Post/Author/DateTime	Post
OmiKapSi 01-10-06, 06:42 PM	I came up with this recently, and thought I'd post it to see what others thought of my results. The idea came frome my work on figuring out an attibute generation method that was both organic and balanced. The upshot is, for each class, what would be the minimum required attributes to make a character of that class who was playable. And by playable, I mean 'take advantage of all class features', not 'be on par with Marko the munchkin who has 16+ in each score." These assume that all characters in the party have their attributes in the same range. Finally, these ranges are written thus to take some advantage of all class features. I understand that one can make a very solid cleric with an 8 or lower charisma, they just won't be turning undead with any reliability. However, said cleric should be better than indicated in another area, to make up for this relative deficiency. Alternatively, one could make a cleric with lower than recommended wisdom, but if they had a very high charisma, they'd work just fine, since they'd be able to turn undead very well, in addition to being able to serve as a diplomat. My estimation of ability scores: 16-18: Very good. This is a luxury ability score, and will allow you to shine in whatever aspect it is applied. 15: Good. Any full spellcaster and bards need a 15 plus to have full access to their spells as they acquire them. Note that many races with penalties to abilities will need a 15 or better if they want to qualify for certain feats, since many feats have a prerequisite of 13. Also, this is required if one wishes to make a character who wields two weapons. 14: Decent: While this won't have you shining with the best, you'll do well. However, I don't consider a character fully playable if their highest score is a 14, unless they have multiples, no penalties, and I wish to play a paladin, ranger or rogue (see class descriptions) 13: Decent. This is the minimum for many feats, provided ones chosen race does not have a penalty for this score. Also, Rangers and Paladins need a minimum wisdom of 13 to be able to have access to all their spells at the level that they acquire them, assuming that they increase it once or get a magic item that increases it, and ignoring the levels where they only gain spells if they gain bonus spells of that level. 12: Minimal: The lowest one can have and still get a bonus. 10-11: The lowest score that one can have and not have a penalty. 8-9: A -1 isn't too bad, as long as it doesn't come up very often. However, an Int of -1 means that fighters, paladins and sorcerers will have only one skill point per level, which is very problematic for the latter two. 7 or less: A -2 means that one is going to do rather poorly in all associated areas. All of ones rolls or abilities are going to be at -4 when compared to anyone who is moderately competent (since they'll have at least a 14, and likely something higher). Basically, one shouldn't rely on an attribute that is at -2 except as a last resort. For reference, a 7 strength will give one a light load maximum of 23 pounds, a constitution of 7 will result in very minimal hit points for any class other than fighters, paladins or barbarians, and very poor hit point totals for those classes. Some of the melee heavy classes can manage an interesting (and sometimes quite entertaining) character with an intelligence or charisma of 7 or less, and a few character archetypes can work with a wisdom of 7 or less, but they are in the minority. So, the first four classes: Barbarian 15, 14, 14, 10, 10, 6 (+4) A barbarian serves the role of both front line tank and competent survivalist. Mostly front line tank. With this in mind, he is going to need to survive, but also hit and deal damage. With the benefits of rage and a full BAB progression, he's going to do this as well (or better) than just about anyone, so his strength should be good. The fact that a barbarian is denied fast movement in heavy armor, and has it reduced in medium armor means that they are best played in light armor, so their dexterity should be able to compensate for this, at least to some extent. However, their armor will be lower than a fighter, paladin or cleric, all of whom can afford to wear heavy armor, so they will need more hit points. Their hit die takes care of this to some extent, but combined with the fact that their rage duration is tied to constitution means that this score should be solid, if not good. Barbarians have a base 4 skill points per level, and since there are only four skills I consider very necessary for a barbarian, Intimidate, Listen, Survival, and Jump or Climb, so they can get away with a 10 in intelligence. Barbarians get poor will saves to begin with, so they shouldn't have an additional penalty. Since Survival is tied to wisdom as well, it should be at least average. Charisma would be nice for intimidation, but that's the only application, so a lo charisma isn't much of a problem. Variations: A straight melee barbarian can get away with reduced intelligence or wisdom, but should have higher constitution or strength. A barbarian with the track feat should at least have a positive modifier in wisdom. A