with me winning inititve (a once in a blue moon occurance I assure you) I empowered acid breathed the iron wrought stairs hoping I would do enough damage to melt them.. too bad I rolled low. our fighter/rouge managed to shoot a couple of arrows off and hurt one of the less armored ones a bit. their big armored guy started coming up the stairs along with another of teh evil cultists and got half way up and caused those very stairs to collaspe due to the weigh and my weaknee of the structure. the collasping staircase hurt the big guy though I found myself shot with 2 crossbow bolts and down to half life (one was a dang crit.. luckily the die roll wasn't that big) now there was a big space of darkness thanks to teh dang cleic! My turn.. time to maximize a fireball as far away as possible so non of us would be hurt.. oh yeah teh acolyte managed to cast her cure moderate wound son me . my fireball managed to down 4 of them with our rouge/fighter finishes off the armored guy and his buddy thanks to rapid shot! I find myself again hit with soem stupid rnge attack.. searing lfight from the enemy cleric who managed to not die.. lukckily our acolyte manage to heal me with cure light wounds. i manage to down the cleric next round with magic missle. it was then our fighjter/rouge noticed that there weren't as many bodies a theri should be, there must have been a hidden passage way they took, but we could not follow as there was no stairs and i did not know levitate alos a 20 foot jump down would probably kill me.

so we managed to as a ECL 4 party managed to take out a CR 9 party not through us havign 18s but through our ability to not fail.


the point I am trying to make. while having big numbers in your stats may make life easier for you. if you are not completely fail and know what you are doing and what you are capalbe of.. you can succedd with a 13

[Big Fau]

But they do not all go 100mph. Almost eveyone of them go 80-ish. Only that one guy who dropped his suspension, fuel reserves, brakes, windsheild wipers, airbags, & seatbelts is able to squeak out 100mph.


Actually, most modern cars are capable of exceeding 100 easily. The problem is how dangerous it is, and how much stress it puts on the parts by comparison.

There's a very good reason Nascar-level vehicles have to be repaired constantly or replaced outright: The vehicles are not designed for endurance. Commercial cars are designed for distance and longevity, and as a result they don't show the car's top speed on the speedometer (most vehicles can surpass the listed speed with ease, they just don't show it to trick you into driving slower than that).



A 36 isn't enough to be competent. What makes you think a 16 is? You are so far behind that putting yourself in any worse of a situation completely disqualifies you.

Sounds like you play at the Tome-level.


Consider this: Most DMs do not optimize their encounters. Why should the Fighter have a Str of 56 when the DM is running Dragon encounters without buffing the dragon, spending it's treasure, selecting proper feats, or other serious mistakes that come with a low level of system mastery?

[Doughnut Master]

My general outlook is that if you have the stats necessary to do the things you want to do in your build (TWF, for example), then you're competent. As long as the DM designs the rest of the world to a similar power level, then you won't even really notice. Now, if you're a 15 str fighter in an army of 18s, you might start to feel inadequate.

Now that I think about it, it could be kind of fun to play a degenerate campaign. Primary stat is 10 (12 if you're lucky) and everything else is negative. Same for the rest of the world. It would be like Ark B from The Hitchhiker's Guide.

[The Gilded Duke]

Going lower then an 18 on your main stat means that you accept a significant failure rate, either at missed rolls, or at opponents making their saves against your spells. Sometimes taking that penalty is worth it if you are doing something useful with your other stats, or want more survivability through constitution.

A 16 is worse then an 18. There is no argument there.
Sometimes you have to take the sacrifice though.

For casters I usually go 18, for other characters I usually do multiple 16s.
It is also important to remember other factors that go into your rolls and DCs.
Gnomes get +1 DC to illusions.
Small sized characters get +1 to attack. Halflings get +1 with thrown weapons.
Goblins get a bonus on Move Silently.

So if you want to use illusions, a gnome with 18 charisma and spell focus illusion may be the way to go. If you want to be a rogue, a 20 dex halfling with throwing weapons may be the way to go. If you don't want to be noticed its hard to go wrong with a 20 dex goblin.

While it can be fun to make strange or non-standard characters, usually there is a way to make them still able to contribute. Intentionally building a weaker character doesn't help you defeat any monsters.

[Vladislav]

I completely disagree with the idea that the difference between 15 and 18 is gamebreaking. It's just +2 (or -2, depends how you look at it). You know what else gives +2? Flanking. Also Charging. Some of the least important and most often missed tactical bonuses happen to completely mitigate the difference between Str 15 and Str 18.

As an example, buy a trained Dog. The Dog flanks, and uses Aid Another for a total of +4 to hit. Just a start. By smart amassing of tactical bonuses, you can make the difference between 15 and 18 seem insignificant.

[The Gilded Duke]

As an example, buy a trained Dog. The Dog flanks, and uses Aid Another for a total of +4 to hit. Just a start. By smart amassing of tactical bonuses, you can make the difference between 15 and 18 seem insignificant.

Or you could have an 18 Str and a trained dog.
Or a Kenku with a 16 Str and a trained dog.

[Vladislav]

See, I knew someone would say that. Of course Str 18 plus dog is better than Str 16 plus dog. But the point is, the dog is the main factor here. The difference between the tactical positions of having a trained dog vs. not having a dog is much bigger than the difference between 16 and 18.

Therefore, the difference between 16 and 18 should not be the defining factor in your ability to play the character.

[King Atticus]

With point buy, you can get one eighteen, and unless you drain points out of one of your other stats, the most you could get out of the other five is maybe a ten.

With dice rolls, it's entirely possible to have an eighteen, a sixteen, two twelve’s, a nine, and a fifteen. IMHO point-buy may be better for specialization, but really chances are you'll get a much higher stat-load out overall with dice rolls.

For the most part I agree with this. I've always played in games with a point buy until this last weekend when I joined one that rolled, I've never had a stat line look as good as mine does in that game right now. I didn't roll an 18 but I got two 17's and nothing lower than a 13. While he might not be optimal he's pretty damn sexy.

[Gavinfoxx]

I thought the difference between a 15 and an 18 was three points of damage at level 1?

[faceroll]

I thought the difference between a 15 and an 18 was three points of damage at level 1?

3 points if you don't insist on using a shield.

[Curmudgeon]

I didn't roll an 18 but I got two 17's and nothing lower than a 13. While he might not be optimal he's pretty damn sexy.
You know that's atypical, right? You can also roll a bunch of 9s and nothing higher than a 13.

Point buy is reliable; you always know what you can get, and then you can work with that to make the character you want to play. With rolling you might get lucky, or not. A character with multiple important ability scores can only be effective with dice rolling when you get lucky, so dice rolling is only occasionally a good idea.

[King Atticus]

You know that's atypical, right? You can also roll a bunch of 9s and nothing higher than a 13.

Point buy is reliable; you always know what you can get, and then you can work with that to make the character you want to play. With rolling you might get lucky, or not. A character with multiple important ability scores can only be effective with dice rolling when you get lucky, so dice rolling is only occasionally a good idea.

Yeah I get that...but it does feel good to actually have a well rounded character instead of a specialist for once.:smallwink:

[noparlpf]

The average human has a 10-11 for every stat. (This is the average for 3d6.) The average "exceptional" human (i.e., an adventurer) has a 12-13 for every stat. (This is based on either STANDARD point buy (25 points) or 4d6b3, the two most common methods of getting stats.) Of course, that is on average. There are intelligent or dumb people, there are strong or weak people, there are clumsy or well-coordinated people, etc. However, it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that the maximum possible starting ability score is the baseline. 12-13 is the baseline for adventurers.

Having read several posts on the first page, I realize that you're going to disagree with me. Having stated my opinion, I'm out of here. Obviously I'm too dumb to understand your argument because I'm not the most intelligent human being to ever exist ever and nothing short of that is adequate for anything.

[maximus25]

Was this really needed? Most of this was copypasted straight from the other thread.

[faceroll]

You know that's atypical, right? You can also roll a bunch of 9s and nothing higher than a 13.

Point buy is reliable; you always know what you can get, and then you can work with that to make the character you want to play. With rolling you might get lucky, or not. A character with multiple important ability scores can only be effective with dice rolling when you get lucky, so dice rolling is only occasionally a good idea.

PB unfairly penalizes non-casters or MAD builds. If you get bad luck and have poor rolls, then your character dies, and you roll another one. It's PC natural selection :smallbiggrin:

{Scrubbed}

[noparlpf]

{Scrubbed}

Yeah, I guess so. I get the email notifications anyway, so I guess it was inevitable that I'd be back. I just don't want to get into a pointless argument that's been had already, even though I do want to state which side of the argument I agree with.

[Psyren]

A warlock doesn't really need high stats, nor does a druid.

Also Binder. I think Incarnate too, well you might need some Con there.

[Doughnut Master]

Also consider the hero's progression. Assuming your fighter guy started with a strength of 15, by the end of his quest, at level 20, he's stronger than every other human in the world, even without items.

This is also something that bugs me about the complaints over MAD. In a world where everyone is totally awesome in one stat and terrible in others and that a deviation from this is wholly suboptimal, yeah, MAD sucks. But in a world where statistics fall on a bell curve (such as the real world), then what was once suboptimal is really a person using all of their strengths and being adaptable.

It reminds me of the old Heinlein quote: ...specialization is for insects.

Just my 2 copper.

[faceroll]

Low levels are flawed to the point of being unplayable due to the sheer randomness drowning out all player choice and actions. High levels are flawed, sure but it doesn't reach unplayable until epic. Not equally flawed.

What a load of hyperbole.

Levels 1 through 6 are the most balanced. Beyond that, the game breaks down rapidly. Arguably, the game breaks once a candle of invocation becomes affordable.

Sorry you have trouble keeping your low level characters alive, bro. You could try asking the playground for help. We're pretty good at that kind of stuff.


Also consider the hero's progression. Assuming your fighter guy started with a strength of 15, by the end of his quest, at level 20, he's stronger than every other human in the world, even without items.

This is also something that bugs me about the complaints over MAD. In a world where everyone is totally awesome in one stat and terrible in others and that a deviation from this is wholly suboptimal, yeah, MAD sucks. But in a world where statistics fall on a bell curve (such as the real world), then what was once suboptimal is really a person using all of their strengths and being adaptable.

It reminds me of the old Heinlein quote: ...specialization is for insects.

Just my 2 copper.

If you're comparing your fighter to level 1 commoners, sure, your stats look above average. Now compare them to an ogre, or a mindflayer. You're hosed, bro.

[Vowtz]

If you narrow the entire game in "chance to hit" and "damage dealing", and if your character is all about "I will full attack the nearest foe", then maximum primary stats are absolutely necessary.

If you consider a standard adventure, it most likely will not make a critical difference.

With correct tactical choices, you can make that +2 to hit and +3 damage difference mean little.

[Lord Vukodlak]

At 25 point buy a few classes are actually unplayable due to the division in your stats. A wizard and cleric will do fine due to the power of there spell casting. You don't really have any room to manuveer your only choice is to specialize if you want to succeed. Its great for NPC's as they only need to exist for a single encounter. If you want to be more well rounded while still maintaining a fifteen or sixteen in your primary stat. Its simply not possible with 25 points.

Even if you have say 32 point buy. A heroic point build to play with. I don't think an 18 is worth it. Those extra six points could be better spent making a couple of 10's fourteens.


PB unfairly penalizes non-casters or MAD builds. If you get bad luck and have poor rolls, then your character dies, and you roll another one. It's PC natural selection
If you don't roll very well your screwed no matter what you do. That little gray area where its not low enough for an automatic reroll and not high enough. With rolling you can easily end up with the non-caster with a 13 or 12 in all stats and the gnomish wizard with an eighteen in both constituion and intelligence and not a bad dex score either.

[faceroll]

If you don't roll very well your screwed no matter what you do. That little gray area where its not low enough for an automatic reroll and not high enough. With rolling you can easily end up with the non-caster with a 13 or 12 in all stats and the gnomish wizard with an eighteen in both constituion and intelligence and not a bad dex score either.

Then your all 12 and 13 stats character dies and you roll a new one. You know, if bad stats are as lethal as OP contends.

[Gavinfoxx]

Ah, the dreaded 8/10/10/10/10/14! The 14 point buy, the minimum roll allowed with random rolling with the PHB... if the 8 is a 9 or the 10's are 11's, it doesn't really matter... Time to play a Warlock!

[Lord Vukodlak]

Then your all 12 and 13 stats character dies and you roll a new one. You know, if bad stats are as lethal as OP contends.

Execpt he might not die unless he does something completely suicidal. I've been in campaigns where a sucky character hangs around for a really long time simply because they were incapable of making themsleves enough of a threat to warrent serious attention from the enemy. In the end I had the villain kill him for no other reason then to be a jackass. Bad stats aren't necessarily lethal unless its party wide.

And if your going to let PC's just kill their characters until they roll well enough. You might as well let them keep rolling until they get a reasonable result. In the end its just easier to use 28 to 32 points. So well rounded characters are still possible with a fifteen or more in the primary stat.

[Andion Isurand]

If a character with sub-optimal stats (relative to the rest of the party) manages to stick around like that and still contribute, why shouldn't the DM throw them a bone in the form of a few stat increases (with any retroactive skill points in the case of an intelligence increase)?

[Gavinfoxx]

If a character with sub-optimal stats (relative to the rest of the party) manages to stick around like that and still contribute, why shouldn't the DM throw them a bone in the form of a few stat increases (with any retroactive skill points in the case of an intelligence increase)?

That would imply the DM is REASONABLE. This game doesn't have a lot of rules about being reasonable in it... it is, in fact, severly ANTI reasonable in several ways!

[Curmudgeon]

Levels 1 through 6 are the most balanced.
For comparison among player class abilities, quite possibly. However, there's a huge difference in survivability based on randomness (in CON and thus hit points, for instance), which becomes less important at higher levels. That's definitely not balanced. Two of the main changes in 4th Edition D&D were to give everybody about 6 more HP to start with, and a way to self-heal; these changes reduce the impact of low-level dice-based randomness.

