All PCs Start With All Base 18s - Thoughts?

[Endarire]

Greetings, all!

Considering all the hooplah that goes into abillity score generation, and how certain classes are a lot more MAD than others, why not just say "everyone gets all base 18s at character creation"? Mechanically, what changes? How does balance change?

[eggynack]

It shouldn't be that different. Classes that were bad before probably won't be good now, particularly because SAD classes can still spend all of their time boosting one score, while MAD classes need to spend on a few different ones, but they'll be marginally better at least. I can also see clerics being a bit better, because while they only need one stat, they can benefit from having good scores in all of them. Balance really wouldn't change, and monks wouldn't suddenly take a running leap to the top of the tier list. The real downside, I think, is that you lose some level of customization in the game. Every character is just this utterly uniform paragon of awesome. Flawless characters aren't that interesting, I think.

[Ravens_cry]

Eh, it only really helps at the first couple levels, where the low tier characters tend to do best anyway. Thematically, it feels silly.

[ryu]

Are racial changes to stats for good or for ill still in effect? If so I think there would still be plenty of customization at low levels. The reason I like the idea is that several little annoyances I'd normally use workarounds for stop existing. For example my wizards don't have to foist loot carrying duty on different characters with higher strength until bags of holding are easily available anymore. I honestly see it as a positive change. Slightly less customization in what was already the most straightforward part of character creation, for a bunch of nice little conveniences.

[eggynack]

Are racial changes to stats for good or for ill still in effect? If so I think there would still be plenty of customization at low levels. The reason I like the idea is that several little annoyances I'd normally use workarounds for stop existing. For example my wizards don't have to foist loot carrying duty on different characters with higher strength until bags of holding are easily available anymore. I honestly see it as a positive change. Slightly less customization in what was already the most straightforward part of character creation, for a bunch of nice little conveniences.
There's certainly some, but it's less. For example, it's now really difficult to make something like a stupid barbarian, or an uncharismatic wizard.

[Endarire]

Base 18s are before racial, age, and template modifiers.

This system pokes people to go in different directions, and changes the degree of success by a maximum of about +5 or 25%. The difference between 8 CHA (-1) and 18 CHA (+4) is merely 5.

This character creation method also assumes people are heroic (and thus generally awesome). It's also a measure to make people stronger at low levels, while not aiding that much in high levels.

[ryu]

There's certainly some, but it's less. For example, it's now really difficult to make something like a stupid barbarian, or an uncharismatic wizard.

And? Do you have any idea how many character archetypes I've seen be built around something as silly or arbitrary as a number in a stat that won't likely come up often in any real way for the character besides fluff? Too many. The real meat of what a character should be comes from things like goals, demeanor, interaction with and perception of people, general moral outlook, general ethical outlook, and for pities sake some actual personal touches like fears, fondness for particular people in a non-pragmatic sense, and even a hobby or two. I've met far too many characters that had their entire being defined by the things they couldn't do and not much else.

[Crake]

You know, they say constraints drive creativity. By having 18 in all stats, it does make for a bit of a boring character.

[eggynack]

And? Do you have any idea how many character archetypes I've seen be built around something as silly or arbitrary as a number in a stat that won't likely come up often in any real way for the character besides fluff? Too many. The real meat of what a character should be comes from things like goals, demeanor, interaction with and perception of people, general moral outlook, general ethical outlook, and for pities sake some actual personal touches like fears, fondness for particular people in a non-pragmatic sense, and even a hobby or two. I've met far too many characters that had their entire being defined by the things they couldn't do and not much else.
I don't think it should be the main method of creating a character, but I do think it should be a component. It's a degree of customization that's just being lost, and a change of this kind would thus make the game more homogeneous. Sure, the fact that this wizard can or can't lift massive weights over his head isn't a driving character trait, but if everyone can just lift massive weights over their head, that quality becomes a non-quality. It matters how strong, or intelligent, or wise someone is, even if their goals, relationships, morals, and fears matter more.

[Phelix-Mu]

Moreover, even with racial and age and template stuff, there is going to be a lot of similarity in stuff. I dunno. I like variety, even when it's suboptimal and tends to screw the mundanes and MAD classes harder than the Tier 1s. But, whatever. It might work in a world where everyone templates up or with buyback and lots of non-humans. I just don't like the idea of the two humans in the party seeming like some messed up version of Stepford Wives.

[Renen]

Heres a philosophy question for you.
If everyone's power goes up (by the same amount too), does anyones power REALLY go up?

[Divide by Zero]

Heres a philosophy question for you.
If everyone's power goes up (by the same amount too), does anyones power REALLY go up?

Relatively speaking, yes. The monk and paladin suddenly become kinda playable, while the wizard just gets a little more durability and some stuff he doesn't care about and the druid is still replacing half of those numbers anyway.

They aren't actually going up by the same amount, because not every class gets the same benefit from every stat. Probably the only high-tier class that gains as much as the low-tier classes is the cleric.

[Stoneback]

I taught my kids to play with the standard array (I think it's called): 15, 14; 13, 12, 10, and 8.

They both appreciate the reason for the 8 and like it being there, while also knowing everyone gets the same numbers so it's "fair."

My wife comes from the 4D6, drop the lowest era. An 8 would drive her CRAZY.

I like 3D6 in order, then pick your class and race. The numbers are just RP suggestions to me, as long as a couple of them are not below average (10 or better in 3.X for example.)

All 18s would frankly bore me.

[Renen]

Relatively speaking, yes. The monk and paladin suddenly become kinda playable, while the wizard just gets a little more durability and some stuff he doesn't care about and the druid is still replacing half of those numbers anyway.

