Is it me or is the Elite Array *terribly* restrictive/underpowered?

[danielxcutter]

I mean, forget about the NPC having a considerably lower stat total than the PCs and thus weaker... What keeps annoying me is that sometimes, it makes it hard to even qualify for some feats - such as Greater TWF, for example.

Also, the numbers are fixed, so occasionally you have to put a 12 in a stat you only needed a 10 in while you're stuck only putting a 15 in a stat you really want pumped.

It's a lot less of a hassle when adding class levels to monsters, since it matters less(relatively) whether you put a 12 or a 14 in a stat, but it gets seriously annoying when it comes to making NPCs with more simple creatures. Kobolds having a -4 total to stats seriously blows.

Is this just me or what? Please tell me I've missed some rules for giving NPCs higher point buys, even if that increases the CR.

[Eldan]

There's no actual rules for higher stat totals, no. THough I do seem to remember that it's actually about average for normal 4d6b3 rolls.

I mean, remember: the core books also recommend point totals around 25, 28,maaaaybe 32 for point buy. Stats have just become very inflated as third edition went on. Not that that's generally a bad thing, mind you. Once you have your one high stat, I'd say more high stats help weaker classes more.

[DarkSoul]

You could probably ballpark a CR increase based on the math for the elite array. On a monster with no class levels the elite array is supposed to be worth +1 CR, and gives +4 to 2 stats, +2 to 2 stats, and a -2 to one stat. Apply the same bonuses, maybe drop the penalty, and see if it's worth another +1.

[Coventry]

Please tell me I've missed some rules for giving NPCs higher point buys, even if that increases the CR.

Pathfinder has the Advanced Creature (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/advanced-creature-cr-1/) template, which adds +1 to CR in order to gain +4 to all ability scores and +2 to natural armor.

However, there is also the concept of "Rule Zero" for RPGs. It goes something like, "The Game Master has the right to change any rule or make up his own," and it has a very important corollary, "The players have the right to leave, especially if the game isn't fun." Fudging one number here or there in order to create a memorable and fun opponent for your players is ... well, fun!

[Eldariel]

25pb is just the expected average of 4d6b3 without the reroll rules (which push it to 27-28pb region); thus WotC thought to ease the burden of rolling for every character by just giving an array where all of those stats are placed in something akin to a natural distribution. DMG states 25pb is the default power level for PCs too, and all the example PCs use the elite array. Thus, just use whatever stat generation method you used for PCs for elite NPCs instead as well and halve that for nonelite array (NPC-class NPCs). That's basically what the game is designed for anyways - PCs are the same as elite NPCs both towering over nonelite NPCs. Monsters, well, just slap them with a +2 in two key stats and you approximate the difference between 25pb and 32pb for example.

GTWF OTOH is intended to be a hard feat to get; it didn't even exist in 3e, and ITWF required like 11 BAB (ever thought why the CW Samurai gets Improved Two Swords as One so late? Well, there's probably the reason). In other words, WotC thought combat style balance would be the same as in AD&D 2e (which it obviously wouldn't with all their changes) with TWF being the best if you had the stats for it, and GTWF is meant to reward extremely high Dex types while being a stat tax too. Thus, it's by design that it's hard to get though of course we all know that's completely ridiculous and the feat is barely even worth taking on most types (turns out attacks at -10 just aren't as good as attacks at full BAB). But yeah, a feature, not a bug. You are supposed to need extremely high stats or racial bonuses to get both, high Str and high Dex (note how Dex to damage isn't a thing until ToB; it was thought overpowered until they realised just what a monster they created in two-handed power attack and 1.5 Str multipliers, let alone charge multipliers).

[lylsyly]

My answer is yes, it is restrictive. You *can* make a viable character out of it, barely.

My group, when we use an array at all, use 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8.

We also use 32 point buy, 10+1d8 or 8+1d4 and 1d6 (4d6 drop one? What's that?)

[noce]

We either use 37 points for point buy or we roll 4d6 drop lowest for 7 times, and then drop the lowest of the 7.

