25 Point Buy [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Malak'ai

2012-08-01, 09:43 PM

The DMG isn't balanced. Core isn't balanced. 28 or 32 helps give MAD classes (the weaker ones) the bare minimum needed to be good. Meanwhile, SAD classes (the stronger ones, with only a couple exceptions like warlock) just get a few extra points on top of their only needed 18.

Don't get me wrong, I can build a commoner with the elite array at the same power level as some groups' wizards, potentially stronger, but I have an optimizer's eye, especially with martial characters, that gives me the ability to build a good character with almost any concept under most circumstances.

I agree with this. 32pb is good if your going the likes of a fighter/Wizard/Druid/Cleric but if you want to branch out to the likes of Ranger/Bard/Paladin/Monk it just doesn't give you what you need.

I run 36+ pb in D&D 3.5 myself. I don't want to force people to dump stats to have good other stats unless they want to. This way the option of dumping is still there if it makes sense of the character but at the same time you don't have to dump stats to make a reasonable character.

I'm not above dumping stats as character power dictates to get that 18 in casting stat or whatever, so I prefer not to force that decision. If you want to play a physically weak character, dumping Strength is fine but if you want to play a Dexterous, Wise character I don't want for that to automatically mean you have the Strength of a Goblin.

If I use PB for character gen in games I run I also generally use 36pb, sometimes, depending on a players race/class combo I might up it to 40pb, but only after they've given me a damn good reason for it and I've discussed it with the whole group so they understand why this one player gets more points.

lsfreak

2012-08-01, 09:55 PM

I'm going to parrot Eldariel. My preference is 36+.

If you're new to terms, SAD is Single Ability Dependence, while MAD is Multi Ability Dependence. Take a wizard, who could have no positive modifier except a +4 Int and do fine. He'd be a bit miffed at the lack of AC and hit points at low level, but after a time his buffs will negate even that. Then a paladin, who needs Strength in order to do damage, Con and Dex in order to survive as a front-liner, a decent Wisdom score in order to cast spells, a good Charisma to fuel saves, smite, and turn undead, and on top of that they want some Int so that they don't have to choose between basic survival skills (Spot, Listen) and the skills to party-face like they're clearly intended (Diplomacy). The wizard, especially at higher levels, would be playable with a 16(!!) point buy, the paladin is still hurting at 28.

deuxhero

2012-08-01, 09:59 PM

I think so. ECS has 32PB as standard, IIRC, and it's also been the standard for every vaguely 3.0 or 3.5 cRPG. The core books were written with a much, much lower power level in mind.

KotOR, KotOR2 and Temple of Elemental Evil aren't.

The KotORs use 30 PB, though the party members differ wildly (I recall Kreia is 34)

ToEE is 25 point, with NPC cohorts varying greatly (but Temple of Elemental Evil has 5 party members and 2 cohorts)

I don't recall NWN or NWN2's PB. I also don't recall how Knights of the Chalice generated stats, but point buy isn't OGL, so I don't think they used it and KotC is completely unofficial.

Still, higher point buys favor the weaker classes and does very little extra for the stronger ones. The difference between an 8/14/14/18/8/8 28 PB Wizard and a 8/14/16/18/8/8 32 PB Wizard is barely noticeable, but a 16/12/14/16/10/18 32 PB Monk can just barely afford to be competent.)

In PF, the standard for PFS and adventure paths (or APs starting with Skulls and Shackles, one of the two) is 20 PB, which is roughly in line with 32 PB when the extra racial +2 is added

TheOOB

2012-08-01, 10:06 PM

25 is pretty low, considering that most classes will want at least one 16(and likely won't want any 8's) it doesn't give much flexibility. I like 32 point buy. It's enough points where a character could theoretically get two 16's if they feel the need and still have enough to be average to above average everywhere else. It also allows you to make a valid character with an 18, but it's low enough points where the 18 will cost you.

I usually go 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10 or 18, 14, 12, 10, 10, 10(for either you can turn a 10 into a 8 to turn a 12 into a 14).

I don't like going over 32 points as I think an 18 shouldn't be a given, it should be a hard choice. With 36 points you can go 18, 16, 12, 10, 10, 10. which is a super powerful build(having an 18 and a 16 with no penalties is pretty crazy), or the equally crazy 16, 16, 16, 12, 10, 8

NavyBlue

2012-08-01, 10:26 PM

Well, I'm starting a new campaign tomorrow, and you have convinced me to run a higher point buy than usual

Khedrac

2012-08-02, 02:52 AM

28 pt but was the standard for Living Greyhawk which was "regarded as a high-power campaign" - or so I was told; it's also what the games I play in all use as most people used to play LG. Reading the above I think I agree that even 28 is on the weak side, however if using higher point buys you may want to up monster stats to elite without adjusting the CRs.
(I will probably use 32 for the next campaign I run.)

Killer Angel

2012-08-02, 03:54 AM

I agree with this. 32pb is good if your going the likes of a fighter/Wizard/Druid/Cleric

I believe that is debatable, to put the need for good stats of a fighter, on the same level of those casters. Wizard is SAD; a fighter? not so much.

Malak'ai

2012-08-02, 04:12 AM

I believe that is debatable, to put the need for good stats of a fighter, on the same level of those casters. Wizard is SAD; a fighter? not so much.

You can make a perfectly workable Fighter with Str 16 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 10 Cha 12, even before adding racial or level bonus's on.
I will agree that if your going for a super optimized Fighter it might be a bit low, but a low to mid op Fighter with these stats is still nothing to sneeze at if your not playing in a Batman style game.

EDIT: Also, never said the Fighter was SAD, just that, IMO, it's one of the classes what you can make a decent build using 32pb.

Killer Angel

2012-08-02, 04:15 AM

You can make a perfectly workable Fighter with Str 16 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 10 Cha 12, even before adding racial or level bonus's on.
I will agree that if your going for a super optimized Fighter it might be a bit low, but a low to mid op Fighter with these stats is still nothing to sneeze at if your not playing in a Batman style game.

mmm... yep, I can't say this is wrong.
Certainly the fighter needs less points than a ranger or a paladin.

EDIT: Also, never said the Fighter was SAD, just that, IMO, it's one of the classes what you can make a decent build using 32pb.

On that I agree. I was mistaken seeing it together with (almost all) SAD classes.

Ravens_cry

2012-08-02, 04:17 AM

I believe that is debatable, to put the need for good stats of a fighter, on the same level of those casters. Wizard is SAD; a fighter? not so much.
A Fighter is pretty close to BAD (binary ability dependancy) if all they want to do is basic Fighter things, Strength and Constitution.

Marlowe

2012-08-02, 04:39 AM

Also, while you can do a Cleric with just high Wis (and Con) and average to poor everything else, it certainly isn't a lot of FUN.

I played back-to-back Clerics once; one had 17,17,12,10,8,7, the other had 15,15,15,13,13,7 (rolled stats, obviously). The second was a lot more fun and seemed to be a significantly more competent individual in spite of the less optimal array.

EDIT: Translated into sane point by arrays, the first would be 18,16,12,10,8,8 (32 points), the second 15,14,14,12,12,8 (28 points) of course.

But the silliest thing about 25-point buy is that it's an odd number, which means that since you always have point left over that can't buy you anything significant.

EDIT2:Wait, unless you decide to buy a 17.:smallbiggrin:

Curmudgeon

2012-08-02, 05:07 AM

What point buy is reasonable depends very strongly on what classes people choose to play. I recommend point buy with a weighting system to take relative class power into account.

There's no rolling for any part of character level gain. (Hit points at later levels are always average + ½.) Adjust the points available for point buy based on the Tier System for Classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0):

15 point buy (This is where the Wizard is.)
22 point buy
28 point buy
32 point buy
40 point buy (This is where the Monk is.)
You might try 50 here, but really: Just skip characters this weak.

This assumes PCs are going to start in their primary class. If they change the primary class in later levels they'd retroactively lose points if necessary, but would never retroactively gain points. This penalizes characters for dips into "front-loaded" classes: i.e., which grant a great deal of power for very few levels. The Cleric, with 2-3 domains plus undead turn/rebuke attempts on top of Tier 1 spellcasting, is a prime example of why a retroactive loss, but not retroactive gain, makes sense.

Marlowe

2012-08-02, 05:11 AM

15 point buy (This is where the Wizard is.)
22 point buy
28 point buy
32 point buy
40 point buy (This is where the Monk is.)
You might try 50 here, but really: Just skip characters this weak.

.

Well, we'd be seeing a lot more Bards.

Ravens_cry

2012-08-02, 05:31 AM

Also, while you can do a Cleric with just high Wis (and Con) and average to poor everything else, it certainly isn't a lot of FUN.

Yeah, of all Tier 1, Clerics are probably the most MAD, especially as Battle Bots.

Marlowe

2012-08-02, 05:40 AM

Which means giving different point-buys to different Tiers just creates another set of inequalities, this time within the individual tiers.

Also, we have things like the Shugenja benefiting from the general thought that they are Tier 3. Even though they are mechanically just sorcerors with more hit points, skills, ability to cast in armour (no proficiency? Mithral mail doesn't care), access to spells from all three lists and a somewhat finicky way of choosing spells known.

Malimar

2012-08-02, 05:41 AM

I'm told that the standard dice-rolling method generates, on average, the equivalent of roughly 28-PB characters. So I can see where the authors got the "25 is a normal-powered campaign" thing -- being able to put the points precisely where you want them may be worth a few points.

That said, I tried 25 PB once in my first campaign, and I found the characters terribly weak, except the wizard. As above posters have said, "average" scores unnecessarily penalize MAD classes. I use 30-PB now, because 28 still feels a little too low but 32 feels a little too high.

Yora

2012-08-02, 06:08 AM

3d6 gets you an average of PB 15.
4d6 drop lowest get you an average of PB 25.

So, in looking around the forum, I'm noticing a trend toward 28 or 32 point buy. In my campaigns, i tend to use 25 point, which the DMG lists as standard. Is this uncommon?
I like 25. Keeps players from putting 18s or several 16s into their main ability scores. Average modifier of a total of +6 is more than enough. +8 or +10 only makes people assume that you need at least an 18 to be playable at all.

It definitely is less common 'round these parts.
In these parts, characters are alo not level 1 to 19, but usually level 20.

satorian

2012-08-02, 06:26 AM

I'm in the 36+ camp as well. If a player wants to play Roy, having a high Int without gimping himself otherwise, cool! If he wants to play an archetypal BSF, cool! A sorcerer with a 14 Int who is fascinated by the origins of his own magic? Great! Charismatic monk? That's just tops with me. None of these concepts are necessary, but they should be available without making the character otherwise gimpy. Just because a wizard can excel with 16 PB doesn't mean they should have to.

For the above reason, not only do I support larger point buys, but I really oppose tier based PB. That's just punitive and mean. The wizard isn't much stronger with a higher PB, so it isn't fixing anything. It's just closing off character concepts.

Keneth

2012-08-02, 06:41 AM

We use a 15 or 20 point buy in pathfinder which amounts to about 25 or 28 (back when we played 3.5, we used 20 or 25). I find anything more than that ridiculous, it's more than enough to deal with any epic (CR+3) challenges, so if you want more, you're just greedy. :smallbiggrin:

Pilo

2012-08-02, 07:26 AM

Eldariel

2012-08-02, 07:33 AM

I usually go 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10 or 18, 14, 12, 10, 10, 10(for either you can turn a 10 into a 8 to turn a 12 into a 14).

I don't like going over 32 points as I think an 18 shouldn't be a given, it should be a hard choice. With 36 points you can go 18, 16, 12, 10, 10, 10. which is a super powerful build(having an 18 and a 16 with no penalties is pretty crazy), or the equally crazy 16, 16, 16, 12, 10, 8

What makes you call 18/16/12/10/10/10 superpowerful? You're still completely average in 3 stats and only slightly above average in one; 10 isn't really a significant departure from 8. Further, your To Hit and Damage/Save DCs are 1 point higher than a 16/16/12/10/10/10's; which is nice but hardly the end of the world. Is it really that different to play an 18/16/12/10/10/10 character than a 16/16/12/10/10/10?

You can get 18 even with 22pb when playing a spellcaster who basically needs Int & Con (16 points for 18 Casting Stat, 6 points for 14 Con, rest 8), but that simply requires making an annoyingly specialized character. The character's power is more or less the same at 8/8/14/18/8/8 as with 12/10/14/18/8/12 except the latter is a much more compelling baseline for a character (he has clear strengths and weaknesses; he's not street-dumb because point buy says so but he's street-dumb because that suits my image of the character).

Calimehter

2012-08-02, 07:55 AM

I've played both low-PB campaigns and what were functionally high PB campaigns (they were basically reroll a few times till you got high numbers). Both have their merits.

Low PB makes the characters more human and less superheroic - if that's what you are going for in a campaign, then that is the style for you.

Low PB *does* hurt some classes more than others (MAD vs. SAD), which is why I am a recent convert to the use of a fixed array (even the dreaded 'Elite array') in place of the actual PB itself when playing these types of games.

Dsurion

2012-08-02, 08:51 AM

My group just uses a fixed array of 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10. Easier, and more importantly, faster, than fiddling with numbers. I think it works out to 28 point buy, but even if it doesn't (its been a while since I've played 3.5), I really don't care. It works.

Pilo

2012-08-02, 09:58 AM

@Dsurion: it is 32pts buy.

Marlowe

2012-08-02, 11:19 AM

If you play PF, 25 points buy is far more than enough.

If you play D&D3.5, it is correct, as a reminder it is the same as the elite array.

If you do not need your PCs to be each munchkin in every possible field, they do not need more points.

A game does not become more fun or balanced with stronger characters.

Yes, yes it does. Because some classes just need better stats to be reliably competent at what they're supposed to do, while others can simply treat the access as a bonus. What does a Wizard with a strength bonus do? Throw slightly more damaging daggers when he could be doing something else? A Fighter without good str, average dex, and good con might as well be DOA.

And Elite array is 27 points, not 25.

Eldariel

2012-08-02, 12:31 PM

And Elite array is 27 points, not 25.

Elite Array is:
15 (8 points)
14 (6 points)
13 (5 points)
12 (4 points)
10 (2 points)
8 (0 points)

8+6+4+2+5 = 25.

You're thinking of 4d6b3 which, accounting for reroll rules, comes out at around 27-28pb.

Axier

2012-08-02, 12:46 PM

I think point buy just really depends on what kind of campagin your holding.

For example, If I were to run a Gestalt campagin, which is as close to "epic" as I get, I would use a 40 point buy. (Because Wizard/Barbarian)

As for a regular mid to low op campagin, 32 seems perfectly reasonable to me, while 25 is a bit too weak.

25 seems to be a good fit for E6 though, IMHO

jaybird

2012-08-02, 01:12 PM

IMO the Pathfinder point buy system is quite a bit better then the 3.5 point buy. It's one of the areas (others being CMB/CMD, Archetypes, and the Paladin in general) that I feel was an actual improvement on 3.5.

Keneth

2012-08-02, 02:28 PM

Yes, yes it does. Because some classes just need better stats to be reliably competent at what they're supposed to do, while others can simply treat the access as a bonus.
Exempting Monk and 3.5 Paladin, none of the other classes ever need more than 25 points. I've seen perfectly capable fighters, warlocks, rangers, etc. even with 20 point buy. You've just been spoiled by campaigns where you can have absurd stats. :smalltongue:

lunar2

2012-08-02, 03:12 PM

the group i used to play with used a 36 flat point buy (going from 17 to 18 costs 1 point, just like going from 8-9). the standard array was 18-16-16-14-12-8. funny thing is, with those kinds of ability scores, the monk, barbarian, and fighter were actually able to hang out with my cleric.

Spider_Jerusalem

2012-08-02, 03:22 PM

I think you should first decide what kind of campaign you want and base how many points you give your players on that. I've seen a tendency for high-powered characters in this board, so it's natural to want more points. And I think if what you want for your players are epic heroes, they are really going to need those extra points.

In my current campaign, I let the players try rolling their stats once. If they are not satisfied with what they rolled, they use 25 points. And well... it's been working, you know. Not having 74 points to buy your stats isn't hell.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-08-02, 03:25 PM

I agree with this. 32pb is good if your going the likes of a fighter/Wizard/Druid/Cleric but if you want to branch out to the likes of Ranger/Bard/Paladin/Monk it just doesn't give you what you need.
Uh, what?

Bard needs better ability scores than fighter?

:confused:

Exempting Monk and 3.5 Paladin, none of the other classes ever need more than 25 points. I've seen perfectly capable fighters, warlocks, rangers, etc. even with 20 point buy. You've just been spoiled by campaigns where you can have absurd stats. :smalltongue:

I don't care what emoticon you're using, that last sentence is insulting.

In a low-op group, sure, it's fine, but what if I want my fighter to be a great leader while still being talented at his chosen profession? I can't do that in 25 PB, because to have up-to-par strength, con, and dex, I need to be either be dumb, oblivious, or perpetually tongue-tied.

Arbane

2012-08-02, 03:43 PM

A game does not become more fun or balanced with stronger characters.

Conversely, a game does not necessarily become any LESS fun with stronger characters. (It might get less-balanced, but D&D isn't balanced to start with.)

Spider_Jerusalem

2012-08-02, 03:48 PM

I think it's important to talk to your players to decide what kind of statting system is the best for everyone before starting a campaign. Also, sticking to the one you have chosen, after the campaign starts. There is no "better" amount of points for the players to choose. The problem is actually when you are stuck with an amount of points you never agreed with just because.

Eldariel

2012-08-02, 04:32 PM

Conversely, a game does not necessarily become any LESS fun with stronger characters. (It might get less-balanced, but D&D isn't balanced to start with.)

It does tend to become more balanced with higher point buys TBH. If powergaming, a Wizard at 25pb is about the same as a Wizard at 36pb far as combat strength goes (and even out of combat), while a Paladin at 25pb is a laughing-stock; a Paladin at 36pb is actually fairly servicable in combat however.

Fighter too gets more options like Intimidate or Combat Expertise without compromising their melee prowess if the point buy is sufficiently high; at a 25pb you will give up serious melee capability (to the tune of +2 to hit and +3 damage) to pick up 15 Cha or even 13 Int.

As such, higher PB generally gives more options to especially martial classes and means you don't necessarily have to give up combat prowess to be smart or vice versa. All in all, higher PB is simply more expressive since there are more character archetypes you can stat with more points. A dilettante/jack-of-all-trades type with all 12s isn't very functional or impressive but 16/14/14/14/12/12 (36pb) can actually work reasonably well.

deuxhero

2012-08-02, 04:57 PM

I also don't recall how Knights of the Chalice generated stats, but point buy isn't OGL, so I don't think they used it and KotC is completely unofficial.

Checked, it's rolls only.

GenghisDon

2012-08-02, 05:37 PM

So, in looking around the forum, I'm noticing a trend toward 28 or 32 point buy. In my campaigns, i tend to use 25 point, which the DMG lists as standard. Is this uncommon?

It's very common to increase the points.

I do/did all the time, but in reality, it's only useful for lower "tier" characters. It perversely jacks up Tier 1-2's even worse than they already are to have more points/stats.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-08-02, 05:58 PM

It's very common to increase the points.

I do/did all the time, but in reality, it's only useful for lower "tier" characters. It perversely jacks up Tier 1-2's even worse than they already are to have more points/stats.

...I'm... not sure I understand. You say it's only useful for lower tier characters, then you say it boosts high tier ones even more?

Malak'ai

2012-08-02, 06:14 PM

Uh, what?

Bard needs better ability scores than fighter?

:confused:

IMO, yes. Bards are supposed to be able to jump in and be compitent in all roles in the party (even if they don't excell at any). That, IMO, means decent STR, DEX, CON, INT AND CHA (say a 14 in STR, CON and INT and 16's in DEX and CHA before racial or level bonus's) where as a Fighter, to be comptent, only really needs high STR and CON with decent DEX. Upping mental stsa for a Fighter is a good bonus, but not really needed for it to be compitent.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-08-02, 06:29 PM

IMO, yes. Bards are supposed to be able to jump in and be compitent in all roles in the party (even if they don't excell at any). That, IMO, means decent STR, DEX, CON, INT AND CHA (say a 14 in STR, CON and INT and 16's in DEX and CHA before racial or level bonus's) where as a Fighter, to be comptent, only really needs high STR and CON with decent DEX. Upping mental stsa for a Fighter is a good bonus, but not really needed for it to be compitent.

Bards can get away with all 8s. They can still do unhindered Inspire Courage optimization. Make your charisma 16+ if you want spells and good social skills. That's all you need.

GenghisDon

2012-08-02, 06:41 PM

...I'm... not sure I understand. You say it's only useful for lower tier characters, then you say it boosts high tier ones even more?

That's right. While it (more points/stats) makes a paladin, monk or hexblade palatable/playable, it makes druids, clerics or wizards even more uber.

so now, should my players want to run a wizard, druid, rogue & paladin group, they will get 25, 25, 34, & 37 points respectively. It helps.

We rarely multiclass to the extent some do, but I'd limit that to one tier up, or else take less points. If the rogue was intending to be a rogue/wizard/arcane trickster they would only get 28 points.

Malak'ai

2012-08-02, 06:59 PM

Bards can get away with all 8s. They can still do unhindered Inspire Courage optimization. Make your charisma 16+ if you want spells and good social skills. That's all you need.

See, that's only focusing on ONE aspect of the Bard. I was talking about a well rounded jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none type Bard that can fit ALL party roles in a pinch. Don't have a Rogue? That's fine, the Bard has a Wand of Knock. Fighter needs some help up front? Sweet as, the Bard will jump in. Cleric run out of healing? No problem, the Bard has a couple of Cure Lights up his sleeve. Wizard has banned Illusion and we despratly need a visual distracton! Sweet as, the Bard can set up a Silent Image show for everyone!
That, IMHO, is what the Bard is supposed to be for, what the class was designed for and how a Bard should work in the party.
Sure, sing your songs/play your intrument all you like, it just makes it easier to step in to the other roles.

137beth

2012-08-02, 07:07 PM

Yes, yes it does. Because some classes just need better stats to be reliably competent at what they're supposed to do, while others can simply treat the access as a bonus. What does a Wizard with a strength bonus do? Throw slightly more damaging daggers when he could be doing something else? A Fighter without good str, average dex, and good con might as well be DOA.

And Elite array is 27 points, not 25.

That sounds like a "balanced character power makes the game more fun", not a "stronger characters make the game more fun." You could nerf the wizard via any of several proposed methods and then make monsters less powerful. Even if you don't, there's E6 players who choose to play at low-levels precisely because they prefer weaker characters. It is purely about preference. Some people prefer low-power play, and would be more than happy to nerf all characters down to the tier 4 (or lower) level with just 25PB. Other people prefer high level play, and they play either with high optimization or at epic levels.

Now, I am assuming most of this thread is about low and mid level play, because at epic levels, the difference between 25PB and 40PB is much less significant (since you have access to enormous quantities of gold, stat boosting magic items more than make up for the difference.)

Hiro Protagonest

2012-08-02, 07:27 PM

See, that's only focusing on ONE aspect of the Bard. I was talking about a well rounded jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none type Bard that can fit ALL party roles in a pinch. Don't have a Rogue? That's fine, the Bard has a Wand of Knock. Fighter needs some help up front? Sweet as, the Bard will jump in. Cleric run out of healing? No problem, the Bard has a couple of Cure Lights up his sleeve. Wizard has banned Illusion and we despratly need a visual distracton! Sweet as, the Bard can set up a Silent Image show for everyone!
That, IMHO, is what the Bard is supposed to be for, what the class was designed for and how a Bard should work in the party.
Sure, sing your songs/play your intrument all you like, it just makes it easier to step in to the other roles.