They aren't actually going up by the same amount, because not every class gets the same benefit from every stat. Probably the only high-tier class that gains as much as the low-tier classes is the cleric.

But going uo to +4 from -1 would give you 25% more chance to hit.
Regardless who you are.

So gaining more STR would make melle guys hit harder by 25
Gaining more DEX gives everyones AC a 25% boost and gives ranged 25% to hit (and boosts save)
Gaining more CON gives everyone 5 more hp per lvl (and save)
Gaining more INT gives 5 more skill points and languages to everyone (and 25% to dc of spells of INT casters)...

You get the idea.

[Story]

I like 3D6 in order, then pick your class and race. The numbers are just RP suggestions to me, as long as a couple of them are not below average (10 or better in 3.X for example.)

Do you start working on your next character as soon as you get an 7 in Constitution? Seems like you'd mostly get Warlocks this way.

I know this is how 1ed did things, but from what I've heard, the rule in 1st ed was that you didn't bother even naming your character until it survived to level 4.

[eggynack]

But going uo to +4 from -1 would give you 25% more chance to hit.
Regardless who you are.

So gaining more STR would make melle guys hit harder by 25
Gaining more DEX gives everyones AC a 25% boost and gives ranged 25% to hit (and boosts save)
Gaining more CON gives everyone 5 more hp per lvl (and save)
Gaining more INT gives 5 more skill points and languages to everyone (and 25% to dc of spells of INT casters)...

You get the idea.
Except that's not universally true. A druid at level 6 or above usually won't get any of those benefits from the increased strength or dexterity. A fighter usually won't get any extra AC from that increased dexterity, because of heavy armor, while a monk will get a big AC boost from both dexterity and wisdom. Different classes gain different stuff from high stats, and the fact that you're just assuming a 25% increase doesn't make much sense either. For example, consider the sorcerer and the wizard. Wizards will typically boost intelligence, constitution, and dexterity, while sorcerers will typically boost charisma, constitution, and dexterity. Thus, sorcerers gain more benefit from this change than wizards, because their primary stat doesn't do as much. You're ignoring a lot of stuff with the assumptions you're making.

[Particle_Man]

I assume the DM would make the challenges more, well, challenging to stop the players steamrolling through everything. Therefore after the initial feeling of "all 18s, woot!" it would just be like they had all 14s, say, or all 10s, except they could take a greater variety of feats due to meeting more prerequisites.

If the DM doesn't make the challenges more challenging, well, then the players eventually would get a bit bored, I think.

Now if there was something like: You get all 18s if you play a tier 5 or 6 character, all 14s if you play a tier 3 or 4 character, or all 12s if you play a Tier 1 or 2 character (no multi-classing up a tier, although you can multi-class down a tier) then that might be interesting.

[eggynack]

I assume the DM would make the challenges more, well, challenging to stop the players steamrolling through everything. Therefore after the initial feeling of "all 18s, woot!" it would just be like they had all 14s, say, or all 10s, except they could take a greater variety of feats due to meeting more prerequisites.

If the DM doesn't make the challenges more challenging, well, then the players eventually would get a bit bored, I think.

Now if there was something like: You get all 18s if you play a tier 5 or 6 character, all 14s if you play a tier 3 or 4 character, or all 12s if you play a Tier 1 or 2 character (no multi-classing up a tier, although you can multi-class down a tier) then that might be interesting.
I think you're assuming a bit more steamrolling than would actually occur. High ability scores are never not-nice, but at some point numbers stop being the end all and be all of power. If we're assuming a reasonably high point buy as a starting point, then some characters won't even be significantly impacted by the change. Sure, challenges should probably be made a bit more difficult, but I could easily see the same challenges that challenge a normal party also challenging a high stat party.

[Stoneback]

Do you start working on your next character as soon as you get an 7 in Constitution? Seems like you'd mostly get Warlocks this way.

I know this is how 1ed did things, but from what I've heard, the rule in 1st ed was that you didn't bother even naming your character until it survived to level 4.

Ha! No, I use the standard array now, too. But you bring up a good point: in BX and OSR, low-level play is all about the hit points!

[Endarire]

Having all 18s is meant to help struggling MAD people more than giving a minor boost to people who wouldn't notice.

It also means, that, assuming no CON/HP boosters, everyone gets +4 HP per HD. Assuming average HP, that means d12s get 10.5 HP per HD, d10s get 9.5 HP per HD, d8s get 8.5 HP per HD, d6s get 7.5 HP per HD, and d4s get 6.5 HP per HD. Even then, a good ol' save or die can still one-shot someone. Or just wholloping someone for "if I hit you = death" damage.

[Divide by Zero]

But going uo to +4 from -1 would give you 25% more chance to hit.
Regardless who you are.

So gaining more STR would make melle guys hit harder by 25
Gaining more DEX gives everyones AC a 25% boost and gives ranged 25% to hit (and boosts save)
Gaining more CON gives everyone 5 more hp per lvl (and save)
Gaining more INT gives 5 more skill points and languages to everyone (and 25% to dc of spells of INT casters)...

You get the idea.

Except unless you're a melee fighter, you don't care at all about an improvement to your melee hit chance. So unless the wizard is a gish, they still don't really benefit from that (even if they're crazy enough to use melee touch spells, they're going to be hitting with those most of the time anyway because most monsters' touch AC sucks). Also druids.

Everyone gets some benefit from Dex, sure, but I didn't say it was useless for them, just that some benefit from it more than others. The heavy armor types aren't getting much AC and anyone who doesn't use a lot of ranged attacks doesn't care much about the attack bonus. Pretty much the only universally useful parts of it are initiative and Reflex saves.