[BassoonHero]

The elite array is very restrictive. It's pretty bad for most characters, and it makes some nearly unplayable.

Point buy is a fairer and less restrictive way to generate stats. The elite array, in addition to its generally low power level, offers no opportunity for customization. Some people enjoy rolling stats, but I've never found it fun for some PCs to have wildly better or worse stats than others. Point buy establishes a standard power level while allowing customization.

Higher point buy values help every character, of course, but the effect is greatest for classes that are less powerful to begin with because those classes tend to use more abilities. Conversely, low point buy values hit the weakest characters hardest. I see 32-point buy the most often, though I've seen both lower and much higher. The difference between 28 and 32 is probably about as significant as the difference between 32 and 38 or 40. I mention this because it's easy to fall into a trap — a “low-powered” game with lower ability scores and less access to magic items. This greatly exacerbates the existing power disparities between spellcasters (who primarily need one good stat and can often use spells in place of magic items) and martial characters (who usually need several good stats and rely more heavily on magic items).

If you want to use a pre-made stat array, lylsyly's (18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8) looks reasonable. It would cost 38 points, though it's probably worth somewhat less to most characters.

[Celestia]

The only thing the elite array is good for is casters. A wizard can make 15 intelligence work and doesn't care enough about the others. The paladin is going to be laughably awful, though.

[Selene Sparks]

I mean, forget about the NPC having a considerably lower stat total than the PCs and thus weaker... What keeps annoying me is that sometimes, it makes it hard to even qualify for some feats - such as Greater TWF, for example.The NPCs shouldn't be considerably lower than the PCs in stats. 25PB is considered the default and is the average of 4d6k3(although, to be fair, the variance is huge). Even going up to the reroll rules, or 28PB, shouldn't be a terribly notable difference.

Also, the numbers are fixed, so occasionally you have to put a 12 in a stat you only needed a 10 in while you're stuck only putting a 15 in a stat you really want pumped.This is true. I recommend building proper NPCs on PB, rather than arrays.

Is this just me or what? Please tell me I've missed some rules for giving NPCs higher point buys, even if that increases the CR.I'm unaware of rules on the subject, but the increase in stats from 25PB to 32BP is at least worth +1CR, maybe as much as +2 depending on what you're doing with it.

Really, though, ability scores aren't so important as to be warping your game, or at least they shouldn't be. What specific problems are you running into that lead you to ask this?

[Eldariel]

I'm unaware of rules on the subject, but the increase in stats from 25PB to 32BP is at least worth +1CR, maybe as much as +2 depending on what you're doing with it.

Really, though, ability scores aren't so important as to be warping your game, or at least they shouldn't be. What specific problems are you running into that lead you to ask this?

Certainly not +2; that's equivalent to one level higher spells and there's no way few stats can even come close to making that much of a difference. Large size with its +8 Str and +4 Con (and size change) is listed at +1 and going up to 32pb is clearly less than that. It's about +½ at best. But again, elite array assumes elite array PCs so it's fair to just use the exact same rules for the NPCs and the PCs. 32pb PCs live in a world with 32pb elite NPCs, 40pb PCs live in a world with 40pb elite NPCs, etc. That's the baseline of the system anyhow, and good one at that; PCs aren't special

[Kish]

There's no actual rules for higher stat totals, no. THough I do seem to remember that it's actually about average for normal 4d6b3 rolls.
Yes, this. The default assumption is that most characters in the world have average stats of 10 or 11 (before racial modifiers) and no guarantee of having their highest stat where they'd want to to be, while those who are exceptional--PCs and a few NPCs--are created with something equivalent to 4d6 drop lowest arrange as desired. The elite array is one example of something equivalent to 4d6 drop lowest: neither the highest nor the lowest you'd get if you generated a dozen characters with 4d6 drop lowest, primarily a means of saving time so that you don't have to roll stats for a character you want to stand out as the villain's lieutenant, but who isn't actually important enough to make a character sheet for.

