Is it against the rules to have 2 scores at 8 in the 4th edition point buy system?

[realbombchu]

I noticed that every time I used the DnD character builder for 4th edition, it marks my character as a house-ruled creation if I lower 2 stats to 8. I'm allowed to have one stat at 8, but not two of them. But I don't see where this is written. Am I breaking the RPGA rules somehow?

This array looks good to me: 18, 13, 13, 10, 10, 8, except that I'd rather have 18, 13, 13, 12, 8, 8.

[Yuki Akuma]

In D&D 4e point buy, your stats start at 8 10 10 10 10 10. You can only have one 8.

And considering nothing has an ability penalty anymore, it is absolutely impossible to get more than one 8 unless you roll for your ability scores.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, it not "against the rules" so much as "not how the point buy system is set up to work." Just see what your DM thinks.

[LibraryOgre]

Personally, I'd like the ability to have two 9s instead of an 8 and a 10. Usually inconsequential, but a nice benefit for hitting Paragon.

[kc0bbq]

Personally, I'd like the ability to have two 9s instead of an 8 and a 10. Usually inconsequential, but a nice benefit for hitting Paragon.

Then they're both 11s at epic and you haven't really gained anything over two 8s.

[LibraryOgre]

Then they're both 11s at epic and you haven't really gained anything over two 8s.

Except you've gained that nothing ten levels earlier.

[Rixx]

You're... you're not allowed to have low stats!?

[Tengu_temp]

One dump stat is enough stat min-maxing anyway.

[Faleldir]

But having two 8s gives you three 16s! I refuse to follow that rule!

[KillianHawkeye]

You're... you're not allowed to have low stats!?

There's always going to be at least two ways to play. The official way, and the way that somebody likes better for reason X. No one's telling you which way to choose.

[Kurald Galain]

You're... you're not allowed to have low stats!?

That's correct. It is a design feature of 4E that your character can never be below the average competence level for more than a few minutes.

[Swordgleam]

There's always going to be at least two ways to play. The official way, and the way that somebody likes better for reason X. No one's telling you which way to choose.

What is this madness? When other people play wrong, the universe inches slightly closer to total entropy. Respecting other play styles? Bah.

That's correct. It is a design feature of 4E that your character can never be below the average competence level for more than a few minutes.

Now that's more like it!


The above is entirely sarcasm, for those who can't tell.

I'm guessing that it marks it as "house-ruled" because there's no way to get there by adding to the standard arrays, and not because there's a rule against it. It just checks for "is this exactly what the book says" and if not, toggles house-ruled.

[Fuzzie Fuzz]

Yes. PHB pages 17 and 18. They describe how the point-buy system works. Just one 8, because if you had two, that would let you put all three of your most important stats at 16, and that would be uber-powerful. 4e is about balance.

[Zaq]

Yes. PHB pages 17 and 18. They describe how the point-buy system works. Just one 8, because if you had two, that would let you put all three of your most important stats at 16, and that would be uber-powerful. 4e is about balance.

Honest question here: Was that meant to be funny? Perhaps I don't know enough about how 4e really works (I've only been playing for a month or so), but it struck me as supremely comical. How far off the mark am I?

[Kesnit]

Honest question here: Was that meant to be funny? Perhaps I don't know enough about how 4e really works (I've only been playing for a month or so), but it struck me as supremely comical. How far off the mark am I?

While I think there was some intended humor, the general idea is valid. While some classes are better / worse than others, 4e tries to keep everyone on a semi-level field. Being able to boost 3 stats (rather than the normal 2) would give the character in question an advantage over other character.

[Fuzzie Fuzz]

While I think there was some intended humor, the general idea is valid. While some classes are better / worse than others, 4e tries to keep everyone on a semi-level field. Being able to boost 3 stats (rather than the normal 2) would give the character in question an advantage over other character.

This. The extra boost wouldn't actually make you "uber powerful" as I said, but it would give you an extra edge that others wouldn't have.