Beyond that, the game breaks down rapidly. Arguably, the game breaks once a candle of invocation becomes affordable.
A Candle of Invocation is a useful, but expensive, way for a Cleric to prepare when they know they're going to be facing a significant challenge. If you're referring to using Gate to call a Wish-granting creature, that's trivial for any competent DM to handle. Since these creatures get their spell-like abilities daily, and the Gate user has no clue when the called creature's personal day starts, it's nearly always going to be the case that the creature has already used those valuable SLAs in return for something they find worthwhile. After all, they could always be rudely called to serve some impertinent magic user on another plane, right? :smallwink: So it makes sense for them to arrange a deal ahead of time, and execute the deal as soon as possible (i.e., immediately at the start of their personal day).

[Dr.Epic]

Well, stats are pretty much relative. You set the PCs in a tough-as-nails campaign, an 18 probably isn't that good, while a more relaxed campaign a 12 or even 10 might be considered more than enough.

[Killer Angel]

25 PB: 18, 14, 11, and 3 8s (which are going to go into stats that don't matter anyways).


Please...
You're a cleric (we're talkin 'bout core, right?): 18 wis and 14 con, right?
What's your dex? and int? a +0 on initiative? a -1 on your skill points?
At low levels, you don't need a spell slot bonus of 4th level, and there's no a real difference between wis 16 and 18.

[faceroll]

For comparison among player class abilities, quite possibly. However, there's a huge difference in survivability based on randomness (in CON and thus hit points, for instance), which becomes less important at higher levels. That's definitely not balanced.

You must be using balance in some way I am unfamiliar with.


A Candle of Invocation is a useful, but expensive, way for a Cleric to prepare when they know they're going to be facing a significant challenge. If you're referring to using Gate to call a Wish-granting creature, that's trivial for any competent DM to handle. Since these creatures get their spell-like abilities daily, and the Gate user has no clue when the called creature's personal day starts, it's nearly always going to be the case that the creature has already used those valuable SLAs in return for something they find worthwhile. After all, they could always be rudely called to serve some impertinent magic user on another plane, right? :smallwink: So it makes sense for them to arrange a deal ahead of time, and execute the deal as soon as possible (i.e., immediately at the start of their personal day).

Or a competent DM just changes the rules straight up instead of trying to hide behind RAW as he stealth nerfs.

[Anderlith]

For those who think that they will end up with all 8s if they roll the dice, you do realize that you can disregard anything that doesn't have at least one stat higher than a 13 OR those that do not have a cumulative +1 total bonus at least.

[Terazul]

For those who think that they will end up with all 8s if they roll the dice, you do realize that you can disregard anything that doesn't have at least one stat higher than a 13 OR those that do not have a cumulative +1 total bonus at least.

Rolling 5 10s and a 13 isn't much better. I'd rather just roll with point-buy instead, since at least then any 8 I have is there intentionally.

[Big Fau]

What a load of hyperbole.

Levels 1 through 6 are the most balanced. Beyond that, the game breaks down rapidly. Arguably, the game breaks once a candle of invocation becomes affordable.

Which happens at 5th level.

What levels were balanced again? Correct answer: None of them. This entire game is inherently unbalanced. Low levels are a game of rocket tag, and high levels are a game of Xanatos Speed Chess. The in-between can swing either way. It's playable though (unlike some games).

BTW, killing off a character with low stats just so you can reroll is stupid, as you start off a level below the party. And, if your DM doesn't appreciate your attempt to optimize your stats, you could very well screw yourself over.

[Pilo]

You think you know what high stats are?

Well i play a game where we have gestalt character plus a monstrous class.
We have 26 points but they count one for one and we start at 10 ie 18 cost 8 point.

It means we can have 18 18 18 12 10 10 as stats (without ratial bonus).

I don't have as much fun as i have with a character whose stat are 16 14 14 12 10 10.

Chalenge we meet are too easy or too difficult ( ex :we have to defeat a group of wartrolls at level 1 and we succeed).

[Basket Burner]

A wizard has a d4 HD, if a rogue of equal level sneak-attacks him, he is dead. Also they can run out of spells.

O rly?

Let's see about that.

Level 1: Sneak attack does 3.5 damage. Wizard has 6 HP. It's only after considering the weapon also does 3.5 that he is dropped to -1. Which is not dead. Of course everyone dies in 1-2 hits at level 1, so this would not prove anything in any case.

Level 5: Sneak attack + weapon does 14 damage. Wizard has 24-29 HP, and survives easily even if he is hit, which by now is very hard to do.

Level 10: Sneak attack + weapon does 21 damage. He gets 4 attacks, but he's never going to get a sneak attack full attack off, so the fact that that would take out the 56 HP Wizard is moot. Also, he is immune to precision now, so he laughs at you all day.

I'm not even going to do 15 and 20, both because he measures up even worse, and because precision immunity renders it a moot point.

You do not run out of spells at any level past 1 unless you are doing a marathon day of 10 battles or more. And if you are doing such a day, that means you want more casters and not less, so that you will have more resources to survive it. And that in turn means that the Fighter and Rogue are still useless.


Sounds like you play at the Tome-level.


Consider this: Most DMs do not optimize their encounters. Why should the Fighter have a Str of 56 when the DM is running Dragon encounters without buffing the dragon, spending it's treasure, selecting proper feats, or other serious mistakes that come with a low level of system mastery?

I am rather unimpressed with the Tomes. But regardless, even unoptimized dragons with a fraction of their features would smack a 36 Str Fighter around silly. Because really, all he's bringing is +13 Str. And there are plenty of means of doing that. Two spells will give you +22 Str, for example, and you're still a caster. If the dragon is using all of the features it has, then things get worse but regardless the point is that for the characters so far behind the curve already taking even the slightest additional penalty means the entire character is a non starter. And that could mean making your prime stat less than 18, it could mean not being able to walk into a magic mart with a bag of holding filled with vendor trash and walk out with whatever items you want, it could mean the DM having a kneejerk reaction to you having half as many different classes as you have total character levels and denying you, or any number of other things. I chose to focus on the stat one though, since that was what was being discussed at the moment.


My general outlook is that if you have the stats necessary to do the things you want to do in your build (TWF, for example), then you're competent. As long as the DM designs the rest of the world to a similar power level, then you won't even really notice. Now, if you're a 15 str fighter in an army of 18s, you might start to feel inadequate.

So if a character chooses to be incompetent, he should then expect the DM to nerf the world as much as he has nerfed himself? Um, no.


I completely disagree with the idea that the difference between 15 and 18 is gamebreaking. It's just +2 (or -2, depends how you look at it). You know what else gives +2? Flanking. Also Charging. Some of the least important and most often missed tactical bonuses happen to completely mitigate the difference between Str 15 and Str 18.

As an example, buy a trained Dog. The Dog flanks, and uses Aid Another for a total of +4 to hit. Just a start. By smart amassing of tactical bonuses, you can make the difference between 15 and 18 seem insignificant.

Flanking often requires wasting a turn. Charging is generally not worth it if you are not a charger. Neither of those account for the damage difference.

But ok. You buy a trained dog, on your 15 Str character. The dog also has a 15 Str, which means your pet contributes as much as you do. You have replaced yourself for 150 gold.

It isn't just Str either. It's any prime stat. Which means any stat except Con (unless you are a Dragon Shaman).


See, I knew someone would say that. Of course Str 18 plus dog is better than Str 16 plus dog. But the point is, the dog is the main factor here. The difference between the tactical positions of having a trained dog vs. not having a dog is much bigger than the difference between 16 and 18.

Therefore, the difference between 16 and 18 should not be the defining factor in your ability to play the character.

Except that again, all you have really proven is that your entire character is easily replaced by a cheap pet. Which brings me back to what I said before, that those types of characters are so weak that even the slightest additional penalty knocks them off the radar. Which means the party just takes the dog, which takes less treasure to maintain and continues on.

Whereas a more competent character, which includes but is not limited to having their stats at par would not be trivially replaceable.


The average human has a 10-11 for every stat. (This is the average for 3d6.) The average "exceptional" human (i.e., an adventurer) has a 12-13 for every stat. (This is based on either STANDARD point buy (25 points) or 4d6b3, the two most common methods of getting stats.) Of course, that is on average. There are intelligent or dumb people, there are strong or weak people, there are clumsy or well-coordinated people, etc. However, it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that the maximum possible starting ability score is the baseline. 12-13 is the baseline for adventurers.

And the result of average humans attempting to take on even a mere Ogre would be that the Ogre eats very well that night. The result of humans that are merely exceptional attempting to take on even an Ogre would be that the Ogre again feasts like a king. And once you go beyond mere Ogres to things that are actually supernatural, you see that a mere 12-13 in any stat that matters to you means that you lose. Now if it isn't a stat that matters to you, it could be 8 and it won't make any difference. But 12-13 across the board? Really?

For adventurers, the minimum baseline is 18 prime stat 14 Con.


PB unfairly penalizes non-casters or MAD builds. If you get bad luck and have poor rolls, then your character dies, and you roll another one. It's PC natural selection :smallbiggrin:

Not nearly as much as random stats.


Also consider the hero's progression. Assuming your fighter guy started with a strength of 15, by the end of his quest, at level 20, he's stronger than every other human in the world, even without items.

Good luck making it that far.


This is also something that bugs me about the complaints over MAD. In a world where everyone is totally awesome in one stat and terrible in others and that a deviation from this is wholly suboptimal, yeah, MAD sucks. But in a world where statistics fall on a bell curve (such as the real world), then what was once suboptimal is really a person using all of their strengths and being adaptable.

A Monk with 12s across the board is even more pathetic than Monks would otherwise be.


What a load of hyperbole.

Levels 1 through 6 are the most balanced. Beyond that, the game breaks down rapidly. Arguably, the game breaks once a candle of invocation becomes affordable.

3-6 possibly. 1-2? Everyone randomly dies in 1-2 hits regardless of abilities, actions, or classes.


Sorry you have trouble keeping your low level characters alive, bro. You could try asking the playground for help. We're pretty good at that kind of stuff.

Cute, but you cannot prevent pure randomness with no skill involved. You can only slog through the randogrind, and hope you get to the actually interesting parts of the game before you get bored of people randomly exploding.


If you narrow the entire game in "chance to hit" and "damage dealing", and if your character is all about "I will full attack the nearest foe", then maximum primary stats are absolutely necessary.

If you consider a standard adventure, it most likely will not make a critical difference.

With correct tactical choices, you can make that +2 to hit and +3 damage difference mean little.

If you are playing any Str based class, which is the most commonly used example the entire game IS chance to hit and damage. You bring nothing else to the table. Because you see, Trip is also Str based, and means more MAD, which in turn means you need more good stats and not less and Dungeoncrasher is Str based and Chargers are just to hit and damage in a more effective form. So when I say -2 to everything you do, that is a literal statement.

In the case of characters that are not so weak that the smallest additional penalty would cripple them, there's still no reason not to take the 18 in 99.9% of cases, and if you don't, it's some very well thought out case in which you have determined that taking a -1 penalty to all of your actions is worth it in some other way and you run a 16.


If a character with sub-optimal stats (relative to the rest of the party) manages to stick around like that and still contribute, why shouldn't the DM throw them a bone in the form of a few stat increases (with any retroactive skill points in the case of an intelligence increase)?

Because being too weak to be worth the effort of killing does not deserve a reward?


Please...
You're a cleric (we're talkin 'bout core, right?): 18 wis and 14 con, right?
What's your dex? and int? a +0 on initiative? a -1 on your skill points?
At low levels, you don't need a spell slot bonus of 4th level, and there's no a real difference between wis 16 and 18.

Initiative is a minimum of +8, and possibly higher depending on amount of effort put into it. It can hit 15 pretty easily for example, and that's before accounting for Dex at all. Skill points are meaningless as always, and +1 DC is still good.

[Coidzor]

A Candle of Invocation is a useful, but expensive, way for a Cleric to prepare when they know they're going to be facing a significant challenge. If you're referring to using Gate to call a Wish-granting creature, that's trivial for any competent DM to handle. Since these creatures get their spell-like abilities daily, and the Gate user has no clue when the called creature's personal day starts, it's nearly always going to be the case that the creature has already used those valuable SLAs in return for something they find worthwhile. After all, they could always be rudely called to serve some impertinent magic user on another plane, right? :smallwink: So it makes sense for them to arrange a deal ahead of time, and execute the deal as soon as possible (i.e., immediately at the start of their personal day).

Doing that is simpler to you than houseruling it so that they're not so ridiculous? :smallconfused:


BTW, killing off a character with low stats just so you can reroll is stupid, as you start off a level below the party. And, if your DM doesn't appreciate your attempt to optimize your stats, you could very well screw yourself over.

Are you sure? It sounds more like you're alluding to the DM screwing them over. :smallconfused:


Not nearly as much as random stats.

I dunno, occasionally almost playable or actually playable certainly seems better than never playable because the PB has to be too low to allow for that to limit the high-powered classes. :smallconfused:

[Misery Esquire]

So when I say -2 to everything you do, that is a literal statement.

Pff. More like a -8. You're not playing D&D unless your starting prime stat is a 30 or more at first level, (your secondary stat, or at least your CON should be 16-20). First level if your STR/WIS/INT/DEX is only 18, you have a massive chance (50%!) at failure. You need to have at least a 95% chance to hit the goblin, or between the three of them (CR 1/3) they'll hit you, costing you HP that you can't regain over the course of the day, unless you spend your money on health potions instead of gear that'll keep you from taking more hits then needing more healing. The cleric would never actually use cure lesser wounds because it's a waste of a slot to heal anyone aside from himself until level 5 when people don't die instantly to the Russian Roulette of combat.

Monks, of course, are the best class for surviving.

[Psyren]

Doing that is simpler to you than houseruling it so that they're not so ridiculous? :smallconfused:

Blasphemer! The most holy RAW is inviolate!

[Coidzor]

Blasphemer! The most holy RAW is inviolate!

I guess it's better than the time I heard about the DM who OK'd candles of invocation with the proviso that they could do gate, but doing so would result in being tied up and beaten while one's character sheet was rolled up and stuffed into one's mouth...

[Basket Burner]

I dunno, occasionally almost playable or actually playable certainly seems better than never playable because the PB has to be too low to allow for that to limit the high-powered classes. :smallconfused:

If it's a low PB, you know immediately that SAD characters are your only option. If it's 32, you might be able to play an MAD, though whether you can or not depends on your optimization ability, and not luck.