You don't need a rule stated in some book to make your NPCs more powerful, if you want to. Rule zero is that the DM can make or change any rule. You should consider all the implications of making your NPCs substantially more powerful than 4d6 drop lowest PCs...if you have 4d6 drop lowest PCs; if you have 25-point-buy PCs and didn't do that explicitly so that your PCs would be better than nearly everyone else they met, on the other hand, adjusting NPCs who are supposed to be comparable to the same system is a good idea on general principles.

[Selene Sparks]

Certainly not +2; that's equivalent to one level higher spells and there's no way few stats can even come close to making that much of a difference. Large size with its +8 Str and +4 Con (and size change) is listed at +1 and going up to 32pb is clearly less than that. It's about +½ at best.Is it, though? Compare +8 strength to +2 on spell DCs. Which do you think is more threatening?

32PB grants options. Options are powerful. +2CR was, in fact, overstating things a bit, but +7PB is obviously worlds better a half-ogre.

But again, elite array assumes elite array PCs so it's fair to just use the exact same rules for the NPCs and the PCs. 32pb PCs live in a world with 32pb elite NPCs, 40pb PCs live in a world with 40pb elite NPCs, etc. That's the baseline of the system anyhow, and good one at that; PCs aren't specialWhile I agree in general here, your final statement is entirely false. PCs, are, in fact, the specialest snowflakes in the world. Beyond the basic narrative fact that they are what the story is centered upon, they are qualitatively different from most NPCs. They level at full speed, unlike tagalongs, they all use real classes, and they even get action points if you're using them.

[icefractal]

It's pretty low-power, but OTOH that's relative - if that's what "elite" NPCs use and the rest are lower, then PCs using it will still be above the curve. It's actually fairly MAD friendly, at least.

If combined with a lack of stat-boosting items, or if stat-boosting items are prohibited for feat qualification, then it does put some pretty strict limits. Casters must put the 15 in their casting stat and put all increases in that stat, if they want to use their highest level spells. Dex-based types probably need to do the same for feat qualifications.

[Celestia]

Is it, though? Compare +8 strength to +2 on spell DCs. Which do you think is more threatening?
The +2 DCs. The +8 strength is just a measly four or six extra damage per hit. A missed save could kill me.

[RoboEmperor]

The +8 strength is just a measly four or six extra damage per hit.

Measly? MEASLY? We're talking character creation right? Like low levels, and you're saying 4-6 extra damage and to hit is measly?

[Celestia]

Measly? MEASLY? We're talking character creation right? Like low levels, and you're saying 4-6 extra damage and to hit is measly?
It is closer at those levels, but I'd still rather take an extra 4 damage from the fighter than fail to resist the wizard's sleep spell.

[RoboEmperor]

It is closer at those levels, but I'd still rather take an extra 4 damage from the fighter than fail to resist the wizard's sleep spell.

A proper melee will be two-handing with power attack. If you normally take "x" damage, then they will be doing "x+14" damage. Significantly more dangerous than a 10% increased susceptibility to sleep. They'll one shot you even at level 3.

[tiercel]

It’s not just the Elite Array; it’s build choices generally.

The CR system (as occasionally laughable as it is) is supposed to be at least a *rough* guide to the challenge that a creature (or group of creatures’ EL) should represent to the PCs. If the PCs have stats that are significantly higher than the game’s “standard” assumption — or build choices that are significantly more optimized in general than their opponents’ ability to optimize, within their feat/equipment budget — then creatures will be *less challenging* (and should have their CR/EL, and corresponding XP, lowered accordingly — unless the creatures are re-speced to compensate).

It’s true for stat arrays, but it’s certainly true more generally.

Let’s set aside stat arrays for the moment and consider build choices — if your PCs are run by experienced players who have access to every official 3.5 book, unoptimized opponents just aren’t going to live up to their CR, partly because of resource access and partly just because of poor build choices.