Everyone cares about Con, but the casters can already easily have a 14-16 there with standard point buy without impacting their abilities while the more MAD classes have to sacrifice a lot of points from their other secondary stats if they want it that high.

The Int casters would already have 18 Int since they can afford to have their other stats suck, and the value of skill points is relative to how good your class skill list is. Languages are mostly obsolete once you hit level 5 and tongues becomes a thing.

[Coidzor]

Heres a philosophy question for you.
If everyone's power goes up (by the same amount too), does anyones power REALLY go up?

Not everyone is improved to the same degree by having all 18s. Everyone is better protected against being dropped by ability damage to their low ability scores, everyone is assured to have a decent-ish number of skillpoints from 1st level(even non-thug Fighters are getting 6, 7 if they're human), everyone has a decent constitution even at higher levels and will have a good one with standard investment into it, everyone can make the most out of light armor with minimal investment if they weren't going to focus on dexterity and light armor anyway(though this is largely irrelevant if they're going to go for heavy armor anyway).

Compare the difference between characters with high and low base saves. Gaining a +4 where there might have been a -1 penalty before improves the lower base save more by giving them a greater chance of success than it does by reducing an already low chance of failure for those who had a high save. Especially since a character with a low will save generally has low incentive to boost their wisdom.

A non-gishing Wizard is only marginally improved by having an 18 Strength, generally speaking they're not going to be using that. They certainly appreciate having a higher dexterity and constitution even if they never invest in them further than that(depending upon whether non-PCs also benefit from this change), and their already strong will saves have become stronger.

A Paladin can make the odd reflex save and start off using lighter armor without hating themselves for not having full plate at level 1 due to a dexterity that isn't a dump stat, and while they'll never be skillful, the 18 in Int means they can actually know how to ride their horse, know what god they're worshipping(if they worship one) and maybe even be able to tie their own shoe laces. While they'd still prefer tying their casting and Paladin abilities to either Wisdom or Charisma so they only have to focus on raising one mental ability score, they no longer have to worry about making sure they have the minimum wisdom needed to cast and the like. They'd generally already be gunning for high strength and constitution so that's less of a change other than increasing the minimum value they've got there.

Monks... Still want to try to become as SAD as possible, but they don't feel nearly as bad about not having it already done from level 1. They still don't age well, for all their ability to never get wrinkles.

Duskblades... They can now have dexterity, their will save is better, and their save DCs(such as they are) and bonus spells are higher along with having some measure of skillpoints, though most of those would probably go to fuel Knowledge Devotion. Don't really use Charisma though.

A beatstick Cleric enjoys having all 18s, a Cloistered Cleric all the more so since they enjoy having ever more skillpoints, since that doubles the maybe ~14 it could put into strength without cutting into its constitution or wisdom while also allowing it to shore up its weaker reflex save defense and wear less mobility-impeding armor for the same armor class while also having more turn attempts and more effective turning than it would otherwise have had, which allows it to better make use of Divine Metamagic. They already had a good capacity for power even with much lower Dexterity and intelligence and lower strength and charisma, even without opting to instead act as pure casters.

A wildshaping Druid still doesn't care about their 18 strength and dexterity most of the time, because the advantages they're afforded by wildshaping still outweigh them and they can get higher than 18 in those ability scores when they choose to do so. They always appreciate more skillpoints, especially since their skill list isn't bad, and while they don't depend upon Charisma, having it does improve their ability to diplomance both man and beast when they might not have paid much attention to their wild empathy/skills and focused solely on casting(though casting, of course, is still better).

The ones that benefit the most seem to me to be the ones who like having good scores in multiple ability scores but who don't *need* to keep pushing up multiple ability scores. Where a 12 would have sufficed and been boosted as a lower priority, an 18 is greatly appreciated since it both increases the efficacy of whatever the 12 was being used for and either continues to be more effective even as it is slowly boosted after the primary ability score or it allows the character to do other things with the resources it would put into boosting that ability score entirely.


They aren't actually going up by the same amount, because not every class gets the same benefit from every stat. Probably the only high-tier class that gains as much as the low-tier classes is the cleric.

I'd say the Archivist, the Artificer, and the Cleric gain the most out of the T1s, and that mostly depends upon what they're doing. Some Artificers might not notice boosting their ability scores, others will enjoy every ability score that's boosted though wisdom least of all due to it only really effecting their, IIRC, already good will save. If they act in melee or as archer-types, then both archivists and artificers will enjoy it. I think the Spell-to-Power Erudite probably benefits the least, though they may just tie with the Wizard for that one.

Dual-Stat casters will appreciate it more than single-state casters as well, because they don't have to boost the less important of their casting stats as much before they can forget it if they're that sort.


Edit: One advantage I overlooked. All non-caster types are now perfectly situated to take advantage of PrCs that make them into casters/half-casters. Never worry that your Fighter has too low of a Charisma to be a Suel Arcanamach or Knight of the Weave. All Rogues are now capable of being Assassins when they grow up.

[TuggyNE]

I would find getting all 18s rather boring; instead I'd prefer expanding the point buy tables and giving everyone a whole lot of points (like, 60 or something*). Then, while it would be possible to get a 19 or 20 to start with, it would be far more cost-effective to get a bunch of 16s, a 13 or so, and an 18. And that would tend to rather lessen the gap between MAD and SAD.

*Curiously, you can get straight 16s with exactly 60 points in both PF and 3.5.


I taught my kids to play with the standard array (I think it's called): 15, 14; 13, 12, 10, and 8.

That's the elite. Standard is 11,11,11,10,10,10, while the nondescriptly-named nonelite array is 13,12,11,10,9,8.