All of those can be done with one 16 in charisma and dumping everything else. Except for the fighter one, which is questionable anyway (buffing up the cleric and rogue with Inspire Courage is going to be more effective).

MukkTB

2012-08-02, 07:56 PM

Our group plays pathfinder with 15 point buy. We sometimes use pregenerated modules that seem to think the players couldn't find their ass with a map. More than 15PB is just overkill.

navar100

2012-08-02, 09:43 PM

3d6 gets you an average of PB 15.
4d6 drop lowest get you an average of PB 25.

I like 25. Keeps players from putting 18s or several 16s into their main ability scores. Average modifier of a total of +6 is more than enough. +8 or +10 only makes people assume that you need at least an 18 to be playable at all.

In these parts, characters are alo not level 1 to 19, but usually level 20.

Right. It's such an atrocity against all human decency for a 1st level character to have an 18 in the prime!

satorian

2012-08-02, 10:07 PM

This thread has gotten a bit odd. One side is saying that high PB does not make characters measurably stronger, just more versatile and allowing for more character concepts. The other side is simply ignoring that and saying they like low PB for lower power campaigns.

Repeat after me: High PB is not about POWAH! It is about

a) making MAD classes a bit more balanced
b) allowing for more character concepts (Roy Greenhilt being one)
c) making characters versatile

Also repeat: A wizard with enough points leftover for 10 STR and 12 CHA, or a fighter with 14 INT and 14 CHA is not measurably more powerful that ones with all 8s in "dump stats". They are, however, more interesting.

For what it's worth, I believe in having mature players just pick their own stats to make the character concept they want. This won't work for everyone, but I like it.

limejuicepowder

2012-08-02, 10:47 PM

For what it's worth, I believe in having mature players just pick their own stats to make the character concept they want. This won't work for everyone, but I like it.

My group used to play like this. Now we generally use the ultra-elite array, just so we can make characters when the DM isn't around: 18 16 16 14 12 10, plus we can move points around as we want. A balancing factor for us though is to be extremely stingy with stat-boosting items. It goes largely unsaid, but that's just the way it works out.

I definitely don't agree with the "if you want high PB then your a powergamer" crowd. Would this be a stormwind fallacy? Among mature, experienced players more stats to play with means more options, and not being pigeonholed in to idiot-savant type characters.

Marlowe

2012-08-02, 11:01 PM

Exempting Monk and 3.5 Paladin, none of the other classes ever need more than 25 points. I've seen perfectly capable fighters, warlocks, rangers, etc. even with 20 point buy. You've just been spoiled by campaigns where you can have absurd stats. :smalltongue:

Not that it's important, but would it surprise you to learn that I have never played a point-buy campaign? At least, not one that actually lasted long enough to have any combat.

I have, on the othr hand, been "spoiled" by campaigns where nobody got any wealth or magic items. At all. And stats really, really counted.

And yes, to be a mechanical good Bard, you need better stats than a Fighter. They just require a different sort of "good stats". Bards do not benefit as much from a high casting stat as other casters (since they don't even start with spells, and many of their best spells are buffs anyway) but require good physicals and int to do what the class is designed to do. Bards are a rare class that routinely use every stat. Except maybe wisdom. And if they're helping the rogue do the scouting, they can use that too.

A chr 16 and rest 8 bard is mechanically a terrible idea.

Unless the fluff is that she's a spoiled Idol singer and the rest of the group are her bodyguards or something.

Of course, if all you want the Bard to do is standing around inspiring courage (even though that doesn't require concentration and can be done while doing other things) then go right ahead. Even if it is mechanically about as smart as having a fighter run around on Total Defense the whole time. Hey, they're both still doing their job, right?

Yora

2012-08-03, 01:55 AM

Right. It's such an atrocity against all human decency for a 1st level character to have an 18 in the prime!
If you look at my post, that's not what I said at all.

Keneth

2012-08-03, 05:22 AM

Bards do not benefit as much from a high casting stat as other casters but require good physicals and int to do what the class is designed to do.
Bards were designed to do everything, they're jacks-of-all-trades by (D&D) definition. Seeing a bard who can do everything averagely is in fact how it should be, if you want a competent bard, you need to focus on one aspect at the cost of others. Yes, a wizard can be good at everything without sacrificing much of anything, but that's a problem in class design, giving stupid stats to other classes doesn't fix anything.

Personally I've never played a campaign where we got anywhere close to the recommended WBL. In fact, the combined wealth of the party in our campaigns is roughly equivalent to what a single character should have at that level. No one's ever complained that their stats weren't high enough to function even when you had to dump a stat down to 3 just to get that 18 on 20 point buy.

{{scrubbed}}

Malak'ai

2012-08-03, 05:54 AM

Bards were designed to do everything, they're jacks-of-all-trades by (D&D) definition. Seeing a bard who can do everything averagely is in fact how it should be, if you want a competent bard, you need to focus on one aspect at the cost of others. Yes, a wizard can be good at everything without sacrificing much of anything, but that's a problem in class design, giving stupid stats to other classes doesn't fix anything.

Personally I've never played a campaign where we got anywhere close to the recommended WBL. In fact, the combined wealth of the party in our campaigns is roughly equivalent to what a single character should have at that level. No one's ever complained that their stats weren't high enough to function even when you had to dump a stat down to 3 just to get that 18 on 20 point buy.

{{scrubbed}}

If you wouldn't mind, please explain your definition of "competent" as I think your confusing it with a character being good at and doing something well with just actually being able to do it, which is how I view competent.

And that really is a pretty opinionated statement. I never consider my characters to be "Mary Sue's". IF the character concept I've come up with requires a gimped stat, I have no problem with giving the character a gimped stat.

And this doesn't happen in D&D? Where no matter what your bonus in something is, if you roll badly/make a wrong decision in the heat of the moment, the brown smell stuff can suddenly hit the shiny spinny thing?

I'm not taking a personal dig at you or anything, I just think your statements are a bit obtuse and could be easily taken the wrong way.

Volthawk

2012-08-03, 06:05 AM

{{scrubbed}}

Ah yes, because wanting to play a smart or charismatic fighter is really being a superhero Mary Sue. How spoiled of me to want to play a fighty guy who isn't as dumb as a sack of bricks and about as good in conversation as that sack too.

Yora

2012-08-03, 06:12 AM

Str 14, Dex 10, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 14.

Smart and charismatic fighter, PB 25.

only1doug

2012-08-03, 06:15 AM

Str 14, Dex 10, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 14.

Smart and charismatic fighter, PB 25.

Life expectancy on the front lines: 1.75 battles

Yora

2012-08-03, 06:21 AM

Eldariel

2012-08-03, 06:38 AM

GenghisDon

2012-08-03, 06:53 AM

Life expectancy on the front lines: 1.75 battles

nope. It does get less as level increases, but that's always the case for the class. Of course, gettting some useful gear (apparently taboo for some) makes that irrelevant.

Depends on what the GM is throwing at you.

Compare it with a min/maxed PB 25 fighter.
Str 16, Dex 13, Con 16 Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 8.

That's +1 to attack, damage, AC, and Reflex, +2 to Fortitude and 2 hp per level. I don't see how that is a major difference. Given that a well balanced rogue does not get any of these.

Exactly. As for long term viability, the second character probably has considerably less. MAYBE by the PH2 era it has some small chance if it invests in the endurance chain/tree.

Keneth

2012-08-03, 10:58 AM

If you wouldn't mind, please explain your definition of "competent"
The word "adequate" comes to mind. In this context, adequate to fill the chosen role.

And that really is a pretty opinionated statement.
Of course it is opinionated, the words "I think" by definition mean that it is my opinion. I am also overgeneralizing things, which means it may not hold true for many.

IF the character concept I've come up with requires a gimped stat, I have no problem with giving the character a gimped stat.
And how often do you come up with a concept that requires a gimped stat before you actually decide what your stats are gonna be? Characters without noteworthy flaws are well on their way to being Mary Sues.

And this doesn't happen in D&D? Where no matter what your bonus in something is, if you roll badly/make a wrong decision in the heat of the moment, the brown smell stuff can suddenly hit the shiny spinny thing?
In D&D you can take on hordes on your own and alter reality at no real cost to yourself. You can one-shot dragons and take a swim in a volcano. D&D characters are not weak by any definition of the word, even with a normal stat distribution you start out more than exceptional. The fundamental difference is that in D&D you go out looking for trouble (and there's always something that can still kill you) and not just trying to survive against overwhelming odds.

I'm not taking a personal dig at you or anything, I just think your statements are a bit obtuse and could be easily taken the wrong way.
Oh that's quite alright, I'm not really the kind of person that gets mad at people who don't share my opinions.

Ah yes, because wanting to play a smart or charismatic fighter is really being a superhero Mary Sue. How spoiled of me to want to play a fighty guy who isn't as dumb as a sack of bricks and about as good in conversation as that sack too.
I'm pretty sure that being able to lift over 600 pounds and look dashing while you're doing it falls flat in the superhero category for a 1st level character. While that may not quite be enough to call your character a Sue, it's a good foundation for one.

Tar Palantir

2012-08-03, 11:31 AM

Depends on what the GM is throwing at you.

Compare it with a min/maxed PB 25 fighter.
Str 16, Dex 13, Con 16 Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 8.

That's +1 to attack, damage, AC, and Reflex, +2 to Fortitude and 2 hp per level. I don't see how that is a major difference. Given that a well balanced rogue does not get any of these.

Just a nitpick, but with a two-hander, that's +2 damage. The bigger issue is that, at the same point buy, a wizard can have Str 8, Dex 11, Con 14, Int 18, Wis 8, Cha 8, and, aside from some HP and a negligible AC boost, be no different power-wise than a wizard with straight 18s. I've played a Wizard with less than a 16 pt buy (I think; not sure how stats less than 8 count), and even at just level 5, the fact that I had that nat 18 for Int meant I wasn't too chuffed about my 4 Con after racial mods, or that none of my other stats was higher than 11. It literally didn't matter one bit mechanically.

Deepbluediver

2012-08-03, 05:56 PM

Although I've only actually played one game this way, the favorite ability modifier division I ever used was when we had an extended argument over what method to pick, and the DM just gave all the players a choice of using either a 25 point buy, or the array of 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, which works out to the equivalent of a 30 point buy. Basically, he let the Wizards stat-stack for just one score, if they wanted, but gave the MAD classes a slight advantage to compensate.

Generally, I find 25 points to feel kind of restrictive for any class at the bottom of tier 4 and lower. Other than that though, I think it works out well, particularly in games where you have a robust set of racial modifiers.

navar100

2012-08-03, 07:02 PM

If you look at my post, that's not what I said at all.

You like 25 pt buy because it keeps 18s out of the primes, or even 16s. I stand by my comment.

Marlowe

2012-08-03, 08:16 PM

Well, whatever. I'm not going to be stuck here debating the relative merits of two bad arrays for a bad class. I consider 25 point buy to be fundamentally a mean and stupid starting point.

"Stupid" because it makes the game less balanced and is mechanically dysfunctional (It's an odd number! In a system where you want even numbers! It is a blindingly obvious screw-up!), I don't think I need to explain the "mean".

And the only people who've posted anything to the contrary seem to be driven by a misplaced idea that crippling the game makes them more hardcore gamers.

Finally, and the thing everything forgets, Point-buy does not even exist in the players handbook. If somebody insists on a 25-point buy, I'm going to say "No. I'm going to roll the dice. Like it tells us to in the rules". Point-buy is just an optional rule in the DMG and if somebody insists upon it, he's pushing his DM privileges right from the start. Not to mention that somebody who insists on a 25-point buy is somebody who, in my opinion, simply doesn't know what he's doing and probably isn't competent to DM in the first place.

If you want a hardcore, gritty, low-fantasy roleplaying game, play Chivalry and Sorcery. D&D isn't built for that. If you break D&D to try to make it that, all you get is broken D&D.

navar100

2012-08-03, 09:25 PM

I don't demand an 18 at 1st level, but I will highly protest being forbidden from having one, which includes mathematically possible but crippling everywhere else you're "better off" not buying an 18.

If any player wants an 18 at 1st level, he has no need to defend himself for it against those who tsk tsk, roll eyes, or otherwise Stormwind ridicule his alleged lack of roleplay desire and capability. Colloquially you're not a better player just because you pride yourself on not having an 18 at 1st level. Good for you. Enjoy your character.

Malak'ai

2012-08-03, 10:11 PM

The word "adequate" comes to mind. In this context, adequate to fill the chosen role.

Of course it is opinionated, the words "I think" by definition mean that it is my opinion. I am also overgeneralizing things, which means it may not hold true for many.

And how often do you come up with a concept that requires a gimped stat before you actually decide what your stats are gonna be? Characters without noteworthy flaws are well on their way to being Mary Sues.

In D&D you can take on hordes on your own and alter reality at no real cost to yourself. You can one-shot dragons and take a swim in a volcano. D&D characters are not weak by any definition of the word, even with a normal stat distribution you start out more than exceptional. The fundamental difference is that in D&D you go out looking for trouble (and there's always something that can still kill you) and not just trying to survive against overwhelming odds.

Oh that's quite alright, I'm not really the kind of person that gets mad at people who don't share my opinions.

I'm pretty sure that being able to lift over 600 pounds and look dashing while you're doing it falls flat in the superhero category for a 1st level character. While that may not quite be enough to call your character a Sue, it's a good foundation for one.

1: Adequate and Competent are two different things.

2: I was trying to not sound like a complete jerk by saying you were talking out of your ass. Ok, so I should have put some sort of emphasis on the word, my bad.

3: For most of my characters that aren't made up for a spare of the moment game. I take concepts from novel, movies, tv series and comics that I think would work with D&D, and from there I try and figure out the strengths/weaknesses of it and then I try and figure out what stats I would need. So, concept thought of before any rolls/pb.

4: What level character are you thinking of? I have never seen a low-mid level character, even one op'ed to an inch of it's life, be able to do that, Especially if the dice aren't co-operating.

5: Good to know :smallsmile:.

6: Once again, your talking out of your ass. Yes, D&D characters are better than the average commoner, but that doesn't mean that a Fighter/Barbarian who can lift 3/4 times his own body weight HAS to sacrifice being able to comprehend basic academic/logical situations or be the gruff, obnoxious, freakish looking jerk who pisses everyone off.

Marlowe

2012-08-03, 10:21 PM

Zale

2012-08-03, 10:27 PM

The definition of a Mary Sue is a character who has the entire narrative bent out of shape to accommodate them and make them look special. It is not appropriate to use it as a term of abuse for a PC with decent stats.

May Sue is basically a catch all term for "Character I don't like".

Everyone has a different idea of what it is, so it's kind of pointless trying to staple a definition to it.

Marlowe

2012-08-03, 10:30 PM

What are you talking about? It has a perfectly clear definition. You may use it incorrectly, but that just means you use it incorrectly.

Zale

2012-08-03, 10:51 PM

What are you talking about? It has a perfectly clear definition. You may use it incorrectly, but that just means you use it incorrectly.

So, you got together with everyone and came to a consensus on what it means? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue)

Everyone thinks it means something different. Everyone.

Marlowe

2012-08-03, 11:14 PM

I could decide to start calling Ogres "Onions" and that wouldn't make it correct, and it certainly wouldn't give me the right to criticise one who uses the word to describe a foodstuff that makes your eyes water.

And whatever. This thread served it's desired purpose at least a page ago, and now it's just people being irritating and patronising at each other for no good reason. I'm out.

Flickerdart

2012-08-03, 11:27 PM

I could decide to start calling Ogres "Onions" and that wouldn't make it correct, and it certainly wouldn't give me the right to criticise one who uses the word to describe a foodstuff that makes your eyes water.
Ogres can't be onions, because ogres are already like onions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO76yRO8HVE&feature=related).

Marlowe

2012-08-03, 11:28 PM

...."turnips?":smalleek:

navar100

2012-08-04, 12:30 AM

Ogres can't be onions, because ogres are already like onions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO76yRO8HVE&feature=related).

Onion? Why not cake? Cake has layers.
:smallbiggrin:

demigodus

2012-08-04, 12:59 AM

Personally I've never played a campaign where we got anywhere close to the recommended WBL. In fact, the combined wealth of the party in our campaigns is roughly equivalent to what a single character should have at that level. No one's ever complained that their stats weren't high enough to function even when you had to dump a stat down to 3 just to get that 18 on 20 point buy.

Loredrake Steel Dragon Wyrmling (4 RHD, LA +2), with Vow of Poverty (use a flaw to get it at lvl 1), half-dragon form, Martial Weapon Proficiency (Greatclub), Combat Casting, Practiced Spell Caster for feats. Go SDW 4/LA+2/Sorceror 2/Abjurant Champion 5/Other gish stuff
Stats would be:
Str: 8, Dex: 8, Con: 16, Int: 12, Wis: 8, Cha: 14
the, a +2 to Con and Cha from racial adjustments
Use a Greatclub, and spend all day in Half-Dragon Legendary Ape form. If your game allows dropping stats below 8 in point-buy, drop Str and Dex by 2 each, raise Cha to 16.

This is more or less a build I'm considering using in our current game (aside from the VoP), which comes out to a much higher point-buy (we roll, and reroll until we get at least a +8 mod. Then roll a d6, distribute that many more points among the stats, up to an extra +2 per stat), with full WBL. The difference in the power of the build in your system, and the system we use, is smaller then the inter-party power differences in the usual party. Other concepts would get totally destroyed by your system however.

Well, I guess if you want to play a simple game where only a few archetypes are functional, or the entire party is non-functional against a CR appropriate challenge, you can enjoy yourself. For myself, I like to optimize my builds to some degree. So I prefer games where the non-optimizers in the party aren't left in the dust for no better reason than the DM couldn't be assed to fix two numbers.

So yes, I think people are spoiled. They just can't bring themselves to gimp their perfect Mary Sue characters in any way. And that's fine, I understand the desire for your characters to be invincible superheroes, but I'm more a fan of games like CoC where the characters risk death at every turn but they feel real.

I prefer risking death , but being able to overcome it with skill, planning, and proper character building. Not where competence is labeled a "Mary Sue", and whether I live or not is entire up to my DM's wim and the luck of the dice. A certain level of power is necessary to fight the interesting challenges. However, if you prefer to rely on Dues Ex's, or fighting characters a few levels too late because that feels real, that is your choice...

See, I can also be a sarcastic ******* if I formulate opinions that are utterly baseless, present them as facts, and insult everyone who doesn't play the way I do, and then proceed to feel smug about myself because I play the game the right way.

lsfreak

2012-08-04, 01:44 AM

So yes, I think people are spoiled. They just can't bring themselves to gimp their perfect Mary Sue characters in any way. And that's fine, I understand the desire for your characters to be invincible superheroes, but I'm more a fan of games like CoC where the characters risk death at every turn but they feel real.

How is this relevant? High scores don't mean characters aren't at risk of death. A good DM gives the party challenges, irrespective of whether the challenge rating says it should or shouldn't be a challenge.

Draz74

2012-08-04, 02:17 AM

I'm not going to touch the argument about whether X Array or Y Array is "playable" ... way too subjective. But personally, I like to keep my games close to the 4d6b3 standard rule -- it gives characters an interesting array of strengths and weaknesses -- and analyzing that with pure math is something I can do. In fact, I've been meaning to post a thread with some results I've come up with from analyzing the results of 4d6b3. But, in short,

4d6 drop lowest get you an average of PB 25.
False.

You're thinking of 4d6b3 which, accounting for reroll rules, comes out at around 27-28pb.

Pretty much true. The actual "most typical" result of 4d6b3 is 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 (i.e., the Elite Array except for the 15 getting bumped up to a 16), which is 27-point buy. Even without reroll rules. And results of 28-PB are more common than results of 26-PB, even without reroll rules.

(If you want means rather than medians, the "average" result of 4d6b3 actually comes out to be something like 16.23, 14.39, 13.05, 11.7, 10.3, 7.4.)

So ... yeah. Basically, I prefer either 28-PB or the 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 array.

Yora

2012-08-04, 04:22 AM

False.
In that case, the devs would have made the same mistake as me.

4d6, drop lowest gets you an average of 12.24 per roll. That would allow for the stats 13, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 with a rest of 0.44. Which is PB 25.

willpell

2012-08-04, 04:30 AM

I've been running 25 but have been finding it very painful to interestingly conceptualizing characters. I don't auto-18 every character, so I wouldn't want to go to a very high number, but I might consider 30 or so.

But the silliest thing about 25-point buy is that it's an odd number, which means that since you always have point left over that can't buy you anything significant.

Odd numbers are good for meeting feat prerequisites, though this is admittedly about it.

DoughGuy

2012-08-04, 06:10 AM

My group uses 32 PB, and honestly I doubt I could do with less. My standard pick is 16, 16, 14, 14, 8, 8 or swap a 14 for a 12 and 10. I really cant stand dumping stats for things like int or Wis. 25 would be difficult for me to use.

And I disagree that hihger point buy means you arent as close to death as a lower point buy. In the last session alone of my current campaign (which is gestalt) I came to single digits twice and got put into the negatives once. A good DM can challenge you no matter your stats (assuming non stupid amounts like 50+ PB).

Eldariel

2012-08-04, 07:26 AM

And I disagree that hihger point buy means you arent as close to death as a lower point buy. In the last session alone of my current campaign (which is gestalt) I came to single digits twice and got put into the negatives once. A good DM can challenge you no matter your stats (assuming non stupid amounts like 50+ PB).

Your parenthetical clause is fairly unnecessary; there's nothing inherent in stats in D&D that makes characters with good stats unchallengeable. Even an 18/18/18/18/18/18 party can easily be challenged; ultimately stats are mostly numbers after all (though individuals, especially of multi-stat using classes like Cleric, with all 18s in a party without such stats would of course be problematic). However, 18/18/18/18/18/18 is just as boring as 14/14/14/14/14/14 or 16/14/12/8/8/8 far as characterization goes; monotony never helped anybody.

Really, it comes down to this:
Do you want to be forced to dump a bunch of stats or would you rather decide if you want to dump a bunch of stats or not? Lower point buy forces you to dump a bunch of stats or have all low stats; higher point buy lets you choose to have low stats or high stats.

In other words, a higher point buy is more expressive since you have more to work with; you can stat more character concepts with a higher point buy. I believe everybody will find this is trivially true if they think this through; more points simply means more choices as to how many stats you wish to have how high and how many low stats you prefer.

I don't certainly always mind 18/14/18/8/8/12 stats; likable dumb, street-dumb sack of muscle is basically an archetype unto itself. Hell, the Charisma could also be low. That's fine, I'm perfectly ok with playing that character when I want to play it. But if I want to play a Roy-like warrior (intelligent, charismatic & wise while still strong, durable & quick) instead, I'd like to be able to get like 16/14/14/13/12/15 or something. Low point buy would allow for the first (cutting on the edges) but not the second.

Curmudgeon

2012-08-04, 10:55 AM

In that case, the devs would have made the same mistake as me.

4d6, drop lowest gets you an average of 12.24 per roll. That would allow for the stats 13, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 with a rest of 0.44. Which is PB 25.
Your conclusion is incorrect because your computations fail to take into account two things:
Dropping low scores pushes up the average. From Player's Handbook, page 8:
REROLLING
If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and roll all six scores again. Your scores are considered too low if the sum of your modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if your highest score is 13 or lower.
You can't just average the scores and then figure the point buy value. Instead you have to take the statistical distribution of all the scores, figure the point buy value, and average that. The reason is that scores above 14 increase their point buy value nonlinearly. E.g., increase from 13 to 14 costs 1 point, but increase from 13 to 15 costs 3 points (not 2), and increase from 13 to 17 costs 8 points (not 4).