(Example) Ogres are not very bright, sure. But ogres can do better than hide armor, greatclubs, ever making a ranged attack without Brutal Throw, Toughness, or Weapon Focus: Greatclub. Against Regdar, Mialee, Jozan, and Lidda an ogre is probably a credible CR 3, but against an even moderately optimized party it is almost deliberately de-optimized by comparison.

So while the standard elite array may feel, and arguably be, restrictive for PCs, raising the cap for stats — much less letting players enjoy the optimization exercise of 3.5 — means either PCs’ opponents will need to be optimized or their CRs reconsidered.

[Celestia]

A proper melee will be two-handing with power attack. If you normally take "x" damage, then they will be doing "x+14" damage. Significantly more dangerous than a 10% increased susceptibility to sleep. They'll one shot you even at level 3.
Power attack at level 1? With what BAB?

Also, this is about NPCs, and they don't always use the BestTM tactics. There are plenty of NPCs who sword and board, for instance.

[tiercel]

Also, this is about NPCs, and they don't always use the BestTM tactics. There are plenty of NPCs who sword and board, for instance.

Arguably, if party beatsticks with even Int 10 Wis 10 all turn into Sun Tzu when the battlemat comes out, then NPC/monster tactics could do with a bit of an upgrade if the “challenge” in CR is supposed to mean anything.

(Also, opponents should be able to play to their strengths well enough — wolves manage wolf-pack tactics with Int 2 Wis 12.)

[RoboEmperor]

Power attack at level 1? With what BAB?

At level 1 the 8 str would give +3 to hit and +8 damage, level 2 +2 to hit and +10 to damage, level 3 +1 to hit and +12 to damage, and level 4 +0 to hit and +14 to damage compared to a character without the +8 str.

So it's definitely not "measly" is my point.

[Celestia]

Arguably, if party beatsticks with even Int 10 Wis 10 all turn into Sun Tzu when the battlemat comes out, then NPC/monster tactics could do with a bit of an upgrade if the “challenge” in CR is supposed to mean anything.

(Also, opponents should be able to play to their strengths well enough — wolves manage wolf-pack tactics with Int 2 Wis 12.)
You may note the ironic "TM" in my post. I am specifically referring to metagame tactics, like knowing that two-handing is simply better than sword and board. Even NPCs with 28 intelligence have no reason to know that.


At level 1 the 8 str would give +3 to hit and +8 damage, level 2 +2 to hit and +10 to damage, level 3 +1 to hit and +12 to damage, and level 4 +0 to hit and +14 to damage compared to a character without the +8 str.

So it's definitely not "measly" is my point.
You completely failed to address my question: With what BAB? A strength bonus doesn't give you extra BAB, and someone who's power attacking is already power attacking. +8 strength only ever gives +6 damage.

[Benthesquid]

You may note the ironic "TM" in my post. I am specifically referring to metagame tactics, like knowing that two-handing is simply better than sword and board. Even NPCs with 28 intelligence have no reason to know that.

I mean, unless they live in a world where they've had the opportunity to observe two-handed weapons outperforming sword and board style consistently in the wild?

[Celestia]

I mean, unless they live in a world where they've had the opportunity to observe two-handed weapons outperforming sword and board style consistently in the wild?
You're conflating crunch with fluff. Nothing in the rules or setting details mentions that two-handing is the ideal form of melee combat in-universe. So it isn't. The mechanics don't define the world. Otherwise, you get really weird unintended consequences, like drown healing being legitimate or readied actions breaking the speed of light.

[Bavarian itP]

I mean, unless they live in a world where they've had the opportunity to observe two-handed weapons outperforming sword and board style consistently in the wild?

In addition to what celestia said, I would even doubt that most NPCs had that opportunity.

[tiercel]

You may note the ironic "TM" in my post. I am specifically referring to metagame tactics, like knowing that two-handing is simply better than sword and board. Even NPCs with 28 intelligence have no reason to know that.

My point is simply that if PC Int/Wis is no limit on metagame thinking, then NPC Int/Wis should be no limit on — or at most, only a rough guide to the amount of — metagame thinking.