[MadGreenSon]

I have actually run a game that started with level one PCs who were essentially the fantasy equivalent of Augments (i.e. Khan and such from various incarnations of Star Trek).
This included them having the highest starting stats for their race (18 +/- racial modifiers) and a few other bennies that weren't actually too major (I think they recovered from fatigue faster, healed a bit faster naturally, minor stuff)
It did not make the characters or the game boring at all. They all played very well and the game lasted more than a year and into high teens level-wise before RL assassinated it.
The power of high attributes is not in the mechanics really, it's in how it can effect how the characters are played. The whole group were cunning charismatic geniuses and each of them played it up in their own ways. It was a lot of fun.
Also, having the Wizard grab a guy he's intimidating by the throat and picking him up Vader-style was kinda neat.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

From a balance perspective, I would generally approve of this. Generally.

From a fun perspective... I dunno, sometimes I like the things on my sheet to correspond to how I feel the character is rather than just refluffing everything. I like a low-Con wizard if they're the sickly type with a childhood that was racked with life-threatening diseases. I like my character to have realistic fears that it makes sense for him to actually be adversely affected by without having his overbearingly strong willpower staring at me from the character sheet. I want my character to have simple goals and not care for intellectual thought or expressing their opinions, without the telling me he should actually have Einstein-like brains, more peace of mind and clarity of thought than Buddha himself, and better charismstic skills than every historic leader put together.

But maybe that's just me. Plenty of people on these forums don't seem to have much issue roleplaying as if their mental stats were lower than they are.

[MadGreenSon]

There is something to be said for well roleplayed low attributes as well. A friend met his wife at a game, and at first she thought he was... challenged due to him playing his low Wis/Int Barbarian so well.:smallsmile:

Once she found out he was actually fairly bright when not playing... I forget the character's name, we called him Conan's Dim Clone most days, she was impressed by his roleplay abilities (it was good, he wasn't really a barbarian by culture, he was trained to fight and due to his mental problems he was prone to almost seizure-like outbursts of violence when stressed or angered, it was a really cool way of doing rage) and they hooked up.

Low stats may not win the game. but they can apparently help win at life.:smallbiggrin:

[geekintheground]

i like the "all 18s" idea, however i would allow players to purposefully lower some of their scores for RP purposes.

[SinsI]

That's the way i always play in any computer D&D game.

[Chronos]

Quoth Stoneback:

I taught my kids to play with the standard array (I think it's called): 15, 14; 13, 12, 10, and 8.

They both appreciate the reason for the 8 and like it being there, while also knowing everyone gets the same numbers so it's "fair."

My wife comes from the 4D6, drop the lowest era. An 8 would drive her CRAZY.
So what does she do when she gets one? There's this tendency for people to think of rolled stats as powerful, and they can be, but realistically, 4d6 drop lowest is on average about the same as the elite array or 25 point buy, and it can also be worse.

[Invader]

I will give them a few small boosts in some areas but most builds that are MAD are able to max out all the most pertinent abilities and scores anyway. As been noted it would really benefit MAD classes the most and as most MAD classes aren't the most powerful it probably wouldn't hurt anything.

[Eldan]

This confuses me, really. I mean, I know why some people want to be powerful. But I just don't get the total aversion to having a character with even a slight weakness.

A 10 is average. A 12 is nice. A 14 is pretty good, and an 18 is very rare. At least, that's how I always played it. Why do player characters need to be the absolute best at everything, from level 1?

I've played wizards with constitution 8. I once played a druid with charisma 5 (an unwashed, filthy, stinking forest dweller who pretty much never spoke. A lot of fun). I've played characters with wisdom 6.

What is so terrible about that? Perhaps this thread isn't about that. But I will just never get why some people see an 8 as something terrible. An 8 is not the worst stat ever. It's slightly below average, a barely noticeable weakness. A 5 is terrible. And it still comes up from time to time.

That said, one system I've played around with was "everyone just takes whatever stats they want". Want six 18s? Fine, go ahead. Like having a 6 somewhere, to roleplay a terrible flaw? Also fine.

[MadGreenSon]

That said, one system I've played around with was "everyone just takes whatever stats they want". Want six 18s? Fine, go ahead. Like having a 6 somewhere, to roleplay a terrible flaw? Also fine.

That sounds like a perfect game to really roleplay a Wizard with 20+ Int and 6 Wis!
Transhuman-level intellect combined with no sense of consequences or foresight, and a weak will. A recipe for shenanigans!:smallsmile:

[Eldan]

I'd probably limit people to the normal 3-18 array (before adjustments), at least at the lower levels.

[Coidzor]

This confuses me, really. I mean, I know why some people want to be powerful. But I just don't get the total aversion to having a character with even a slight weakness.

A 10 is average. A 12 is nice. A 14 is pretty good, and an 18 is very rare. At least, that's how I always played it. Why do player characters need to be the absolute best at everything, from level 1?

A 10 in any stat of interest to your character means they should go home because they're never going to amount to anything even in the minor leagues. Average in the world doesn't mean average for adventurers and people who get **** done. Anything less than a 14 means the character is a chump who won't make it in the big leagues.

Imagine a Wizard with only an 11 intelligence. What are they actually going to be capable of accomplishing and how much can they really grow?


I've played wizards with constitution 8. I once played a druid with charisma 5 (an unwashed, filthy, stinking forest dweller who pretty much never spoke. A lot of fun). I've played characters with wisdom 6.

The one that usually actually hurts the characters you'd take that on (unless you were suicidal enough to put a Wisdom 6 on a cleric) is the Low Constitution Wizard, and they have enough buttons to avoid it coming up if they really want to.