[Swordgleam]

Yes. PHB pages 17 and 18. They describe how the point-buy system works. Just one 8, because if you had two, that would let you put all three of your most important stats at 16, and that would be uber-powerful. 4e is about balance.

I'm looking at those rules now, and I don't see where they say that. They do say that you start with 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 and add to them under method 2 (point-buy), and that method 3, rolling, isn't allowed at RPGA events. It doesn't say anything about subtracting in point-buy, and the table caption mentions scores below 8 (though only in the context of raising them) sometimes I have trouble reading words.

So I think it's a case of "the rules don't say you can" vs "the rules don't say you can't." I'm not sure I'd interpret character builder flags as being official rulings.

[Fuzzie Fuzz]

I'm looking at those rules now, and I don't see where they say that. They do say that you start with 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 and add to them under method 2 (point-buy), and that method 3, rolling, isn't allowed at RPGA events. It doesn't say anything about subtracting in point-buy, and the table caption mentions scores below 8 (though only in the context of raising them) sometimes I have trouble reading words.

So I think it's a case of "the rules don't say you can" vs "the rules don't say you can't." I'm not sure I'd interpret character builder flags as being official rulings.

Right. The first part was the RAW for this scenario, (he said he didn't see where it said that), and the second part was my explanation for the rules. But yes, they do say you start with one 8 and five 10s, and add. No subtracting is allowed by the rules. If they don't say you can do something in something this number-crunch-ey, I'd say you can't do it.

[Swordgleam]

No subtracting is allowed by the rules. If they don't say you can do something in something this number-crunch-ey, I'd say you can't do it.

That's just your interpretation, though. Again, the "if the rules don't say you can't, you can" vs "if the rules don't say you can, you can't" thing is never-ending. I would allow subtraction. The rules don't prevent it.

[Kurald Galain]

Honest question here: Was that meant to be funny? Perhaps I don't know enough about how 4e really works (I've only been playing for a month or so), but it struck me as supremely comical. How far off the mark am I?

Not sure. On the one hand, practically every class has two or three ability scores that matter to it, and the rest are mostly irrelevant. On the other hand, sticking all three of them at 16 is really not all that great a build. More useful would be 18/15/15 if you have three relevant scores, or 20/14 if you have two. Both require racial synergy, of course.

(edit) yes, this is a case of Rules-Don't-Say-You-Can(not). However, before allowing subtraction, consider what the impact would be for a character to lower his ability scores to one. If, for instance, a wizard drops his strength and charisma to one each, this will not impair the character at all. It doesn't affect his defenses, since they key off con and wis, respectively. It doesn't affect attacks or hit points or riders, since those key off int, con and wis, again. It only affects opportunity attacks (which wizards suck at anyway, and can be fixed with Melee Training) and a few skills that he'll never use in the first place.

So it's not just that playing a character who's bad at something is Not Fun; it's also that having the ability to take flaws that don't actually impair your character is Unbalanced.

[Swordgleam]

and a few skills that he'll never use in the first place.

Eh. Some official skill challenges have suggestions along the lines of, "each party member must succeed at one [whatever] check." For example, using athletics to climb out of a crumbling dungeon or endurance to make it through a storm. If you have a player who's min-maxing abusively (not just one who thinks it's an interesting character trait to have one insanely low score) just throw a bunch of skill challenges like that at them.

Or even don't do that - just put the character in a situation where it would be useful to have those skills. Charisma-based skills are always going to be useful. If I had a character with a charisma of 1, I'd make sure that any time they talked, whatever NPC the party was interacting with would get very insulted, and just having that character around would make NPCs trust/like the party much less. Having a strength of 1 would also mean the character could barely carry their clothes and spellbook, let alone a pack - too bad about all those nice, but rather heavy, magic items.

You might be able to make a character super-optimized for combat by making a stat or two absurdly low. But I really don't think it's a sustainable decision. An even slightly creative DM can make the negatives more than outweigh the positives of getting your to-hit and damage a few points higher.