If PCs are allowed to metagame-build and NPCs are not, then NPCs simply won’t live up to even dubiously statted CRs, if players optimize significantly beyond what official books assume.

My point of view is less an in-universe “what would a high-Int or high-Wis NPC know” argument and more of a game “how to keep encounters balanced and/or challenging” argument.

[Celestia]

My point is simply that if PC Int/Wis is no limit on metagame thinking, then NPC Int/Wis should be no limit on — or at most, only a rough guide to the amount of — metagame thinking.

If PCs are allowed to metagame-build and NPCs are not, then NPCs simply won’t live up to even dubiously statted CRs, if players optimize significantly beyond what official books assume.

My point of view is less an in-universe “what would a high-Int or high-Wis NPC know” argument and more of a game “how to keep encounters balanced and/or challenging” argument.
If you can't make your encounters challenging without abusing poor mechanics and metagame optimization, then you have no business being a DM.

[RoboEmperor]

You completely failed to address my question: With what BAB? A strength bonus doesn't give you extra BAB, and someone who's power attacking is already power attacking. +8 strength only ever gives +6 damage.

A power attacker doesn't sink his entire BAB into his attacks at level 1 because he can't hit anything with it, especially against armored creatures. However the 8 str gives a free +4 to hit, meaning he can just sink the entire +4 into his power attack and still hit more often than without.

I'm too lazy to do a DPR calculation but if you insist +8 strength is nothing at levels 1-4 then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Seharvepernfan]

Is this just me or what?

I'm sure a lot of people agree with you, but you can get by on the elite array perfectly fine. I build all my characters with it. That said, certain classes could use 28 points rather than 25 (mainly bards, rangers, paladins and other classes that ought to be prestige classes).

If your DM allows flaws, that stat that you put a 12 in that you only need 10 in? Pathetic (stat). You'll qualify since you're using elite array.

Greater TWF? Rogues are gonna pump dex anyway, rangers get it without needing the prereqs. Who else is gonna take it? If you must take it, and you don't have the dex, just get gloves of dex +x and don't take them off.

[Celestia]

A power attacker doesn't sink his entire BAB into his attacks at level 1 because he can't hit anything with it, especially against armored creatures. However the 8 str gives a free +4 to hit, meaning he can just sink the entire +4 into his power attack and still hit more often than without.

I'm too lazy to do a DPR calculation but if you insist +8 strength is nothing at levels 1-4 then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I never said it was nothing. I just disagree with your opinion on how good it is, especially when compared to save or lose magic.

[tiercel]

If you can't make your encounters challenging without abusing poor mechanics and metagame optimization, then you have no business being a DM.

Who said anything about abuse? I’d certainly argue that unless players are allowed to abuse poor mechanics because that is the agreed-upon preferred general optimization level of the table, then the DM should also refrain from such abuse.

I simply mean that DMs should be ready to optimize to a level that matches their players’ level, or be willing to accept that not doing so will mean that the challenge will be less than advertised (if the PCs are significantly more optimized than their foes).

After all, the general assumption in most 3.5 books is one of not particularly high optimization (which is arguably supported by the level of optimization of sample NPCs, in advice books give for PC builds, and even for preprinted modules, e.g. Red Hand of Doom, which is widely hailed as a good module but also widely hailed as needing mechanical adjustments if run for even a moderately optimized party).

“You have no business being a DM” really seems uncalled for, since in my experience DMing includes finding a level of challenge to the game that neither underwhelms or overwhelms players — and pretty arguably, a large part of the 3.5 game is the level of optimization at the table.

[Celestia]

Who said anything about abuse? I’d certainly argue that unless players are allowed to abuse poor mechanics because that is the agreed-upon preferred general optimization level of the table, then the DM should also refrain from such abuse.

I simply mean that DMs should be ready to optimize to a level that matches their players’ level, or be willing to accept that not doing so will mean that the challenge will be less than advertised (if the PCs are significantly more optimized than their foes).