What's the real difference between a 5% chance of success on a will save and a 10 or 15% chance, if that?

[Eldan]

?
A 10 in any stat of interest to your character means they should go home because they're never going to amount to anything even in the minor leagues. Average in the world doesn't mean average for adventurers and people who get **** done. Anything less than a 14 means the character is a chump who won't make it in the big leagues.

Imagine a Wizard with only an 11 intelligence. What are they actually going to be capable of accomplishing and how much can they really grow?


I'm not talking about main stats. I'm talking about stats in general. I've talked to a lot of people who get horrified by the mere thought of their character having less than an 8 in any stat. A ten is already bad.

And honestly, you can play a wizard with 14 intelligence pretty well. Look at how NPC stats are generated, the standard array goes up to 13. A modifier of +2 is already above the average for the population. Anything over a 15 puts you out of the elite array.

[TheLastSane1]

10 is suppose to be dead average
12 is suppose to be the average for all PCs as being somewhat better then the common folk
14 is then what? Is it suppose to be like the most elite of elite?
What does that make 16? 18?

Yet we have ready access for very little gold 4k in most cases to increase a specific state by 4 points. So even a commoner should be able to get to this Elite of Elite status then right?

This is another reason why I never liked to see LA handed out for Ability Scores. Because if you rolled nothing but 8-12s. A +4 in a stat even a caster stat is not going to make you broken powerful, no more so then someone who put their lucky 18 in there.

[Coidzor]

I'm not talking about main stats. I'm talking about stats in general. I've talked to a lot of people who get horrified by the mere thought of their character having less than an 8 in any stat. A ten is already bad.

I think part of it is derived more from MAD characters and those people who want to play a Fighting Man who isn't so stupid he can't tie his own shoe laces, isn't completely helpless against anyone with mind-magic or the ability to string words together pretty-like, and who maybe can actually fulfill their fantasy of playing as someone who could be a leader of men. In reality, without some very generous point buy or exceptionally fortuitous rolls, they've either got to accept sucking at their job by having only so-so physical stats or not having the ability to talk or think their way out of a paper bag, let alone take Combat Expertise.

And in part I think the focus on main stats means that other stats get judged by the same criterion, even if having those stats isn't as important to certain characters. A high strength isn't considered gravy for a melee fighting type, it's considered mandatory unless they're substituting another ability score. A Wizard with 10-11 Strength is considered weak, since only a weak character wouldn't have at least a 12 in there, but that's not important since they don't care about strength.


And honestly, you can play a wizard with 14 intelligence pretty well. Look at how NPC stats are generated, the standard array goes up to 13. A modifier of +2 is already above the average for the population. Anything over a 15 puts you out of the elite array.

That's why I said less than a 14. :smalltongue: If a wizard's best stat is their 13 Int, they're going to be playing second banana fiddle unless they're the one-brain-celled person in the kindgom of the brainless.

[eggynack]

Imagine a Wizard with only an 11 intelligence. What are they actually going to be capable of accomplishing and how much can they really grow?

A lot. They won't get much in the way of save DC's or bonus spells, but that's not the biggest issue, as you can easily cast spells lacking in save DC's, and maybe go focused specialist or elven generalist domain wizard so that you can cast all day. Meanwhile, the only level where a wizard with 11 starting intelligence will be unable to cast their highest level of spells is 3, which means that you're basically talking about a wizard with a sorcerer's spell progression. That character is, pretty obviously, capable of incredible levels of power.

[TheLastSane1]

A wizard with 11 INT can still cast level 1 spells. Except without the 4K you need for a Headband of Inspired Intelligence or whatever you are stuck at 11 till 3 when it goes to 12, then 6 when it goes to 13 and so forth.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

I've been know to use this method when I intend to be brutal. No fudged rolls to save pc's, TPK's are fine, the grunts have higher than average HP's. Straight 18's and max HP's per level guys. Why? Because you are going to need it!

[eggynack]

A wizard with 11 INT can still cast level 1 spells. Except without the 4K you need for a Headband of Inspired Intelligence or whatever you are stuck at 11 till 3 when it goes to 12, then 6 when it goes to 13 and so forth.
That's close, but not entirely accurate. Bonuses to ability scores occur every four levels (including, I think, in pathfinder), so they would be stuck at 11 until level 4, at which point they would be able to cast 2nd level spells. At 5th they would need 13 intelligence, but then they can afford a headband of intelligence and are thus at 14 intelligence, which is enough to carry the wizard to 9th level, by which point there is another ability score boost. Then, before 11th, the wizard must upgrade the headband to +4, which grants 17 intelligence. There is a bump at 12th to 18, which allows the wizard to cast 8th's at level 15, and there is a bump at 16, which allows the wizard to cast 9th's at level 17. Thus, only the single lapse in spell access, and not even necessarily that if the wizard can save some money and craft his own headband.

[SinsI]

1 out of 36 people in D&D has a stat of 18.
This means 1 in 72 people has a 18 in a stat suitable for primary caster.
And there are way, way less primary casters in D&D.
So why would anyone without an 18 in such a stat even bother with such a career choice?

As for the supporting classes... They lose too much if they don't have at least 3 high stats, and they have to rely on Wizards for turning into 11-headed cryohydra.

[eggynack]

1 out of 36 people in D&D has a stat of 18.
This means 1 in 72 people has a 18 in a stat suitable for primary caster.
And there are way, way less primary casters in D&D.
So why would anyone without an 18 in such a stat even bother with such a career choice?