So you either have no chance or a chance, and the game is honest about which. That's better than going to roll stats, learning that you can't do anything with them, and being forced to walk from a game you'd otherwise be interested in.

[Darth_Versity]

Pff. More like a -8. You're not playing D&D unless your starting prime stat is a 30 or more at first level, (your secondary stat, or at least your CON should be 16-20). First level if your STR/WIS/INT/DEX is only 18, you have a massive chance (50%!) at failure. You need to have at least a 95% chance to hit the goblin, or between the three of them (CR 1/3) they'll hit you, costing you HP that you can't regain over the course of the day, unless you spend your money on health potions instead of gear that'll keep you from taking more hits then needing more healing. The cleric would never actually use cure lesser wounds because it's a waste of a slot to heal anyone aside from himself until level 5 when people don't die instantly to the Russian Roulette of combat.

Monks, of course, are the best class for surviving.

Your forgetting the main reason that monks are amazing. With their all good saves and excellent stat allocation they will avoid all spellcasters.

After all, it would be horrible to be challenged playing this game, it is all about Player VS DM and any chance of risk or failure would be unacceptable. Probably better scratch the '1' off of your D20, just to be on the safe side.

[Misery Esquire]

So you either have no chance or a chance, and the game is honest about which. That's better than going to roll stats, learning that you can't do anything with them, and being forced to walk from a game you'd otherwise be interested in.

...You would seriously show up to a D&D night with your friends, learn you're going to have to roll for stats, and if you don't get the perfect 32 point buy worth, just leave?

I feel sorry for you. :smallfrown:

[Coidzor]

If it's a low PB, you know immediately that SAD characters are your only option. If it's 32, you might be able to play an MAD, though whether you can or not depends on your optimization ability, and not luck.

So you either have no chance or a chance, and the game is honest about which. That's better than going to roll stats, learning that you can't do anything with them, and being forced to walk from a game you'd otherwise be interested in.

What on earth kind of scenario are you positing? What kind of person can tell that from the PB as you're saying but also be unable to tell what to do with the stats they rolled? What kind of game that's worthwhile to be in would have people that hardassed and unlikeable as to force someone to play with 1E suicide Fighter straight 8s stats?

[umbergod]

the only people that think anything sub 18 is bad, are people that haven't grown out of using cheat codes to beat video games. I play in a point buy system campaign, and when I make a caster, I don't dive straight for an 18 in my casting stat, because I know a 16 will suffice, or a 14 if i have a racial bonus to said stat. stat increases at every 4 levels, magic items, and stat tomes are there for a reason. I function just fine playing a wizard with 16 in int, or a sorcerer with 16 charisma, or a cleric/druid with 16 wisdom. Then again, I like my characters to be useful at more than 1 thing, so min/maxing stats is not all that important.

on a side note, once (only time it happened and DM was present) rolled 6 18s for a character. Played for a single session, gave the character to the DM, it wasnt fun. playing with lower stats gives the game a grittier feel to it, since there is a higher chance of dying, and it makes succeeding that much more exciting and rewarding.

[Doughnut Master]

If you're comparing your fighter to level 1 commoners, sure, your stats look above average. Now compare them to an ogre, or a mindflayer. You're hosed, bro.

I'm comparing the character's stats to the rest of the population. A Str 15 Ogre would be pretty gimped. But that's an ogre.

Besides, if you're a human that intends to slug it out with an Ogre, then I'd say you should have put a couple fewer points into Str and a couple more points into Int.

It really all goes back to the type of game your DM is running. If the DM considers the baseline for a creature's primary stat to be 18, then you'll be comparatively underpowered. If the baseline is 10, then you'll be relatively stronger. I can certainly envision games where not having 18s would make your character underperform and be less fun to play, but it's not a given. It also depends on what the rest of the party has as well.

In terms of measuring competence, the only real constant to look at is prerequisites. If you want to be a competent two weapon fighter, you're going to need 15 dex. If you want to be a mystical monk that uses Freezing the Lifeblood, you're going to need 17 wis. If you want to be a heavy armor wearing walking tank, you're going to have to have enough strength to carry your gear.

Finally, competence in a particular task =/= a competent character. Your 20 strength 6 intelligence 6 charisma fighter may go tear things up in the wilderness, but when he gets back to town, he gets grifted out of all of his hard earned loot. Now he's the strongest homeless man in the gutter.

[faceroll]

3-6 possibly. 1-2? Everyone randomly dies in 1-2 hits regardless of abilities, actions, or classes.

Sounds balanced to me!

[Big Fau]

I am rather unimpressed with the Tomes. But regardless, even unoptimized dragons with a fraction of their features would smack a 36 Str Fighter around silly. Because really, all he's bringing is +13 Str.

So stats are all that matter to you? You think that stats alone can completely replace the build itself?


It's simple for a 10th level Fighter to one-round an EL-appropriate enemy (solo enemy, mind you) if the DM plays it like some big, dumb brute. A simple Charger build, which only needs 13 Str to function, can take out half of the enemy's HP total. Optimizing the To-Hit in addition to the damage is so trivial that your ability scores only matter for prerequisites.



If the dragon is using all of the features it has, then things get worse but regardless the point is that for the characters so far behind the curve already taking even the slightest additional penalty means the entire character is a non starter.

So a simple Ray of Enfeeblement is enough to negate your entire character if you are playing a Str-based build?


Are you even aware of how high we've been able to optimize the numbers on a noncaster? Before ability scores? Are you aware that there are noncaster-based grapple builds that can hit a +50 Grapple modifier?

Before Str modifier? Or, hell, even magic items? And that with magic items and stat modifiers, can out-grapple Great Wyrms?

For the record, that build is Totemist 20. You just need your soulmelds to get those kind of numbers out of the build.

Numerical "penalties" (as defined by your logic) are easily overcome without resorting to spellcasting or perfect stats.




BTW, the reason we are reacting so negatively to your argument is because you keep invoking a logical fallacy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PerfectSolutionFallacy). While having 18's in every stat helps immensely for most builds, not every build requires 18's across the board to function properly. It's entirely possible to build a character with starting 10's across the board and still one-shot a Pit Fiend*.


*JaronK proved this. A Commoner 20 with 10's and 11's as his base ability scores was able to one-shot most CR 20 enemies by utilizing basic Charger optimization.

[Vowtz]

They tried to balance the whole game in elite stats.

Tordek had strength 15 on level 1
Mialee had intelligence 15 on level 1
Lidda is aweasome, had a 17 in dexterity

Using that logic, if you got a 18, then you are +2 unbalanced.

I think your point is the balance BETWEEN PCS. On that I can agree with you, if I was a 14 strength fighter, and my party had a 18 strength fighter, it would suck.

[Big Fau]

I am rather unimpressed with the Tomes. But regardless, even unoptimized dragons with a fraction of their features would smack a 36 Str Fighter around silly. Because really, all he's bringing is +13 Str.

So stats are all that matter to you? You think that stats alone can completely replace the build itself?


It's simple for a 10th level Fighter to one-round an EL-appropriate enemy (solo enemy, mind you) if the DM plays it like some big, dumb brute. A simple Charger build, which only needs 13 Str to function, can take out half of the enemy's HP total on the first swing. Optimizing the To-Hit in addition to the damage is so trivial that your ability scores only matter for prerequisites.



If the dragon is using all of the features it has, then things get worse but regardless the point is that for the characters so far behind the curve already taking even the slightest additional penalty means the entire character is a non starter.

So a simple Ray of Enfeeblement is enough to negate your entire character if you are playing a Str-based build?


Are you even aware of how high we've been able to optimize the numbers on a noncaster? Before ability scores? Are you aware that there are noncaster-based grapple builds that can hit a +50 Grapple modifier?

Before Str modifier? Or, hell, even magic items? And that with magic items and stat modifiers, can out-grapple Great Wyrms?

For the record, that build is Totemist 20. You just need your soulmelds to get those kind of numbers out of the build.

Numerical "penalties" (as defined by your logic) are easily overcome without resorting to spellcasting or perfect stats.




BTW, the reason we are reacting so negatively to your argument is because you keep invoking a logical fallacy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PerfectSolutionFallacy). While having 18's in every stat helps immensely for most builds, not every build requires 18's across the board to function properly. It's entirely possible to build a character with starting 10's across the board and still one-shot a Pit Fiend*.


*JaronK proved this. A Commoner 20 with 10's and 11's as his base ability scores was able to one-shot most CR 20 enemies by utilizing basic Charger optimization.

[bloodtide]

the only people that think anything sub 18 is bad, are people that haven't grown out of using cheat codes to beat video games.

That's so true.


You don't need high stats, or anything else to have fun. Your character need not be a 'perfect superhero' for you to have fun. And just having a perfect high stat character does not make you automatically win and automatically have more fun. And if you could do anything with a single roll, the game would become pointless. If you automatically hit any monster and automatically killed them, what would be the point?


This is the classic Minimum Wage Argument, what amount of stats do you consider 'ok' or 'necessary'. And no matter what number you pick 18, 20, 30 that will still leave you not getting everything.

[Tyndmyr]

the only people that think anything sub 18 is bad, are people that haven't grown out of using cheat codes to beat video games. I play in a point buy system campaign, and when I make a caster, I don't dive straight for an 18 in my casting stat, because I know a 16 will suffice, or a 14 if i have a racial bonus to said stat. stat increases at every 4 levels, magic items, and stat tomes are there for a reason. I function just fine playing a wizard with 16 in int, or a sorcerer with 16 charisma, or a cleric/druid with 16 wisdom. Then again, I like my characters to be useful at more than 1 thing, so min/maxing stats is not all that important.

on a side note, once (only time it happened and DM was present) rolled 6 18s for a character. Played for a single session, gave the character to the DM, it wasnt fun. playing with lower stats gives the game a grittier feel to it, since there is a higher chance of dying, and it makes succeeding that much more exciting and rewarding.

I agree. It's not about having higher stats being better...but about having appropriate stats. PB means you'll all be in the same general power curve.

That's why point buy is superior. You don't want abysmally poor stats or fantastic stats...certainly not both in the same party.

[umbergod]

I agree. It's not about having higher stats being better...but about having appropriate stats. PB means you'll all be in the same general power curve.

That's why point buy is superior. You don't want abysmally poor stats or fantastic stats...certainly not both in the same party.

when I first started playing 3.0/3.5 i didnt like the idea of point buy, but i was still a kid then :P like 16, so i was in the "cheat to beat games" phase lol. Now, I honestly love it. playing out and giving backstory to your stats, whether its your 6 in charisma, making you ugly, or just a rude bastard, is so fun :)

[Big Fau]

That's why point buy is superior. You don't want abysmally poor stats or fantastic stats...certainly not both in the same party.

The only way fantastic stats are acceptable is if everyone has them, at which point the unique value of having fantastic stats is negated by it's proliferation.

[faceroll]

That's why point buy is superior. You don't want abysmally poor stats or fantastic stats...certainly not both in the same party.

JaronK recommends using different pointbuys to balance tiers. A wizard on 24pb is going to have to invest a lot more in defensive spells and buffs to make up for his abysmal stats.

[umbergod]

JaronK recommends using different pointbuys to balance tiers. A wizard on 24pb is going to have to invest a lot more in defensive spells and buffs to make up for his abysmal stats.

not a bad idea, since even a low PB wizard still has a good chance of messing up a higher PB fighter easily enough

[Coidzor]

It really all goes back to the type of game your DM is running. If the DM considers the baseline for a creature's primary stat to be 18, then you'll be comparatively underpowered. If the baseline is 10, then you'll be relatively stronger. I can certainly envision games where not having 18s would make your character underperform and be less fun to play, but it's not a given. It also depends on what the rest of the party has as well.

But the baseline can't be 10, because spellcasters can't have a 10 in their casting stat and still cast spells. So it has to be higher than that for competency at one's basic job as a character.


Finally, competence in a particular task =/= a competent character. Your 20 strength 6 intelligence 6 charisma fighter may go tear things up in the wilderness, but when he gets back to town, he gets grifted out of all of his hard earned loot. Now he's the strongest homeless man in the gutter.

This is D&D, all PCs are hobos. The PCs just live it up ritzier, including their pet Fighters.

[Yuki Akuma]

But the baseline can't be 10, because spellcasters can't have a 10 in their casting stat and still cast spells.

Yes they can. They can't have 9 and still cast spells.

[danzibr]

Pff. More like a -8. You're not playing D&D unless your starting prime stat is a 30 or more at first level, (your secondary stat, or at least your CON should be 16-20). First level if your STR/WIS/INT/DEX is only 18, you have a massive chance (50%!) at failure. You need to have at least a 95% chance to hit the goblin, or between the three of them (CR 1/3) they'll hit you, costing you HP that you can't regain over the course of the day, unless you spend your money on health potions instead of gear that'll keep you from taking more hits then needing more healing. The cleric would never actually use cure lesser wounds because it's a waste of a slot to heal anyone aside from himself until level 5 when people don't die instantly to the Russian Roulette of combat.

Monks, of course, are the best class for surviving.
That still sounds a little low to me.

[Emmerask]

If you are unable to play a character with a 15 as the highest stat then you are not good enough at optimization, simple as that.

[Basket Burner]

...You would seriously show up to a D&D night with your friends, learn you're going to have to roll for stats, and if you don't get the perfect 32 point buy worth, just leave?

I feel sorry for you. :smallfrown:

More like...

I'd hear they were going to roll stats.
I'd tell them this will end poorly.
If they don't listen, time to go.

Then later someone would get all 14-18s and someone else would get all 8-13s and they'd see I was right (assuming they didn't before) and they'd change to a sensible stat system and we'd be good. Of course, I wouldn't make friends with people that didn't know what they are doing so it'd never come up in the first place.


What on earth kind of scenario are you positing? What kind of person can tell that from the PB as you're saying but also be unable to tell what to do with the stats they rolled? What kind of game that's worthwhile to be in would have people that hardassed and unlikeable as to force someone to play with 1E suicide Fighter straight 8s stats?

So many stat sets are entirely useless, or useless for what you want. That is why. There are also many stat sets that are too low to be usable, but not so low that you can't get out of them.