Yora

2012-08-04, 11:29 AM

Perhaps, but I have the very strong suspicion that whoever created the point buy rules was following the same not perfectly correct calculations.

demigodus

2012-08-04, 03:12 PM

Perhaps, but I have the very strong suspicion that whoever created the point buy rules was following the same not perfectly correct calculations.

Very possible. WotC does have a tendency for poor math. That still doesn't make it any more correct, and when we are talking about the value of the system, we should judge it by how it actually is, not by the mistakes of the devs.

Mithril Leaf

2012-08-04, 03:42 PM

I personally use slightly different buys for different situations. In a fairly easy campaign, 28 for the tier 2s, 32 for 3/4s, 36 for 5, no 1/6s. In a hard campaign, a 32 for tier 2s, 36 for 3/4s, 40 for tier 5s, although they are recommended against. Not a fan of below 28 point buys.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 01:10 AM

HunterOfJello

2012-08-07, 01:21 AM

A lower point buy hurts a MAD class far more than a high point buy helps a SAD class.

A 28 point buy Wizard is great, while a 36 point buy wizard is just slightly better than great.

A 28 point buy Paladin is crap, while a 36 point buy Paladin is suddenly a viable class choice.

~

The wizard can dump all his points into Int and be prefectly fine with 6s (or 8s) in his other stats. The Paladin needs a good Strength score for melee fighting, medium to 12 dexterity for the barest chance of ever hoping to dodge anything, a good constitution score for taking damage on the front lines, wisdom to cast his spells with and get extra spells, and he needs charisma to use for his class abilities. Hopefully, after all this he won't have too low of an intelligence score so that he'll still be able to grab a handful of skill points.

willpell

2012-08-07, 01:28 AM

satorian

2012-08-07, 02:02 AM

Oh the adjusting wouldn't be that hard. You're the DM. Just fudge a given amount in all prime ability scores and maybe a lesser amount for secondaries. Do it consistently and across the board.

Eventually, you'll want to fiddle with them to get all the hit points, saves and skill points right, but it won't make much of a difference if you just add, say, +1 to spellcaster dc and fighter hit/dmg for now.

MukkTB

2012-08-07, 02:15 AM

Meh. Point buy values have two effects. Difficulty, and balance between MAD and SAD classes.

The DM ultimately sets difficulty. Did they laugh when you sent 4 Orcs to fight them? Send 12 and declare the first four were just a scouting party. Are they being beaten by a single aged fighter? Keep the dragon well clear of them so they don't become breakfast.

My group plays a lot of pregenerated campaigns. We stick to (PF) point buy 15 to keep the game from 'easy mode.' But to be honest a party of point buy 30 fighters, rogues, and monks would be hard mode and a party of point buy 10 wizards, druids, and clerics would be easy mode.

There is something satisfying about knowing the world existed in a certain way and you won/lost honestly without DM fiat. IE pregenerated adventures. At which point you want to use the point buy the adventure was designed for.

As for class balance... Well you might recover a little bit of balance by giving the low tier class some more points, but if everyone gets the same points it doesn't matter very much. The paladin goes from unplayable to tolerable. At the same time the wizard goes from great spellcaster to great spellcaster with a nasty side of gish. So... If you want to use point buy for balance you better give the lower tiers more points.

I just don't see point buy mattering very much. I don't like very low or very high for personal aesthetic reasons. Give me good old 28 pb or 15 pb (PF). At least those tend to be used in events and make for somewhat common ground.

Killer Angel

2012-08-07, 02:24 AM

Meh. Point buy values have two effects. Difficulty, and balance between MAD and SAD classes.

That's the reason many people advocate the use of a greater amount of points for the lower tiers and the MAD classes.

With rolling, the risk is to have a high equivalent-point for a SAD class, and low numbers for a MAD class. At that point, the player of the MAD one, has to throw away the sheet and to think another character.

DoughGuy

2012-08-07, 02:49 AM

Those who say that point buys greater than the standard 25 don't throw the game into easy mode are overlooking something. Monsters and NPC's are built with the Elite Array. If your DM is adjusting every monster and NPC's scores proportionally upward to match your PCs' higher scores, then sure, that's not easy mode. But how many of you who claim you're not playing easy mode are doing this?

Having slightly higher ability scores than encounters are designed for does not put the game into easy mode. It may make the game slightly easier but not anywhere near easy mode.

Tytalus

2012-08-07, 03:42 AM

4d6 drop lowest get you an average of PB 25.

You're thinking of 4d6b3 which, accounting for reroll rules, comes out at around 27-28pb.

Both are not quite correct.

Pretty much true. The actual "most typical" result of 4d6b3 is 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 (i.e., the Elite Array except for the 15 getting bumped up to a 16), which is 27-point buy. Even without reroll rules. And results of 28-PB are more common than results of 26-PB, even without reroll rules.

(If you want means rather than medians, the "average" result of 4d6b3 actually comes out to be something like 16.23, 14.39, 13.05, 11.7, 10.3, 7.4.)

In that case, the devs would have made the same mistake as me.

4d6, drop lowest gets you an average of 12.24 per roll. That would allow for the stats 13, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 with a rest of 0.44. Which is PB 25.

That's not how to calculate the pointbuy equivalent. There's no such thing as the average 4D6b3 roll, and the staggered pointbuy costs for higher attributes invalidate approaches based on averages anyway.

There's two basic approaches to determine (or approximate) the pointbuy equivalent: simulation (i.e., generating X random 4D6b3 stat arrays, discarding the ones that qualify for a reroll) or enumeration (i.e., enumerating all possible characters, discounting ones that qualify for reroll, determining the pointbuy equivalents and averaging that value).

Both approaches have their problems due to the vast result space of rolling for six attributes (4D6 for six stats: the corresponding result space has 6^24, or 4,738,381,338,321,616,896 (4.7 quintillion) different events - and no, you can't just use the average of a single stat). Random generation only shows a tiny, tiny portion of the result space, so that the average of even a million randomly generated stat arrays can vary considerably from the next million. And of course, enumeration is prohibitively complex, unless you use a clever trick.

Clever Enumeration
There is a way to actually get the exact result. Stat values (4D6b3) can only range from 3 to 18 (16 different numbers), which means that there are only 16^6 different characters (sets of 6 stats) that can be generated. That number is much smaller (16,777,216) and can actually be enumerated.

However, the chances of rolling the individual resulting characters vary widely. To account for that, we first weigh each possible character with the chance that it will be rolled. For example p(12,13,14,15,16,17) = p(12) * p(13) * ... * p(17). The chances for rolling each individual number from 3 to 18 using 4D6-DL can be easily derived by enumeration again (6^4 = 1.296 different ways to roll).

Depending on how you count rolled values below 8 (those which are not possible in pointbuy and thus have no "official" cost), the average pointbuy value of 4D6b3 comes out to 29.5 - 31.0 points.

Malak'ai

2012-08-07, 04:08 AM

**Puts on the dunces cap and sits in the corner**
All this maths is making my brain hurt :smalleek:.

Marlowe

2012-08-07, 05:05 AM

However, I do have a significant number of 4d6b3 characters on mythweavers that fall very close to Draz74's "most common" array. They may be off by a point on most of the stats, but it's very familiar all the same.

Yora

2012-08-07, 06:15 AM

This thread has convinced me that I should go to a higher point buy in my game...though I'm a bit intimidated by the idea of revising my 50+ NPCs, who are statted out at every level of their progression, by adjusting every version of them to use a new set of stats. So for now it's still "should" rather than "will", until I work up the courage to do all that adjusting.
I wonder how much of a difference it makes when you have a campaign were monks and paladins are virtually nonexisting?
They make use of the most ability scores and are terribly even if they can get all of them high.

I just did an actual closer look at the paladin. What's the problem with S14, D8, C14, I10, W14, C13?
Looks more than playable to me.
Monk at S13, D15, C12, I10, W14, C8 doesn't look quite so nice, but I think it would work.

GnomeGninjas

2012-08-07, 07:07 AM

Recently my DM tried 25 point buy roll 3d6 for the things you leave an 8 in. We haven't got to combat yet so I'm not sure how it will work out.

Monsters and NPC's are built with the Elite Array.

Monsters are built with the 11 11 11 10 10 10 array. NPCs have several arrays to choose from.

JellyPooga

2012-08-07, 07:50 AM

I wonder how much of a difference it makes when you have a campaign were monks and paladins are virtually nonexisting?

It does make you wonder if the dev team had this in mind when writing 3ed. After all, in previous editions, Paladins were rare by virtue of requiring much higher stats than, say Fighters. You couldn't even be a Paladin unless you had something like 16 Cha and 14 Wis and 14 Str (I forget the exact figures, but it was pretty harsh). Certain classes are definitely more MAD than others, so is it so hard to imagine those classes as being intended to be restricted to rarer and (by a certain mode of thought) more powerful characters (i.e. higher stats)?

It should also be borne in mind that the point buy system is designed with the idea that 10 is average. 14, by that count, is a good score, worthy of a professional (granting a 10% increase in success rates for all activities related to that score). 18 is truly awesome and the peak of 'normal' human condition (after all, only highly trained and exceptional characters ever reach character levels of 4 or higher). A Fighter with 14 Str is not 'gimped' or weak compared to 'Average Joe' the Commoner, but rather a somewhat heroic figure capable of feats-of-arms undreamed of by the lowly peasant.

willpell

2012-08-07, 08:46 AM

Knaight

2012-08-07, 09:08 AM

Those who say that point buys greater than the standard 25 don't throw the game into easy mode are overlooking something. Monsters and NPC's are built with the Elite Array. If your DM is adjusting every monster and NPC's scores proportionally upward to match your PCs' higher scores, then sure, that's not easy mode. But how many of you who claim you're not playing easy mode are doing this?

Monsters are generally 10,10,10,11,11,11 plus racial bonuses. In practice, this means that monsters usually have 5-6 arbitrary scores, and if they have 6 of them 3 scores will be odd numbers, as the racial bonuses are completely arbitrary for most all of them. The elite array doesn't enter into this at all.

only1doug

2012-08-07, 09:36 AM

I can thoroughly believe this. To me, monks and paladins feel like they should be rare

I'd prefer monks to be extinct or NPC only, no one should have to suffer playing as a monk.

Assuming a game with no Magic Mart and an unfriendly DM (ie one who won't ensure that a monster drops a Periapt of Wisdom just because you desperately need one, whether because he's a sadist or just a stickler for the randomization rules, who randomly never rolls up a Periapt), a druid who starts out at 14 Wisdom is going to have to multiclass at level 15, because he'd gain 8th-level druid spells as a Druid 15 but he'd have to level up once more before he could gain the 18th Wisdom point necessary to cast them (and 9ths would be off the table until level 20 by the same token).

Not so, there is no need for the druid to multiclass out just because the character lacks enough wisdom to cast spells of his highest level, he can still take the level of druid and fill the slots with spells of lower levels, perhaps not as optimal as being able to cast spells of that level but the druid is instantly improved if the necessary item does turn up and has an excellent in character reason to quest for said item (perhaps there is one fabled to be part of the horde of a specific monster / dungeon / dragon or possibly as a quest reward from an NPC)

Dsurion

2012-08-07, 09:46 AM

Indeed, this is how I tend to feel about it as well. However even I have been argued out of that belief, based on the sheer suckitude this engenders. A Fighter with 13 STR doesn't care whether he holds his longsword in 1 hand or 2, because it's the same damage either way (Power Attack excepted). Assuming a game with no Magic Mart and an unfriendly DM (ie one who won't ensure that a monster drops a Periapt of Wisdom just because you desperately need one, whether because he's a sadist or just a stickler for the randomization rules, who randomly never rolls up a Periapt), a druid who starts out at 14 Wisdom is going to have to multiclass at level 15, because he'd gain 8th-level druid spells as a Druid 15 but he'd have to level up once more before he could gain the 18th Wisdom point necessary to cast them (and 9ths would be off the table until level 20 by the same token). This is to say nothing of whether it's worth going TWF with your Ranger when your off-hand weapon can only do +1 damage because you don't have an 18 Strength, or whether you can stomach every character without Improved Initiative being stuck going after a character with +0 Dexmod and the feat, because you need 18 Dexterity to be able to match that one feat. And we won't even get into the implications regarding Armor Class or Hit Points.Woe is the poor fullcaster stuck with mere seventh level spells! :smallwink:

Inspector

2012-08-07, 11:37 AM

The DM ultimately sets difficulty. Did they laugh when you sent 4 Orcs to fight them? Send 12 and declare the first four were just a scouting party.

Yes and no. The DM controls a lot of things, but 4 orcs is a CR 4 (or whatever) encounter. It rewards X experience, and Y treasure. You can send more orcs, but they will give more experience and more treasure.

My point is that there are unforeseen consequences. It's not as simple as "send more orcs." To keep the game difficulty in line, you have to adjust their stats to match the players. Else, it is easy mode - sending more orcs or not.

Flickerdart

2012-08-07, 11:46 AM

Yes and no. The DM controls a lot of things, but 4 orcs is a CR 4 (or whatever) encounter. It rewards X experience, and Y treasure. You can send more orcs, but they will give more experience and more treasure.
Unless the DM chooses to, you know, give less XP and treasure for them.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 11:54 AM

It should also be borne in mind that the point buy system is designed with the idea that 10 is average. 14, by that count, is a good score, worthy of a professional (granting a 10% increase in success rates for all activities related to that score). 18 is truly awesome and the peak of 'normal' human condition (after all, only highly trained and exceptional characters ever reach character levels of 4 or higher). A Fighter with 14 Str is not 'gimped' or weak compared to 'Average Joe' the Commoner, but rather a somewhat heroic figure capable of feats-of-arms undreamed of by the lowly peasant.

This.

People saying that 25 point buy stats are "weak," are forgetting that it's all relative. They're (incorrectly) comparing them to higher PB characters. Instead, they should be compared to other inhabitants of the 25 PB world... who use the Elite Array. So a fighter with 16STR 10DEX 14CON 13INT 10WIS 8CHA isn't "gimped." He's significantly (STR) stronger than the elites of that world, as (CON) hardy as nearly anyone else of his race, and (INT) a clever bastard. (i.e. He has the INT to take certain feat chains)

Remember, in the Elite Array, 15 is the highest stat. Among the Elites. A 16 is significant enough to be something a character would be notorious for. An 18 would be a world-beater - the very physical limit of one's race.

It's all about perspective.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 12:11 PM

Unless the DM chooses to, you know, give less XP and treasure for them.

No, the DMG specifically outlines what CR's give which treasure and XP.

Now, your DM could houserule in a "fix," but that would mean that you're getting into the slippery slope of game modifications. My point would remain proven: that high PB is in fact easy mode, to the point where you have to houserule in fixes to get the difficulty back up.

I'm not saying whether houseruling in this way is a good or a bad thing; I'm just saying that it proves my point.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 12:32 PM

Assuming a game with no Magic Mart

Why would you ever assume such a thing? What people call "Magic Mart" is in fact RAW, right there in the DMG. As long as the town is the correct size for the item you're looking for.

If you're saying a high PB is needed to fix your nasty DM who has already houseruled in a dearth of items, then sure. But that is not to say a high PB is necessary to play the actual, RAW, game.

A Fighter with 13 STR doesn't care whether he holds his longsword in 1 hand or 2, because it's the same damage either way (Power Attack excepted).

Why assume this isn't exactly what was intended? Also, why would a 25 PB mean your fighter has 13 STR?

a druid who starts out at 14 Wisdom is going to have to multiclass at level 15,

As Dsurion said. Druids are already considered overpowered. Perhaps some of the hullabaloo around that idea is rooted in people using excessive PB's. But, again, you shouldn't assume no-magic-mart. The druid will get a +2 Periapt, which is well within reach of his WBL.

or whether you can stomach every character without Improved Initiative being stuck going after a character with +0 Dexmod and the feat, because you need 18 Dexterity to be able to match that one feat.

Perhaps that feat was intended to be powerful.

This is to say nothing of whether it's worth going TWF with your Ranger when your off-hand weapon can only do +1 damage because you don't have an 18 Strength

Again, why assume this wasn't intended?

And we won't even get into the implications regarding Armor Class or Hit Points.

Again, only proving my point. You're implying that AC and hitpoints ought to be the way that they are with a high PB. You're implying that the game is somehow "broken" with a Standard 25 PB because of its effect on AC and HP.

I'm going to turn that around on you: I say that the way AC and HP are with the Standard 25 PB is the "working as intended" way, and it is your game in which they are weird.

Okay, I'm not really saying that. I'm trying to do a Morpheus here. ("Is that air you're breathing?")

My point is only to get you to reexamine your assumptions. You're assuming that the way things work in a high PB is normal, and it is only that assumption that makes you think the game is "broken" under a Standard PB.

lunar2

2012-08-07, 12:33 PM

using high PB characters, but don't want easy mode? use tougher monsters. I don't mean higher CR monsters, I mean tougher monsters.

don't use a Fire Giant against your 10th level party, use a Sand Giant. still CR 10, but just all around better than the fire giant.

Your 5th level party having fun playing soccer with the troll head? throw a greater barghest at them (they didn't advance the barghest properly, and it's still as strong in melee as some CR 7 melee monsters).

the list goes on and on. because just like classes, monsters have tiers too, it just hasn't been organized yet.

some templates (like lycanthropy) can add significant power to a creature for minimal CR increase.

Non-associated class levels may not raise the CR at all, but can give significant power increases (I still hate half gold silver dragons with 1 monk level. they can shut the whole party down.)

lsfreak

2012-08-07, 12:40 PM

No, the DMG specifically outlines what CR's give which treasure and XP.

Now, your DM could houserule in a "fix," but that would mean that you're getting into the slippery slope of game modifications. My point would remain proven: that high PB is in fact easy mode, to the point where you have to houserule in fixes to get the difficulty back up.

I'm not saying whether houseruling in this way is a good or a bad thing; I'm just saying that it proves my point.

Except that's not true. A well-optimized group at 25 point buy will still steamroll most encounters that are supposedly level-appropriate. The CR system is completely messed up, which extends to treasure and XP if you're rolling it strictly by the rules. What point buy you start with doesn't change this.

Theoboldi

2012-08-07, 12:50 PM

Druids are already considered overpowered. Perhaps some of the hullabaloo around that idea is rooted in people using excessive PB's.

Sorry, but no. Just no. Druids need no other stat other than wisdom and perhaps a bit of constitution. Intelligence matters only for skillpoints, and charisma only is used with wild empathy, which will only rarely see use. And dexterity and strength can both be made obsulete by wildshape. The only ability a druid truly needs is wisdom, and if he rolled or bought at least a 15 in that ability, he will still get 9th level spells. Low DCs because of a low wisdom score can be completly ignored, since a druid can still spend all of his spells on healing, summoning, battlefield control or buffing, without submitting his enemies to a single saving throw.

A druid can function with a 8 point buy, getting 15 in wisdom and having only 8 in everything else. Even if this means they can't enter melee because of their lack of constitution, they still bring powerful summons and buffs to the table to melee for them.

So yeah. Druids are scary even without high point buys. A higher point buy is needed for more mad classes to compete with something like a druid.

Eldariel

2012-08-07, 12:57 PM

So yeah. Druids are scary even without high point buys. A higher point buy is needed for more mad classes to compete with something like a druid.

Druid is an unique class. A 22pb Druid can be just as strong as a 40pb Druid, especially once level 6 rolls around (thanks to Wildshape and Natural Spell). Any other class loses at least something in a horrible point buy (maybe Dragonfire Adept and Warlock can boast similar stat-independence); Druid literally has everything he needs in 18 Wis and 14 Con. Everything else can be 8s for all he cares.

Of course, I'd be extremely reluctant to actually play an 8/8/14/8/18/8 Druid outside an arena since those stats are a wee bit extreme; it just tends to make for flat characters to have so polarized mental stats. But if you run an 8/8/14/8/18/8 Druid through a gauntlet/same game test, and compare its performance to just about any other class, provided we're talking relatively low levels (on 15+ Wizards have significant edges over the Druid already); levels 1-13 or so it's very likely that the Druid is going to be the best performer in D&D 3.5, and it won't be particularly close.

Except that's not true. A well-optimized group at 25 point buy will still steamroll most encounters that are supposedly level-appropriate. The CR system is completely messed up, which extends to treasure and XP if you're rolling it strictly by the rules. What point buy you start with doesn't change this.

Well, depends on the encounter. Some encounters will completely steamroll most parties in spite of being CR appropriate, especially with intelligent feat, treasure and spell selection on the monsters'/NPCs' part. Dragons, Allips, NPC Druids, Adamantine Horrors, you know the list.

Theoboldi

2012-08-07, 01:03 PM

Yeah, I just wanted to explain just why it's justified that druids are overpowered, and why it's not just "hullabaloo" based on too high point buys. I know that it's still pretty much impossible to make a paladin or a monk as powerful as a druid, even if you give them a ludicrously high point buy. I just wanted to state that they need a higher point buy, so that they can actually contribute to the party next to a druid.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 01:06 PM

Except that's not true. A well-optimized group at 25 point buy will still steamroll most encounters that are supposedly level-appropriate.

If you contend that a 25 PB is, itself, Easy Mode, then > 25 is Super Duper Easy Mode. My point remains valid.

Flickerdart

2012-08-07, 01:10 PM

If you contend that a 25 PB is, itself, Easy Mode, then > 25 is Super Duper Easy Mode. My point remains valid.
Uh, what? His point isn't that 25PB is easy mode. It's that PB and encounter difficulty are very loosely related. A party of T1 characters with PB20 could absolutely destroy encounters that a party of T5s with PB50 would be murdered by.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 01:11 PM

Theoboldi, I will concede your point. But notice that what I was arguing there was that willpell's example of the Druid did not prove his case. I think even though I was wrong about what I said, it still shows that the Druid Example does not advance willpell's case.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 01:16 PM

Uh, what? His point isn't that 25PB is easy mode. It's that PB and encounter difficulty are very loosely related. A party of T1 characters with PB20 could absolutely destroy encounters that a party of T5s with PB50 would be murdered by.

It doesn't matter, then. My point still remains valid. Even if they are loosely related. To whatever extent they are in fact related, > PB25 is Easy (or Easier) Mode.

Eldariel

2012-08-07, 01:23 PM

If you contend that a 25 PB is, itself, Easy Mode, then > 25 is Super Duper Easy Mode. My point remains valid.

25pb is easy mode if you have Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Artificer, and even then it's fully possible to craft encounters so that they're challenging. You'll get TPKd in short order if you have Monk/Paladin/Ninja/Healer instead. Neither fact changes by point buy.

It's a factor of classes and encounter design mostly. Intelligently run Dragons are TPKs for all but the strongest parties while random Goblin Warriors are food for just about anybody. Environmental factors, feat selection, spell selection (and on the other side, class selection, build optimization, feat selection, etc.) and creatures used weight in a thousand times more than point buy.

What higher point buy does grant you is more options. You have a larger number of viable alternatives. Straight caster Wizard is insanely powerful, 25pb or 36pb. Warrior Wizard (Gish) though? You do need a significantly higher point buy to truly function; I wouldn't bother with under 32pb simply because you'll lack the necessary stats.

Inherent Gishes like Ranger, Paladin or Psychic Warrior fall in the same boat; they simply need more stats to retain their usefulness.