As for the supporting classes... They lose too much if they don't have at least 3 high stats, and they have to rely on Wizards for turning into 11-headed cryohydra.
They would presumably make such a career choice because their other stats are also bad. A character with nothing but 10's and 11's has few other choices, at least in terms of optimal decision making, apart from going caster. Besides, I'd take a druid with a bunch of 10's and 11's over a fighter with a bunch of 18's any day of the week. Sometimes people have passions that run counter to their abilities, and sometimes people want to be able to fly of their own volition, even if they won't be the best at it.

[Stoneback]

So what does she do when she gets one? There's this tendency for people to think of rolled stats as powerful, and they can be, but realistically, 4d6 drop lowest is on average about the same as the elite array or 25 point buy, and it can also be worse.

We adjust it up. The other players don't care. I don't care. It's such a tiny thing in the long run.

Also, she's my wife and she'd break my fingers if I didn't.

[Stoneback]

That sounds like a perfect game to really roleplay a Wizard with 20+ Int and 6 Wis!
Transhuman-level intellect combined with no sense of consequences or foresight, and a weak will. A recipe for shenanigans!:smallsmile:

Sounds like some players I've known!

[Stella]

10 is suppose to be dead average
12 is suppose to be the average for all PCs as being somewhat better then the common folk
14 is then what? Is it suppose to be like the most elite of elite?
What does that make 16? 18?14 would be something like a major league player or an Olympic athlete. 16 or 18 would be the best of those major league players or the medal winners. Remember that there are only 3 medals given out, even in events which have quite a few competing athletes. In mental endeavors a 14 might be a cumlaude (I know how it is spelled, but the profanity filter vexed me and I wanted to be clear) student, while a 16 or 18 might be the few students who earn the higher honors or are valedictorians or salutatorians. Wisdom and charisma are a bit more difficult to assign real world examples for, because being wise is difficult to measure except across years of observation (IMO), and while charisma might be applied to politicians but (again IMO) people who go into politics aren't necessarily charismatic so much as corrupt. Perhaps actors or models might work for examples of high charisma scores.


Yet we have ready access for very little gold 4k in most cases to increase a specific state by 4 points. So even a commoner should be able to get to this Elite of Elite status then right?I wouldn't think so. I don't believe a commoner can earn that amount of gold in their lifetime, or if they do their basic living expenses would still prohibit spending so much on such an item.



When I DM I prefer for each player to feel that their character is special in some way. Not necessarily unique, because it's difficult to have a group of 6+ players where there is no class overlap. Just special.

Once when I was running an AD&D campaign I used the Unearthed Arcana suggested method of using (this may not be entirely accurate, because I no longer own those books) 9d6, 8d6, etc. through 4D6 to generate stats. I had rolled a few samples and it didn't seem to be all that egregious or "Monty Haul."

But come character generation time, things went a bit statistically against my samples. As a result, I had Magic Users and Thieves and Clerics with an 18 strength. A few game sessions into the campaign the Fighter, who had rolled an 18 strength and then in the 01-50 range for the % boost, came to me and said he didn't feel that his character was at all special, because his character's strength only provided a +1 damage higher than so many other characters got, diminishing his ability to deal significantly higher melee damage than even the Magic User did when he got stuck in melee (and then, having such a high STR, decided not to back out but to swing instead, which made a sort of sense at low level when he was fairly capable of dispatching a Goblin or Orc with one hit). The Magic User doing 1-4 +2 with a dagger (avg: 4.5) was only slightly lower than the Fighter doing 1-8 +3 with a long sword (avg 7.5). Compare against 2.5 vs. 7.5 for your more average Magic User and the gap has shrunk considerably.

And even getting a hit the non-Fighter classes weren't really all that far behind the Fighter, as the Fighter only had a +1 for class as a hit bonus over all other classes, rather than the ~+3 he would have had against your more typical Magic Users, Thieves, and Clerics who had put their highest stat into Int, Dex, or Wis, respectively. His observation made sense to me and I allowed him to re-roll the %, and he got something like an 85 and was happy, even though the difference still wasn't all that great.

So I'd never again (and never have again, I graduated to assigning one of the arrays) use an "all 18s" system, or even use the UA method ever again. In a game where the casters typically outshine the non-casting types, the casters don't need to be only marginally worse off in the only arena where the melee types have their only area of distinction in which to shine.

[SinsI]

They would presumably make such a career choice because their other stats are also bad. A character with nothing but 10's and 11's has few other choices, at least in terms of optimal decision making, apart from going caster. Besides, I'd take a druid with a bunch of 10's and 11's over a fighter with a bunch of 18's any day of the week. Sometimes people have passions that run counter to their abilities, and sometimes people want to be able to fly of their own volition, even if they won't be the best at it.


Oh, he might want to become a caster.
But why would anyone accept him as a disciple?
We have entrance examinations for a reason...
Those without ability can have a successful farming career.


14 would be something like a major league player or an Olympic athlete. 16 or 18 would be the best of those major league players or the medal winners.

You must be joking, right? 18 in a specific stat is 1 out of 216 - that's a level of one of a public school's top 10 students, not even close to Olympics.

[eggynack]

Oh, he might want to become a caster.
But why would anyone accept him as a disciple?
We have entrance examinations for a reason...
Those without ability can have a successful farming career.

The wizard is very enthusiastic, and eager to learn, so he was accepted by some helpful fellow despite how average he is. Alternatively, he learned what little he is capable of through book reading. Double-alternatively, if he goes with one of the non-wizard classes, like cleric or druid, then there is no entrance examination involved. You did state that this is a career choice being made, instead of something granted externally, so if the character has the choice to make, this is a valid one.