Finally, competence in a particular task =/= a competent character. Your 20 strength 6 intelligence 6 charisma fighter may go tear things up in the wilderness, but when he gets back to town, he gets grifted out of all of his hard earned loot. Now he's the strongest homeless man in the gutter.

And the guy who gimped his Str to get 10 Int and 10 Cha still gets ripped off, as he has no abilities to avoid this, and doesn't get the loot in the first place. Oh and the 20 Str guy can go beat down the thieves.


Sounds balanced to me!

...


So stats are all that matter to you? You think that stats alone can completely replace the build itself?

Try again.


It's simple for a 10th level Fighter to one-round an EL-appropriate enemy (solo enemy, mind you) if the DM plays it like some big, dumb brute. A simple Charger build, which only needs 13 Str to function, can take out half of the enemy's HP total. Optimizing the To-Hit in addition to the damage is so trivial that your ability scores only matter for prerequisites.

And half is more than 0, so it counterattacks, and you die. And that if it's played dumb. Otherwise you don't even get that far.


So a simple Ray of Enfeeblement is enough to negate your entire character if you are playing a Str-based build?

Yes, that is generally how it works. You zap them with that, and then they're more or less helpless.


BTW, the reason we are reacting so negatively to your argument is because you keep invoking a logical fallacy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PerfectSolutionFallacy). While having 18's in every stat helps immensely for most builds, not every build requires 18's across the board to function properly. It's entirely possible to build a character with starting 10's across the board and still one-shot a Pit Fiend*.

It's a strawman, first off. Secondly, your response is also a strawman. Thirdly, you'll forgive me if I am unimpressed by killing one of the weakest CR 20s, if it allows you to kill them, by using a number of rather questionable things.

Now here is the point that you are actually responding to:

Either you are at so many, and so big of set of disadvantages as is that taking even the slightest additional penalty cripples you hopelessly, or there is no reason not to do it, because there's nothing better to do with your stats. Either way you get the same end result - 18 prime, 14 Con. And that's the minimum acceptable numbers. So when you take a 15, you are taking -2 to everything you do for no reason at all. It's like losing caster levels. You just don't do it. MAYBE you lose one if there is an incredibly good reason, but no more than that.


They tried to balance the whole game in elite stats.

Tordek had strength 15 on level 1
Mialee had intelligence 15 on level 1
Lidda is aweasome, had a 17 in dexterity

Using that logic, if you got a 18, then you are +2 unbalanced.

I think your point is the balance BETWEEN PCS. On that I can agree with you, if I was a 14 strength fighter, and my party had a 18 strength fighter, it would suck.

Oh, the playtest characters. You mean blaster Wizards, healbot Clerics and 10 Str no wild shaping melee Druids? Not the best way to make any form of serious argument. Especially since they are objectively proven to be unable to handle level appropriate encounters without blatant DM cheating.


JaronK recommends using different pointbuys to balance tiers. A wizard on 24pb is going to have to invest a lot more in defensive spells and buffs to make up for his abysmal stats.

18 Int, 14 Con, 10 Dex. That's max power right there. He's fine.

[The Boz]

More like...

I'd hear they were going to roll stats.
I'd tell them this will end poorly.
If they don't listen, time to go.

Then later someone would get all 14-18s and someone else would get all 8-13s and they'd see I was right (assuming they didn't before) and they'd change to a sensible stat system and we'd be good. Of course, I wouldn't make friends with people that didn't know what they are doing so it'd never come up in the first place.


{Scrubbed}

[Misery Esquire]

More like...

I'd hear they were going to roll stats.
I'd tell them this will end poorly.
If they don't listen, time to go.

Then later someone would get all 14-18s and someone else would get all 8-13s and they'd... have some laughs at the expense of a dumb Fighter stumbling into pit traps, just to survive and get pulled back out, get a lucky crit on a goblin warchief and declare himself "SAH LILSORD THA KILLA", while his Rogue buddy takes the gold out of his pockets. Meanwhile, the players enjoy a pizza, laugh at the ridiculous miming of the Wizard player, spill a drink on the DMG and desperately try to wipe it off, before realising that thier cleric had died to an Orc Shaman, and there was no way to escape the cave aside from that creepy looking tunnel. They get to spend hours laughing, introducing new characters, eating snacks and taking post-midnight breaks to see what that one guy who never really paid attention to the game was doing on his laptop. see I was right (assuming they didn't before) and they'd change to a sensible stat system and we'd be good. Of course, I wouldn't make friends with people that didn't know what they are doing so it'd never come up in the first place.

I figured I'd fix that for you, seeing as D&D is a social event, not a tabletop MMO that's played for $20,000 prizes.

[W3bDragon]

This post comes with a large "YMMV" tag.


I do not believe that high stats are needed to create an enjoyable character who can also carry his weight during combat. Note how these are two separate issues for me. Enjoyment is one, combat effectiveness is another.

For example, in the current game I'm playing, my PF human divine gish had to pick where to put the +2 stat at first level. As an oracle/paladin gish, I needed high stats in str, dex, con, and cha. Yet, after some considerable thought, I ended up putting the +2 into wisdom to bring it up from 8 to 10.

"Why would you ever increase your dump stat?" you might ask. Simple. I was sacrificing combat effectiveness for enjoyment. I do not enjoy roleplaying a low wisdom character in a long campaign, and I felt the impact of losing the +2 from one of my many primary stats, though a difficult choice, was ultimately something I can live with. We're about 6 sessions into the game having gone through a myriad of combat, puzzle, RP, and intrigue encounters and I haven't regretted that decision yet.

I think in all of this back and forth, an important argument FOR needing high stats wasn't mentioned...

In older editions of D&D, characters were much less complex than they are in 3rd. A fighter was a fighter, and no matter how much you customize his proficiencies, he'll likely be 90% similar to any other fighter, save how you RP him. Same goes for most other classes.

That meant that sooner rather than later, you'll end up recycling the same builds you've done before. In my time in 2nd edition, I played at least 3 fighter/mages, at least 3 single class clerics, several single class fighters, etc. With less depth in character creation, it didn't feel like a waste to play your favorite class combo with low stats because, hey, in a few more games I'll be back playing the same combo, and I might roll better.

However, in 3rd edition, character creation is much more complex. I've been created somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 characters that I've actually played since third edition came out, and none of them are as similar to each other as 2 fighters would have been in 2nd edition. Each build is unique, with its own quirks and abilities that set it apart from the rest. So when I think up of this awesome build I'd like to try out in a game someday, I know chances are, I'll only ever get one shot at it, since there are many other things I'd like to try too. So, when I finally get a shot at creating that awesome combo I have in mind, I'd end up in the mindset that 16 is a -1, because this is my only chance to play that awesome xyz build and I want it to be the best!

Would having non-optimal stats stop me from playing that build? Probably not, unless its completely unworkable, but you better believe I'd be annoyed about it.

[Gullintanni]

More like...

I'd hear they were going to roll stats.
I'd tell them this will end poorly.
If they don't listen, time to go.

Then later someone would get all 14-18s and someone else would get all 8-13s and they'd see I was right (assuming they didn't before) and they'd change to a sensible stat system and we'd be good. Of course, I wouldn't make friends with people that didn't know what they are doing so it'd never come up in the first place.


This makes me sad. The best D&D years of my life to date were spent playing 4d6b3. The player attributes were a little unbalanced, but at the end of the day, the build mattered a lot more than the stats, and everyone had fun.

The only time anything "ends badly" is when you and your players aren't having fun. And if you need high stats to have fun...well...then your style of play is definitely different than mine. When my group moved over to point buy, we had much more fun playing characters with less specialized stats, because we had more room to move points around and roleplay with wizards who could lift competitively and stately half-orc barbarians brokering peace treaties with high level diplomats.

One of our favorite quests began with a level 1 paladin and a badger. The paladin chased down the badger, and got beaten senseless. The badger ate his rations and stole his boots. And so began our quest to retrieve the Holy Boots of Leo, sworn enemy of Badger-kind. He and his mediocre stats went on to successfully recover said boots. He was a legend. :smalltongue:

[Doughnut Master]

Well assuming our fighter friend dropped his strength down to 16, that's a 15 point buy into other stats. So he could get 11 int and 14 Cha. He's hardly gimped. He's stronger than most other humans. He's able to power attack. And now when he goes to down, he'll be about as smart as most people he'll be interacting with and a good deal more persuasive in social circumstances.

In overall effectiveness, he's gone from a net of +1 general competence (+5 str vs -2 int and -2 cha) to +6. His ability to kill things might have decreased by 40%, but his abilities in non-killing situations have increased by 200% and 150% respectively. This may enable him to, say find better contracts and negotiate better payments. With his increased wealth he can buy better equipment to offset his physical limitations.

Even for brawler characters, a high intelligence may be more dangerous than brute force. Knowing where and how to fight can be much more advantageous than the ability to hit things hard. The 6 int 20 str fighter would likely crush the 14 int 16 str fighter in open combat, but then again, the latter would know better. The smart fighter could set traps, fight on favorable terrain, or use his extra gold and charisma to bring in an ally, while the brute is left to fight alone. Hell, the smart fighter, with his extra skill points could pump up Intimidate and convince the brute to lay down his arms and submit without even fighting.

[Gullintanni]

The smart fighter could set traps, fight on favorable terrain, or use his extra gold and charisma to bring in an ally, while the brute is left to fight alone. Hell, the smart fighter, with his extra skill points could pump up Intimidate and convince the brute to lay down his arms and submit without even fighting.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html

This seems relevant.

[Basket Burner]

I used to play with random stats. I quickly learned from my mistakes once I began to think critically about them. And then I stopped doing that. Ever since then, things have been much better.

[Jeraa]

I used to play with random stats. I quickly learned from my mistakes once I began to think critically about them. And then I stopped doing that. Ever since then, things have been much better.

Good for you. I've played with point buy before. When every character started being exactly the same statwise, we learned from our mistakes and switched back to dice. Ever since then, things have been much better.

Arguing over this is pointless. No one will change their minds and switch their views.

[Doughnut Master]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html

This seems relevant.

I was thinking the exact same thing. :smallbiggrin:

[Basket Burner]

Well assuming our fighter friend dropped his strength down to 16, that's a 15 point buy into other stats. So he could get 11 int and 14 Cha. He's hardly gimped. He's stronger than most other humans. He's able to power attack. And now when he goes to down, he'll be about as smart as most people he'll be interacting with and a good deal more persuasive in social circumstances.

+2 to a social skill is the same as -2. Far too low to make any difference. So you've made yourself worse for nothing. If on the other hand you do max the skills and get around the crossclass thing, then the sheer volume of skill bonuses outstrip the +2. Of course you don't actually get any discounts, so there is no reason to do this.

[Chained Birds]

I just go for what is required of class X to gain Y feats to get into Z PrC.

If I'm a Barbarian with 26str and 24con I feel pretty much the same as a 16str and 14con Barbarian. I still do what I want (or would like do) and RP the current Barbarian I've made. I never make the same character twice, and I always enjoy those life-or-death epic battles more than the I-charge-hit-kill-the-enemy-in-one-hit battles.

As I tend to optimize my builds in my own way, sometimes I need a Fighter with 14str and 16cha. Why? Because this game I want an Intimidating diplomat who can bash a Greatsword over anyone who calls him a bute.

But let's face it: stats don't matter, class/racial features is where the good stuff comes from! Why do you think there are exp penalties for multi-classing and not for having a stat above 18?

[Morph Bark]

18 is the baseline by which primary stats are measured by me, yes. The only reasons why you should have anything less there is either an inability to get an 18 (which you should think long and hard about) or not knowing any better (such as by thinking a mere 15 prime stat is acceptable).

It's like saying your 80 MPH car is too slow by 20 MPH when entering a race in which the other vehicles are going at 100.

FTFY.

The problem here is that you're talking about a game of chance like it's not. A car race? Not a game of chance. Betting on a car in a race without knowing anything about the race? A game of pure chance. Betting on a car in a race while knowing something about the race? That is basically what DnD is, but it is still largely a game of chance.

I presume you tend to play with high point-buy and brutal DMs though, if someone with all-15s would die before level 4 in your games.

[Tyndmyr]

I'd happily play an all 15's char, and I play damned high-op stuff. I frequently see things on here labeled as "this would only happen in TO" that are actually in play in my games.

See, all 15s actually isn't that shoddy. It's a 48 point buy. Sure, I may not actually need all those stats distributed exactly that way...but I can certainly figure out how to make use of them.

[Basket Burner]

But let's face it: stats don't matter, class/racial features is where the good stuff comes from! Why do you think there are exp penalties for multi-classing and not for having a stat above 18?

That don't actually do anything for the types of multiclassing that people actually do.

[The Glyphstone]

But let's face it: stats don't matter, class/racial features is where the good stuff comes from! Why do you think there are exp penalties for multi-classing and not for having a stat above 18?

Because WotC doesn't understand their own game?

[Gullintanni]

+2 to a social skill is the same as -2. Far too low to make any difference. So you've made yourself worse for nothing. If on the other hand you do max the skills and get around the crossclass thing, then the sheer volume of skill bonuses outstrip the +2. Of course you don't actually get any discounts, so there is no reason to do this.

A Swashbuckler3/Rogue3 with a 16 int and a 14 strength and a 14 con still has room for lots of other leftover goodies. They get strength + int to damage and are therefore better off with a 14 strength and a 16 int than with an 18 int, a 10 strength and a 14 con. They end up with a wide array of skill points, a decent amount of int based precision damage, and they still get a small, but not irrelevant damage bonus at low levels against opponents that are immune to precision damage.

For this character, an 18 is a waste.


Good for you. I've played with point buy before. When every character started being exactly the same statwise, we learned from our mistakes and switched back to dice. Ever since then, things have been much better.

Arguing over this is pointless. No one will change their minds and switch their views.

Agreed. The OP phrased the title of the thread as a question to be answered...but it looks like the OP had his answer before the conversation began. C'est la vie.

[Vladislav]

Tomb of Horrors spoiler

First combat encounter, against the many-armed Gargoyle. The Barbarian, who naturally had pimped out his Str and Con, boldly rushes the Gargoyle, deals some amount of damage to it (but not enough to drop it), then the Gargoyle makes a full attack with an mindboggling number of die rolls, and brings the Barbarian to -30.