[Kurald Galain]

Eh. Some official skill challenges have suggestions along the lines of, "each party member must succeed at one [whatever] check."

Yes, but that's considered bad design for an SC because some characters just don't have that skill. For instance, asking fighters to roll stealth is just asking for a failure anyway. Besides, you can take Arcane Muttering as your L2 utility power.

But yeah, you are correct that a competent DM can deal with abusive players. Nevertheless, one of the reasons why low ability scores aren't allowed by the PHB character generation is because they can be abused in this fashion. The way the rules work, to most characters three ability scores really are completely irrelevant.

[Indon]

Am I breaking the RPGA rules somehow?

Yes.

The RPGA plays by strict rules as written, and you can only ever have one 8.

To the rest of you, pay attention, here, it sounds like he's talking about an official RPGA game, in which a DM can't just change the rules.

[tcrudisi]

...You might be able to make a character super-optimized for combat by making a stat or two absurdly low. But I really don't think it's a sustainable decision. An even slightly creative DM can make the negatives more than outweigh the positives of getting your to-hit and damage a few points higher.

Yes, but look at what is being discussed in the broader terms. This is about LFR/RPGA vs. home games. The character builder is just saying, "Hey, this isn't legal per the normal rules, so it's a house rule."

Going off this, we have to look at why it's bad. Is it bad for home games? Not completely, for the reasons you outlined. Is it bad for RPGA? Definitely, considering the DM doesn't have the flexibility required to modify the module to make those negative scores be impactful. As such, it is unbalancing and makes one character stronger than the others right out of the gate: something that 4e is against.

[Swordgleam]

I certainly can't speak to RPGA rules. I thought the original question had two different parts: is this the RAW in the PHB, and is this the RPGA rule? To which I would respond that it's not necessarily the RAW in the PHB based on the "rules say you can/can't" argument. It makes sense that it would be against the RPGA rules.

It's funny that you guys mention there are some useless stats in 4e, because to me, 4e is the edition that finally eliminated dump stats. But I suppose I've always taken a more skill-focused view. I was mostly thrilled that fighters can no longer ignore wisdom.

[Kurald Galain]

It's funny that you guys mention there are some useless stats in 4e, because to me, 4e is the edition that finally eliminated dump stats.

I wonder what makes you think that, because it seems to me that 4E has way more dump stats than earlier editions. In 3E, there were some SAD classes but most of them weren't, and everybody had to look at con for hit points, and int for skill points. 4E has eliminated most of that: pretty much every class is very well playable with as many as four dump stats.

But I suppose I've always taken a more skill-focused view. I was mostly thrilled that fighters can no longer ignore wisdom.

...but they can, easily. For instance, you can make a hammer fighter based on str and con, ignoring the rest, or a two-blade fighter focusing on str and dex, ignoring the rest. Fighters get zero benefit from intelligence or charisma, making for two other obvious dump stats. Similarly, a rogue focuses on either dex/str or dex/cha (or dex/int with MP2) and can safely ignore all four other stats. Benefit from e.g. wisdom is, again, pretty much zero.

Thing is, you might want cha or int for the skills - but the problem is that in order to make a non-neglegible difference in those skills, (1) you end up making a noticeably larger negative difference in your primary and/or secondary stat, and (2) you still end up sucking in those skills anyway.

[greenknight]

That's correct. It is a design feature of 4E that your character can never be below the average competence level for more than a few minutes.

Given that "average" for an adventurer in 4e is a score of between 12 and 13, and you can have a score of 8 through the entire Heroic Tier, I'd have to disagree with you.

If you're referring to skills, it's even worse, because most skills are untrained and the difference between a skill a character is good at (trained in, and frequently also with ability score synergy) and the average skill level for that character is quite significant.