Monster Manual opponents, as written, are all over the board. Some are overpowered for their CR (see e.g. Allip, Shadow or Planetar) while others are underpowered for their CR (see e.g. Ogres, Giants, etc.) and some are really hit'n'miss (Tarrasque can absolutely stomp parties that engage it in melee but it's completely helpless outside 120' range). Some creatures become significantly stronger by switching their feats or skills around or letting them use their treasure, all of this within the same CR.

Further, the CR guidelines for changing stuff with arrays, HD increases and such can create insane effects at times (which is why they're guidelines); try a large Gibbering Mouther for instance; it's a TPK in the making while a Medium is hardly a real threat.

CR is not a reliable guideline as such. However, a creature's numbers and options can be read to determine what is or is not an appropriate challenge. Any DM who's serious about running D&D 3.5 needs to do this anyways; as such, there's zero extra work involved in accounting for the differences the point buy makes (which is, in practice, just enabling other classes to function and giving non-casters bigger numbers). Monster Manual creatures are fairly unreliable straight out of the MM, and generally some alterations (feats, equipment, class levels, size to fit the campaign) should be made in any case before using stuff in your campaign.

Basically, your mistake is assuming that Point Buy directly correlates with the difficulty of the game. It does not. Higher point buy does not equate to an easier, or a harder game.

Theoboldi

2012-08-07, 01:24 PM

I wasn't even really disagreeing with you, Inspector. I didn't really read the rest of the thread, and only wanted to point out an obvious mistake.
Personally, I also think it was a bad idea of willpell to argue for a high point buy on basis of a SAD and overpowered class.

Yora

2012-08-07, 01:24 PM

Inspector

2012-08-07, 01:36 PM

Basically, your mistake is assuming that Point Buy directly correlates with the difficulty of the game. It does not. Higher point buy does not equate to an easier, or a harder game.

What you've done is to already say that you're altering the game in dozens of other ways by adjusting monster feats, etc. You can't change dozens of variables and then claim that you've proven that a single variable (PB) doesn't correlate to something.

The scientific method applies here. Change a single variable - Point Buy - and yes, the game does get easier. You can then go on to say that x, y, and z need to be changed anyway, but my point will remain valid.

I'm not contending that PB doesn't alter the balance of SAD and MAD - only that this is not the only balance that High PB alters. That it does change the rest of the game in a lot of ways, including making it Easy Mode, and that the DM should be aware of this fact before he uses it as a "fix" for the MAD issue. This "fix" will require more fixes. And those fixes might themselves require fixes.

Some DM's might look at that ever-growing list of recursive fixes and decide, "You know what? Maybe I'm more OK with Wizards being powerful than I am with that laundry list of rules changes." Some may not. YMMV.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 01:41 PM

I wasn't even really disagreeing with you, Inspector.

Quite alright, you caught me in an error, which is good. The hullabaloo about Druids may indeed be justified, however I do see a number of other oft-repeated arguments made about the balance of the game on the internet which rely on the assumption of using a non-standard point buy. I think certain assumptions (like high PB) ought to be questioned, and a little scrutiny of them would lead to a richer understanding of the game than many guides and threads give.

Eldariel

2012-08-07, 01:43 PM

The scientific method applies here. Change a single variable - Point Buy - and yes, the game does get easier. You can then go on to say that x, y, and z need to be changed anyway, but my point will remain valid.

This would be a viable argument if the game had a set of parameters that work by default. Basically, your argument hinges on the fact that there's something remotely resembling a balance in a 25pb monsters-by-CR game regardless of class or level.

This argument falls flat on its face when we observe the reality where the powerlevel of a 25pb party hinges entirely on the number of SAD casters the party has, rather than on the point buy itself. That is to say, the point buy is not the defining factor in the party's strength or weakness, but rather the class composition is. As such, it's impossible for CR to function as written since there's a massive fluctuation in power levels of a party of the same level and point buy, while the CR would assume the power levels are constant. Ergo, CR does not measure anything meaningful.

The simple fact that CR is a flawed system destroys any arguments that hinge on the intended balance or fundamental design of the system, including any arguments in favor of 25pb that are based on designers having built the system with it in mind (they did not, btw, they used Elite Array which is a different beast entirely).

Yora

2012-08-07, 01:52 PM

Well, I feel quite confident in making the claim that in the regard of the imbalance of 3rd Edition, Point Buy levels are no bigger or smaller factor than a lot of other things as well.

Which leads to the main point that PB 25 is a valid option for a reasonably well working game. Which PB 36 is as well, but it is not neccessary to make the game work reasonably well.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 01:59 PM

This would be a viable argument if the game had a set of parameters that work by default.

I don't think that's so. Whether it works or not by default, if you take the stock game as a given, change only the variable of PB, then > 25PB will equal Easier Mode relatively speaking.

I am not suggesting or pinning any arguments on the idea that the stock system is balanced or imbalanced. Only that >25PB will make the game Easier Mode, all other things being equal. Which I believe is a perfectly valid point to make.

I happen to think you're exaggerating the brokenness of the CR system, but I don't think it is really relevant to my contention.

Also, you seem to imply that "the number of SAD casters the party has" being an important factor in the difficulty of the game is a bad or imbalancing thing (or poor design?). I think the designers definitely assumed certain party sizes and compositions, and they told the DM's flat out that they would have to adjust things if the party sizes or compositions were different.

...designers having built the system with [25PB] in mind (they did not, btw, they used Elite Array which is a different beast entirely).

I will grant you that, in fact I've said as much outright. I only contend that 25PB is roughly balanced against the Elite Array in monsters and NPC's, whereas >25PB is not. This is not a statement as to whether the entire rest of the game is balanced or not, and in no way hinges on it being so.

I am only saying that there exists a specific balance between 25PB and the elite array used by NPC's and monsters, and that >25PB alters this balance. People using >25PB should be aware of and admit to the alterations caused, specifically that they make the game Easier. Whether the alterations are "good" or "bad" in the end is a discussion I am staying out of.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 02:00 PM

Monsters are built with the 11 11 11 10 10 10 array. NPCs have several arrays to choose from.

Hm, I wasn't under that impression. Do you have a source or example to cite for that?

Flickerdart

2012-08-07, 02:10 PM

Hm, I wasn't under that impression. Do you have a source or example to cite for that?
"Monsters are assumed to have completely average (or standard) ability scores—a 10 or an 11 in each ability, as modified by their racial bonuses." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm)

Tavar

2012-08-07, 02:11 PM

I don't think that's so. Whether it works or not by default, if you take the stock game as a given, change only the variable of PB, then > 25PB will equal Easier Mode relatively speaking.

Going from TPK to a fighting chance is easier, yes. It's not, however, an important point to make.

As for where those numbers are, they're in the DMG, where it talks about mkaing creature stats.

It is interesting that the side arguing for less PB seems to exalt in their better roleplaying, while at the same time saying that you must play cookie cutter characters, ability wise.

Zale

2012-08-07, 02:17 PM

I am not suggesting or pinning any arguments on the idea that the stock system is balanced or imbalanced. Only that >25PB will make the game Easier Mode, all other things being equal. Which I believe is a perfectly valid point to make.

YES! Exactly.

That's the point.

I think the game should be fun. If someone wants to play an awesome martial artist, and decide to go with Monk.. on a >25PB they could squeeze by and in a low Op party. <25PB and the game suddenly becomes much harder for them. They rely on over half the attributes to be effective.

Str for damage, Dex for AC, Con for HP, Wis for AC and abilities. They have to make up for not having full BAB and being squishy for a melee character.

Are you saying that, instead of simply increasing the point buy, they should just put up with being outclassed by nearly everyone else in the group?

Tavar

2012-08-07, 02:20 PM

Don't forget Int if they want to have skills.

Flickerdart

2012-08-07, 02:42 PM

And Cha if they want to use partially charged wands.

Draz74

2012-08-07, 03:14 PM

It does make you wonder if the dev team had this in mind when writing 3ed. After all, in previous editions, Paladins were rare by virtue of requiring much higher stats than, say Fighters. You couldn't even be a Paladin unless you had something like 16 Cha and 14 Wis and 14 Str (I forget the exact figures, but it was pretty harsh). Certain classes are definitely more MAD than others, so is it so hard to imagine those classes as being intended to be restricted to rarer and (by a certain mode of thought) more powerful characters (i.e. higher stats)?
Yes, I do think this is how some classes (including Paladin) ended up so MAD. And I actually don't disagree with this method of preserving the "exotic-ness" of certain classes -- although of course it didn't quite work out right in 3e. Since a Paladin with abnormally super-high stats is still far less powerful than a Cleric with those same insane stats.

That's not how to calculate the pointbuy equivalent. There's no such thing as the average 4D6b3 roll,
Sure there is -- if you pick the right definition of "average," which is a pretty vague term anyway. (Mean? median? RMS?) And I put it in quotes, too. :smalltongue:

and the staggered pointbuy costs for higher attributes invalidate approaches based on averages anyway.
That may be so, but that's a function of the PB rules not actually producing equal-powered results from various arrays that are the same number of "points." Which is certainly an issue, but not one that should factor into the number of points allowed, as long as your campaign has already decided to use PB at all.

There's two basic approaches to determine (or approximate) the pointbuy equivalent: simulation (i.e., generating X random 4D6b3 stat arrays, discarding the ones that qualify for a reroll) or enumeration (i.e., enumerating all possible characters, discounting ones that qualify for reroll, determining the pointbuy equivalents and averaging that value).

Both approaches have their problems due to the vast result space of rolling for six attributes (4D6 for six stats: the corresponding result space has 6^24, or 4,738,381,338,321,616,896 (4.7 quintillion) different events - and no, you can't just use the average of a single stat). Random generation only shows a tiny, tiny portion of the result space, so that the average of even a million randomly generated stat arrays can vary considerably from the next million. And of course, enumeration is prohibitively complex, unless you use a clever trick.
I actually set my program up to enumerate all 4.7 quintillion possibilities ... then yeah, gave up when I did some quick tests and estimated that it would take 2 months of running the computer constantly to complete.

But what I actually used to generate my "typical array" was neither of the methods you list. In order to make both the mean and the spread of the stats' distribution "typical" for 4d6b3, I simply assumed that, between 6 stats, you'd get one result within each 16.6667-percentile of results. I.e., when rolling 4d6 for a single stat, there are 1296 possible results. My "typical" array is defined as getting one result within the worst 216 possibilities, one result within the next-worst 216 possibilities, and so forth, until the final result is within the best 216 possibilities. (It's like saying the "typical" result of rolling 1d6 six times is getting one of each number. It typifies not only the mean, but also the spread and to some extent the skew.)

Then, within each group of 216 possibilities, I calculated both the median and the mean. My "typical array" is the six medians.

My method admittedly ignores the rerolling rules for characters who are too horrible. That's a factor I gave up on when I stopped my two-month enumeration program. But rerolling rules don't change what is a "typical result" of 4d6b3 six times, and since that "typical result" is not eligible for rerolling, it shouldn't make a big difference. Possibly it shouldn't make any difference in determining a "fair" point-buy value.

Clever Enumeration
There is a way to actually get the exact result. Stat values (4D6b3) can only range from 3 to 18 (16 different numbers), which means that there are only 16^6 different characters (sets of 6 stats) that can be generated. That number is much smaller (16,777,216) and can actually be enumerated.

However, the chances of rolling the individual resulting characters vary widely. To account for that, we first weigh each possible character with the chance that it will be rolled. For example p(12,13,14,15,16,17) = p(12) * p(13) * ... * p(17). The chances for rolling each individual number from 3 to 18 using 4D6-DL can be easily derived by enumeration again (6^4 = 1.296 different ways to roll).

That is an interesting method to try out. I am, however, skeptical without seeing more of your work. I may try working this out myself if I have time, though.

Do your probabilities for one-stat 4d6b3 results agree with mine?
3: 1/1296 chance
4: 4/1296 chance
5: 10/1296 chance
6: 21/1296 chance
7: 38/1296 chance
8: 62/1296 chance
9: 91/1296 chance
10: 122/1296 chance
11: 148/1296 chance
12: 167/1296 chance
13: 172/1296 chance
14: 160/1296 chance
15: 131/1296 chance
16: 94/1296 chance
17: 54/1296 chance
18: 21/1296 chance

Depending on how you count rolled values below 8 (those which are not possible in pointbuy and thus have no "official" cost), the average pointbuy value of 4D6b3 comes out to 29.5 - 31.0 points.
Yeah, I'm skeptical that rerolling would cause such a big difference in the final PB-equivalent average. What's yours look like without rerolling?

demigodus

2012-08-07, 03:21 PM

What you've done is to already say that you're altering the game in dozens of other ways by adjusting monster feats, etc. You can't change dozens of variables and then claim that you've proven that a single variable (PB) doesn't correlate to something.

The scientific method applies here. Change a single variable - Point Buy - and yes, the game does get easier. You can then go on to say that x, y, and z need to be changed anyway, but my point will remain valid.

This would work if you were asserting that having a higher PB makes the game easier, IF all other variables are kept the same.

However, what you are asserting is that >25 PB is easy mode, period. That is what you keep saying. A blanket statement that anything over 25 PB is easy mode. What that statement requires to be true, is that no matter how you adjust the other variables, so long as you stay within the rules, it remains easy mode. And since we are arguing how logic works, you are stating it as if it were a tautology. A single counter example would be enough to disprove your statement.

Like, say, asserting that a party of Monk, Ranger, Paladin, Hexblade (tank, striker, divine caster/healer, arcane caster to get all the archetypes), at 30 PB would still be stream rolled by level appropriate dragons if the dragons had their feats/spells adjusted and used their horde of items.

Tavar

2012-08-07, 03:44 PM

A dragon doesn't even need to be buffed to pose a challenge to that group, depending on the levels involved. At level, say, 6-7, a Dragon can be an almost impossible challenge if they just strafe the party to death with breath weapons, going into melee only to deliver the finishing blows.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 03:51 PM

Are you saying that, instead of simply increasing the point buy, they should just put up with being outclassed by nearly everyone else in the group?

You mean am I saying that a 25PB is balanced or unbalanced vis a vis monks? No, I am not saying anything of the sort. I am deliberately refraining from comment on whether the stock game is balanced or unbalanced.

What I am saying is that there is nothing "simply" about increasing PB. That it changes the character of the game in many more ways than simply adjusting the lean toward MAD classes. It also means you have to adjust the stats of monsters and NPC's or else you're in "Easy Mode." I It changes the dynamic of things like hit points, AC, initiative, access to feats, and on, and on...

Inspector

2012-08-07, 03:54 PM

Don't forget Int if they want to have skills.

And Cha if they want to use partially charged wands.

The contention implied is that the inability to do these things means that there is something unintended about 25PB. Why assume that having skills or using partially charged wands was intended? (or, at least, intended without sacrifice)

Inspector

2012-08-07, 03:59 PM

However, what you are asserting is that >25 PB is easy mode, period.

You're misunderstanding because you don't quite have the whole of it. I'm contending that >25PB without adjusting all NPC and Monster stats accordingly is easy mode, when compared to a stock game.

If you alter the stock game by rearranging monster feats, etc, you're changing a third variable, and thus can no longer prove anything meaningful about what PB does or does not do.

Menteith

2012-08-07, 04:10 PM

You're misunderstanding because you don't quite have the whole of it. I'm contending that >25PB without adjusting all NPC and Monster stats accordingly is easy mode, when compared to a stock game.

If you alter the stock game by rearranging monster feats, etc, you're changing a third variable, and thus can no longer prove anything meaningful about what PB does or does not do.

I will have a much easier time playing through the game with a Wizard using 16 Point Buy than a Paladin with 32 Point Buy. You are asserting that it is easier to play through the game with with Paladin. This is an incorrect statement, regardless of modifications to the Monster Manual creatures.

Additionally, without changing anything else, I (as a DM) can increase the challenges faced by the party without altering the creatures in the Monster Manual. This can be accomplished by creating situational modifiers, increasing numbers, or using different monsters of the same CR (such as an Aboleth or Hydra) who are significantly more difficult than other creatures of that CR. I will be creating and presenting unique situations for my party to face, and it takes no more or less effort for me to do this.

EDIT
I personally prefer to use a higher point buy, as I enjoy using lower powered, MAD classes, and a higher point buy can allow me to explore options that I simply wouldn't be able to otherwise (such as a Paladin with a decent Intelligence score, or a Rogue with 18 Strength). I dislike low point buys because they unfairly benefit the higher powered, SAD classes, and worsen the divide between the classes. I dislike low point buys because they can physically prevent certain characters from functioning. I do not believe that a higher Point Buy will significantly affect the difficulty of a game, any more than a lower Point Buy will - in both cases, the DM is going to be coming up with encounters appropriate for the party. Higher Point Buys simply give more customization and benefits to the low power classes.

Oscredwin

2012-08-07, 04:21 PM

Inspector

2012-08-07, 04:32 PM

You are asserting that it is easier to play through the game with [the] Paladin.

Well, it will be easier to play the >25PB Paladin vs the 25PB Paladin. Check my posts, however, and you will not find that I have claimed anywhere that it will be easier to play the >25PB Paladin than the 25PB Wizard. I've refrained from comment on that.

No, I am asserting that the collected entity known as "The Game" will, on the whole, become easier ("Easy Mode") if >25PB is used without adjusting monster and NPC stats proportionally. And not because of MAD mitigation, but rather because >25PB characters will be facing ~25PB monsters. (Elite Array != 25PB, but it is close enough)

If the intent is for "Easy Mode," then no problem. It says so right in the DMG that this option is for "High-powered" campaigns.

But it's not like people are admitting to playing in "Easy Mode." They're playing "High-powered" campaigns, while claiming that they're not high powered - or that the only thing they've done is mitigate MAD a little.

EDIT: And, as I said, >25PB changes the dynamic of things like hit points, AC, initiative, access to feats, and on, and on...

Tavar

2012-08-07, 04:38 PM

The contention implied is that the inability to do these things means that there is something unintended about 25PB. Why assume that having skills or using partially charged wands was intended? (or, at least, intended without sacrifice)

Partially charged wands is a sarcastic reference to something else.

But, the issue is what monks are presented as. In order to fight, they need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis. But they aren't a frontline class, and are intended to have some skills as well, to fit in with the general theme and inspiration of the class, thus needing Int as well. At least, if you want to play to the archtype they supposedly are designed for. And if your intention is that playing the archtype that the class is designed around is a secondary goal, then what's the first?

Though, this does bring up another question as well: are you saying that not playing stereotypes is supposed to be punished? IE, playing a non-stupid, impulsive, and repulsive fighter?

Also, regarding first edition and ability requirements, wasn't this also the edition where being a Fighter was essentially being a placeholder, till you died and were able to re-roll? At least, that's what some people I've talked to have implied.

Oh, and whoever said that CR states it gives certain XP rewards, I'd note that the section itself says that the DM's judgement is required, as sometimes adding more monsters or the like doesn't actually make things noticeably more difficult.

No, I am asserting that the collected entity known as "The Game" will, on the whole, become easier ("Easy Mode") if >25PB is used without adjusting monster and NPC stats proportionally. And not because of MAD mitigation, but rather because >25PB characters will be facing ~25PB monsters. (Elite Array != 25PB, but it is close enough)And this is actually false. Hell, the standard character generation method doesn't give elite array, and NPC's don't use elite array as standard, either.

But it's not like people are admitting to playing in "Easy Mode." They're playing "High-powered" campaigns, while claiming that they're not high powered - or that the only thing they've done is mitigate MAD a little.
Because what you're saying isn't really true. Easy mode implies that there aren't challenges, and is also somewhat insulting. It's as if you went to a non-AP classroom in high school and called all the teens there the slow-class. While it might be true from a purely denotation standpoint(ie, the defintion of the words), it is more troublesome and accurate to look at things from the connotation they provide. And there, it's insulting.

Additionally, I think you're making several rather large assumptions about the game.

Theoboldi

2012-08-07, 04:41 PM

High powered campaigns =/= Easy Mode.

Just saying. I played in some really difficult high powered campaigns.

Menteith

2012-08-07, 04:48 PM

No, I am asserting that the collected entity known as "The Game" will, on the whole, become easier ("Easy Mode") if >25PB is used without adjusting monster and NPC stats proportionally. And not because of MAD mitigation, but rather because >25PB characters will be facing ~25PB monsters. (Elite Array != 25PB, but it is close enough)

If the intent is for "Easy Mode," then no problem. It says so right in the DMG that this option is for "High-powered" campaigns.

But it's not like people are admitting to playing in "Easy Mode." They're playing "High-powered" campaigns, while claiming that they're not high powered - or that the only thing they've done is mitigate MAD a little.

In my experience, High Power campaigns are far more complex, and require a significantly better grasp of the rules in order to play it, regardless of the stat buy used. It is disingenuous to claim a players who are playing in a High Power campaign seek to play in "Easy Mode", and you lack the authority to say that individuals in a high power game are doing so with the desire to play "easy mode". I feel that you are choosing overly antagonistic terms for this discussion. Just what I notice.

At no point in my previous post did I say anything about changing the stats and abilities of the already printed Monster Manual. Due to the inherently subjective nature of the experience system, one can easily add in environmental and situational modifiers which put stronger PCs at a disadvantage using the explicit guidelines within the DMG. There are clear rules for doing this within the game. This ensures that the party will be face appropriate challenges without having to step outside of the rules for modifying creatures.

lsfreak

2012-08-07, 04:49 PM

High powered campaigns =/= Easy Mode.

Just saying. I played in some really difficult high powered campaigns.

Exactly. I ran a game where I believe all the PC's had equivalent of 40 or 42-point buy. I don't think there was a session where at least one PC didn't nearly die. I was primarily putting them up against supposedly CR-appropriate encounters, but they were a mid-op group and I was throwing dragons, high-op equal-level PC-classes, and high-op lower-level PC-class groups at them. Well within CR guidelines, but still, near-deaths were common. Very high point buy doesn't make it easymode.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 04:51 PM

At least, if you want to play to the archtype [monks] supposedly are designed for. And if your intention is that playing the archtype that the class is designed around is a secondary goal, then what's the first?

I'm saying, question the assumption that monks are supposed to do all of those things, AND stand toe-to-toe with a front-line fighter - and that anything less is "weak," or "underpowered," etc. Maybe, in the end, Monks are underpowered. But not nearly as underpowered as peoples' unquestioned assumptions lead them to believe.

Though, this does bring up another question as well: are you saying that not playing stereotypes is supposed to be punished? IE, playing a non-stupid, impulsive, and repulsive fighter?

No, the fighter stats I outlined earlier allow for a clever fighter that uses the 13INT feat chains. He's not stupid or impulsive. A different fighter that has 18STR might indeed be stupid, but I am suggesting that an 18 should be rare enough that it does involve that sort of sacrifice.

Oh, and whoever said that CR states it gives certain XP rewards, I'd note that the section itself says that the DM's judgement is required, as sometimes adding more monsters or the like doesn't actually make things noticeably more difficult.

Noted, but it was in reply to a poster that suggested that the DM just give willy-nilly whatever XP and gold he felt like, problem solved. Whereas the passage you outlined suggests a judgement-call only in those situations on the fringe of what the CR system was intended, such as a horde of low EL creatures.

Eldariel

2012-08-07, 05:04 PM

I don't think that's so. Whether it works or not by default, if you take the stock game as a given, change only the variable of PB, then > 25PB will equal Easier Mode relatively speaking.

I am not suggesting or pinning any arguments on the idea that the stock system is balanced or imbalanced. Only that >25PB will make the game Easier Mode, all other things being equal. Which I believe is a perfectly valid point to make.