Rest of us fought the Gargoyle as best as we could, basically the tactic was to stay mobile and never let it make full attacks. No one else died, eventhough none of us had such pimped out Str and Con.

Tactics trumped over ability scores.

[The Glyphstone]

Agreed. The OP phrased the title of the thread as a question to be answered...but it looks like the OP had his answer before the conversation began. C'est la vie.

As mentioned midway down this thread, the 'OP' in this case didn't actually start the thread, it's a transplant of a 6-page side discussion that was thoroughly derailing the 'What Irks You' thread. Your point remains unquestioned, though.

[Barstro]

This makes me sad. The best D&D years of my life to date were spent playing 4d6b3. The player attributes were a little unbalanced, but at the end of the day, the build mattered a lot more than the stats, and everyone had fun.

The only time anything "ends badly" is when you and your players aren't having fun.

Basically the difference between "role-playing" and "creating an optimized character". The rule used to be that you rolled (in order) and THEN chose your race/class.

Personally, I like the role-playing aspect; working around my characters' weaknesses. 3d6 or 4d6-b3 is still darn good in a world where eight to nine were the stats of the common man. As I recall, the stats to the main characters in Dragonlance were made public, and there were few 18s. Granted, this was based on something other than 3.5, but it still gives an example of what can be done with "-2" to important stats.


A decent DM will make fights that are winnable for whatever your scores are, provided you at least think a little bit. If you need 18s in stats in order to play, then a DM should increase the difficult so the fight is the same challenge. But, in all honesty, if I were DM and my players demanded such high stats, I would give them that and they would fight smurfs with one hit point the entire time so that their characters can be the gods they want to be.

[Tyndmyr]

Personally, I like the role-playing aspect; working around my characters' weaknesses. 3d6 or 4d6-b3 is still darn good in a world where eight to nine were the stats of the common man. As I recall, the stats to the main characters in Dragonlance were made public, and there were few 18s. Granted, this was based on something other than 3.5, but it still gives an example of what can be done with "-2" to important stats.

Im afraid that really doesn't mean a thing. Author fiat doesn't justify mechanics.

Also, Dragonlance is a pretty terrible campaign world mechanically. Probably the worst of the 3.5 settings.

[Gullintanni]

Basically the difference between "role-playing" and "creating an optimized character". The rule used to be that you rolled (in order) and THEN chose your race/class.


I'm gonna cut this potential burr in logic off before it derails the thread further. "Roleplaying" and "Optimizing" are not mutually exclusive. It's certainly possible to specialize by tossing an 18 in a stat, dumping everything else but con, and roleplaying to the max.

I'm just saying my group has fun by building some weaknesses into their characters and we frequently make due with mediocrity in our ability scores. We have a blast. You're not doing it wrong to play either way. The only way to really play D&D wrong is to insist that your way is the only correct way.

Stormwind has spoken :smalltongue:

[Anarchy_Kanya]

I LOVE high stats. I don't know what it is. Maybe some kind of strange fetish, but I always try making my characters with high stats (and not just one 18, but for example a couple of 15-16), either by smart pb distribution or a race with big bonuses (that's why I adore anthropomorphic animals, noble drow or other powerful monster races).
I know that you don't need great stats to have fun or be competent, but still. :smallbiggrin:

[Doughnut Master]

+2 to a social skill is the same as -2. Far too low to make any difference. So you've made yourself worse for nothing. If on the other hand you do max the skills and get around the crossclass thing, then the sheer volume of skill bonuses outstrip the +2. Of course you don't actually get any discounts, so there is no reason to do this.

Once again, it depends on your game. My DM likes to barter somewhat realistically. It's an opposed diplomacy check. The better your check against the merchant's, the better price you get on both buying and selling.

After all, the merchant doesn't work to supply the adventurers and buy all of their stuff. He works to make money. If he can scam some muscle bound moron out of his loot and then sell that loot back at an immense profit, why wouldn't he? People who obsess over optimizing only one facet of their character are how folks like Cut-Me-Own-Throat Dibbler feed their families.

From a DM standpoint, it also forces players to pay for the weaknesses they've chosen, which makes sense for verisimilitude.

Now, this may not be done in your games, but those are your games. If your DM doesn't choose to enforce the penalties you've chosen, that's their decision. But it is not a truism for all games.

[Misery Esquire]

Also, Dragonlance is a pretty terrible campaign world mechanically. Probably the worst of the 3.5 settings.

I'm fairly sure that's because Dragonlance was originally developed in 2E, and was (poorly?) carried across. I've never looked into it, not having played the campaign in either edition.

[Gullintanni]

As mentioned midway down this thread, the 'OP' in this case didn't actually start the thread, it's a transplant of a 6-page side discussion that was thoroughly derailing the 'What Irks You' thread.

Pfeh, who has time to read entire threads anyway? There's a whole middle section that you can clearly, safely ignore and never have to worry about anyone exposing your negligence. :smallwink:

(And I would've gotten away with it too if not for those burbly horrors in the playground)

[Killer Angel]

Initiative is a minimum of +8, and possibly higher depending on amount of effort put into it. It can hit 15 pretty easily for example, and that's before accounting for Dex at all. Skill points are meaningless as always, and +1 DC is still good.

I cannot see how a lov. lev. core character can have a "minimum +8 initiative" with +0 (or-1) dex mod. :smallconfused:
And skill points meaningless?
Sure, you can sustain it, but many DMs don't think so, and all the skillmonkeys builds don't agree with you. There are whole classes heavily based around skills, so please don't tell that they're meaningless. In your way of playing the game, they can be, but it's not an absolute.

Again, you don't need to pump sky high your primary stat.
Are you a caster? basically, you only need to have guaranteed a score that gives you the high spell level bonus.
Wis 16: spell bonus 'til 3rd level. When you'll reach 7th level, you'll have a periapt of wisdom +2 (and your bonus spell of 4th lev.)
Then with the stat increases at lev. 8 you'll have wis 20, and when you'll reach 11th level you'll almost certainly have your periapt +4.
Of course, a high stat means high DC, but we know that it's better to have spells with ST: none, rather than ST: yes...

[Lost Demiurge]

No.

A good GM can ensure that the numbers don't have a significant impact on your party's enjoyment of the game.

And if you're one of those guys who MUST have super-high numbers for his character, then I don't think I'd enjoy running with or playing with you very much. Most over-optimizers I've tried playing with have not been good team players.

[Mr.Bookworm]

I find this conversation hilarious, as BB pretty clearly doesn't know how optimized melee combat works in D&D.

Charger shenanigans:
You are a Human SL Barb 8/Fight 2/FB 10. You have 10s in everything. At level 20, you have a natural Str of 15 (12 behind the hypothetical Dragonborn Water Orc natural 18 in Str required character). Add in usual magic enhancing stuff, you have a Strength of 26.

Frenzy+Rage for a Strength of 40 (Hypothetical Required Orc is now at 52). You have Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, +1 Valorous greatsword, etc., etc.

Charge. Attack at +36/+36/+31/+26/+21 for 337 to 347 damage a hit (note that all but 2d6+15 of this damage is coming from PA and multipliers). The HRO is doing a tiny bit more, but who cares?

If you're not a ToB class (and thus have maneuvers anyway), it's all about the multipliers and Power Attack.

(Note that I am AFB right now and working off memory, but I am almost positive my math is right.)

If you are a caster, start with a 1 in everything but your casting score, a 13 in that, pick up a +6 item (pretty cheap), you can cast 9th level spells, win D&D. Wizards/Sorcerers get the Polymorph line, Clerics can buff themselves up, Druids have buffs and Wild Shape...

So no, high ability scores are nice to have, but not necessary at all, as they can easily be rendered moot with a proportional amount of optimization.

[Barstro]

I'm gonna cut this potential burr in logic off before it derails the thread further. "Roleplaying" and "Optimizing" are not mutually exclusive. It's certainly possible to specialize by tossing an 18 in a stat, dumping everything else but con, and roleplaying to the max.

Not trying to derail it, and I agree that those two are far from mutually exclusive. Your way to getting to 18 is "fair" in my opinion; you made a trade-off to get there, and have to deal with the consequences.

I have further points to make, but I believe you are correct, and such statements could only further derail. I'll just say that I am of the opinion that one does not necessarily need 18s to have a workable character.

[Basket Burner]

A Swashbuckler3/Rogue3 with a 16 int and a 14 strength and a 14 con still has room for lots of other leftover goodies. They get strength + int to damage and are therefore better off with a 14 strength and a 16 int than with an 18 int, a 10 strength and a 14 con. They end up with a wide array of skill points, a decent amount of int based precision damage, and they still get a small, but not irrelevant damage bonus at low levels against opponents that are immune to precision damage.

For this character, an 18 is a waste.

And you still do no damage, because Swashbucklers are terrible, and you're dependent on precision of all things.


Agreed. The OP phrased the title of the thread as a question to be answered...but it looks like the OP had his answer before the conversation began. C'est la vie.

I did not. The thread was split off from another, and I did not choose the title.


Once again, it depends on your game. My DM likes to barter somewhat realistically. It's an opposed diplomacy check. The better your check against the merchant's, the better price you get on both buying and selling.

Translation: Your DM makes up arbitrary houserules to punish people who play effectively. In addition to those that don't being punished by the system itself. Good for you, but it has nothing to do with D&D.

And then someone gets +60 Diplomacy at level 6, with a Cha of 6 and makes the bad DM cry.

And that is why it's a bad rule, and also why stats don't matter for skills (but the skills themselves don't matter).


I cannot see how a lov. lev. core character can have a "minimum +8 initiative" with +0 (or-1) dex mod. :smallconfused:
And skill points meaningless?

Improved Init, Sign. +8. Done.


Sure, you can sustain it, but many DMs don't think so, and all the skillmonkeys builds don't agree with you. There are whole classes heavily based around skills, so please don't tell that they're meaningless. In your way of playing the game, they can be, but it's not an absolute.

Monks exist. Your argument is invalid. Refer also to Ivory Tower Design.


Again, you don't need to pump sky high your primary stat.
Are you a caster? basically, you only need to have guaranteed a score that gives you the high spell level bonus.

Casters fall under "no reason not to, as nothing else matters to you".

[Big Fau]

18 Int, 14 Con, 10 Dex. That's max power right there. He's fine.



Initiative is a minimum of +8, and possibly higher depending on amount of effort put into it. It can hit 15 pretty easily for example, and that's before accounting for Dex at all. Skill points are meaningless as always, and +1 DC is still good.

I think I'm done here. Your logic is flawed, and your argument is shaky. You are ignoring several key factors that can render ability scores irrelevant (without utilizing polymorph effects), and I feel that continuing this conversation will provide nothing for either of us.

[Misery Esquire]

Translation: Your DM makes up arbitrary houserules to punish people who play effectively. In addition to those that don't being punished by the system itself. Good for you, but it has nothing to do with D&D.


I'm done here. Since I think you picked up Regeneration/Fire or Acid at some point.

[Basket Burner]

I think I'm done here. Your logic is flawed, and your argument is shaky. You are ignoring several key factors that can render ability scores irrelevant (without utilizing polymorph effects), and I feel that continuing this conversation will provide nothing for either of us.

Polymorph doesn't affect Int. It does affect Con, but not HP. It does affect Dex. You bring those into it, and I am more right and not less.

More than the "any additional weight breaks the camel's back" or "no reason not to" though is the mentality, the principle of it. You get in the habit of slacking, and soon enough you have a character that couldn't defeat a suicidal level appropriate creature. And then you blame someone other than yourself for that.

Conversely, get in the habit of doing things right, and you play well.

[Vladislav]

I don't understand how getting a primary score of 16 is "slacking". I rolled my dice, I got a 16. Where's my error? Did I not concetrate hard enough? Do I need to roll harder?

[Mr.Bookworm]

Provide math that proves your position, as I did, and then you may start to tell me that I'm "not doing it right".

If you cannot provide said math in a purely mechanical discussion, you are wrong. The end.

EDIT: You are saying that a character that "only has a 14 and a 16 for remarkable stats, aka will die from a random, meaningless encounter well before the plot goes anywhere". You are therefore asserting that a character without maximum stats is worthless.

I have, quite nicely and without any particular binding need, provided counter-evidence.

The burden of proof is on you. Back it up with math (actual math and character builds, not merely anecdotes), or I (and I suspect everyone else) will be forced to assume that in the absence of any compelling proof, you are wrong. It is that simple.

[JaronK]

Polymorph doesn't affect Int. It does affect Con, but not HP. It does affect Dex. You bring those into it, and I am more right and not less.

More than the "any additional weight breaks the camel's back" or "no reason not to" though is the mentality, the principle of it. You get in the habit of slacking, and soon enough you have a character that couldn't defeat a suicidal level appropriate creature. And then you blame someone other than yourself for that.

Conversely, get in the habit of doing things right, and you play well.

Or you learn to play in something other than god mode? I mean seriously, I've played effectively as a Commoner before (obviously in a game designed for such). There are more ways to play than optimizing to the limit while the DM tries to kill you (not saying that's the wrong way to play or anything, but there are other options).

Besides, if any "slacking" at all is bad, why aren't you playing as Pun Pun? In the end, you have to realize that you don't need to play at crazy power levels. Pick a level that's good for you, and play it. Maybe for you 18s are needed. For most people, not so much... and that's certainly not how the game is intended to be played (see the DMG's discussion on what your stats should be).

JaronK

[The Boz]

Polymorph doesn't affect Int. It does affect Con, but not HP. It does affect Dex. You bring those into it, and I am more right and not less.

More than the "any additional weight breaks the camel's back" or "no reason not to" though is the mentality, the principle of it. You get in the habit of slacking, and soon enough you have a character that couldn't defeat a suicidal level appropriate creature. And then you blame someone other than yourself for that.

Conversely, get in the habit of doing things right, and you play well.

What exactly do you think you are right of? That higher numbers are higher than numbers that are not as high? Sure. Good job proving that. High marks.

But if you're trying to say that a character without an arbitrary "primary" number being as high as it can possibly be is unplayable, you are sorely mistaken.

Also, if you're saying that everyone other than you is playing the game wrong, I think you'll have much more fun playing something other than DnD. Tacticals, tabletop wargames and stuff like that.
I'm not saying you're doing it wrong, I'm just saying that what you're doing is more "right" in a different system than it is in DnD.