[SinsI]

It might be so - but the proportion of such exceptionally persistent students with inadequate stats should be far lower - i.e. one out of 216 wizards might not start with a 18 Int.

[eggynack]

It might be so - but the proportion of such exceptionally persistent students with inadequate stats should be far lower - i.e. one out of 216 wizards might not start with a 18 Int.
I dunno if I'd go that far with the chances. What if you're running 14 or 16 intelligence, and that's your highest stat? I wouldn't expect a mass of wizards with 11 starting intelligence, but there is presumably a good number of average wizards, as opposed to max intelligence wizards.

[Divide by Zero]

Is there a source that says that everyone in the world gets to roll their stats? I'd imagine that the majority of people just use the standard array, and to even get a chance to roll your stats in the first place requires being marked by fate or something like that. That should keep the number of genius Olympian politicians down to more plausible levels.

[Particle_Man]

For what it is worth, Mutants and Masterminds/DC Adventures uses a d20 system and for them, (the equivalents of) 10 would be average, 12 above average, 14 well above average, 16 gifted, 18 highly gifted, 20 best in a nation, 22 one of the best in the world and 24 the best ever, the peak of human achievement.

Now this would be for a supers game and likely with a much higher base population (like modern Earth's billions).

[MadGreenSon]

I'd probably limit people to the normal 3-18 array (before adjustments), at least at the lower levels.

Killjoy. :biggrin:



That's why I said less than a 14. :smalltongue: If a wizard's best stat is their 13 Int, they're going to be playing second banana fiddle unless they're the one-brain-celled person in the kindgom of the brainless.

If the players were in on it making a game where only one PC wasn't a thick-skulled idiot might make for funny adventures.
I know making all the PCs lusty retirees did. :smallcool:



Sounds like some players I've known!

Oh yeah. I've seen similar done. My wife intentionally dumped Wisdom on a wizard and then played her kinda like an idiot savant valley girl. She even made up rhymes for some of the spells she cast. It was a hoot.


Is there a source that says that everyone in the world gets to roll their stats? I'd imagine that the majority of people just use the standard array, and to even get a chance to roll your stats in the first place requires being marked by fate or something like that. That should keep the number of genius Olympian politicians down to more plausible levels.

You know who should get the good stats? People who'll use 'em! That's why heroes and villains are a cut above, they put those abilities to work. The average villager does not put out the extremes of physical and mental effort that adventurers and villains do therefore they tend to be on the low end stat-wise as a rule.
That's always been my explanation, anyway: Those who put in the effort have the pumped up abilities.

[Coidzor]

If the players were in on it making a game where only one PC wasn't a thick-skulled idiot might make for funny adventures.
I know making all the PCs lusty retirees did. :smallcool:

Excellent point. That does sound hilarious. XD

[Eldan]

You know who should get the good stats? People who'll use 'em! That's why heroes and villains are a cut above, they put those abilities to work. The average villager does not put out the extremes of physical and mental effort that adventurers and villains do therefore they tend to be on the low end stat-wise as a rule.

THey don't tend on the low end. They are average. Thta's what I mean: 10 is not low. It's average.

If you really assume everyone rolls their stats, there's just as many people with 3s in every stat as there are people with 18s. And a 3 is as bad as an 18 is good (if that makes sense). Just as far away from average.

[MadGreenSon]

Truth is, the people I game with do roll their stats and tend to roll very well. On at least one occasion we've had a player in the group who had dice luck that seemed supernatural.
Example: I got tired of him rolling 2-3 17-18's every damn time and tried rolling for him; got 2 18's and nothing below 15. I got someone else to do it; similar results.

What I'm saying is that my point of view of what "average" is has been skewed by 10+ years of rolling with veritable dice magicians. So... The supposed average doesn't look very average to me anymore.

However, I do see the point. In cases where every single PC has super-Attributes, should this not be optimal for you as the DM, raise the "average" used for encounters to fit better and everything should be fine.
I say this speaking from plenty of experience. The raw stats are not gonna be a gamebreaker.
Magic Items break games, over optimization breaks games, some spells can break games. I have never seen raw stats break a game.

As far as assuming all the population rolls their stats? I don't. I figure most of the population has the stats they need for the job they do. Guards have decent stats for guarding and kings have decent stats for...kinging. The rest works itself out from there.

Oh, and barwenches in better taverns have the stats needed to be not unpleasing to the eye. :smalltongue:

[Lans]

All 18s would give a tier boost to tiers 6-4 as they can now do something decently, or more things for the tier 4s

[SinsI]

I dunno if I'd go that far with the chances. What if you're running 14 or 16 intelligence, and that's your highest stat? I wouldn't expect a mass of wizards with 11 starting intelligence, but there is presumably a good number of average wizards, as opposed to max intelligence wizards.

When you choose something else, so that your main stat can fully utilize all the class capabilities without resorting to clutches like +6 item.
There's one wizard in what, 1000 people? It means there are already 4 people with 18 Int fighting for one wizard position. Add in 12 second-runners with 17 intelligence - the competition is extremely high.

[Calimehter]

Assuming that one out of every 216 high school students has an 18 INT is also assuming that *everyone* uses a dice rolling method for generation. Those methods are listed in the PHB/DMG as methods for PC generation, who are suppose to be unique individuals, and are not intended for the populace in general. Those folks are limited to the basic array of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 like the basic MM entry is.

If you went by 3d6 rolls, about 50% of high school students also have at least one score of 6 or lower, with many of those having more than one.

Maybe that isn't that far off for some people's high school experience :smallwink: but I think in general that "1 in 216 people have an 18 INT" thing and other comparisons of 3d6 rolling to 'real life' falls apart pretty quickly under close analysis.