After all, the general assumption in most 3.5 books is one of not particularly high optimization (which is arguably supported by the level of optimization of sample NPCs, in advice books give for PC builds, and even for preprinted modules, e.g. Red Hand of Doom, which is widely hailed as a good module but also widely hailed as needing mechanical adjustments if run for even a moderately optimized party).

“You have no business being a DM” really seems uncalled for, since in my experience DMing includes finding a level of challenge to the game that neither underwhelms or overwhelms players — and pretty arguably, a large part of the 3.5 game is the level of optimization at the table.
DMs have two things that players don't: limitless resources and the ability to set the playing field. The famous Tucker's Kobolds story doesn't tear down the players with heavily optimized, CR appropriate kobolds; it uses bog standard, straight out of the book kobolds. DMs are fully capable of creating challenging and exciting encounters without giving everyone an immersion-destroying Master's degree in optimization. All you have to do is levy your strengths instead of trying to match the players'. Besides, the "evil adventuring party" encounter is only fun the first time.

[Thurbane]

Back in my day, it was 3d6, in order! :smalltongue:

...to be fair, though, 3E is a lot more stat dependent than 1E.

[Remuko]

A power attacker doesn't sink his entire BAB into his attacks at level 1 because he can't hit anything with it, especially against armored creatures. However the 8 str gives a free +4 to hit, meaning he can just sink the entire +4 into his power attack and still hit more often than without.

I'm too lazy to do a DPR calculation but if you insist +8 strength is nothing at levels 1-4 then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Um


Power Attack [General]

Prerequisite
Str 13.


Benefit
On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus.

Underline mine. At level 1 even with +8 str they can only power attack for 1


Who said anything about abuse? I’d certainly argue that unless players are allowed to abuse poor mechanics because that is the agreed-upon preferred general optimization level of the table, then the DM should also refrain from such abuse.

I simply mean that DMs should be ready to optimize to a level that matches their players’ level, or be willing to accept that not doing so will mean that the challenge will be less than advertised (if the PCs are significantly more optimized than their foes).

After all, the general assumption in most 3.5 books is one of not particularly high optimization (which is arguably supported by the level of optimization of sample NPCs, in advice books give for PC builds, and even for preprinted modules, e.g. Red Hand of Doom, which is widely hailed as a good module but also widely hailed as needing mechanical adjustments if run for even a moderately optimized party).

“You have no business being a DM” really seems uncalled for, since in my experience DMing includes finding a level of challenge to the game that neither underwhelms or overwhelms players — and pretty arguably, a large part of the 3.5 game is the level of optimization at the table.

I've been following your posts in this topic and really dont like the idea you seem to be implying. If the players are able to fight above the CR their level implies, they should either face trivial fights or face higher CR fights. Optimized Party shouldnt be fighting Ogres with Golin CR ratings just because theyre more optimized than Party B. The party that can fight higher CR stuff deserves more exp for it and to level faster from it.

[ericgrau]

I mean, forget about the NPC having a considerably lower stat total than the PCs and thus weaker... What keeps annoying me is that sometimes, it makes it hard to even qualify for some feats - such as Greater TWF, for example.

Also, the numbers are fixed, so occasionally you have to put a 12 in a stat you only needed a 10 in while you're stuck only putting a 15 in a stat you really want pumped.

It's a lot less of a hassle when adding class levels to monsters, since it matters less(relatively) whether you put a 12 or a 14 in a stat, but it gets seriously annoying when it comes to making NPCs with more simple creatures. Kobolds having a -4 total to stats seriously blows.

Is this just me or what? Please tell me I've missed some rules for giving NPCs higher point buys, even if that increases the CR.
It's a hair away from average rolled stats. It can't be underpowered or overpowered when it's the defined baseline. Maybe you're spoiled with overpowered stats. Not being able to do everything you want with ease doesn't mean underpowered either. Give him a +1 dex every 4 levels and a +2 dex item if getting an additional attack at a -10 to hit before level 16 is that important to you... but I wouldn't.