[Basket Burner]

I don't understand how getting a primary score of 16 is "slacking". I rolled my dice, I got a 16. Where's my error? Did I not concetrate hard enough? Do I need to roll harder?

You aren't using PB, and as a result your character is forced to be a slacker. Dang hippies.


Or you learn to play in something other than god mode? I mean seriously, I've played effectively as a Commoner before (obviously in a game designed for such). There are more ways to play than optimizing to the limit while the DM tries to kill you (not saying that's the wrong way to play or anything, but there are other options).

If the DM has to protect you from yourself, you have already lost.


Besides, if any "slacking" at all is bad, why aren't you playing as Pun Pun? In the end, you have to realize that you don't need to play at crazy power levels. Pick a level that's good for you, and play it. Maybe for you 18s are needed. For most people, not so much... and that's certainly not how the game is intended to be played (see the DMG's discussion on what your stats should be).

JaronK

Pun-Pun is Akuma.

Core books tell you that the Fighter is a number of concepts that they cannot possibly be. They also tell you that Toughness is a good feat, that you need a Fighter and a Rogue, and that was just the obviously false statements I could think up in 5 seconds. So you'll forgive me if I take a look at the writings of people that didn't understand their own product and then disregard them.

[Psyren]

The DMG isn't perfect; few books, if any, are. That doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[MOLOKH]

{Scrubbed}

[Lord Vukodlak]

I have to ask what do you people all consider high stats?

[Killer Angel]

Improved Init.


Last time i cheched, improved initiative in the PH gives a +4.

[Emmerask]

It all comes pretty much down to this:

you value 1 to 2 dmg and 5% to hit chance (in case of the fighter) higher then

+1 initiative, +4 (or more) skillpoints, +1 refl saving throw, +1 ac and potentially +1 hp/level

I pretty much could have stopped at the +1 initiative because that alone is worth more then both the dmg and to hit chance but the whole package together... its not even a contest.

[Morph Bark]

I have to ask what do you people all consider high stats?

I consider "high-ish" to be over 19 at the very least.

Truly "high" would be from 30 onwards.

But hey, I'm one of the few people who can play a perfectly average character fine enough. Or even tackle the challenge of playing an all-3s one.

[Kenneth]

Blah blah blah i need a 100 in my prime or i am bad



I am going to take a wild stab in the dark here and say that if BB ever had to do the old 3d6 in order rolls ( you old schoolers know what I am talking about) hed probably shoot himself in the foot.

[Coidzor]

I figured I'd fix that for you, seeing as D&D is a social event, not a tabletop MMO that's played for $20,000 prizes.

By encouraging the Rogues = Klepto, Backstabbing, Party-betraying Thieves mentality. :smallsigh:

[Morph Bark]

By encouraging the Rogues = Klepto, Backstabbing, Party-betraying Thieves mentality. :smallsigh:

Which, funny enough, is not an inherent part of rolled stats and can just as easily happen in a pointbuy game.

It just comes down to whether you like randomness or not. If you play with pointbuy higher than 32, then yes, you get better than rolled stats almost for sure (the chances for rolled stats going so high across the board are small enough). At lower than 30 though, you are almost required to focus on a single stat, but it seems non-SAD builds are forgotten about here. A great deal of people simply wish to play characters that are good at several things, which often require pumping more than one stat.

And then there are the people who just don't care and want to have fun playing, regardless of the magnitude of their ability scores.

[Misery Esquire]

By encouraging the Rogues = Klepto, Backstabbing, Party-betraying Thieves mentality. :smallsigh:

I picked a few stereotypes, and things that have happened to me in the average D&D night. Practising being melodramatic? :smallconfused:

[Basket Burner]

It all comes pretty much down to this:

you value 1 to 2 dmg and 5% to hit chance (in case of the fighter) higher then

+1 initiative, +4 (or more) skillpoints, +1 refl saving throw, +1 ac and potentially +1 hp/level

I pretty much could have stopped at the +1 initiative because that alone is worth more then both the dmg and to hit chance but the whole package together... its not even a contest.

Skill points are meaningless, reflex saves aren't any better, AC isn't any better, init is the only good stat but you're going to be deep into diminishing returns before accounting for Dex, and you still cover your Con bases.


Which, funny enough, is not an inherent part of rolled stats and can just as easily happen in a pointbuy game.

It just comes down to whether you like randomness or not. If you play with pointbuy higher than 32, then yes, you get better than rolled stats almost for sure (the chances for rolled stats going so high across the board are small enough). At lower than 30 though, you are almost required to focus on a single stat, but it seems non-SAD builds are forgotten about here. A great deal of people simply wish to play characters that are good at several things, which often require pumping more than one stat.

And then there are the people who just don't care and want to have fun playing, regardless of the magnitude of their ability scores.

If you are randomly generating stats, the chances of an MAD worthy set are substantially lower than a SAD worthy set.

[Coidzor]

I have to ask what do you people all consider high stats?

For a level 1 character or in general?

For a level 1, 11 or lower is **** you're going to absolutely and utterly ignore forever, 12 to 15 is meh stuff you'll have a tertiary stat keyed to, and 16-19 is you have my attention by being passably good at your schtick from the word go rather than waiting until level 4 and a +2 item, and 20 is fun times.

In general, it depends upon the power level of the game. If you're playing medium or higher power level and you're not playing a NAD build, then you need at least one high stat to power it.


When my group moved over to point buy, we had much more fun playing characters with less specialized stats, because we had more room to move points around and roleplay with wizards who could lift competitively and stately half-orc barbarians brokering peace treaties with high level diplomats.

...What kind of point buy do you guys play with? Every time I've encountered it or seen it in play, it's mostly just served to limit people to one or two pre-set arrays, such as in Living Forgotten Realms in 4e.


One of our favorite quests began with a level 1 paladin and a badger. The paladin chased down the badger, and got beaten senseless. The badger ate his rations and stole his boots. And so began our quest to retrieve the Holy Boots of Leo, sworn enemy of Badger-kind. He and his mediocre stats went on to successfully recover said boots. He was a legend. :smalltongue:

Things are different for things that are up front about being joke campaigns, or become them quick enough there's no real difference. :smalltongue:


But let's face it: stats don't matter, class/racial features is where the good stuff comes from! Why do you think there are exp penalties for multi-classing and not for having a stat above 18?

Let's keep designer incompetence out of this, please. :smalltongue:


Tomb of Horrors spoiler

The Tomb of Horrors is a bad example of much of anything other than that the DM can be a sadistic jerk if he feels like it.


So many stat sets are entirely useless, or useless for what you want. That is why. There are also many stat sets that are too low to be usable, but not so low that you can't get out of them.

So... You have friends who understand this, but won't let you get out of bad stat sets? :smallconfused:

Aside from people completely new to the game and DMs who are, to put it bluntly, not the kind of people who can actually maintain a friendship with anyone in their games, I don't really see this as very likely.


Which, funny enough, is not an inherent part of rolled stats and can just as easily happen in a pointbuy game.

Wasn't saying it was. Just pointing out that he was using that particularly odoriferous example as a defense/shining example of how the game should be played by everyone. Which I object to, if that wasn't already obvious. :smallyuk:


It just comes down to whether you like randomness or not. If you play with pointbuy higher than 32, then yes, you get better than rolled stats almost for sure (the chances for rolled stats going so high across the board are small enough). At lower than 30 though, you are almost required to focus on a single stat, but it seems non-SAD builds are forgotten about here. A great deal of people simply wish to play characters that are good at several things, which often require pumping more than one stat.

Indeed. I often wonder if PBs are always so low because everyone forgets about non-SAD or NAD buids or PBs are so low because they only want SAD builds or if they just don't want to make things any easier on SAD builds. :smallconfused:


I picked a few stereotypes, and things that have happened to me in the average D&D night. Practising being melodramatic? :smallconfused:

Aside from the bit where I've encountered people who actually believe that so I can't exactly give people the benefit of the doubt by believing that's a tired, dead, old stereotype and not an active problem to this day....

And now you've gotten me wondering whether they bothered to translate D&D into British English.

[Morph Bark]

If you are randomly generating stats, the chances of an MAD worthy set are substantially lower than a SAD worthy set.

Well, when you consider anything lower than a starting 18 unworthy, then yes, you will end up with very few worthy sets for a MAD build.

Out of curiosity, what races/classes do you usually play?

[Narren]

Translation: Your DM makes up arbitrary houserules to punish people who play effectively. In addition to those that don't being punished by the system itself. Good for you, but it has nothing to do with D&D.

So playing effectively = playing with your play style? There's no other way to enjoy the game?


And then someone gets +60 Diplomacy at level 6, with a Cha of 6 and makes the bad DM cry.

Or.....the players could try to not be jerks and break the game. Unless that's the point of that particular game.


And that is why it's a bad rule, and also why stats don't matter for skills (but the skills themselves don't matter).


Skills don't matter? I forgot that combat is the ONLY thing that happens in D&D. And that skills could never possibly be used in combat.

[Anderlith]

Wow this has grown in just the last few hours.

What sub-topic are we arguing about currently?

[Misery Esquire]

Aside from the bit where I've encountered people who actually believe that so I can't exactly give people the benefit of the doubt by believing that's a tired, dead, old stereotype and not an active problem to this day....

And now you've gotten me wondering whether they bothered to translate D&D into British English.

The majority of the time I'm being satirical, and colourful examples are just that. Not to say I've never had a Rogue steal from his own party, but that it's not malicious as usually shown, and a rare, rare, occurance at that. It just happens to be very memorable ; like the time the Rogue stole the Wizard's Ring of Levitation, replacing it with another unidentified magical ring, leaving him to plummet to his death. Did the Rogue do this on a regular basis? Not really, it was the second time in three or four years (60+ sessions) that he'd taken anything from the rest of the party, but it happened to have results that would be laughed at for a long, long time afterward.

...I'm not entirely sure why they would... Prehaps the snobbiest of the English refuse to read the Americanized version?

[Coidzor]

Wow this has grown in just the last few hours.

What sub-topic are we arguing about currently?

Well, I think the most interesting one is what people's definitions of high stats are between both level 1 and over a range of levels.

Though that's not really gotten to the point of arguing, yet, I think.

[Ceaon]

I hate myself for posting in this thread. Why do I make myself suffer? Anyway.

I think it's a shame to claim that a variable, adaptable and shapeable game like D&D 3.5 can only be played in one way.

BB, your 'one true' way might in fact be the best way to play the game. I can't say I have researched this. But it obviously isn't the way most people play. And it certainly isn't the ONLY way. Games can be played in non-optimal ways and still be enjoyable.

So please do not claim it is wrong for others to play D&D in their own way. I find it insulting and, frankly, a bit close-minded. You have made your point - which is your opinion, and not a fact.

Secondly, optimization goes way beyond high stats. So 'gimping' yourself with a 15 primary is less restricting than 'gimping' yourself by playing a fighter, a Drow or a VoP-character. So if your argument is that unoptimized characters have no place in play, I say one should focus more on optimizing their class, race, feats and spells instead of their stats.

Edit: on the subject of high stats - in my campaigns, 18+ is considered high at level 1, 24+ is seen as high around level 10, and around level 20 32+ is high. This is, of course, unless the wizard or druid goes shapechanging into things with higher stats, but if a fighter has 34 strength at level 20, it won't be his strength score that makes him worthless in a fight.

[Yuki Akuma]

I think the great Mr. Ross, whom I have quoted in my signature, summed this up quite well. :smallwink:

[Basket Burner]

So... You have friends who understand this, but won't let you get out of bad stat sets? :smallconfused:

Aside from people completely new to the game and DMs who are, to put it bluntly, not the kind of people who can actually maintain a friendship with anyone in their games, I don't really see this as very likely.

As I said, my friends know better, and we use point buy to avoid randomly screwing people over for no reason.


Well, when you consider anything lower than a starting 18 unworthy, then yes, you will end up with very few worthy sets for a MAD build.

Out of curiosity, what races/classes do you usually play?

Random stats tends to get a lot of 12 to 14s. Those aren't good for anything beyond secondary stats, and are very often wasted points. Same for odd numbers of any kind.

Race is any non elf, classes vary. I usually play casters, because I like having options and would get bored incredibly quickly with a character with no means of interacting with the world on any meaningful level aside from attack and damage. That and most DMs are not good enough at understanding how the system works, so they screw over non casters even more so than the system inherently does for any number of reasons and like I said before, you're so badly screwed already that any additional penalty rules out the option entirely. Assuming I know the DM is competent, I might play something else but really, casters covers about 90% of the viable archetypes in D&D. And that's before accounting for stats.


So playing effectively = playing with your play style? There's no other way to enjoy the game?

Which has nothing to do with what you are responding to. Straw man.


Or.....the players could try to not be jerks and break the game. Unless that's the point of that particular game.

The option to not be a jerk was revoked by the DM, when he decided to be a jerk. And for your straw manning about how the DM is trying to force people to play his way, that is exactly what flipping out about -2 to skills amounts to, as unlike -2 to everything you do, -2 to skills doesn't matter at all. Either it's so low you always fail, or so high you always succeed, and it does nothing important in any case.


Skills don't matter? I forgot that combat is the ONLY thing that happens in D&D. And that skills could never possibly be used in combat.

Straw man again. Skills don't matter because they don't do enough to matter. Even the best ones you have no reason to care about past low levels, to the point where if you started entirely skipping that step you wouldn't notice.

I do like the post in which the guy makes Rogues even worse and less desired than they already are though.

[slaydemons]

okay then, I might be a newbie dm but I use this example for my players to get how they want to play please note this isn't kick the door in style and this is a dungeon "there is a big room with no floor what do you do your standing in one end by a door way and there is another doorway on the other side." please tell me how your really strong fighter can fight his way past this. anyone can answer this question but I think this solidifies that stats are not as important as you think, and skills are still pretty important.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Level 1 human commoner, elite array.