I realize that the book says that Humans have an average score of between 10 and 11, but the Human entry in the MM doesn't support that. Even Human Rabble have an average of 11 (the upper end of that "average"), and the average score of all the other Humans is significantly higher than that. For example, the Human Bandit has an average of 12.5, and the Human Guard has an average of 13. Maybe if you factor in the ability scores of the non-Adult population the Human average would be between 10 and 11, but I'd expect the Adult Human average to be higher than 11.

Eh. Some official skill challenges have suggestions along the lines of, "each party member must succeed at one [whatever] check." For example, using athletics to climb out of a crumbling dungeon or endurance to make it through a storm. If you have a player who's min-maxing abusively (not just one who thinks it's an interesting character trait to have one insanely low score) just throw a bunch of skill challenges like that at them.

See above. No character is good at everything, so this kind of challenge is guaranteed to produce failures even under normal circumstances. Particularly if you use them a lot.

Alternatively, this might lead to players spamming the "aid another" tactic, which would effectively make these skill challenges useless, unless you make the DCs so high that we go back to scenario #1.

Again, the "if the rules don't say you can't, you can" vs "if the rules don't say you can, you can't" thing is never-ending. I would allow subtraction. The rules don't prevent it.

The rules don't prevent you from playing a Zax either. Zax is a race I just made up which gives +100 to each ability score and has an encounter power called "I win" that kills every enemy within 10,000 squares. So by that argument, the Zax aren't a house rule.

The rules generally just tell you the things you can do, not the things you can't. On that basis, subtraction in point buy isn't possible. And looking at the Character Builder, which is published by WotC, having 2 scores less than 10, or any score less than 8, is a house rule. Which pretty much confirms the point.

[Swordgleam]

I wonder what makes you think that, because it seems to me that 4E has way more dump stats than earlier editions. In 3E, there were some SAD classes but most of them weren't, and everybody had to look at con for hit points, and int for skill points. 4E has eliminated most of that: pretty much every class is very well playable with as many as four dump stats.

I don't remember what initially gave me that impression. I think part of it is that all stats now have useful skills based on them, and part is that each class has three main stats, plus everyone likes Con and you want your defenses covered. Sure you could only focus on two stats for a lot of the classes, but that's boring. You'd be stuck only taking powers from one build, with no real chance to hit with any other ones.

I don't really think about min-maxing optimizers when I form my opinions. (I don't mean that disparagingly, I just don't game with anyone like that.) To me, there's less reason for the "average player" to have a dump stat in 4e than in previous editions.

Given that "average" for an adventurer in 4e is a score of between 12 and 13, and you can have a score of 8 through the entire Heroic Tier, I'd have to disagree with you.

He was being sarcastic.

The rules don't prevent you from playing a Zax either. Zax is a race I just made up which gives +100 to each ability score and has an encounter power called "I win" that kills every enemy within 10,000 squares. So by that argument, the Zax aren't a house rule.

The rules also don't say that characters require air, just the effects of failing to hold your breath underwater. So by that argument, characters don't need to breathe unless they're attempting to swim. In fact, they can't, because there are no rules for it.

I don't want to get into a "rules say you can/can't" argument with you. I'm just astonished that you've never seen it before. It's the sort of thing where all parties involved have to agree to disagree.

[Kesnit]

...but they can, easily. For instance, you can make a hammer fighter based on str and con, ignoring the rest, or a two-blade fighter focusing on str and dex, ignoring the rest.

In both cases, Will save will be poor. Yes, Will will lag behind anyway, but if you completely dump WIS and CHA, it will be even worse.

[Tequila Sunrise]

No subtracting is allowed by the rules. If they don't say you can do something in something this number-crunch-ey, I'd say you can't do it.

+1

Normally I'm all for taking rule omissions as "Yes you can do it, just be reasonable about it." Heck, I break "No you can't" rulebook statements all the time (Yes you can move through enemy spaces, if you really want to risk the pain, even though RAW says you can't.)

But I'm perfectly happy with the 'Only one 8' thing. The standard point buy allows a comfortable level of min/max potential, so I feel no need to add more.