[tiercel]

DMs have two things that players don't: limitless resources and the ability to set the playing field. The famous Tucker's Kobolds story doesn't tear down the players with heavily optimized, CR appropriate kobolds; it uses bog standard, straight out of the book kobolds. DMs are fully capable of creating challenging and exciting encounters without giving everyone an immersion-destroying Master's degree in optimization. All you have to do is levy your strengths instead of trying to match the players'. Besides, the "evil adventuring party" encounter is only fun the first time.

Well sure: by resetting the playing field, the DM *is* counter-optimizing, just using different resources. The DMG even talks about how doing so affects EL -- and would be, presumably, more necessary for optimized PCs, to the point that *resetting the playing field* might be necessary to maintain EL, not raise it.

(Also, Tucker's Kobolds worked better in previous editions - if nothing else, it's hard to recreate the same level of challenge to higher-level 3.5 PCs without either leveling the kobolds or giving them such resources that they are badly outclassed by the CR of the traps they create, at which point it's less about the kobolds and more about wealthomancy.)

And I'm not necessarily talking about "evil adventuring party" -- I'm talking about, as a minimal example, ogres that use studded leather instead of hide, that use greataxes instead of greatclubs, that maybe take even Iron Will instead of Toughness, and/or Brutal Throw instead of Weapon Focus (if they ever plan to actually throw javelins). (At the very least, the ogre barbarian in the MM/SRD shouldn't be using resources on +1 hide unless +1 studded leather literally does not exist in the world, etc.) These aren't Six Million Gold Piece bioengineered cybernetic ogres, just ones that natural selection (or artificial selection pressure in the form of adventurers) would tend to favor as survivors. That's not immersion-destroying. Ogres who always face PCs from superior tactical positions despite Int 6 is more immersion-destroying than that -- unless we are talking about ogres directed by more intelligent masters, but ogre-masters would explain more optimized ogre feats/equipment just as well as superior tactics.

My point is that a DM can't just throw two MM ogres at a party of Mialee, Regdar, Jozan, and Lidda, and then at a party of Batman Wizard, Sorcadin Gish, Druidzilla, and DFI Bard --never mind any accompanying stat-generation differential-- and expect "CR 5" to pose an equal challenge to either party. DM #2 is going to have to do something a little different (optimizing the ogres and/or their battlefield) or just plan on the ogres being much more likely to be roflstomped.

[zergling.exe]

I've been following your posts in this topic and really dont like the idea you seem to be implying. If the players are able to fight above the CR their level implies, they should either face trivial fights or face higher CR fights. Optimized Party shouldnt be fighting Ogres with Golin CR ratings just because theyre more optimized than Party B. The party that can fight higher CR stuff deserves more exp for it and to level faster from it.

Except that a party that trounces an encounter learns less from it than one that struggles with it. You know, what XP is supposed to represent? Experience points? Not some form of currency that all creatures carry an amount of by virtue of their strength.

[RoboEmperor]

I never said it was nothing. I just disagree with your opinion on how good it is, especially when compared to save or lose magic.

So we're comparing a Barbarian who one shots anything he hits, and a wizard who incapacitates anything that fails their saving throw. One can go all day while the other has a limited amount of spells. I think early game having a one-shot machine is better than a SoD wizard who often has to use Grease instead of Sleep because he's facing undead.

[Remuko]

Except that a party that trounces an encounter learns less from it than one that struggles with it. You know, what XP is supposed to represent? Experience points? Not some form of currency that all creatures carry an amount of by virtue of their strength.

This isn't reality, stop trying to drag the concept of EXP into a real thing. Punishing players for trivializing things at appropriate CRs for their level is bad DMing. They don't deserve less EXP because they found a clever way to beat a stronger foe or because they're more well optimized and thus have less difficulties with the same thing as another equal leveled group.

[Crake]

This isn't reality, stop trying to drag the concept of EXP into a real thing. Punishing players for trivializing things at appropriate CRs for their level is bad DMing. They don't deserve less EXP because they found a clever way to beat a stronger foe or because they're more well optimized and thus have less difficulties with the same thing as another equal leveled group.