Stats: str 12, dex 15, con 13, int 10, wis 8, cha 14

Feats: MWP (Longbow), Weapon Focus (Longbow)

Skills: Handle Animal 4 ranks (+6 bonus), Craft (Bowmaking) 4 ranks (+3 bonus), Ride 4 ranks (+6 bonus)

Tactics: Pre-game, rear and train dogs using Handle Animal. Make longbow for yourself at 1/2 cost. Now you have 3 dogs fighting for you, using that "useless" factor of the game, a skill. If enemies are outside of the dogs' melee range, you use your bow at 1d20+3 for 1d8 damage.

At 6th level: You take Mounted Combat and Mounted Archery at 3rd and 6th level, and put your 4th level bonus into dexterity. You can now rear and train tigers and dire wolves during downtime, which you can ride on and command to fight enemies.

At higher levels: Bigger and better animals, take feats for archery.

There. That's using the elite array and skills.

[The Boz]

Straw man.

I've heard you use that term before. I don't think it means what you think it means.

As for the rest of your post, I'm still trying to digest it all. But I do think my point from before still stands: You'd probably be happier playing an entirely different game.

[Gullintanni]

...What kind of point buy do you guys play with? Every time I've encountered it or seen it in play, it's mostly just served to limit people to one or two pre-set arrays, such as in Living Forgotten Realms in 4e.


Things are different for things that are up front about being joke campaigns, or become them quick enough there's no real difference. :smalltongue:


We play a 28 point buy. I rarely see people breakin out 18's but it does happen on occasion. It's just not how we like to play. And we come out doing fine.


And you still do no damage, because Swashbucklers are terrible, and you're dependent on precision of all things.


*sigh* yes, Swashbucklers are terrible. If you noticed the Rogue component, you'd also notice that tossing Craven + Daring Outlaw onto your chassis, plus one of those feats (Penetrating Strike from Dungeonscape is it?)/items that allows you to precision damage everything, then you can be a respectable combatant with solid HD, lots of attacks and an extremely versatile array of skills.

The fact is, one single feat, Daring Outlaw, redeems the whole class and as I said, turns out a respectable build. This build allows you to function effectively and in fact, better, without buying an 18 in any stat.

[Darth_Versity]

I am going to take a wild stab in the dark here and say that if BB ever had to do the old 3d6 in order rolls ( you old schoolers know what I am talking about) hed probably shoot himself in the foot.

3D6 and calculating thac0 was bad enough, but imagine he played 1ed and had to roll high while in order just to play a non human race. Hell, I think i'd kick up a fus with that and I used to think it was great!


...I'm not entirely sure why they would... Prehaps the snobbiest of the English refuse to read the Americanized version?

One does believe that (another) One is pointing fun at One's heritage. One is not amused! :smallyuk:

[jiriku]

Aww man, I nearly missed this thread. Massively entertaining read.

BB, I applaud you for sticking to your guns when you obviously believe in something very passionately. And I respect your desire to play a certain type of character, and your faith in the absolute correctness of your style.

I am about to disagree with you pretty thoroughly, though.

1. The theory that a 10% increase in failure rates automatically results in character death is not supported in statistics. For this to be true, most encounters would have to result in at least one party member barely escaping death. In fact, assuming the DM follows the encounter difficulty guidelines in the DMG, most encounters aren't especially dangerous to the PCs, instead forcing them to expend only modest resources. An across-the-board 10% increase in difficulty represents at most a +1 EL to all encounters (remember that +2 CR is a doubling of encounter difficulty), which is highly survivable.

2. Moreover, if encounters were really as difficult as you're asserting, the inherent randomness of d20 rolls would inevitably result in "powerful" characters with 18's dying in large numbers simply to due to bad luck.

3. Your argument also ignores, or dismisses out of hand, the opportunity cost of an 18 over a 15. For example, an arcane caster who reduces his 18 to a 15 has 8 additional points to spend elsewhere. He could buy his Dex, Con, and Wis up considerably, gaining better initiative, AC, hit points, and saves and qualifying for the Arcane Disciple feat, which can grant access to several powerful off-list divine spells. These are non-trivial benefits.

4. Your own arguments also undermine your position, since you assert that highly effectual characters are likely to be preferentially targeted in combat. If monsters are even able to to detect a 10% difference in a PCs effectiveness versus the monster's expectation of what a PC "should" be able to accomplish, the end result should be that 18-optimized characters die faster, since they have poorer defenses than well-rounded characters and are attacked more often. My personal experience supports your assertion here, as I've observed that glass-cannon characters have a high attrition rate.

5. Moreover, you assume that a high prime stat is the primary factor in a character's success. For D&D 3.5, however, versatility is a far stronger measure of a character's success. A rogue with 18 Dex and x Int, for example, becomes far more effective and survivable if he drops his Dex 2 points, buys up his Int, uses the skill points to max his ranks in Use Magic Device, and packs a couple of defensive and utility wands. Likewise, a ranger who sacrifices a little Strength to get the extra skill points for Hide and Move Silently, or a paladin who gives up Strength to gain the extra Charisma, and thus +2 to all saves, becomes stronger thereby.

6. Your basic assumption, that a +2 or -2 difference in a character's primary mechanic will make or break him, is also at odds with how the game works. A paladin who isn't hitting enough can cast a buff spell on himself. A rogue who can't unlock the door can purchase magic lockpicks. A wizard dissatisfied with his save DCs can cast a spell that doesn't allow a save. 3.5 has so many options, a character can always fish another +2 up from somewhere, or find some way to succeed without making the roll.

7. By your own admission (and by conventional wisdom, too), choice of class is considerably more important than stat array. A druid or wizard with a 15 is a far more capable character than a samurai with an 18.

8. That assumption also ignores the fact that it is playstyle, not mechanics, that play the larger role in determining whether a character succeeds. I have a player in my group who thinks much like you, and uses exotic races, templates, and items to always have a prime stat 10 points higher than anyone else in the party. He is usually the least effective character in combat, simply because he uses basic and unsophisticated tactics while the other players are fighting smart. You mentioned earlier that you have a low opinion of flanking because it's difficult to do. Another player in my group lacks optimal character stats, but has built his character to be able to flank easily without sacrificing attacks. He loses +2 by not having a high Strength, but gains it back by flanking consistently. This character has the highest DPR in the party, sometimes more than double the "optimal" character whose stat is 10 points higher than him.



So, are high stats better than low stats? Sure. Do you need an 18 in your prime stat to get in the game? Perhaps at some tables. Is your character certain to either suck or die without an 18? Definitely not.

[Gotterdammerung]

Straw man.Straw man again.

Ugh, that irks me to no end.

I dunno if you just took a debate class one time and weren't really paying attention. Or if maybe you learned your rhetorical terms off of forum debates.

But neither of those situations were straw man arguments.


Your argument is anything short of an 18 in your main stat is sub par.

Those fighting for the validity of balanced stats respond by bringing up the benefits of balanced stats (in this case skill points). And you accuse them of straw man arguments.

You make a definitive statement about the way everyone should play. And accuse anyone who isn't playing that way of being sub par.

When the opposition replies by verifying your standpoint, you accuse them of straw man arguments.


Besides, If you truly want to adhere to the customs of rhetorical debate, then stop stating your opinion as fact, start showing your opposition some respect, and actually learn how to use the terminology properly.


You can't accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of being sub par, then be narrow minded and stubborn towards their responses, and then expect to be able to hold their responses to a higher standard.

[Morph Bark]

Random stats tends to get a lot of 12 to 14s. Those aren't good for anything beyond secondary stats, and are very often wasted points. Same for odd numbers of any kind.

This is true, they float around about a 13.5 (though in my games it does so around 14.5 as we re-roll any 1s). If you get a bunch of those though, you can still play a competent character, though it is very unlikely that you will be playing a wizard, cleric, or any caster that goes up to 9th-level spells.


Race is any non elf, classes vary. I usually play casters, because I like having options and would get bored incredibly quickly with a character with no means of interacting with the world on any meaningful level aside from attack and damage.

I figured so, yeah, since casters are much more dependant on a single ability score, druids especially. I'd say you want to have at least a 10 in Int, unless you don't want to bother with making Spellcraft checks and don't need it for PrC prerequisites.


That and most DMs are not good enough at understanding how the system works, so they screw over non casters even more so than the system inherently does for any number of reasons and like I said before, you're so badly screwed already that any additional penalty rules out the option entirely. Assuming I know the DM is competent, I might play something else but really, casters covers about 90% of the viable archetypes in D&D. And that's before accounting for stats.

Could you give an example perhaps? When I DM I try to make sure everyone gets their challenge and, if they seize the chance, a moment in the spotlight. Perhaps your reason for thinking "most" DMs aren't good enough at understanding the system does apply to me, in which case I might have to work to correct that flaw.

Admittably, spellcasting (and manifesting psionic powers) is so incredibly prevalent that I cannot say that a significant amount of builds don't incorporate at least a tiny bit of it. Heck, UMD as a skill is so good simply because it mimics spellcasting, thus making a large part of noncasting classes capable of competing with casting classes. I wouldn't say 90% of viable archetypes though, as there is a rather wide range of those which would include such things as Tome of Battle martial adepts, charging barbarians, Factotums, Binders and incarnum meldshapers.

Out of those, charging barbarians are no doubt too much of a one-trick pony for your tastes, which I would agree with, but I have to wonder if you've ever played any of the others, or several of them. I'm not under the illusion that everyone has access to all of the books, but I do presume that the more sources one has access to, the more knowledgeable one can be about the system and thus work to correct its flaws. :smallsmile:

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The whole point behind "Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards" (and why weapon focus is a waste of a feat) is that ultimately little plusses don't matter that much. If you're optimizing expected damage output, it's about using damage multipliers and scaling abilities. If you're optimizing a character in general, it's about having versatile, broadly-worded abilities.

In the best case scenario, increasing your strength from 15 to 18 gives you +2 to hit and +4 to damage (many apologies for arbitrarily selecting the 15 as the reference point, which means nothing). At low levels, by your own admission, who lives and who dies is a crap shoot, so it doesn't matter; more specifically, the signal is drowned out by the noise. At high levels, +2 to hit and +4 to damage are peanuts compared to everything else you have to take into consideration. A charger with 18 base strength is going to miss on a 1 and kill everything it can actually charge. A charger with 15 base strength is going to miss on a 1 and kill everything it can actually charge.

[Narren]

Which has nothing to do with what you are responding to. Straw man.

And can you explain how this (and my other points) is a straw man?




The option to not be a jerk was revoked by the DM, when he decided to be a jerk. And for your straw manning about how the DM is trying to force people to play his way, that is exactly what flipping out about -2 to skills amounts to, as unlike -2 to everything you do, -2 to skills doesn't matter at all. Either it's so low you always fail, or so high you always succeed, and it does nothing important in any case.

The DM wasn't being a jerk. He introduced a house rule that he thought his group would enjoy. Your response was that a player will end up intentionally trying to break that house rule instead of talking to the DM about it like a mature adult.

And why is a DC either so low you auto fail or so high you auto succeed? It isn't difficult to balance an encounter. You can make the same false argument about attacking someone, in which case your fighter apparently DOESN'T need that 18 Str to function.




Straw man again. Skills don't matter because they don't do enough to matter. Even the best ones you have no reason to care about past low levels, to the point where if you started entirely skipping that step you wouldn't notice.

You clearly play a different D&D than I (and most of the rest of us) do. Apparently, your games never have locks, traps, a need for stealth, a need for a social check, or a need to climb or balance on anything.

[navar100]

I don't demand from the DM an 18 for my character as long as the DM doesn't demand an 8 from me. If I have to deal with it when I get a character with an 8 and his highest stat is a 16, the DM better well deal with it if I get a character with an 18 and lowest stat is 12.

Ability scores do matter because game mechanics is part of the game. An ability score array can be too poor for an effective character. What's "too poor" is often subjective. However, a player who likes to have an 18 is not a munchkin and the player who likes an 8 is not God's gift to gaming.

[jiriku]

Kudos to GoodbyeSoberDay for saying what I was trying to say, and using 1,000 fewer words to do it. :smalltongue:

[Basket Burner]

Level 1 human commoner, elite array.

Stats: str 12, dex 15, con 13, int 10, wis 8, cha 14

Feats: MWP (Longbow), Weapon Focus (Longbow)

Skills: Handle Animal 4 ranks (+6 bonus), Craft (Bowmaking) 4 ranks (+3 bonus), Ride 4 ranks (+6 bonus)

Tactics: Pre-game, rear and train dogs using Handle Animal. Make longbow for yourself at 1/2 cost. Now you have 3 dogs fighting for you, using that "useless" factor of the game, a skill. If enemies are outside of the dogs' melee range, you use your bow at 1d20+3 for 1d8 damage.

At 6th level: You take Mounted Combat and Mounted Archery at 3rd and 6th level, and put your 4th level bonus into dexterity. You can now rear and train tigers and dire wolves during downtime, which you can ride on and command to fight enemies.

At higher levels: Bigger and better animals, take feats for archery.

There. That's using the elite array and skills.

At this point, your character is the dogs. Which raises the question of why are you not a Druid, so you could have better dogs, and an actual character?


*sigh* yes, Swashbucklers are terrible. If you noticed the Rogue component, you'd also notice that tossing Craven + Daring Outlaw onto your chassis, plus one of those feats (Penetrating Strike from Dungeonscape is it?)/items that allows you to precision damage everything, then you can be a respectable combatant with solid HD, lots of attacks and an extremely versatile array of skills.

The fact is, one single feat, Daring Outlaw, redeems the whole class and as I said, turns out a respectable build. This build allows you to function effectively and in fact, better, without buying an 18 in any stat.

Still precision dependent. Penetrating Strike is half damage, aka too low, and only works when flanking, which is effectively never.


This is true, they float around about a 13.5 (though in my games it does so around 14.5 as we re-roll any 1s). If you get a bunch of those though, you can still play a competent character, though it is very unlikely that you will be playing a wizard, cleric, or any caster that goes up to 9th-level spells.

No you can't, because your stats are too flat. All 14s might be 36 points, but a 32, that's focused on what actually matters would be better. Even MAD characters only need 4, 5 stats at most after all.


I figured so, yeah, since casters are much more dependant on a single ability score, druids especially. I'd say you want to have at least a 10 in Int, unless you don't want to bother with making Spellcraft checks and don't need it for PrC prerequisites.