I happen to think you're exaggerating the brokenness of the CR system, but I don't think it is really relevant to my contention.

Ok, the principal issue I have with this argument is that you assume something such as a "stock game" exists. I'm saying there's no such thing; a "stock game" does not exist within D&D 3.5. As such, difficulty is extremely relative.

There's no "example campaign" or anything and DMG and MM are basically books full of "adjudicate this"-clauses; you can generate about an infinite variety of campaigns by following the guidelines presented.

I guess your argument is that if you pit a 32pb party against the same encounter as a 25pb party, the 32pb party is going to have an easier time, which can be true for certain parameters. However, since the difficulty of encounters is so ephemeral and it's so trivial to alter it, I claim this is a non-issue. There are no guideline encounters in this game or anything of the sort; there's no such thing as baseline difficulty. As such, it's impossible for anything to be easier or harder since different characters meet different encounters. Maybe the 32pb party encounter had one more mook in it and it was harder for them with no alteration of the creatures or anything of the sort.

Or maybe they simply don't have those extra points in combat relevant attributes and thus their combat efficiency is the exact same as that of the same 25pb party. It's pointless to compare them as such; it does not make the game any easier since there are no rules that determine what the party faces. A 25pb party might be stronger or weaker than a 32pb party depending on a thousand variables. It's got a slightly higher chance of being stronger because of the extra points but since what the party faces is variable, it might very well be that a 32pb party has a harder time; ultimately all that comes down to the DM.

Tl;dr: I find your argument here assumes there is some baseline difficulty to which every campaign and encounter can be compared, and some baseline power a party of certain point buy has and I'm asserting there's no such thing. The game does not have baselines due to the wonkiness of its balancing and as such it's impossible to compare what kind of a party would have an easier time in a hypothetical adventure especially since the hypothetical adventure varies depending on how strong the party is, and the party's strength does not relevantly correlate with the PB.

Also, you seem to imply that "the number of SAD casters the party has" being an important factor in the difficulty of the game is a bad or imbalancing thing (or poor design?). I think the designers definitely assumed certain party sizes and compositions, and they told the DM's flat out that they would have to adjust things if the party sizes or compositions were different.

I'm saying the fact that Druid/Wizard/Cleric/Arcane Trickster stronger than Wizard/Cleric/Fighter/Rogue pretty much means that there's a huge variety of powers within units the rules consider equal (same level, same ECL, etc.). So because of that, what the rules say about balance is automatically off-balance since the units the rules use are irregular.

I will grant you that, in fact I've said as much outright. I only contend that 25PB is roughly balanced against the Elite Array in monsters and NPC's, whereas >25PB is not. This is not a statement as to whether the entire rest of the game is balanced or not, and in no way hinges on it being so.

I am only saying that there exists a specific balance between 25PB and the elite array used by NPC's and monsters, and that >25PB alters this balance. People using >25PB should be aware of and admit to the alterations caused, specifically that they make the game Easier. Whether the alterations are "good" or "bad" in the end is a discussion I am staying out of.

And I'm saying such a balance can't exist because there's no uniform powerlevel for 25PB and thus monsters and NPCs can't be balanced against that since the unit that measures their power has multiple possible values. As such, monsters and NPCs might be balanced against one 25PB party and another 32PB party and they might be too strong for one 36PB party and too weak for another 18PB party.

You can't balance X against Y if there are multiple irregularly varying values for both X and Y. As such, there can be no relevant balancing done between any given point buy and the creatures as presented in the MM and DMG.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 05:08 PM

I feel that you are choosing overly antagonistic terms for this discussion. Just what I notice.

That might actually be a valid point, but in my defense it is in response to the blanket assumption that I see of >25PB, and the disparaging attitudes that many seem to have toward 25PB. This is frustrating because, to use the parlance of Internet Tautologies: Standard Point Buy is Standard.

So, let's set aside this "Easy Mode" language because folks are seeming to fixate on it. The above three posts boil down to, "The game can be made hard through other means, so >25PB doesn't make it easier."

That's just arguing past my point, not at it.

All other things being equal, is the basis of the point I'm trying to make. If all other things are not equal, then you're no longer addressing my point:

1) >25PB without adjusting NPC and monster stats to ALSO have >25PB will make the game easier ("High-Powered"), all other things being equal.

Now, I have several follow-up points:

2) >25PB alters the balance of the game (which is NOT to imply the game is correctly balanced as is) in a myriad of unintended ways vis a vis hit points, AC, initiative, access to feats, the relative value of feats, and on, and on...

3) People need to question their assumptions which they have picked up from playing High-Powered (>25PB) campaigns. Maybe fighters aren't supposed to have 18STR and 13INT. Maybe Rangers aren't supposed to be running around with 18STR. Maybe everyone and their brother (i.e. the wizard) isn't supposed to have pro-athlete CON (14+).

Menteith

2012-08-07, 05:15 PM

That might actually be a valid point, but in my defense it is in response to the blanket assumption that I see of >25PB, and the disparaging attitudes that many seem to have toward 25PB. This is frustrating because, to use the parlance of Internet Tautologies: Standard Point Buy is Standard.

So, let's set aside this "Easy Mode" language because folks are seeming to fixate on it. The above three posts boil down to, "The game can be made hard through other means, so >25PB doesn't make it easier."

That's just arguing past my point, not at it.

All other things being equal, is the basis of the point I'm trying to make. If all other things are not equal, then you're no longer addressing my point:

1) >25PB without adjusting NPC and monster stats to ALSO have >25PB will make the game easier ("High-Powered"), all other things being equal.

Now, I have several follow-up points:

2) >25PB alters the balance of the game (which is NOT to imply the game is correctly balanced as is) in a myriad of unintended ways vis a vis hit points, AC, initiative, access to feats, the relative value of feats, and on, and on...

3) People need to question their assumptions which they have picked up from playing High-Powered (>25PB) campaigns. Maybe fighters aren't supposed to have 18STR and 13INT. Maybe Rangers aren't supposed to be running around with 18STR. Maybe everyone and their brother (i.e. the wizard) isn't supposed to have pro-athlete CON (14+).

No quality in D&D is assumed or supposed. Fighters aren't supposed to have any strength score - there is no objective strength score which is correct. In my experience, many players enjoy having a more versatile and stronger character who's customization they have more control over. A higher point buy allows for this playstyle. You need to understand that there is no correct or incorrect way to play the game, so long as everyone is enjoying themselves. A high point buy allows for a greater degree of character customization and slightly narrows the gap between MAD classes and SAD ones (who benefit substantially less from increased Point Buy). Nothing more, and nothing less.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 05:16 PM

I guess your argument is that if you pit a 32pb party against the same encounter as a 25pb party, the 32pb party is going to have an easier time, which can be true for certain parameters.

Yes, precisely. Assuming the same level of CharOp between the two parties, because, again, we are talking all other things being equal.

As such, it's impossible for anything to be easier or harder since different characters meet different encounters.

You said a lot, there, but I think it all boils down to that.

But, if so, then nobody can ever make any comparisons between anything in D&D, ever.

I don't think this is a valid way to look at it. I think it's perfectly acceptable and useful to make comparisons between things with the caveat of all other things being equal, even in a complex system where multiple variables are always changed.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 05:26 PM

No quality in D&D is assumed or supposed. Fighters aren't supposed to have any strength score - there is no objective strength score which is correct. In my experience, many players enjoy having a more versatile and stronger character who's customization they have more control over. A higher point buy allows for this playstyle. You need to understand that there is no correct or incorrect way to play the game, so long as everyone is enjoying themselves. A high point buy allows for a greater degree of character customization and slightly narrows the gap between MAD classes and SAD ones (who benefit substantially less from increased Point Buy). Nothing more, and nothing less.

That's not quite correct. There are conditional "supposed" 's. You seem to imply that I'm saying the unconditional imperative of "You're not supposed to play an 8 STR fighter," whereas I'm saying the conditional imperative of "you're not supposed to play an 8 STR fighter who doesn't suck at hitting things and damaging them, etc."

But perhaps more importantly: I'm not saying it in the context of some authoritarian DM telling people how to play, as you seem to imply that I am. I'm saying it in the context of peoples' assumptions about how the game was set up. I am throwing question to the argument presented in this thread which follows the form: "25PB can't possibly be working as intended because x isn't possible under 25PB." I am saying, "Are you sure that x was intended?"

Second, you're implying that >25PB changes "customization" and MAD vs SAD, and "nothing more, nothing less." I strongly dispute this claim. It is most definitely not "nothing more." It is indeed several important things more, which I have already outlined.

Tavar

2012-08-07, 05:33 PM

I'm saying, question the assumption that monks are supposed to do all of those things, AND stand toe-to-toe with a front-line fighter - and that anything less is "weak," or "underpowered," etc. Maybe, in the end, Monks are underpowered. But not nearly as underpowered as peoples' unquestioned assumptions lead them to believe.
So, your position is that they should be weaker and more restrictive than the fighter? Really? That seems like a good game design position? To have a class designed as a trap?

And if now, please explain what they should be able to do. Questioning assumptions is all well and good, but if the answer is "they're supposed to suck at everything", you're not making a good case.

Noted, but it was in reply to a poster that suggested that the DM just give willy-nilly whatever XP and gold he felt like, problem solved. Whereas the passage you outlined suggests a judgement-call only in those situations on the fringe of what the CR system was intended, such as a horde of low EL creatures.
Modifying XP Awards and Encounter Levels:
"Other times, the PC's have an advantage. Adjust the Xp award and EL depending on how greatly circumstances change the encounter's difficulty."

Variant: Free-Form Experience

Variant: Faster or Slower Experience

Story Awards section details not giving awards for encounters at all, and only giving plot based awards!

Also, the section you refer to is more general than you imply. Yes, it mainly deals with edge cases, but it also deals with encounters that may or may not have used up resources or just been significantly harder or easier.

So, no, there's plenty of rule justification for not following those guidelines. Maybe you should recheck your assumptions.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 05:37 PM

whereas I'm saying the conditional imperative of "you're not supposed to play an 8 STR fighter who doesn't suck at hitting things and damaging them, etc."

That may not be the best example. A better one would be, "Maybe you're not supposed to play a Ranger with 18STR and spellcasting ability. Maybe not every Ranger is supposed to have very many Ranger spells, or spells at all."

Water_Bear

2012-08-07, 05:40 PM

The problem is, what the designers intended and what the players play are totally different.

The designers intended wizards and sorcerer to be blasters, clerics to be heal-bots, Fighters to be the best melee class, and for Monks Rogues and Paladins to be up to the same level of challenge as a Druid. Obviously this is not how it turned out; even without real optimization knowledge, the game changes the first time the party Wizard Disintegrates the BBEG one round after he is introduced (yes this happened in the first game I DM'd).

Higher Point Buys make the game easier for lower tier classes; it makes the Fighter better at fighting, the Monk more of a believable threat, and lets the Paladin use their own class features. The Tier 1/2 classes, on the other hand, don't need more than a 17pt buy because they are SAD Full-Casters; those extra points help them but not to a really noticeable degree.

TL;DR: Yes, higher Point Buy (without CR adjustment) makes the game easier. It also helps mitigate serious inter-party disparities of power and allows weaker classes to realize their potential.

Eldariel

2012-08-07, 05:40 PM

You said a lot, there, but I think it all boils down to that.

But, if so, then nobody can ever make any comparisons between anything in D&D, ever.

The problem here isn't inherently the comparison but the claim that it makes the game "easier". Easier than what? Difficulty is relative in D&D. I wouldn't find the statement "A 32PB party is on average slightly more likely to be stronger than a 25PB party" problematic; that's true (though not saying very much). However, the difficulty of the game is not really related to the party power. Further, I find such a comparison meaningless due to the nature of the system.

You can certainly compare the strength of given parties or characters but does being stronger truly make things easier? And does having higher point buy automatically make you stronger? I posit the answer to both these questions is "no". Higher point buy might make you stronger. It might also be largely irrelevant with regards to your power. It's more like that a 32pb character is stronger than a 25pb character, but not by much since the point buy is, in the end, such a small part of what defines character power. More specific statements like "a 32pb Monk is like to be stronger than a 25pb Monk" can be more specific and certain without losing their truth value since we're heavily limiting the other variables that mostly determine character power, but a general statement is either inaccurate or too vague to be useful.

For instance I prefer DMing to strong characters since I can use my optimization skills without worry on the opposition then, while with a weak party, unless I let Darwin take over, will probably face much simpler and less powerful encounters; so a strong party will probably have a harder time than a weak party in my games simply because it lets me bring my whole system mastery to bear.

Menteith

2012-08-07, 05:41 PM

That's not quite correct. There are conditional "supposed" 's. You seem to imply that I'm saying the unconditional imperative of "You're not supposed to play an 8 STR fighter," whereas I'm saying the conditional imperative of "you're not supposed to play an 8 STR fighter who doesn't suck at hitting things and damaging them, etc."

But perhaps more importantly: I'm not saying it in the context of some authoritarian DM telling people how to play, as you seem to imply that I am. I'm saying it in the context of peoples' assumptions about how the game was set up. I am throwing question to the argument presented in this thread which follows the form: "25PB can't possibly be working as intended because x isn't possible under 25PB." I am saying, "Are you sure that x was intended?"

Second, you're implying that >25PB changes "customization" and MAD vs SAD, and "nothing more, nothing less." I strongly dispute this claim. It is most definitely not "nothing more." It is indeed several important things more, which I have already outlined.

I am not intending to imply any meaning beyond my words. Please don't read things in my statement that aren't there. I am not claiming that you are an authoritarian DM. I am not implying that you're saying something about conditionals. Stick the the things that I have said without putting words in my mouth, don't argue against positions I haven't taken. I'm not sure I understand what you are postulating - could you please restate your first paragraph using different terminology? I apologize, but I don't want to misunderstand you, and I'm not entirely sure what you are saying.

(Referring to the bolded statement above)\
I don't know how the developers intended the game to be played, and honestly, I don't care. I can honestly say that their intent isn't important in my games. That is not to say that I allow for rules abuse or other negative traits, but what the developers thought the game should look like has absolutely nothing to do with the games that I play and run.

The traits you have pointed out (AC, Hit Points, Access to feats) are the things that are changed by an increased point buy. Because SAD classes benefit significantly less from these small bonuses as compared to MAD classes, increasing Point Buy brings these classes closer. Overall, a minor increase in character power will occur on SAD classes, but these classes receive a much smaller relative power boost (an additional skill/level, or an additional HP/level, or an additional +1 AC is markedly less beneficial to a Wizard than turning on class features is). That's what I meant when I said that increased Point Buy lowers the gap between SAD and MAD classes.

lunar2

2012-08-07, 05:41 PM

Inspector actually has a really simple, valid point that everyone is trying to dance around.

if the players have > 25 pb, and nothing else is changed, the game is easier than if the players have 25 pb.

a 28 pb, 10th level fighter with WBL going against a stock fire giant will have an easier time of it than a 25 pb fighter with WBL going against that same fire giant.

if the only thing in the game that changes is the player's ability scores, then the game becomes easier for the players.

it doesn't matter if the 8 pb wizard is more powerful than the 50 pb paladin, or if the 28 pb fighter would have a harder time against a red dragon than the 25 pb fighter has against the fire giant.

all that matters is that 28 > 25. as long as that 1 number is the only thing that changed, then the game just got easier.

now, there are several ways to mitigate that decrease in difficulty such as using tougher monsters, or playing MAD classes, but that doesn't change the fact that the decrease in difficulty is there.

Menteith

2012-08-07, 05:46 PM

Inspector actually has a really simple, valid point that everyone is trying to dance around.

if the players have > 25 pb, and nothing else is changed, the game is easier than if the players have 25 pb.

Changed relative to what, though? I specifically design my encounters for the current party that I'm DMing for. As Eladarial has pointed out, that argument is predicated on the assumption that there is a baseline encounter for D&D, and that all encounters are modified from this baseline. This is incorrect (for me). I'm not dancing around his point; he is making an rather substantial assumption, which his entire argument is predicated on. In my experience, this assumption is incorrect. He has failed to address why he believes that there is an objectively "correct" encounter for a party of a given level, and has failed to prove why this ideal encounter should be assumed in everyone's game (both of which need to be true for the argument he's making to be correct).

Tavar

2012-08-07, 05:48 PM

That's actually not entirely true. The fighters could have the same stats in the core abilities, but one simply has a non-negative Cha modifier, or something.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 05:49 PM

So, your position is that they should be weaker and more restrictive than the fighter? Really? That seems like a good game design position? To have a class designed as a trap?

Weaker at being a fighter, yes. What's so controversial about that?

If you mean that fighters suck at being fighters, I'd say let's leave that out of this. It's for more complex an issue than we can really get into and stay in scope for this discussion.

if the answer is "they're supposed to suck at everything", you're not making a good case.

There's a difference between "suck at everything" and "Jack-of-several-trades." If they can do 80% of what a fighter does and 80% of some other role which fits the archetype, then I would say that is good enough to declare it working as intended.

Variant: Free-Form Experience

Variant: Faster or Slower Experience

Yes... variant. In the same way that >25PB is a variant. Are you thinking I'm making a normative claim? I'm not. I'm making a comparative claim, see above.

Use whatever variants you like. Just don't please claim that they're something that they're not.

Eldariel

2012-08-07, 05:57 PM

Yes... variant. In the same way that >25PB is a variant. Are you thinking I'm making a normative claim? I'm not. I'm making a comparative claim, see above.

Use whatever variants you like. Just don't please claim that they're something that they're not.

25pb is a variant too, for what it's worth. The default stat generation as per PHB is 4d6b3, which (as touched upon earlier) averages about 27-28pb. But that's really entirely irrelevant; DMG lists point buys (all of them) as equally viable stat generation methods so 25pb is no more or less a variant than 32pb.

Further, as touched upon earlier, designer intent is frankly extremely irrelevant which means this is mostly semantics and thus probably not worth discussing in the first place.

Frankly, there are no hard and fast rules about how to run games in D&D 3.5, and for a good reason. Outside living campaigns (which always come with their own rules, mind; DMG rules are fairly irrelevant there) there's no need for them. RAW exists for in-game rules, but we're talking metagame rules here; RAW might as well be "ask your DM" (or if you're the DM, "whatever you want" instead) since that's basically what the DMG amounts to.

Menteith

2012-08-07, 05:58 PM

Yes... variant. In the same way that >25PB is a variant. Are you thinking I'm making a normative claim? I'm not. I'm making a comparative claim, see above.

Use whatever variants you like. Just don't please claim that they're something that they're not.

Just as using a 25PB is a variant. There is no fundamentally correct way to play the game. There is no objectively correct means to generate stats. There is no objectively good or bad thing about having higher stats. In my experience, a higher point buy narrows the gap between the most powerful classes and the least powerful classes, increases the amount of input a player has over their character, and can allow for a wider range of mechanically appropriate characters.

EDIT
Eldariel, why are you always able to say what I mean, but much better than me?

Inspector

2012-08-07, 06:08 PM

I am not intending to imply any meaning beyond my words.

Okay, fair enough. For the first paragraph, which I agree needed revision, replace my example with the one in my next post.

For the second paragraph, just skip the first part, and start from:

I am throwing question to the argument presented in this thread which follows the form: "25PB can't possibly be working as intended because x isn't possible under 25PB." I am saying, "Are you sure that x was intended?"

Now, if you don't give one fig what was intended or not, then fair enough. My statement is aimed at the people in this thread who did in fact present that argument. If that's not you, then disregard it if you want.

The traits you have pointed out (AC, Hit Points, Access to feats) are the things that are changed by an increased point buy.... [example] That's what I meant when I said that increased Point Buy lowers the gap between SAD and MAD classes.

I don't dispute that >25PB lowers the SAD vs MAD gap. But I am saying that unless a "High Power" campaign is intended (note I am no longer using the language, "Easy Mode"), one must beware the fact that >25PB characters will be facing ~25PB monsters and NPC's.

And also that unintended consequences vis a vis AC, Hit Points, access to feats, relative power of feats, etc, abound, not all of which are simply a matter of closing the SAD/MAD gap.

navar100

2012-08-07, 06:12 PM

I just ran a 3rd level party using 27-25-23 of 6-9 players over the course of two days through a module designed for four level one characters. It was good game of roleplay and fun combats. I did not have to alter the combat statistics of the monsters used, mostly troglodytes. All I needed to do was increase the number of enemies. I probably overestimated the final battle strength, I'll get better with experience, but it was still a good fight.

What >25 Point Buy does is make it easier for some players to play the character they want to play. Whether it's by game mechanics mathematical necessity, a player's personal comfort level, or both, is not important. A happy player makes for a happy game. He expects to be challenged and will be. "Easy mode" is only by what the DM gives, not character creation.

You are not a superior DM or player because you prefer your combats to be at the 25 Point Buy 3-10* damage range while others who are at 32 Point Buy or dice rolling are engaged in 8-20* damage range. That is only your personal preference for your comfort level.

*Numbers chosen for demonstration purposes only, not based on any actual mathematical calculations.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 06:19 PM

Just as using a 25PB is a variant. There is no fundamentally correct way to play the game.

You didn't read my second paragraph. I did not claim a fundamentally correct way to play the game. I said, play what you like, but don't call it what it's not.

>25PB is "High-Powered." (It says so in the book, after all) The claim here is that it is NOT high powered; that 25PB is "broken" and that >25PB is "normal." That it only closes the MAD/SAD gap and not really anything significant else. I say that while it does close that gap, it does do "significant [things] else."

My contention is explicitly not that one of these variants is inherently right or wrong, and I'll ask you to please stop saying that my contention is.

My actual contentions are:

1) >25PB without adjusting NPC and monster stats to ALSO have >25PB will make the game easier ("High-Powered"), all other things being equal.

2) >25PB alters the balance of the game (which is NOT to imply the game is correctly balanced as is) in a myriad of unintended ways vis a vis hit points, AC, initiative, access to feats, the relative value of feats, and on, and on...

3) People need to question their assumptions which they have picked up from playing High-Powered (>25PB) campaigns [before claiming that 25PB can't be working as intended.] Maybe fighters aren't supposed to have 18STR and 13INT. Maybe Rangers aren't supposed to be running around with 18STR [and casting Ranger Spells]. Maybe everyone and their brother (i.e. the wizard) isn't supposed to have pro-athlete CON (14+).

lunar2

2012-08-07, 06:21 PM

Changed relative to what, though? I specifically design my encounters for the current party that I'm DMing for. As Eladarial has pointed out, that argument is predicated on the assumption that there is a baseline encounter for D&D, and that all encounters are modified from this baseline. This is incorrect (for me). I'm not dancing around his point; he is making an rather substantial assumption, which his entire argument is predicated on. In my experience, this assumption is incorrect. He has failed to address why he believes that there is an objectively "correct" encounter for a party of a given level, and has failed to prove why this ideal encounter should be assumed in everyone's game (both of which need to be true for the argument he's making to be correct).

it's not predicated on anything. it doesn't matter what the encounter design is, what the optimization level is, what the particular class or level is, or anything else. a high PB character is either more powerful, more versatile, or both, compared to an otherwise identical low PB character.

That's actually not entirely true. The fighters could have the same stats in the core abilities, but one simply has a non-negative Cha modifier, or something.

That fighter with a non-negative charisma modifier is better at social encounters, then. so he's more versatile than the other fighter, and therefore the game as a whole is easier for him. he may not be any more useful than the 25 pb fighter in 1 specific situation, but he is useful across a wider variety of situations.

you would have to specifically build to keep those extra points out of useful areas (changing the optimization level) and/or put him in situations where those extra points don't matter (changing the encounter design) to keep the high PB fighter from being better than the low PB fighter. in other words, you have to change something besides the ability scores in order to balance the higher ability scores.

again, there is only 1 relevant factor here.