[SinsI]

I think 3d6 was the default stat distribution for everyone, at least in the earlier editions. The array method is there to streamline creation of commoners, as you don't really care what stats Mook #452 has.

[Coidzor]

Arrays are an abstraction so that you don't have to go through and generate ability scores for every NPC, you just plug them in wherever, IIRC.

[Knaight]

I have actually run a game that started with level one PCs who were essentially the fantasy equivalent of Augments (i.e. Khan and such from various incarnations of Star Trek).
This included them having the highest starting stats for their race (18 +/- racial modifiers) and a few other bennies that weren't actually too major (I think they recovered from fatigue faster, healed a bit faster naturally, minor stuff)
It did not make the characters or the game boring at all. They all played very well and the game lasted more than a year and into high teens level-wise before RL assassinated it.
It's worth noting that this was done for a specific concept, and that outside of that concept (or a number of others) it makes a lot less sense. A lot of fantasy archetypes make sense modeled with some low attributes, and yet more make sense modeled with having attributes which aren't extremely high.

Tangentially, the whole attribute generation method is one of the things I dislike about D&D in general - it's not made so that characters can focus on attributes in general, to the detriment of whatever else (skill points, feats, strength of a class, whatever). I get the desire for balance, but it was implemented in such a way as to really shut down a number of character types.

[Stoneback]

Is there a source that says that everyone in the world gets to roll their stats? I'd imagine that the majority of people just use the standard array, and to even get a chance to roll your stats in the first place requires being marked by fate or something like that. That should keep the number of genius Olympian politicians down to more plausible levels.

Ding! This is likely true.

Why would most commoners even worry about stats aside from Str and Con? Even if they had an 18 INT, they'd still be commoners, except for the rate exception who somehow got picked up by a wizard tutor.

EDIT

I think INT 11 wizard apprentices would be more common than STR 11 fighter apprentices. There have to be wizard tutors who would be happy to take someone's money to teach them magic regardless of their degree of aptitude.

On the other hand, there are plenty of jobs for people who want to hit things with a sword, that don't require fighter training.

[Knaight]

I think INT 11 wizard apprentices would be more common than STR 11 fighter apprentices. There have to be wizard tutors who would be happy to take someone's money to teach them magic regardless of their degree of aptitude.

I could easily see this - consider legacy admissions to universities even in the modern era, wherein people can be really, really bad students who are all sorts of stupid and nonetheless get in. It's not like medieval universities never had bad students with rich parents, and a private tutelage system is even less likely to weed them out. 11 intelligence is average, slightly above the exact mean. An 11 intelligence apprentice could easily be a serious student, and given the ease at which lazy, stupid scions of sufficiently wealthy families got tutelage said 11 intelligence apprentice should have no issue, provided they also come from a sufficiently wealthy family.

[Coidzor]

Why would most commoners even worry about stats aside from Str and Con? Even if they had an 18 INT, they'd still be commoners, except for the rate exception who somehow got picked up by a wizard tutor.

The more skill points they have, the more potential ways they have to gain income or improve their lives/save money by doing it for themselves. If they're a crafting based commoner, then intelligence has a direct effect with their earned income. The higher their wisdom, the better their profession skill checks and the better their income.

That's all the potential concerns I can think of offhand, anyway. It's irrelevant if one doesn't bother to consider NPC wealth or for those who are locked into laboring in fields/mines/plantations/whathaveyou and having a share or wage derived from the sale of a trade good/crop/product.

[SinsI]

Charisma affects love life, so it is the most important stat for everyone, too.
It also affects Handle Animal, so it is important for farmers.

Dex is important if you are a member of nobility and want to ride proficiently, although I'd say it is generally the most useless stat for commoners.

[MadGreenSon]

It's worth noting that this was done for a specific concept, and that outside of that concept (or a number of others) it makes a lot less sense.

I agree. Algrym the Fleshwarper's little super-soldiers were exactly what they were supposed to be. High stats are not always warranted. I do love "concept games" though :smallsmile:


A lot of fantasy archetypes make sense modeled with some low attributes, and yet more make sense modeled with having attributes which aren't extremely high.


This is also very true. More than a few times I've had player deliberately tank their stats in one area or another to fit their character concept. See: Valley Girl Wizard of Rhymes.

[Endarire]

Notice how I said in this post, "All PCs Start With All Base 18s." I'm assuming the PCs are special. Not everyone in the world has all base 18s, and not all people with at least 1 character class level do either.

This question is mostly about intraparty balance and how things change if everyone starts with max stats. The Cleric thing is the most interesting find; I expected that Wizards would benefit slightly from maxing stats, Monks would finally get to use their abilities well, and other classes' boosts would vary. I didn't expect Clerics to benefit to heavily, and didn't consider Artificers nor Archivists. PrCs with their own spell progresssion are more appealing since characters can now use those spells with (assumedly) at least a +4 DC and probably +1 bonus spell slot per spell level.

Ultimately, everyone gets a strong basic functionality with all base 18s. It's a matter of how stats improve from there. Again, all 18s are meant to help the weaker classes.

Regarding the stat baseline, that varies by group and PC vs NPC. NPCs are typically lower of stats than PCs because PCs are main characters and NPCs aren't. While 10-11 in a stat being human average in real life may make sense for NPCs, if I have 10 in a stat as a PC, it's probably in a stat I don't plan to use often. A Wizard with 11 INT isn't casting the save or dies that the same Wizard with 18 INT would. Even with a 25 point buy, a Wizard can put a 16 in INT and have 16 points left over, or go 18 INT and have 9 points left just because INT is simply that valuable.