My reasons actually have nothing to do with ability scores. A low PB would make me move towards them if I wasn't already considering it, but the reason why I often go for it even if I would want to go with something else is if I don't know them and know they have good judgment.


Could you give an example perhaps? When I DM I try to make sure everyone gets their challenge and, if they seize the chance, a moment in the spotlight. Perhaps your reason for thinking "most" DMs aren't good enough at understanding the system does apply to me, in which case I might have to work to correct that flaw.

A few of the easier examples:

DM thinks all classes are equal, when they aren't. So when say, the fighter guy optimizes more than anyone else he gets shot down.
DM has false beliefs about items. There either are no magic shops, or not abundant ones, so you can't get the items you must have to do your thing.
DM takes a look at you having 1-2 levels in many different classes, freaks out and bans that while not blinking twice at the pure classed Druid.

There are many more, but all of them, or almost all are some variation of a kneejerk reaction to a non caster character trying to get the power they need to keep up, confusing average with extraordinary.


Admittably, spellcasting (and manifesting psionic powers) is so incredibly prevalent that I cannot say that a significant amount of builds don't incorporate at least a tiny bit of it. Heck, UMD as a skill is so good simply because it mimics spellcasting, thus making a large part of noncasting classes capable of competing with casting classes. I wouldn't say 90% of viable archetypes though, as there is a rather wide range of those which would include such things as Tome of Battle martial adepts, charging barbarians, Factotums, Binders and incarnum meldshapers.

The reason why it's 90%, in short: The Wizard class alone covers dozens of concepts, from the paranoidly defensive abjurer to the hentai loving wrestling champion. And that's just mechanical differences, without accounting for Wizardly PRCs. It's also just one of them. Whereas say... Fighter. You have your charger, and your tripper, and your dungeoncrasher, and that's about it.

Not to mention simply speaking statistically, there are more casters than not.


Out of those, charging barbarians are no doubt too much of a one-trick pony for your tastes, which I would agree with, but I have to wonder if you've ever played any of the others, or several of them. I'm not under the illusion that everyone has access to all of the books, but I do presume that the more sources one has access to, the more knowledgeable one can be about the system and thus work to correct its flaws. :smallsmile:

I have, but they are still very often limited. Not as much in some cases, but still too much.

I'm skipping most things at this point as they are misrepresenting my post, or not relevant.


You clearly play a different D&D than I (and most of the rest of us) do. Apparently, your games never have locks, traps, a need for stealth, a need for a social check, or a need to climb or balance on anything.

Locks and traps? Oh, you mean those things you solve by means other than skills because the skills won't work?

Stealth? That thing defeated by Fluffy the housecat?

Social check? Those things that so many things boost that not only do stats not matter for it (unlike everything else) but that is almost universally nerfed anyways?

Climb and balance? Those things you stop doing around level 3, which is the level in which randomness stops dominating ability and therefore there is no level at which it matters?

[The Boz]

At this point, your character is the dogs. Which raises the question of why are you not a Druid, so you could have better dogs, and an actual character?

To continue that reasoning to a hyperbole, why is anyone, ever, anywhere playing anything other than a Druid, Wizard or Cleric?

[Hiro Protagonest]

At this point, your character is the dogs. Which raises the question of why are you not a Druid, so you could have better dogs, and an actual character?

And now you're not arguing that he's bad because if ability scores. Now you're arguing that he's bad because he's not playing the tier 1 class that does his concept better.

You can still play a druid with a base 15 wisdom.

[Yuki Akuma]

I like how he ignores the posts calling him out for failing to use 'straw man' correctly. :smallsmile:

[Mr.Bookworm]

I think it's safe to say that Basket Burner is so completely entrenched in his viewpoint that he refuses to see any other point of view (the polite version), and thus this is going nowhere fast.

Either way, I think stopping this debate before it becomes a huge thing that people get all pissed off over would be a good idea.

If BB does decide to be more reasonable, here's the stuff I posted that he completely ignored in favor of continuing to say the exact same things he had already said:


I find this conversation hilarious, as BB pretty clearly doesn't know how optimized melee combat works in D&D.

Charger shenanigans:
You are a Human SL Barb 8/Fight 2/FB 10. You have 10s in everything. At level 20, you have a natural Str of 15 (12 behind the hypothetical Dragonborn Water Orc natural 18 in Str required character). Add in usual magic enhancing stuff, you have a Strength of 26.

Frenzy+Rage for a Strength of 40 (Hypothetical Required Orc is now at 52). You have Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, +1 Valorous greatsword, etc., etc.

Charge. Attack at +36/+36/+31/+26/+21 for 337 to 347 damage a hit (note that all but 2d6+15 of this damage is coming from PA and multipliers). The HRO is doing a tiny bit more, but who cares?

If you're not a ToB class (and thus have maneuvers anyway), it's all about the multipliers and Power Attack.

(Note that I am AFB right now and working off memory, but I am almost positive my math is right.)

If you are a caster, start with a 1 in everything but your casting score, a 13 in that, pick up a +6 item (pretty cheap), you can cast 9th level spells, win D&D. Wizards/Sorcerers get the Polymorph line, Clerics can buff themselves up, Druids have buffs and Wild Shape...

So no, high ability scores are nice to have, but not necessary at all, as they can easily be rendered moot with a proportional amount of optimization.


Provide math that proves your position, as I did, and then you may start to tell me that I'm "not doing it right".

If you cannot provide said math in a purely mechanical discussion, you are wrong. The end.

EDIT: You are saying that a character that "only has a 14 and a 16 for remarkable stats, aka will die from a random, meaningless encounter well before the plot goes anywhere". You are therefore asserting that a character without maximum stats is worthless.

I have, quite nicely and without any particular binding need, provided counter-evidence.

The burden of proof is on you. Back it up with math (actual math and character builds, not merely anecdotes), or I (and I suspect everyone else) will be forced to assume that in the absence of any compelling proof, you are wrong. It is that simple.

[Yora]

{Scrubbed}

[ZerglingOne]

Necessary for what? Come on, Dungeons and Dragons is a GAME the goal of a game is to have fun. If you can have fun playing the game, who cares what your stats are? Calling 18 a baseline is ridiculous, 10 is the baseline, always has been and always will be. If a level 1 wizard with 18 intelligence picks up a level 8 spell scroll, he can use it. This ability is -far- beyond what he needs to be effective.

Again, this is a game we're talking about. Try playing with crap stats, it's actually kind of fun because it makes your successes that much more impressive. A character that always succeeds at everything isn't fun.

Besides, all encounters can be tailored to a party anyway.

[slaydemons]

Basket you didn't answer the question infact you twisted my words, much like a strawman would please answer the question as I never asked what your class was to begin with.

[bloodtide]

okay then, I might be a newbie dm but I use this example for my players to get how they want to play please note this isn't kick the door in style and this is a dungeon "there is a big room with no floor what do you do your standing in one end by a door way and there is another doorway on the other side." please tell me how your really strong fighter can fight his way past this. anyone can answer this question but I think this solidifies that stats are not as important as you think, and skills are still pretty important.

The ''must have high stats to play'' crowd does not game that way. They are all about pure combat and pure numbers.

So more like:
DM:''You enter a big room with a DC25 problem
Player:''I roll a 15 and add in my +18 for being awesome and go around whatever the problem is''
Dm:"You then see a demon"
Player:"I get a 31 for my initiative and a 42 to hit and do 131 damage as I'm so awesome"

The high stats are only needed if you only play by the numbers.

[DoughGuy]

{Scrub the post, scrub the post}

People are still arguing because BB's viewpoint and his version of 'arguing' are offensive and rude and they are standing up for their views.

What I'm seeing is that BB plays in extremely combat heavy games full of super optimisers with no RP at all. This is a valid form of gameplay however it is not the correct way.

Neither is any other form of gameplay, there is no correct gameplay. Lets use an example - Zaq's truenamer guide. What Zaq has done is create a complete guide to playing a truenamer optimised in a way so it can be on par with other classes. However what he does not do is say you can only play a truenamer this way or you are playing the class wrong. He also does it without sounding like an arrogant ****.

BB is not wrong but only because, as said before, there is no right here. It is the DM and the players jobs to work together to cerate an enjoyable experience. If a character is not performing correctly (by BB's definition only has a 16 primary stat) then the DM should work with the group to make sure they are contributing. No BB this is not highlighting that the character is flawed and needs DM help. It simply shows the player is getting unlucky or their character design may not be working.

TL;DR - We should still probably drop this argument before someone gets banned.

[Tenno Seremel]

This baseline 10 talk is kinda weird considering those baseline 10 characters are those who raise crops, needs protection from all the evils outside and, well, die… PC's might be living in the world of those but they usually fighting against more fearsome critters. So comparison is kind of out of place.

In addition, raised primary stat for psionic characters allows them to have more PP -> more things you can do in a given day -> you are more useful. Plus when most of your powers have saves (say, Telepath) and all you have to boost it is Psionic Endowment feat "chain" that locks you out of other options unless you invest more into "second focus" feats… It is less of an issue if you are a buffer of sorts and have enough spells/powers as is.

[slaydemons]

The ''must have high stats to play'' crowd does not game that way. They are all about pure combat and pure numbers.

So more like:
DM:''You enter a big room with a DC25 problem
Player:''I roll a 15 and add in my +18 for being awesome and go around whatever the problem is''
Dm:"You then see a demon"
Player:"I get a 31 for my initiative and a 42 to hit and do 131 damage as I'm so awesome"

The high stats are only needed if you only play by the numbers.

the point of the room is to see how you get across there is no demon and not having alot of skill points does you no good, infact having the highest strength ever would kill you in my situation. most people I used this on tried to get over with rope all but one died

[Doughnut Master]

This baseline 10 talk is kinda weird considering those baseline 10 characters are those who raise crops, needs protection from all the evils outside and, well, die… PC's might be living in the world of those but they usually fighting against more fearsome critters. So comparison is kind of out of place.




True, but the PCs also come from that population of crop raisers. It is, by definition, the average. Having a 15 in a stat makes one, by far, exceptional. You're not only one of the smartest/strongest/prettiest people in your town, but in the entire world. The point is that saying that such a person is utterly incompetent at adventuring because they don't have an 18 and thus are not stronger/smarter/prettier right off the bat than just about anyone who has ever lived seems a little absurd.

Now, if, in the game world, the average person has a stat of 15, then the race as a whole is stronger, and expecting, as a PC, to be exceptional with an 18 or two isn't so far fetched.

I think these details obscure the larger fact, which has been stated several times previously by people more eloquent than myself; there is no right way to play. If someone comes into a game with a 28 point buy where the rest of the world gets a 40 point buy, then he'll be gimped. A character that is only expected to fulfill one role or perform one task is well served by pouring everything into one ability. Meanwhile, a character that is expected to face a variety of challenges involving skills other than swinging a heavy object into the squishy bits of people might benefit more from diversifying.

[JoeYounger]

You seem to think I am advocating stat rolling. I am not, instead I am arguing against the tendency for players to expect that they should always be the best of the best in whatever they do.

Isn't that what makes the PCs?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Having a 15 in a stat makes one, by far, exceptional. You're not only one of the smartest/strongest/prettiest people in your town, but in the entire world.

Now that's an exaggeration. The level 10 barbarian commanding a tribe is much stronger or more charismatic.

The point against the "must have 18" is, he's level 10. Your character is level 1.


Isn't that what makes the PCs?
What? The world revolves against a few level 1-4 people who happened to form a party? Level 15, maybe, but probably not, they're simply legends, not gods.

[Anderlith]

Isn't that what makes the PCs?

No. PC's are the ones that "can get the job done" i.e. Sam Witwicky is the man who can get the job done in Transformers, look at what he is good at (Nothing really). So, no you do not need to be the very best at what you do.

[Coidzor]

No. PC's are the ones that "can get the job done" i.e. Sam Witwicky is the man who can get the job done in Transformers, look at what he is good at (Nothing really). So, no you do not need to be the very best at what you do.

Which =/= having a 10 in the stat governing your primary schtick from level 1 as a good or even valid strategy in a game not specifically set up for such a premise..

[brujon]

In my opinion, the thread's question is answered with a "it depends".

It depends on what concept your character is going to follow. There are a multitude of "X to Y lists" floating here, on BG, and on 339. So i could build a character that benefits WAY more from having, say, 16 STR and 16 DEX, because i'm adding 2X Dex to Damage, 2X Str to Damage, and Dex & Str to Hit. And that is possible with enough OP-FU, right items and classes. So if you only depend on strenght, you get a 12 dex & 18 str = so 2 damage from dex, 8 damage from strenght, and 1 to hit from dex, and 4 to hit from str -> +10 and +5 --- The 16 and 16 guy with the same build is talking about 6 damage from dex, 6 from str, and +6 to hit from str& dex = +12 & +6

So by your own definition of "10% makes a difference", the guy with the more "balanced" build is ahead of your so called optimized build. Making MAD stronger is one way of countering MAD, and actually making many attributes count towards something that strenghtens your build...

On the other hand, OF COURSE SAD characters will want to have their main stat optimized out the wazoo. They WILL want to have a 18 starting whatever they need, maybe a 20 or a 22 if they pick a race/template that aids them pumping it faster. But SAD characters aren't *always* the strongest characters. Many interesting, strong & optimized builds actually favor going a little MAD. Stuff like a Tashalatora Monk, that favors WIS, but benefits greatly of having high STR and DEX. They'll want that 18 wis, but they'll want the other attributes high too. So is it worth it gimping their other stats in favor of that starting 18 wis, or will i really miss that +2 wis later in the game? Or a RKV Nightstick swift-action maniac... they still need to have many stats higher to have defenses. Many stealth focused builds want to have several stats higher as well... Even if it means only qualifying for feats. Many feats require 15+ to qualify for.

Spellcasters get it the easiest, since they can just pump their spellcasting stat and be done with it. Sure they'll hurt with that starting 8 in CON, but by the time they get Alter Self, they'll already get bonuses that make it don't matter anymore.

So, in a nutshell, yeah. High stats are necessary... Sometimes. Sometimes it's just better to spread out the love and get X to Y for everything.

And before anyone says it... Yes, nothing short of pun-pun or another spellcaster can take down a paranoid wizard. Wizards win D&D, Artificers win even harder, and yadda yadda.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for sanity review.