28 (or 32, 36, whatever) > 25. if everything else remains constant, regardless of what that constant actually is, then a character with 28 PB will have an easier game than a character with 25 PB.

Menteith

2012-08-07, 06:24 PM

I don't dispute that >25PB lowers the SAD vs MAD gap. But I am saying that unless a "High Power" campaign is intended, one must beware the fact that >25PB characters will be facing ~25PB monsters and NPC's.

And also that unintended consequences vis a vis AC, Hit Points, access to feats, relative power of feats, etc, abound, not all of which are simply a matter of closing the SAD/MAD gap.

This is more for me than you, but I'm going to try and codify the points that we're both raising, and I'd like you to correct me if I'm misrepresenting your views with anyone them. Here's what we both agree on;

- Classes that use a lower point buy will be weaker than the same class receiving a higher point buy.

- The most powerful classes in the game receive a relatively lower benefit form a higher point buy than the weaker classes.

- There is no objectively correct way to determine stat generation.

- High powered campaigns are far more dependent on variables beyond stat generation; a 16 Point Buy applied to powerful classes will result in massively more powerful group than a 32 Point Buy applied to weak classes.

Do you agree with what I have posted above? Here are a series of points I believe to be true, and my conclusion drawn from them. If you disagree with any of the points, please be specific in how you disagree with them.

- Developer intent does not need to be a factor in current play, and their views do not need to be taken into consideration in the pursuit of a fun game (Common sense does, but that varies from group to group, and isn't based on developer intent).

- A higher point buy will allow for a wider range of concepts to be explored.

- A higher point buy will allow for more capable characters.

- Players enjoy versatile, powerful characters, unless they're specifically looking to explore a weaker character.

- There is no baseline for an encounter; CR is meaningless in a vacuum. If a party is composed of six players, using tier 1-2s with a 32 point buy, I will design a different encounter for them than I would for a party of three using a Monk, Paladin, and Rogue who rolled 3d6 in order. I will not modify an existing encounter for either group, and will instead design from the ground up.

Conclusion
A higher point buy increases the amount of enjoyment players take out of the game. It improves game balance, and does not require any more or less effort to design encounters for. Using a point buy above 25 improves my games.

EDIT

(It says so in the book, after all)
The PHB says a lot of things, many of them wrong. A straight appeal to authority (when I've already stated I don't see it as an authority) isn't going to convince me.

Again, when you say "High Powered" you are making the unstated assumption that it's such a playstyle is abnormal (or else it wouldn't be "high powered"). You can claim that it's a higher power than other point buys; that's true. But such a game isn't objectively "High Power", since we both agree that there is no objectively correct stat gen method. Comparisons can't occur in a vacuum, and a playstyle isn't "High Power" unless the default is lower powered than that - and I don't see a default method of play, which makes the term you're using nonsensical.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 06:25 PM

What >25 Point Buy does is make it easier for some players to play the character they want to play. Whether it's by game mechanics mathematical necessity, a player's personal comfort level, or both, is not important. A happy player makes for a happy game.

But, "play the character they want to play" is a nonspecific euphemism. What you mean is that some players want to play high-powered characters. They want to play a fighter with the peak of STR possible to mankind (i.e. 18) and INT-based feat chains and high DEX and high CON. Does a 25PB game allow this? Not so much. Is a 25PB game right for your players? Perhaps not.

But High-Powered is High-Powered. I'm just saying let's call a spade a spade, here.

Tavar

2012-08-07, 06:25 PM

Weaker at being a fighter, yes. What's so controversial about that?
You'll note that's not what I said. I said weaker and more restrictive. Restrictive, as in having fewer options.

There's a difference between "suck at everything" and "Jack-of-several-trades." If they can do 80% of what a fighter does and 80% of some other role which fits the archetype, then I would say that is good enough to declare it working as intended.
There is a difference. The bard can do a good job of this. The Monk does a poor one. The only things it can bring to the party are Combat, skills, and maybe a party face.

But, in order to do the first, they need Str, Dex, Con, and Wisdom. Do do the second they need Int, and the third requires at least Cha, and Int wouldn't hurt either. Since you've said that they aren't supposed to bring all of that to the table at the same time, however, you are stating that they aren't supposed to be a jack of all trades class. So, which is it?

Yes... variant. In the same way that >25PB is a variant. Are you thinking I'm making a normative claim? I'm not. I'm making a comparative claim, see above.

Use whatever variants you like. Just don't please claim that they're something that they're not.
If you stop making false claims, I'll stop bringing up counter claims.

As to your complaint, what about being a variant stops those 2 points from being valid? The fact that they disprove you?

Eldariel

2012-08-07, 06:28 PM

That fighter with a non-negative charisma modifier is better at social encounters, then. so he's more versatile than the other fighter, and therefore the game as a whole is easier for him. he may not be any more useful than the 25 pb fighter in 1 specific situation, but he is useful across a wider variety of situations.

you would have to specifically build to keep those extra points out of useful areas (changing the optimization level) and/or put him in situations where those extra points don't matter (changing the encounter design) to keep the high PB fighter from being better than the low PB fighter. in other words, you have to change something besides the ability scores in order to balance the higher ability scores.

again, there is only 1 relevant factor here.

28 (or 32, 36, whatever) > 25. if everything else remains constant, regardless of what that constant actually is, then a character with 28 PB will have an easier game than a character with 25 PB.

As touched upon earlier, this is simply a flaw in terminology. You are saying "will have an easier game" where you're trying to say "is probably stronger" (you could say "will probably have an easier game compared to the same character with a lower point buy playing the same campaign with all other factors being equal" but seriously, that doesn't mean anything and it's just plain bloated compared to "is probably stronger").

"Easy mode" is a misnomer due to variables determining game difficulty generally being outside character power (and a stronger character being fully capable of pulling stronger games). Again, regardless of the truth value of the argument itself, please refrain from using misleading terminology. We discussed over two pages simply because of an unfortunate choice of words.

Menteith: I don't believe you're currently in any disagreement with Inspector. He isn't arguing whether 32pb is more or less enjoyable or functional than 25pb, but simply raising an argument on the intent (something that doesn't matter to you) of 25pb.

Far as I can tell, you both are in agreement or indifferent over your actual crux points.

Menteith

2012-08-07, 06:35 PM

Fair enough;

Inspector, I apologize for misunderstanding you, and will back out of the thread, barring a response to my previous post.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 06:41 PM

Here's what we both agree on;

- Classes that use a lower point buy will be weaker than the same class receiving a higher point buy.

- The most powerful classes in the game receive a relatively lower benefit form a higher point buy than the weaker classes.

- There is no objectively correct way to determine stat generation.

- High powered campaigns are far more dependent on variables beyond stat generation; a 16 Point Buy applied to powerful classes will result in massively more powerful group than a 32 Point Buy applied to weak classes.

Do you agree with what I have posted above?

(blue highlight mine)

Yes, but I would change the language from "objectively" to "inherently." It's a minor semantic point, and probably above what's needed here, but it's something that I find personally important.

- A higher point buy will allow for a wider range of [character] concepts to be explored.

Yes, I agree, but "a wider range of [character] concepts" here only means "a range of [character] concepts that includes Higher-Powered ones." Adding the possibility of more High-Powered character concepts to a game does not necessarily add something useful. Sometimes, it is more useful to make players choose between what their characters can or can't be. Sometimes High-Powered characters don't force players to make Interesting Choices.

- A higher point buy will allow for more capable characters.

Yes - more capable characters means Higher-Powered characters. Sometimes, a good thing, other times not.

- Players enjoy versatile, powerful characters, unless they're specifically looking to explore a weaker character.

As you say, some players do, some do not.

- There is no baseline for an encounter

This seems too vague, or perhaps tangential to anything I'm saying.

Remember: it is not simply my contention that >25PB = Higher Power, but that >25PB characters vs ~25PB monsters = Higher Power. IF a DM is using >25PB SIMPLY to solve the SAD/MAD gap and NOT to alter the Power Level of the players, then this would be a mistake. Because the monsters would ALSO need to use >25PB, and also because of unintended consequences to feats, HP, AC, etc.

Conclusion
A higher point buy increases the amount of enjoyment players take out of the game. It improves game balance, and does not require any more or less effort to design encounters for. Using a point buy above 25 improves my games.

Disagree, for reasons listed above.

EDIT

The PHB says a lot of things, many of them wrong. A straight appeal to authority (when I've already stated I don't see it as an authority) isn't going to convince me.

That wasn't intended as an appeal to authority; it was an aside to a point I'd already made. Thus, the "after all."

Temotei

2012-08-07, 06:42 PM

The KotORs use 30 PB, though the party members differ wildly (I recall Kreia is 34)

Way late, but Kreia has a 42-point ability setup.

Menteith

2012-08-07, 06:45 PM

Remember: it is not simply my contention that >25PB = Higher Power, but that >25PB characters vs ~25PB monsters = Higher Power. IF a DM is using >25PB SIMPLY to solve the SAD/MAD gap and NOT to alter the Power Level of the players, then this would be a mistake. Because the monsters would ALSO need to use >25PB, and also because of unintended consequences to feats, HP, AC, etc.

I agree entirely with this statement. I believe that I have been misunderstanding you. Sorry for jumping into the discussion without fully understanding your position :smallfrown:.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 06:46 PM

Again, when you say "High Powered" you are making the unstated assumption that it's such a playstyle is abnormal (or else it wouldn't be "high powered"). You can claim that it's a higher power than other point buys; that's true. But such a game isn't objectively "High Power", since we both agree that there is no objectively correct stat gen method. Comparisons can't occur in a vacuum, and a playstyle isn't "High Power" unless the default is lower powered than that - and I don't see a default method of play, which makes the term you're using nonsensical.

(This edit wasn't present for my previous reply)

Indeed, it's not inherently correct or incorrect. But it is "High Power" because the monster/NPC stats are done with the Elite Array. Thus, the 25PB is "normal" (as it is relatively close to 25PB) and >25PB is "High Powered," because it is higher relative to the baseline is the stat set for Team Monster.

Again, nothing inherently wrong about this - some players prefer High Power games and if your players do then you should probably use the High Power point buys.

Flickerdart

2012-08-07, 06:50 PM

But it is "High Power" because the monster/NPC stats are done with the Elite Array.
Except they're not, as has been shown repeatedly already. Monsters are 11,11,11,10,10,10, NPCs with NPC class levels use the nonelite array.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 06:53 PM

You'll note that's not what I said. I said weaker and more restrictive. Restrictive, as in having fewer options.

Not sure what you mean by this. A fighter gets near-bupkis for skills; they're restricted to fighting, pretty much. How is a monk more restrictive relative to a fighter?

Since you've said that they aren't supposed to bring all of that to the table at the same time, however, you are stating that they aren't supposed to be a jack of all trades class. So, which is it?

That's exactly why I said "Jack of SOME trades" and not "Jack of ALL," heh. The baseline I gave was to perform the roles of two specialists 80% as well as either. I think where you're getting tripped up is expecting to perform the roles of three to five specialists 80% as well as either.

If you stop making false claims, I'll stop bringing up counter claims.

As to your complaint, what about being a variant stops those 2 points from being valid? The fact that they disprove you?

I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to prove. Perhaps one of my subsequent posts does a better job of explaining it. Rather than get into repetition, I'll let you read those and let me know if you still feel I haven't answered your point, here.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 07:01 PM

Except they're not, as has been shown repeatedly already. Monsters are 11,11,11,10,10,10, NPCs with NPC class levels use the nonelite array.

That's a bit harsh. "Been shown repeatedly?" I know you said it once, (not "repeatedly") but "saying" and "showing" aren't the same thing.

But there's no need for you to get upset - I did actually reply to your post; I asked your source. There's been a lot of posts, so maybe you missed it.

I don't think it alters the validity of my arguments, however.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 07:03 PM

I agree entirely with this statement. I believe that I have been misunderstanding you. Sorry for jumping into the discussion without fully understanding your position :smallfrown:.

I'm more glad for the eventual understanding than I am upset at any initial misunderstanding. And I admit I was a bit clumsy initially with my points; hopefully I have fixed that somewhat by now.

Eldariel

2012-08-07, 07:04 PM

Not sure what you mean by this. A fighter gets near-bupkis for skills; they're restricted to fighting, pretty much. How is a monk more restrictive relative to a fighter?

Well, they are restricted to wearing no armor and using a very small array of weapons (in the end, basically their unarmed strikes due to damage dice not keeping up otherwise) if they are intent on maintaining their class features.

Further, they're restricted to needing high Wisdom and Dexterity in addition to Strength and Constitution specifically due to these requirements. And then their pool of skill points does not cover most of what they want to achieve so they do generally need Intelligence.

In this sense a Monk is more restricted than a Fighter with regards to the equipment they can use in combat, and with regards to the stats they need in order to gain the stats they desire for the functionalities the class desires.

It's also worth noting that even an 18/18/18/X/18/X is behind an 18/14/18/X/X/X is behind a Fighter in terms of pure fighting prowess simply because Fighter's superior weapon proficiencies and weapons help a lot, and Fighter's Armor still grants him superior protection to 18 Dex+18 Wis. So there's no need to worry about Monk surpassing Fighter no matter the point buy; there's no array with which a Monk is a better warrior than a Fighter.

Remember: it is not simply my contention that >25PB = Higher Power, but that >25PB characters vs ~25PB monsters = Higher Power. IF a DM is using >25PB SIMPLY to solve the SAD/MAD gap and NOT to alter the Power Level of the players, then this would be a mistake. Because the monsters would ALSO need to use >25PB, and also because of unintended consequences to feats, HP, AC, etc.

I posit that instead of changing the monsters, a different number of monsters might also be used in combat encounters for instance as an auxillary means of balancing things should balancing be required (and it probably is pretty much regardless of everything due to how every party tends to end up in their own place in the power curve). Changing the monsters is certainly not the only way to increase or decrease encounter difficulty as desired (terrain, awareness, numbers, tactics, there's a near-infinite number of things one can fiddle with).

Though of course, most DMs I know (yours truly included) change the monsters anyways so I suppose this is something of a null conundrum. Still, I find the statement you have presented here to be too narrow; altering the monsters is one way but there are other ways to modify encounter difficulty if necessary.

Tavar

2012-08-07, 07:06 PM

Not sure what you mean by this. A fighter gets near-bupkis for skills; they're restricted to fighting, pretty much. How is a monk more restrictive relative to a fighter?
Without buying Int, the monk is at nearly nothing for skills as well. And they can't buy Int without skimping on Str, Dex, Con, and Wis, all of which are needed for them to reach the 'nearly as strong as a fighter' level.

That's exactly why I said "Jack of SOME trades" and not "Jack of ALL," heh. The baseline I gave was to perform the roles of two specialists 80% as well as either. I think where you're getting tripped up is expecting to perform the roles of three to five specialists 80% as well as either.
I'm not assuming this, though. I'm saying that to reach nearly the same level as fighters(ie, 80% as effective), they must essentially solely invest in combat ability, which cuts out their ability to do anything else.

Nevermind that combat is probably the area that they can get closest to the 80% mark.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to prove. Perhaps one of my subsequent posts does a better job of explaining it. Rather than get into repetition, I'll let you read those and let me know if you still feel I haven't answered your point, here.
Not really. As far as I can tell, your argument is that the only way to alter XP rewards would be to completely rule-0 it, which isn't the case as there are several alternatives(just like 25pt buy is a low-powered varient, if you are basing the numbers off of the standard method, which is 4d6 best 3).

Water_Bear

2012-08-07, 07:12 PM

(blue highlight mine)Yes, I agree, but "a wider range of [character] concepts" here only means "a range of [character] concepts that includes Higher-Powered ones." Adding the possibility of more High-Powered character concepts to a game does not necessarily add something useful. Sometimes, it is more useful to make players choose between what their characters can or can't be. Sometimes High-Powered characters don't force players to make Interesting Choices.

If a Paladin who can use their own class features decently is "High-Powered" by your definition, I would say that definition is at best worthless.

What a Paladin NEEDS, at Bare Minimum

Lay on Hands requires Charisma >12, and their Divine Grace / Smite Evil and Turn Undead class features are keyed off Charisma.
To be able to cast Paladin spells requires Wisdom >14 by 14th level; this can be mitigated by Items or increasing their Wisdom score over time but a Wisdom 11 at start is still needed. Also, Save DCs are keyed off Wisdom.
To function in combat, they need Strength >13 (for Power Attack/Cleave) and Constitution >10 for bonus hit-points.

So, at 25pt buy, a Paladin would look something like this;

Strength 14, Dexterity 12, Constitution 12, Intelligence 10, Wisdom 11, Charisma 14

"But that's perfect!" You might say. "The Paladin can use their own class features even at 25pts!"

But remember; this character, just to be able to do the things they are supposed to be able to do at bare miniumum, is now;

Barely getting any benefit out of their Charisma-based abilities; Smite Evil gives a whopping +2 to hit, Divine Grace gives a +2 to their already depressed Saves, and Lay on Hands is healing a mere 2xLevel damage per day.
Casting spells with uselessly low DCs. A DC 12 spell at 4th level is a joke, and the scaling gets worse the higher you increase their level.
About as tough in a fight than their own Special Mount, slightly better with good feat selection and magic weapons.

So yeah, 25pt buy or lower is basically a "Tier Check." Weak classes are made barely able to function. Powerful classes... remain powerful. I personally advocate Tier-based point buy (20 + 4xTier), but just assigning a 32 or 36 point buy will have similar effects.

Dragonborn

2012-08-07, 07:26 PM

That's a bit harsh. "Been shown repeatedly?" I know you said it once, (not "repeatedly") but "saying" and "showing" aren't the same thing.

But there's no need for you to get upset - I did actually reply to your post; I asked your source. There's been a lot of posts, so maybe you missed it.

I don't think it alters the validity of my arguments, however.

Monsters are assumed to have completely average (or standard) ability scores-a 10 or an 11 in each stat, modified by their racial bonuses.

Pretty sure the full text was linked to earlier in the thread.

Edit: Found it

"Monsters are assumed to have completely average (or standard) ability scores—a 10 or an 11 in each ability, as modified by their racial bonuses." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm)

Inspector

2012-08-07, 07:30 PM

It's also worth noting that even an 18/18/18/X/18/X is behind an 18/14/18/X/X/X is behind a Fighter

Well, see, now I'm being drawn into a "monks don't suck" argument, where all I mean to say is that "monks don't suck as much as people think they do because their expectations are from High Powered perspectives."

Still, I find the statement you have presented here to be too narrow; altering the monsters is one way but there are others.

It's not simply a question of the difficulty of the encounters. There are two complications.

First, correcting difficulty with asymmetric game changes risks that those game changes will breed the need for more game changes, and those changes still more changes, and so on. You could argue that the horse is out of the barn on that one, but I still say the most prudent path is the one planned specifically to limit game changes.

It's also a question of the balance of stats between players and monsters. A game in which the players know that they simply have higher stats relative to the monsters will feel like they're playing with a handicap there. If your intent is a High Powered game, then no problem; your players obviously like that feeling. But if your intent isn't, then addressing this disparity with better numbers, terrain, or tactics won't help, even if it corrects actual difficulty.

Flickerdart

2012-08-07, 07:39 PM

That's a bit harsh. "Been shown repeatedly?" I know you said it once, (not "repeatedly") but "saying" and "showing" aren't the same thing.

But there's no need for you to get upset - I did actually reply to your post; I asked your source. There's been a lot of posts, so maybe you missed it.

I don't think it alters the validity of my arguments, however.
What, you mean aside from the source that was linked? Monster Manual I, page 290. Clear as crystal, same text as the SRD. If you'd bothered doing any preliminary research before making your assortment of preposterous claims, you'd know this.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 07:41 PM

If a Paladin who can use their own class features decently is "High-Powered" by your definition, I would say that definition is at best worthless.

I don't think it's necessarily correct to assume that every class was intended to meaningfully use every single one of their class features. Or use all of them at more than the "+1" level. Perhaps they were intended to have to pick and choose which ones each individual character would focus on.

What a Paladin NEEDS, at Bare Minimum

Again, that's an opinion based on a number of assumptions, which I think people should question.

Maybe every Paladin is not supposed to do ALL those things at once... maybe they're not supposed to keep up with a fighter unbuffed AND cast offensive spells with save DC's. Maybe that's something only specialist Paladins are supposed to do. Maybe Divine Grace is only supposed to give a +2 bonus. And so on.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 07:44 PM

What, you mean aside from the source that was linked? Monster Manual I, page 290. Clear as crystal, same text as the SRD. If you'd bothered doing any preliminary research before making your assortment of preposterous claims, you'd know this.

Whoa, whoa, now. I don't know if you've noticed this but there have been a LOT of posts I've had to reply to in a very short amount of time. I'm only human and I can miss things. When I said, "I'd asked for your source," that clearly implies that I hadn't seen your post AFTER that.

Theoboldi

2012-08-07, 07:50 PM

Eldariel

2012-08-07, 07:55 PM

Well, see, now I'm being drawn into a "monks don't suck" argument, where all I mean to say is that "monks don't suck as much as people think they do because their expectations are from High Powered perspectives."

Well, I don't think that's really a discussion we should have in this thread. I do think it might be worthwhile to go through the fundamentals of why Monks are considered as weak as they are though; I think people are fairly good with assessing the power of classes regardless of the point buy. And the lower the power the worse off the Monk is after all; Armor-based AC does not decrease with Point Buy but the stat-based AC Monks rely on does.

So if peoples' expectations from high powered perspective is that "Monks suck", then looking at it from a lower power perspective certainly isn't going to improve peoples' opinion. After all, having 16 Dex and Wis means a Monk has similar AC on level 1 as a Fighter does (significantly worse To Hit, Damage, Grapple, etc. of course; basically worse every combat stat) but he'll fall behind once Fullplate comes into play. On the other hand, a 14 Dex/14 Wis Monk is going to fall behind a 12-Dex Fighter with a Scalemail.

So Monk is not only worse than a Fighter, he becomes significantly more worse than a Fighter at fighting the lower the stats go. And since his primary combat contribution is still fighting, being incompetent at that is a dealbreaker; the class simply does not function for what it's designed (supplementary melee combat & support scouting while someone else clears the traps) without insanely good stats. In fact, Rogue does precisely what the Monk is designed much better. They make good scouts, do enough damage to earn their place in combat and can use light armor to reduce the demand on the stats.

As such, if peoples' expectations come from high power games then surely they are looking at comparatively strong Monks.

It's not simply a question of the difficulty of the encounters. There are two complications.

First, correcting difficulty with asymmetric game changes risks that those game changes will breed the need for more game changes, and those changes still more changes, and so on. You could argue that the horse is out of the barn on that one, but I still say the most prudent path is the one planned specifically to limit game changes.

It's also a question of the balance of stats between players and monsters. A game in which the players know that they simply have higher stats relative to the monsters will feel like they're playing with a handicap there. If your intent is a High Powered game, then no problem; your players obviously like that feeling. But if your intent isn't, then addressing this disparity with better numbers, terrain, or tactics won't help, even if it corrects actual difficulty.

Well, I'm simply going to acknowledge your opinion but digress here. I do not think any amount of discussion will enable us to see face-to-face here.

Water_Bear

2012-08-07, 08:09 PM

I don't think it's necessarily correct to assume that every class was intended to meaningfully use every single one of their class features. Or use all of them at more than the "+1" level. Perhaps they were intended to have to pick and choose which ones each individual character would focus on.