Well, actually, they do earn less XP. The DMG specifically says that encounters where one side or the other has a significant advantage should result in a modified xp reward. Being given the information, resources, terrain and time to plan a clever way to defeat a stronger foe, then yeah, you had the advantage in that circumstance, and the DM is actually supposed to award you less XP. Of course, if the enemy was equally aware of your presence, and had the same time to prepare, then it puts things back on equal ground, but yes, xp adjustments for the circumstances of a fight based on who has some kind of advantage most definitely is a thing.

The same however should go in the opposite direction. Times when the enemy has a significant advantage, you're supposed to get MORE xp. For example, assassins who have been given information on your party, know all your strengths and weaknesses, and attack you while you're unsuspecting, in the middle of a town while you're all sleeping should DEFINITELY award more xp than random assassins encountered on the road who have no idea who you are, and are just attacking you for your money.


However, an encounter in which the PCs defeat something far above their own level (CRs higher than their level by eight or more) was probably the result of fantastic luck or a unique set of circumstances, and thus a full XP award may not be appropriate.

If you drop a boulder ontop of a strong enemy, I would classify that under "a unique set of circumstances". Sure it was clever, but it also isn't necessarily worth full xp. Given different circumstances, where a boulder was not available to drop on their head, the fight would have gone very different.

[icefractal]

DMs are fully capable of creating challenging and exciting encounters without giving everyone an immersion-destroying Master's degree in optimization. All you have to do is levy your strengths instead of trying to match the players'. Besides, the "evil adventuring party" encounter is only fun the first time.So are players being "immersion-destroying" too if they optimize their PCs? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and there's nothing wrong with NPCs being on the same playing field as the PCs. Yeah, the DM often has other alternatives that are easier, but I don't think most players require the opposition to be using kid gloves.

[danielxcutter]

Yikes I missed a lot. :smalleek: So... Use the same point buy for PCs and NPCs?

Life suddenly just got considerably easier. :smallcool:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by danielxcutter
Use the same point buy for PCs and NPCs?

This is what I normally do, and it does indeed make things easier.


Originally Posted by Celestia
If you can't make your encounters challenging without abusing poor mechanics and metagame optimization, then you have no business being a DM.

You have no business telling anyone else whether or not they should be a DM.

[Kish]

Yikes I missed a lot. :smalleek: So... Use the same point buy for PCs and NPCs?

Life suddenly just got considerably easier. :smallcool:
Use the same point buy for PCs and significant NPCs.

Most people have average stats--meaning an average of 10.5 in all six stats. Some have lower. If you've changed that, that's fine, but be aware that means those are no longer average stats.

[Eldariel]

Use the same point buy for PCs and significant NPCs.

Most people have average stats--meaning an average of 10.5 in all six stats. Some have lower. If you've changed that, that's fine, but be aware that means those are no longer average stats.

Nonelite array (13/12/11/10/9/8) is the default for NPCs with NPC class levels. 11/10 array is for creatures without class levels. That said, if elites are buffed, buffing nonelites (15pb by default) is also reasonable; it only really leads to more variety and more significant outliers.

[danielxcutter]

Use the same point buy for PCs and significant NPCs.

Most people have average stats--meaning an average of 10.5 in all six stats. Some have lower. If you've changed that, that's fine, but be aware that means those are no longer average stats.


Nonelite array (13/12/11/10/9/8) is the default for NPCs with NPC class levels. 11/10 array is for creatures without class levels. That said, if elites are buffed, buffing nonelites (15pb by default) is also reasonable; it only really leads to more variety and more significant outliers.

Sounds good to me, both the "use same point buy for PCs and elite NPCs" and the "why not slightly bump up non-elites too" thing.

This opens up lots of options...

[Endarire]

It's restrictive and underpowered contextually. The power level of the typical off-screen NPC (farmers, shopkeepers, etc.) is expected to be notably less than that of a typical player character. The PC standard of power in the 3.x DMG is generally lower (due to 25 PB, etc.) than that of later books due to changes of assumptions (30ish PB).