...

Maybe every Paladin is not supposed to do ALL those things at once... maybe they're not supposed to keep up with a fighter unbuffed AND cast offensive spells with save DC's. Maybe that's something only specialist Paladins are supposed to do. Maybe Divine Grace is only supposed to give a +2 bonus. And so on.

There are two problems with that;

a) If they aren't supposed to be able to use all of their class features... why make them all class features? Why not make them pick which ones they want... from a list? Rangers have to pick one combat style from a list, Clerics pick two domains from a list, specialist Wizards pick one favored school from a list, etc.

It makes no sense to say that this is some intentional limiter on the unimaginable raw power of the Paladin, because D&D 3.5 already has a way of making you choose which class features you want which is infinitely less stupid.

b) Why do we care what the designers think a Paladin is 'supposed' to do? Unless one of the D&D 3.5 designers is actually my DM why should I follow their dubious intent?

Especially if the math doesn't back it up as even a decently effective play-style and it results in Paladins who can't use their own fraking class features! :smallmad:

Flickerdart

2012-08-07, 08:15 PM

Especially if the math doesn't back it up as even a decently effective play-style and it results in Paladins who can't use their own fraking class features! :smallmad:
If the designers intended the Paladin to use its class features, they wouldn't have added such a dumb code of conduct. Ergo, Paladins are not intended to use their class features at all.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 08:54 PM

and it results in Paladins who can't use their own fraking class features! :smallmad:

Clearly, this angers you, so I would not suggest a normal-powered game for you. High-Powered is the thing for you.

But just because it angers you doesn't mean it wasn't intended. And to say a limit on the use of class features doesn't follow the same format as choosing from a list is also not to say that it wasn't intended.

I am positing that most if not all of the examples given here that were meant to prove that the game does not work as intended at 25PB are committing the fallacy of begging the question. (That is: assuming that which one is attempting to prove) They assume that in order to be working as intended, the game must work as a High-Powered game does.

But what I'm looking to do more than prove anything as nebulous as "what was intended" (I don't think any such thing is provable) is just to get people to question their assumptions. To realize that what they think of as "standard" is in fact a High Powered game. And that another game type (25PB) exists, which isn't "broken," so long as you're not assuming the standards and mechanics of a High-Powered game.

To the question, "why does it matter what was intended or not," I am directly responding to the arguments posited in this thread which say, "25PB does not work as intended. >25PB is required to make things work as intended."

Theoboldi

2012-08-07, 08:58 PM

You do realise that a paladin who can't use his class features is just a fighter without bonus feats, right? :smallconfused: AKA, completly worthless. I don't think that a class being able to do what it's advertised to do is something that should only happen in higher level play.

Can you please explain to me how a paladin is supposed to contribute to his party without his class features?

Inspector

2012-08-07, 09:00 PM

Why did the creators of the game give those classes all these abilities, if they didn't expect you to use all of them? A wizard or a cleric or even a sorcerer can use all of their class features, even on a low point buy. So why shouldn't a Paladin?

Sorcerers don't use every spell on the Sorcerer list. Heck, even Wizards' spells are limited by Spellbooks/WBL.

Choosing Ability Scores is by definition an exercise in choosing which things you want and which you are willing to give up. That class features form a recursive choice along the same lines isn't an unusual concept.

You do realise that a paladin who can't use his class features is just a fighter without bonus feats, right? :smallconfused: AKA, completly worthless. I don't think that a class being able to do what it's advertised to do is something that should only happen in higher level play.

Can you please explain to me how a paladin is supposed to contribute to his party without his class features?

You're equating not being able to use SOME class features with not being able to use ALL class features.

Menteith

2012-08-07, 09:08 PM

Clearly, this angers you, so I would not suggest a normal-powered game for you. High-Powered is the thing for you.

But just because it angers you doesn't mean it wasn't intended. And to say a limit on the use of class features doesn't follow the same format as choosing from a list is also not to say that it wasn't intended.

But what I'm looking to do more than prove anything as nebulous as "what was intended" (I don't think any such thing is provable) is just to get people to question their assumptions. To realize that what they think of as "standard" is in fact a High Powered game. And that another game type (25PB) exists, which isn't "broken," so long as you're not assuming the standards and mechanics of a High-Powered game.

To the question, "why does it matter what was intended or not," I am directly responding to the arguments posited in this thread which say, "25PB does not work as intended. >25PB is required to make things work as intended."

Just with regard to terminology;

I would actually claim that a 25 point buy game is a low power game, and a 32 point buy game is a normal game. This observation is purely from my experience gaming - overall, the vast majority of gamers I've seen use either a weighted rolling system that has an average higher than 25PB, or use a higher value PB. Additionally, if one can show that a class has nonfunctional features due to the nature of the stat gen system, an argument could easily be made that such a game is below the norm in power, and thus should be called low power, rather than "normal". Are you alright with referring to 25PB as low power, and 32PB as normal, rather than 25PB as normal, and 32PB as High Power?

I believe that a class feature is intended for use. Neither of us will be able to prove otherwise; I'm basing my claim on the simple logic that the existence of a feature begs said feature's use. I do not believe the developers put in a feature intending it to not see use. I am also basing this on what I see as fun; players prefer to make use of their class, and will often be disappointed if they are unable to fully use their class features (aka, fully use their class). I believe that the developers understood and enjoyed the same aspects as my group (who wouldn't see nonfunctional features as fun), and thus intended the features be used to promote fun.

25PB isn't broken. 3d6 in order isn't broken. 80PB isn't broken. These options aren't appealing to me, but are functional, and may be attractive to other people for various reasons. I define broken in the sense that it would make the game as a whole nonfunctional. It's possible that someone might enjoy playing an NPC Warrior with awful stats across the board. The great part about this game is that it supports both that playstyle, and the high op Wizard who is literally immune to damage and reshapes the world on a whim.

Aegis013

2012-08-07, 09:13 PM

A game in which the players know that they simply have higher stats relative to the monsters will feel like they're playing with a handicap there. If your intent is a High Powered game, then no problem; your players obviously like that feeling. But if your intent isn't, then addressing this disparity with better numbers, terrain, or tactics won't help, even if it corrects actual difficulty.

I don't think your statement regarding player feelings holds true, though it is an assumption you have about players. Is it an unquestioned one?

The last part, emphasis mine, seems to suggest that even if you correct the problem, you have not corrected the problem. Is this the correct interpretation? Or did you mean something else?

Inspector

2012-08-07, 09:25 PM

Are you alright with referring to 25PB as low power, and 32PB as normal, rather than 25PB as normal, and 32PB as High Power?

No, I don't agree with this: The DMG lists the 25PB as The Standard Point Buy, and higher ones as Nonstandard Point Buy, (Tough or High-Powered). The "25PB is broken" arguments are meant to show that even though 25PB is "Standard," it can't be "Normal" because it is "broken."

I contend that, since it is not broken, it is "Standard" and therefore "Normal."

I believe that a class feature is intended for use.

To say that a class feature is intended for use is only to say that it is intended for at least some characters to use. It is not to say that every character will use it. Now maybe you prefer a game in which every class has use of every feature (in which case High-Power would seem to be the game type for you).

But that's not to say that the game intent was for every character to fully use every class feature. If it was, then it would follow that since 25PB can't do this, it must be abnormal, "broken," or "low powered."

Inspector

2012-08-07, 09:30 PM

I don't think your statement regarding player feelings holds true, though it is an assumption you have about players. Is it an unquestioned one?

No, it isn't an unquestioned one. I outright said that some people prefer High-Powered games, which implies that they are both aware of having boosted stats vs Team Monster and like this. I'm also aware some some players just plain wouldn't notice.

The last part, emphasis mine, seems to suggest that even if you correct the problem, you have not corrected the problem. Is this the correct interpretation? Or did you mean something else?

I meant that even if you correct Problem 1 (difficulty imbalance), you have not corrected Problem 2 (Player perception of handicapping vs the ability scores of monsters).

Menteith

2012-08-07, 09:33 PM

No, I don't agree with this: The DMG lists the 25PB as The Standard Point Buy, and higher ones as Nonstandard Point Buy, (Tough or High-Powered). The "25PB is broken" arguments are meant to show that even though 25PB is "Standard," it can't be "Normal" because it is "broken."

I contend that, since it is not broken, it is "Standard" and therefore "Normal."

To say that a class feature is intended for use is only to say that it is intended for at least some characters to use. It is not to say that every character will use it. Now maybe you prefer a game in which every class has use of every feature (in which case High-Power would seem to be the game type for you).

But that's not to say that the game intent was for every character to fully use every class feature. If it was, then it would follow that since 25PB can't do this, it must be abnormal, "broken," or "low powered."

Again, I can only go from experience. In years of gaming, I have never actually used a 25PB (though I've used lower PBs for various reasons), nor is it typically used for play by post games, build challenges, or any other reason. Thus, despite what the book states, I believe calling it "normal" is disingenuous, given that I have not experienced it as being "normal" in practice. I don't believe that you're correct in calling higher point buys high power when that statement has not been true for me. This may seem to be a trivial point to you, but I'll just refer to 25PB as low power (which is in line with my experiences) and higher point buys as normal.

And you seem comfortable with characters being partially nonfunctional. It seems like a low power game is right for you. Is there anything else we can really say at this point? I have tried to show why I believe normal point buys lead to more engaging games than low power point buys. Low power games are functional, but I believe that they are less fun for players, unless they are specifically looking to play a low power game.

NavyBlue

2012-08-07, 09:37 PM

Menteith

2012-08-07, 09:39 PM

So... Taking all these responses into account, I guess the answer to the original post would be... There isn't really a "normal" or "standard" point generation among different groups, it really just comes down to the groups play style?

Got it in one. :smallwink:

Yeah, that's pretty much it. I've generally seen 32PB used for PbP games, and use a modified PB system for my group, but there's no correct or incorrect answer.

NavyBlue

2012-08-07, 09:47 PM

I've also learned some people are very zealous about their style of play:smalltongue:

Menteith

2012-08-07, 09:51 PM

I've also learned some people are everyone is very zealous about their style of play:smalltongue:

Fixed that for you. And yeah, things can get pretty heated when people's hackles get up (although this thread was pretty tame, to be honest). It's easy to forget that it's just a game we all share and really enjoy.

The Crash Man

2012-08-07, 10:10 PM

For the issue of whether all characters should use all class features, don't think about it like each class feature is a different spell. Think about it as if each class feature is a different CHOICE of a spell.

Whether a Sorcerer picks Fly or Fireball is a choice. Whether a Monk gets to have an actual AC score or a half-decent attack bonus isn't. Otherwise, you'd get to choose between Flowing Water and Brutal Fist styles of Monk or something like that. Whether a Paladin gets Smite Evil and Lay on Hands or spells isn't a choice. Otherwise they'd be ACFs, not tossed onto the same chassis.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 10:14 PM

Is there anything else we can really say at this point?

Maybe, but I'm not inclined to say it if you're going to take repeated, disparaging digs at me like that.

Menteith

2012-08-07, 10:16 PM

Maybe, but I'm not inclined to say it if you're going to take repeated, disparaging digs at me like that.

I'm honestly sorry if I've offended you, and it wasn't my intent to do so. I'm actually not sure what you're reading in my posts as an insult at this point; could you please let me know, so I could clarify my statement?

Inspector

2012-08-07, 10:45 PM

Whether a Paladin gets Smite Evil and Lay on Hands or spells isn't a choice. Otherwise they'd be ACFs, not tossed onto the same chassis.

Smite Evil and Lay on Hands are both CHA based, so that's not even a proposed choice. But I digress.

You're entitled to prefer a game in which all class features are always functioning at full strength, but that doesn't prove that a game in which they aren't is broken and therefore ineligible for the designation of Standard as given in the DMG.

Inspector

2012-08-07, 11:15 PM

If you truly meant none of it as insulting or condescending, then I will accept that. If it would help you, I can detail where I took offense. Bearing in mind that since you didn't intend it this way, it's not really necessary for you to respond directly to any of what I'm about to write...

This may seem to be a trivial point to you, but I'll just refer to 25PB as low power

It's demonstrably not trivial to me, or I wouldn't have invested so much time in this thread. Your reversal of my use of the terms "Standard" and "High-Powered" sounds condescending, the way that you did it. If you just said it the once, and let it go, your point would be proven about the subjectivity of power levels. But to continue the parlance like that sounds like a dig at me.

Also, since I used the phrasing "this may seem trivial to you" to refer to the difference between "objective" and "intrinsic," your use of it here really seems like a dig at me.

And you seem comfortable with characters being partially nonfunctional.

That sounds like deliberately inflammatory language. They can't be considered "nonfunctional," partially or otherwise, if they were never intended to function in that way in the first place. A hairdryer is not intended to mow the lawn. A hairdryer which does not mow the lawn is not "partially nonfunctional." Even if it lacks the function of mowing the lawn. [EDIT: This is probably a sloppy example. Hairdryers don't mow the lawn, ever. Ranger do fight and they do cast spells. But this isn't to say that any single Ranger was intended to have 18STR AND full Ranger spellcasting AND full, maxxed skills. Cars are intended to have all manner of functioning accessories on them: windows, headlights, power seats. But this is not to say a car is "partially nonfunctional" unless you can run every single accessory on it at the same time, while driving.]

I have tried to show why I believe normal point buys lead to more engaging games than low power point buys.

In more neutral language, what you're trying to say with "more engaging" is that some players feel the need to have all of their class features fully active without having to make any choices between them, and that >25PB allows this. While true, when stated in neutral language it does not in any way prove your preference the way the term "more engaging" does.

"More engaging" is non-neutral language, (seemingly) designed to add credibility to your position. I'm semi-offended by such attempts, as I tend to see them as sneaky, especially in the context of my seeing the rest of your post as full of subtle digs at me.

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

Probably none of these things by themselves would sound offensive. It was their combination, together, which led me to that [apparently erroneous] conclusion.

Menteith

2012-08-07, 11:47 PM

I'd rather use neutral terms to describe 25PB against 32PB, but as you initially coached them the decidedly non-neutral "Normal" and "High Power", designators that I disagree with, I decided to use non-neutral terms that I found appropriate. I would still rather just say "25PB" and "greater than 25PB", instead of normal, low power, or high power, as those terms are devoid of other meaning. By your reaction to the designators that I felt were appropriate, you understand why using non-neutral terms can be irritating or offensive. Since neither of us agree on the other's non-neutral terms, would it be alright if we used terms that didn't imply anything? The "this might seem trivial to you" phrase was a really bad coincidence. I didn't use it to spite you, and honestly didn't even remember you had used it.

On (non)functional abilities/classes;
I believe that the developers intended for all classes to have access to all of their class abilities, at the same time. When a normally available ability is inaccessible, I see it as nonfunctional. Thus, I see a class as partially (non)functional when it does not have access to normally available abilities. I do not believe that either of us has evidence to support or undermine my position - my claim is based purely on what I believe. I could use different language, but I thought that it was the best word to describe the way I saw the class. You could change what I said to "partially functional" rather than "partially nonfunctional" without changing the meaning behind it.

In my experience, players have more fun when playing a game in which they have access to a wide range of abilities. They are more invested in their characters and take more pleasure in the mechanical aspects of the game. That's what I meant by engaging. These are decidedly non-neutral words, and I intended for them to be read in support of my position, and to lend credibility to it. I'm arguing a point (my players enjoy the game more when their characters are fully functional), and providing evidence (my experiences) to further that point.

I'm not intending any of this as an insult. I'm attempting to clarify my meaning. I'd rather you disagree with what I'm saying, rather than how I said it, and will try to use less ambiguous language.

Inspector

2012-08-08, 12:28 AM

By your reaction to the designators that I felt were appropriate, you understand why using non-neutral terms can be irritating or offensive.

See, I was right. You were trying to teach me a lesson. I find that condescending. If you wanted to make that point without insulting me, I would suggest just coming out and saying what you mean.

Since neither of us agree on the other's non-neutral terms, would it be alright if we used terms that didn't imply anything?

If you put it that way, sure. My point in using them were only to emphasize that they are the terms used in the DMG (thus, the capitalization). But if they offend you, I'll stop.

In my experience, players have more fun when playing a game in which they have access to a wide range of abilities.

But by saying "engaging" instead of just that, you come off to me as trying to pull a fast one. I.E. attempting to use appealing-sounding language instead of logic.

Menteith

2012-08-08, 12:36 AM

See, I was right. You were trying to teach me a lesson. I find that condescending. If you wanted to make that point without insulting me, I would suggest just coming out and saying what you mean.

If you put it that way, sure. My point in using them were only to emphasize that they are the terms used in the DMG (thus, the capitalization). But if they offend you, I'll stop.

But by saying "engaging" instead of just that, you come off to me as trying to pull a fast one. I.E. attempting to use appealing-sounding language instead of logic.

I'm sorry that you find my actions condescending - I initially believed that you were intentionally using terms whose nature intrinsically legitimized a position that I disagreed with, and I believed that your use of these terms was done to promote said position (that 25PB is the "normal" way to play the game). I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your meaning, and should have simply stated my concern.

I used engaging because I thought it was the most appropriate word to convey my meaning. My players are more engaged in the game under the conditions I outlined above, and thus they find the game more engaging.

The reason that I said "Is there anything left to talk about?" last page is because, well, I'm not sure that we do. The OP has had their question answered, I feel that we've come to a consensus on the key issues, and I don't believe that we'll come to a consensus on the remaining issues. If I'm wrong, by all means, enlighten me, but I don't see where this discussion can go from here.

Inspector

2012-08-08, 12:53 AM

I feel that we've come to a consensus on the key issues, and I don't believe that we'll come to a consensus on the remaining issues. If I'm wrong, by all means, enlighten me, but I don't see where this discussion can go from here.

Yes, I agree that now that we've cleared the air on that last part, we've both made our points. I'm glad you didn't intend any offense, and in light of our conversation, I won't hold any.

Killer Angel

2012-08-08, 02:51 AM

Knaight

2012-08-08, 04:21 AM

The Crash Man

2012-08-08, 08:39 AM

Smite Evil and Lay on Hands are both CHA based, so that's not even a proposed choice. But I digress.

You're entitled to prefer a game in which all class features are always functioning at full strength, but that doesn't prove that a game in which they aren't is broken and therefore ineligible for the designation of Standard as given in the DMG.

That's why I said both Smite Evil and Lay on Hands, rather than Smite Evil OR Lay On Hands. You either get those two, or spells because of your wisdom. Or a halfway-decent fighting ability thanks to strength, which thanks to that full 20 Base Attack Bonus and the nature of Smite Evil itself I'm petty sure you are supposed to use.

Zale

2012-08-08, 09:25 AM

Not sure what you mean by this. A fighter gets near-bupkis for skills; they're restricted to fighting, pretty much. How is a monk more restrictive relative to a fighter?

You must be lawful. You may not wear armor. You need good Str and Dex to deal damage reliably, you need good Con and Wis to survive and use your class skills.

A fighter can be any alignment. A fighter can wear armor. A fighter needs good Str just for damage, they already have the best BAB. They can have a lower Dex, compensating by wearing heavier armor. They need a good Con, but less than a Monk simply because the Monk has lower Hit Dice. They do not need Wis for any of their class features.

Tytalus

2012-08-08, 09:35 AM

That may be so, but that's a function of the PB rules not actually producing equal-powered results from various arrays that are the same number of "points." Which is certainly an issue, but not one that should factor into the number of points allowed, as long as your campaign has already decided to use PB at all.

That's a different issue altogether. I've discussed the question what pointbuy equivalent 4D6b3 does comes out to, not how many points should be allowed in a pointbuy campaign.

It's personal preference, I guess. I've had good experiences with 32 PB.

I actually set my program up to enumerate all 4.7 quintillion possibilities ... then yeah, gave up when I did some quick tests and estimated that it would take 2 months of running the computer constantly to complete.

:smallsmile:

Perhaps you should offer your computer to NASA - checking about 2 trillion possible character arrays per second (almost 2 trillion) is in the realm of supercomputers. I'm not sure how many FLOPS exactly are needed to check a character array, but that's very impressive.

But what I actually used to generate my "typical array" was neither of the methods you list.[/B] In order to make both the mean and the spread of the stats' distribution "typical" for 4d6b3, I simply assumed that, between 6 stats, you'd get one result within each 16.6667-percentile of results. I.e., when rolling 4d6 for a single stat, there are 1296 possible results. My "typical" array is defined as getting one result within the worst 216 possibilities, one result within the next-worst 216 possibilities, and so forth, until the final result is within the best 216 possibilities. (It's like saying the "typical" result of rolling 1d6 six times is getting one of each number. It typifies not only the mean, but also the spread and to some extent the skew.)

That's certainly an interesting approach, but I'm unconvinced that it has any statistical significance. It's not the most common/likely stat array, either.

I'm mostly concerned that it ignores rerolls and that the idea from 1D6 won't necessarily apply since 1D6 has a uniform distribution, while 4D6 doesn't. In fact, the "b3" part skews the distribution further.

Do your probabilities for one-stat 4d6b3 results agree with mine?

Can't check at the moment, but I would assume so if you've enumerated all cases.

Yeah, I'm skeptical that rerolling would cause such a big difference in the final PB-equivalent average. What's yours look like without rerolling?

I think that 9-10% of all characters qualify for a reroll, most of which have very poor PB equivalents. So that's quite a bit.

Looks like I'll have to dig up the old program again.

Zale

2012-08-08, 09:39 AM

That sounds like deliberately inflammatory language. They can't be considered "nonfunctional," partially or otherwise, if they were never intended to function in that way in the first place. A hairdryer is not intended to mow the lawn. A hairdryer which does not mow the lawn is not "partially nonfunctional." Even if it lacks the function of mowing the lawn. [EDIT: This is probably a sloppy example. Hairdryers don't mow the lawn, ever. Ranger do fight and they do cast spells. But this isn't to say that any single Ranger was intended to have 18STR AND full Ranger spellcasting AND full, maxxed skills. Cars are intended to have all manner of functioning accessories on them: windows, headlights, power seats. But this is not to say a car is "partially nonfunctional" unless you can run every single accessory on it at the same time, while driving.]

Do you have an actual reason that a class should not have access to their class features?

Other than saying that's what the designers intended?

Inspector

2012-08-08, 10:41 AM

I don't see a problem to concede the fact that, the "standard point buy", is a bane for MAD classes. They work very poorly with it.

That's why, if you read what I wrote (I know, there's quite a lot of it), I do in fact concede the existence of the MAD/SAD gap and that >25PB does help to close it. But I also contend that this is not the only consequence of >25PB, and that people should be aware of this.

Also, the existence of the MAD/SAD gap is not to say it's so "broken" as to disqualify the DMG of its terminology altogether.

4d6 drop 1, reroll under certain circumstances is the standard. Point buy is a variant rule, and should not be used to evaluate what is normal. What is normal is the equivalent of 4d6 drop 1. That comes to approximately 27 point buy if you ignore the reroll rules, taking them into account it comes to approximately 31 point buy.

I doubt your statistics, there, but even supposing they were true, the equivalent point buy is not the one that matches the statistical average of The Floating Reroll. Because point buying offers the full choice of where the stats go, the Standard Point Buy is deliberately lower in value than The Elite Array or The Floating Reroll.

When I say it's the "Standard Point Buy," and the other is "The High Powered Point Buy," that's because those are the exact words of the DMG. The leap to the word "normal" is a function of two things: the definition of the word, "standard," and the fact that it is the "normal" intended game type. The DMG's terminology makes it clear that >25PB is intended to be the "High Powered" game type. What type you "normally" play has no bearing on this.

NONE of this is to say that you must or should use the Standard Point Buy instead of the High Powered Point Buy or that one is better than the other. They simply are what they are. If you prefer High Powered games, I am not suggesting you do anything but embrace that. It's just a question of terminology - it's incorrect to refer to your >25PB games as "normal" when the DMG outright says what is Standard and what is High Powered.

(In the exact same sense that it would be incorrect to refer to Adult Dragons as Old Dragons.) [Blue=Edited]

Inspector

2012-08-08, 10:55 AM

Do you have an actual reason that a class should not have access to their class features?

Other than saying that's what the designers intended?

First, "a class should not have access to their class features" is not an accurate representation of my position. That language implies that I'm saying a class should not have access to ANY of their class features. And the word "access" is a weasel word. At a 25PB, they have access to the features that they choose to access, to the extent that they choose to do so. The correct question would be, "Do you have an actual reason that a class should not have full power to all of their class features at once?"

But that's an odd question. That's like saying, "Do you have an actual reason that a character should not have a 99,000 Point Buy, other than saying that's what the designers intended?"

When I say it's "intended," I mean simply that the rules working this way is not an oversight, mistake, or errata on the part of the developers. By definition, this kind of statement is going to revolve around designer intent. To ask me if I have a reason other that designer intent for an issue revolving around designer intent is... well, it doesn't make sense to me as a question.

I'm not inferring some nebulous "intent," either. They intended a 25PB to be "Standard." A 25PB necessitates that one sometimes choose between effective features for certain classes. Therefore, by the transitive property, they intended for the Standard situation to be that one sometimes chooses which features will be effective for certain classes.

The Crash Man

2012-08-08, 11:03 AM

First, "a class should not have access to their class features" is not an accurate representation of my position. That language implies that I'm saying a class should not have access to ANY of their class features. And the word "access" is a weasel word. At a 25PB, they have access to the features that they choose to access, to the extent that they choose to do so. The correct question would be, "Do you have an actual reason that a class should not have full power to all of their class features at once?"

But that's an odd question. That's like saying, "Do you have an actual reason that a character should not have a 99,000 Point Buy, other than saying that's what the designers intended?"

When I say it's "intended," I mean simply that the rules working this way is not an oversight, mistake, or errata on the part of the developers. By definition, this kind of statement is going to revolve around designer intent. To ask me if I have a reason other that designer intent for an issue revolving around designer intent is... well, it doesn't make sense to me as a question.

I'm not inferring some nebulous "intent," either. They intended a 25PB to be Standard. A 25PB necessitates that one sometimes choose between effective features for certain classes. Therefore, by the transitive property, they intended for the Standard situation to be that one sometimes chooses which features will be effective for certain classes.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. The difference between 99,000 point buy and 32 or 36 point buy is that one makes monstrosities and the other makes effective characters. 25 point buy, a wizard can slam dunk every point into intelligence and constitution and laugh at the characters who don't even qualify for their own class.

Why should a tier 1 class get access to every choice of class features, while a Paladin or Ranger is forced to pick and choose at levels that shouldn't even be choices. The game doesn't say "You MAY get Lay On Hands." It says "You GET Lay On Hands." If the game's developers wanted a choice in the matter they would make it a choice, rather than filling a class with trap options or hidden dead levels.

This isn't a case of somebody deliberately dong something stupid, like a Barbarian who dumped Strength. This is a case where some of the most interesting archetypes available are traps, either by mistake, malice, or sheer incompetence. I would not call an array where a quarter of the game's core classes were trap options a standard one.

Menteith

2012-08-08, 11:04 AM

I'm not inferring some nebulous "intent," either. They intended a 25PB to be "Standard." A 25PB necessitates that one sometimes choose between effective features for certain classes. Therefore, by the transitive property, they intended for the Standard situation to be that one sometimes chooses which features will be effective for certain classes.

They also intended that Monks compete with Wizards, that Dodge was on par with Natural Spell, and that Titans use their Gate ability purely as an escape tool. They failed. This claim is based on the presentation of all classes as equal, the fact that all feats have an identical cost, and that they give very poorly optimized Round-by-Round tactics in the Titan monster entry.

I claim that these are design failures, and that the existence of these design failures throws your claim into question. It's possible that you are correct, and that they intended 25PB to be a standard which would not allow all classes to fully function. It is also possible that they intended 25PB to be a standard which would allow for all classes to fully function, and simply failed in their execution (as with many of the other metagame recommendations the PHB makes), and that they would have chosen a higher point buy to overcome this if they redesigned the system. I do not believe that either of us has the evidence that will conclusively prove designer intent one way or another; thus, I do not believe that either of us should be able to authoritatively claim developer intent. Again, I will reiterate - you may be correct, and the game is intended to be played with several classes partially functional. The game will still function, and thus, is not broken. In my experience, this is not the way the game is actually played.

If the developers intended for the game to use 25PB, I would see that as a strike against the developers rather than as a point for 25PB. I prefer using different systems to generate stats, and my preference will not be changed based on developer intent. If they intended that I use a system that I see as inferior, the system doesn't become more attractive, their advice becomes less attractive.

Knaight

2012-08-08, 11:25 AM

I doubt your statistics, there, but even supposing they were true, the equivalent point buy is not the one that matches the statistical average of The Floating Reroll. Because point buying offers the full choice of where the stats go, the Standard Point Buy is deliberately lower in value than The Elite Array or The Floating Reroll.

When I say it's the "Standard Point Buy," and the other is "The High Powered Point Buy," that's because those are the exact words of the DMG. The leap to the word "normal" is a function of two things: the definition of the word, "standard," and the fact that it is the "normal" intended game type. The DMG's terminology makes it clear that >25PB is intended to be the "High Powered" game type. What type you "normally" play has no bearing on this.

This is predicated on the assumption that WotC had any idea what they were doing when they designed the point buy rules. It's a throwaway variant rule that takes up about 1/3 of a page, they probably didn't do the math, and just figured that 12.5 was the average roll on 4d6k3, and that since that comes to 27 points they should bring it down a bit. Sure, this overlooks obvious problems with the math, but WotC has a history of overlooking obvious problems.

Inspector

2012-08-08, 11:28 AM

Both replies talk about your preferences. You're both entitled to your preferences. I have no intent in talking you out of them.

You're both just talking past my points.

Knaight

2012-08-08, 11:39 AM

Both replies talk about your preferences. You're both entitled to your preferences. I have no intent in talking you out of them.

You're both just talking past my points.

It has nothing to do with preferences. The standard for WotC powerlevel is 4d6k3. As such, regardless of what WotC claims as standard, any look at what normal powered point buy is relies on finding the equivalent of 4d6k3.

Menteith

2012-08-08, 11:46 AM

Both replies talk about your preferences. You're both entitled to your preferences. I have no intent in talking you out of them.

You're both just talking past my points.

No, I'm not.

I'm not inferring some nebulous "intent," either. They intended a 25PB to be "Standard." A 25PB necessitates that one sometimes choose between effective features for certain classes. Therefore, by the transitive property, they intended for the Standard situation to be that one sometimes chooses which features will be effective for certain classes.

I'm specifically questioning whether or not they intended that the "Standard" accomplish what it does (leave certain classes only partially functional). It's entirely possible they intended a different outcome, and failed in execution. There are many failures of intent within the PHB, and I don't believe you can authoritatively prove that this isn't just another instance of failed execution.

The Crash Man

2012-08-08, 11:50 AM

Both replies talk about your preferences. You're both entitled to your preferences. I have no intent in talking you out of them.

You're both just talking past my points.

We're not looking for preferences. We're looking for a class to do what's advertised. And 25 point buy is horrible for that.

We're not talking past your points either. In fact, I'll address one of them right now: >25 as a "high powered" game.

You claim 3.5 encounters are built on the elite array, but they aren't. Lets look at the humble Ogre.

Racial stats: +10 Strength, -2 Dexterity, +4 Constitution, -4 Intelligence, -4 Charisma.

Actual stats: 21 Strength, 8 Dexterity, 15 Constitution, 6 Intelligence, 10 Wisdom, 7 Charisma.

Do the math and you get the following array: 11/10/11/10/10/11. The exact same array mentioned earlier in this thread.

This is how a monster in 3.5 is built. If you say elite array monsters should challenge elite array players, I guess that means everyone should have no stat above 11 so this Ogre doesn't feel left out.

At the same time, look at a player with point buy. A Wizard can have an 18 in Intelligence at a variety of point buys. No matter what he bobs at the same power level. Nobody cares if he can swing a sword because it isn't a Wizard job. If he can shut down encounters with 18 intelligence at 25 point buy, having some extra points to diversify him at later levels isn't going to make him any worse.

Now back to my favorite example, the Paladin. At lower point buys he has to either specialize in one field or be a very inefficient generalist. While the wizard saunters around with an 18 in his most important stat, the Paladin has to deal with at most a 15 or 16 in his. Hell, even at 32 point buy you're lucky to be rocking the same scores as the wizard before racials.

A 32 point buy game isn't even high powered. Its "catch up to the guy in the pointy hat" powered. Whether the developers call it high powered or not is irrelevant to what actually shows up in play.

demigodus

2012-08-08, 01:03 PM

First, "a class should not have access to their class features" is not an accurate representation of my position. That language implies that I'm saying a class should not have access to ANY of their class features. And the word "access" is a weasel word. At a 25PB, they have access to the features that they choose to access, to the extent that they choose to do so. The correct question would be, "Do you have an actual reason that a class should not have full power to all of their class features at once?"

But that's an odd question. That's like saying, "Do you have an actual reason that a character should not have a 99,000 Point Buy, other than saying that's what the designers intended?"

When I say it's "intended," I mean simply that the rules working this way is not an oversight, mistake, or errata on the part of the developers. By definition, this kind of statement is going to revolve around designer intent. To ask me if I have a reason other that designer intent for an issue revolving around designer intent is... well, it doesn't make sense to me as a question.

Okay, in that case do you have a reason to believe it was designer intent, other then merely asserting so? Like, say, a quote from the designers claiming that some classes weren't supposed to have access to all class features at once?

I'm not inferring some nebulous "intent," either. They intended a 25PB to be "Standard." A 25PB necessitates that one sometimes choose between effective features for certain classes. Therefore, by the transitive property, they intended for the Standard situation to be that one sometimes chooses which features will be effective for certain classes.

See, when your base assumption is "the system is working as the designers intended" for arguments related to 3.5, well... Garbage In, Garbage Out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out). Or in other words, I think we have pretty good evidence that the designers had a very mistaken understanding of how their system worked... See wizards/sorcerors using core only who don't need to blow stuff up to win the game.

Zale

2012-08-08, 02:44 PM

Infernalbargain

2012-08-08, 02:56 PM

Yes, I do think this is how some classes (including Paladin) ended up so MAD. And I actually don't disagree with this method of preserving the "exotic-ness" of certain classes -- although of course it didn't quite work out right in 3e. Since a Paladin with abnormally super-high stats is still far less powerful than a Cleric with those same insane stats.

Sure there is -- if you pick the right definition of "average," which is a pretty vague term anyway. (Mean? median? RMS?) And I put it in quotes, too. :smalltongue:

That may be so, but that's a function of the PB rules not actually producing equal-powered results from various arrays that are the same number of "points." Which is certainly an issue, but not one that should factor into the number of points allowed, as long as your campaign has already decided to use PB at all.

I actually set my program up to enumerate all 4.7 quintillion possibilities ... then yeah, gave up when I did some quick tests and estimated that it would take 2 months of running the computer constantly to complete.

But what I actually used to generate my "typical array" was neither of the methods you list. In order to make both the mean and the spread of the stats' distribution "typical" for 4d6b3, I simply assumed that, between 6 stats, you'd get one result within each 16.6667-percentile of results. I.e., when rolling 4d6 for a single stat, there are 1296 possible results. My "typical" array is defined as getting one result within the worst 216 possibilities, one result within the next-worst 216 possibilities, and so forth, until the final result is within the best 216 possibilities. (It's like saying the "typical" result of rolling 1d6 six times is getting one of each number. It typifies not only the mean, but also the spread and to some extent the skew.)

Then, within each group of 216 possibilities, I calculated both the median and the mean. My "typical array" is the six medians.

My method admittedly ignores the rerolling rules for characters who are too horrible. That's a factor I gave up on when I stopped my two-month enumeration program. But rerolling rules don't change what is a "typical result" of 4d6b3 six times, and since that "typical result" is not eligible for rerolling, it shouldn't make a big difference. Possibly it shouldn't make any difference in determining a "fair" point-buy value.

That is an interesting method to try out. I am, however, skeptical without seeing more of your work. I may try working this out myself if I have time, though.

Do your probabilities for one-stat 4d6b3 results agree with mine?
3: 1/1296 chance
4: 4/1296 chance
5: 10/1296 chance
6: 21/1296 chance
7: 38/1296 chance
8: 62/1296 chance
9: 91/1296 chance
10: 122/1296 chance
11: 148/1296 chance
12: 167/1296 chance
13: 172/1296 chance
14: 160/1296 chance
15: 131/1296 chance
16: 94/1296 chance
17: 54/1296 chance
18: 21/1296 chance

Yeah, I'm skeptical that rerolling would cause such a big difference in the final PB-equivalent average. What's yours look like without rerolling?

I have done the calculation by hand (only filled up the white board once) and my numbers agree.

MukkTB

2012-08-08, 04:07 PM

If we're talking about an adventure module I agree with Inspector. Higher point buy is easier. The encounters remain the same.

If we're talking about free play then the power level of the party is irrelevant. The DM will set them challenges that are slightly less powerful than they are. He can do it without altering the CR. And he can give tough challenges without handing out tons of loot. A lvl 6 fighter ready to do combat with the party in the middle of the road in broad daylight is CR 6. A level 6 wizard in a dark cave underwater who knew the party was coming and prepared to kill them all in a surprise attack is also CR 6. One is harder than the other.

To be honest I prefer the first kind of game. I'd rather measure my success/failure against an absolute standard rather than a stick that is always my height - 20%.

Inspector

2012-08-08, 04:38 PM

It has nothing to do with preferences. The standard for WotC powerlevel is 4d6k3. As such, regardless of what WotC claims as standard, any look at what normal powered point buy is relies on finding the equivalent of 4d6k3.

But it doesn't. It relies on what they outright said is the Standard equivalent. Which doesn't have to match up statistically, because of the added value of getting to choose where your points go.

Inspector

2012-08-08, 04:40 PM

I don't believe you can authoritatively prove that this isn't just another instance of failed execution.

And you can't prove that it is. Thus, the impasse. But: the burden of proof is on the one who wants to deviate from the terminology presented in the book - i.e., you.

Menteith

2012-08-08, 04:47 PM

And you can't prove that it is. Thus, the impasse. But: the burden of proof is on the one who wants to deviate from the terminology presented in the book - i.e., you.

No. The only thing I am claiming is that there is a lack of conclusive evidence one way or another. You are claiming that your viewpoint is the one shared by the developer, and have provided insubstantial evidence to support that claim. Either of our positions could be correct, and barring additional evidence from either side which can conclusively show developer intent (for example, a statement by the developers that they did not intend for all classes to always have access to their class features), we will remain at an impasse.

The burden of proof is on the person who's claiming they authoritatively known exactly what the developer intended. Your only evidence is suspect given an equally likely interpretation (they failed in their design goal) which explains the statement.

EDIT
What Water Bear said.

Water_Bear

2012-08-08, 04:48 PM

And you can't prove that it is. Thus, the impasse. But: the burden of proof is on the one who wants to deviate from the terminology presented in the book - i.e., you.

That's not quite how burden of proof works. If you make a claim ("The designers intended for a 25pt buy and above that is High Powered") you are expected to provide evidence ("It says 25pt buy under Standard Point Buy").

What other people have been saying is, given the evidence that many parts of the game (even entire classes) do not work as advertised at 25pt buy, it cannot be high powered by any logical definition. Under the additional assumption that the designers intended the game to work, this means that either they intended a higher effective Point Buy (the much quoted 27-31 which the 4d6 Drop 1 apparently distributes around).

Basically, you are making a claim which requires evidence (and providing it) and we are saying that the claim is untrue (and providing evidence). But the burden of proof is on you, as the person making a positive claim.

Inspector

2012-08-08, 04:56 PM

If you say elite array monsters should challenge elite array players, I guess that means everyone should have no stat above 11 so this Ogre doesn't feel left out.

No, it means that 11/10/11/10/10/11 monsters were designed to challenge the Standard Point Buy, as that is what the devs considered equivalent to what they called "The standard Player's Handbook Method." They explicitly said that higher PB's were "Tougher" or "High-powered."

If what you're looking to do is close the MAD/SAD gap but not change the game to High-Powered, then you need the monsters to have their stats adjusted also. Because 11/10/11/10/10/11 monsters with >25PB players is exactly what the designers of the game explicitly came out and said was "High-Powered."

You're free to say "I don't think Standard Point Buy games are playable," or "High-Powered games are the best," but to say ">25PB games are not High-Powered games" when the DMG outright says they are is just bizarre.

Menteith

2012-08-08, 05:01 PM

You're free to say "I don't think Standard Point Buy games are playable," or "High-Powered games are the best," but to say ">25PB games are not High-Powered games" when the DMG outright says they are is just bizarre.

To say that >25PB games are High-Powered games solely because the DMG says so isn't any better, given the substantial design failures with the text. It makes more sense to rate games based on what occurs in practice, rather than relying exclusively on a notoriously error prone book. This is the reason that people often rank classes differently on power, even though the PHB claims they're equal in power; should we call the Monk and Wizard equal classes (which they certainly aren't) because the PHB says they are?

Inspector

2012-08-08, 05:01 PM

But the burden of proof is on you, as the person making a positive claim.

The positive claim I am making is that >25PB games are what the developers intended to be "High-Powered Games." I have presented my evidence: That they directly say exactly that in the DMG.

You would have to have conclusive proof otherwise to knock this down. I have seen nothing that is absolutely, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt conclusive yet that they did not intend for >25PB games to be "High-Powered" or that they intended 25PB games to be "Low Powered."

Theoboldi

2012-08-08, 05:05 PM

Menteith

2012-08-08, 05:05 PM

The positive claim I am making is that >25PB games are what the developers intended to be "High-Powered Games." I have presented my evidence: That they directly say exactly that in the DMG.

You would have to have conclusive proof otherwise to knock this down. I have seen nothing that is absolutely, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt conclusive yet that they did not intend for >25PB games to be "High-Powered" or that they intended 25PB games to be "Low Powered."

And the counter argument is that the book is full of design failures, and it wouldn't be unreasonable that they simply made a mistake in assessing power level (as they did in so many other areas). This simple fact makes your evidence insufficient to prove your authoritative claim - because there's another feasible explanation for why they say 25PB is Standard.

Inspector

2012-08-08, 05:10 PM

The burden of proof is on the person who's claiming they authoritatively known exactly what the developer intended

The burden of proof is on the person who's claiming that the developer did not intend what the developer wrote in the book. That's what I mean.

Inspector

2012-08-08, 05:13 PM

Actually, those monsters were designed to fight against rolled characters. Point buy is explitly a variant rule. And it has been pointed out several times, that the average results of the normal rolling method (4d6b3) are usually higher than a 25 point buy, which probably means that the developers made a mistake when they thought up this variant rule.

It's been pointed out several times, and I've answered it several times: choosing where your stats go is more powerful than rolling, so it is no mistake if they made the Standard point buy lower than the statistical average of 4d6b3. By making 25 the Standard, they were explicitly stating that it was their idea of equivalent.

Theoboldi

2012-08-08, 05:17 PM

But that is complete nonsense. Choosing your stats is not more powerful than rolling them, it just better allows you to choose what kind of character you want to play. It's just another mistake the developers made.

Menteith

2012-08-08, 05:23 PM

The burden of proof is on the person who's claiming that the developer did not intend what the developer wrote in the book. That's what I mean.

Bear with me for a minute. Examine the following quote from the same book you're using as an authority;

DMGp173
"Here's an important point: Not all ability scores are equal. For example, the half-orc has a penalty to both Intelligence and Charisma but a bonus to only Strength. That's because neither a penalty to Intelligence nor a penalty to Charisma by itself is equivalent in significance to a bonus to Strength."

This statement is false. Experience with the game has shown most players that the mental stats can be at least as powerful as the physical ones, and that the Half-Orc is underpowered given its stat penalties. This statement shows what the developers intended and what occurs in actual play doesn't always match up. I can provide other examples from the book if you'd like. I cannot objectively prove or disprove the above statement, just as I cannot objectively prove or disprove your claim. If you decided to state that you felt Strength was objectively a stronger stat than Int or Cha (as the developers have done here), I cannot fundamentally disprove you. I can only say that there is an alternate, feasible explanation that explains why they said that - and that is because they were simply wrong.

I don't need to provide proof when you have failed to disprove the null hypothesis. There are multiple explanations for why they would have made that statement, and none of them are correct unless conclusive evidence has been shown. This is basic science/analysis here, and you have not yet provided evidence more compelling than the statement above "proves" that Strength is objectively stronger than -2 Int & -2 Cha. The DMG is full of statements regarding balance and metagame constructs are not correct in gameplay. You have provided a statement from the DMG regarding balance and are claiming it as truth solely because it was in the DMG. That's not sufficient evidence of the statement's truth.

NavyBlue

2012-08-08, 05:24 PM

How exactly does rolling stats not let you choose where your stats go? You roll, you assign, you apply racial adjustments. It's rare (for me anyway) for rolled stats to not have some kind of playable array, rather than, say, an 18 and all under 10s. And if that was the case, I'd probably reroll.

Inspector

2012-08-08, 05:32 PM

This is basic science/analysis here, and you have not yet provided evidence more compelling than the statement above "proves" that Strength is objectively stronger than -2 Int & -2 Cha. The DMG is full of statements regarding balance and metagame constructs are not correct in gameplay. You have provided a statement from the DMG regarding balance and are claiming it as truth solely because it was in the DMG. That's not sufficient evidence of the statement's truth.

But I am not trying to prove that the developers were right. I am only trying the prove the developers' intent. To follow your metaphor, I am not trying to prove that STR is objectively stronger than -2 Int & -2 Cha. I am only proving that the developers believed that STR is objectively stronger than -2 Int & -2 Cha when they wrote the book. Which your citation does prove, and thus also my citation does prove the equivalent in my argument.

Menteith

2012-08-08, 05:38 PM

But I am not trying to prove that the developers were right. I am only trying the prove the developers' intent. To follow your metaphor, I am not trying to prove that STR is objectively stronger than -2 Int & -2 Cha. I am only proving that the developers believed that STR is objectively stronger than -2 Int & -2 Cha when they wrote the book. Which your citation does prove, and thus also my citation does prove the equivalent in my argument.

From the statement, the developers intended that +2 Strength was as valuable as -2 Int & -2 Cha. This is not true in most game. Thus, they intended for something to be true, and failed to design something that would represent their intent.

You may be correct in saying that the developers correctly designed a mechanic that matched their intent. The developers may have intended that all classes have full access to their class abilities, and believed that a 25PB would be sufficient to accomplish that, only to fail in designing a mechanic to match their intent. Both are feasible. We have (at least) two explanations for why the developers would call a 25PB standard - Either they both intended the power level of a 25PB and designed a mechanic that would represent that, or they intended a different power level and failed to design a mechanic that would represent that. We cannot conclusively prove either. Neither of us can claim developer intent in this argument.

That's my thought process - please let me know which part of it you disagree with, specifically.