barbarian in light armor with no shield should probably have higher dexterity or constitution, or both. Bard 10, 14, 10, 13, 8, 15 (+5) Bards rarely end up wearing medium or heavy armor, so a high dexterity will be quite advantageous, and necessary if they don't have a solid constitution. Bards should be able to function as light melee combatants, but don't need the high strength of tanks. Since they shouldn't be in situations where they are subject to high damage attacks, and they have a mid range hit die, they are all right with an average constitution. A bards second greatest strength is their knowledge. Knowledge (arcana, religion and nature) are all very solid choices, with dungeoneering and the planes coming in close. With these skills they will be able to identify and help in fights with most creatures. Gather information is quite useful as a backup for information gathering. They should also have either bluff, diplomacy or sense motive for social situations, spellcraft or use magic device (or both), for itentifying or using magic items, tumble for pulling out of combat, or concentration for spellcasting during combat, listen because they have access to it, and of course, perform. Picking only six of these skills is nigh impossible, especially since it is imperative that perform be maximized. Having two knowledge skills, diplomacy, tumble, listen and spellcraft (as well as perform) makes a tolerable bard. Bards have a decent will save, and don't use wisdom for class abilities, so their wisdom is all right if it's a little low. A bards greatest strength is their charisma. Ability to cast spells, bonus spells, perform checks (for bardic music) and many of their skills are all tied to charisma. Therefore, it should be high. I find that 15 is tolerable if it is increased at every opportunity (including buying magic items). Variations: A bard can serve as a light melee fighter, if their strength is at least 12, but it should be 14 if they aren't finessing a weapon. In this situation, they can come down a bit on intelligence, but their constitution or dexterity should be higher. A bard acting as ranged support can also come down on intelligence if they increase their dexterity. A bard working more as a spellcaster can trade off intelligence for even higher charisma. Cleric 10, 10, 12, 12, 15, 12 (+5) Since clerics are not meant to be melee fighters, and have a decent base attack bonus, they don't need a high strength, although it helps if they have a 13 to allow them to carry their armor, a shield, a weapon and a little gear without being heavily encumbered. Since they typically wear lots of armor, having a mediocre dexterity is acceptable. However, a cleric must survive the few hits that they are going to take, so their constitution should have a postive modifier, ideally a high one. Clerics should have solid ranks in Heal, Knowledge (religion), and Concentration, and ideally would have ranks in Diplomacy and Spellcraft. Since a clerics spells are based on wisdom, and they are primarily spellcasters, a minimum of 15 is necessary, if they are going to increase it at every opportunity. Since a clerics ability to turn undead is based on charisma, they should at least have a positive modifier. This also helps if they have diplomacy. Druid 10, 14, 12, 10, 15, 10 (+5) A druids inability to wear metal armor mandates a higher than average dexterity, and since they often end up in melee (willingly or not), a decent constitution is a must. Since they are also often the party healer, survival (i.e. constitution) becomes even more important. Their ability to wildshape at later levels allows a druid to have lower physical scores, but they must survive to 5th level, which can be tricky. Druids should have Handle Animal, Knowledge Nature, Spot or Listen and Survival. Since they have 4 skill points per level, and only one based on intelligence, they can get away with only having an intelligence of 10. However, if the party has no cleric, they'll need to add Heal to this list (possibly at the expense of Spot or Listen). Like clerics, a druid's spells are based on wisdom, and they are primarily spellcasters, so a minimum of 15 is necessary, if they are going to increase it at every opportunity. Since druids have a class ability (animal empathy) and a primary skill (animal handling) based on charisma, this shouldn't be a negative. I'll post my analysis of the other eight if there seems to be enough interest.
Seerow 01-10-06, 10:55 PM	Druid should be down to 3 str and dex, and maybe 12 con. Even a 10 con could suffice. Wildshape ftw.
Aufenshauft 01-11-06, 09:46 AM	Some classes actually don't need minimum scores. Warlock comes to mind.
Puca 01-11-06, 11:53 AM	Why. Why have this system at all? Is there a problem? Dont point-buys make it all generic enough? Looking for example at your barbarian (because Im currently playing a barbarian): I gave him starting scores of 14, 14, 16, 12, 10, 8 on a 28-point buy-in. I gave him Int and Con over the scores you have because I wanted a guy who was much more focused on surviving (Con) than on dealing damage (Str) and who was going to be out front, and I wanted him to have at least a chance to avoid danger rather than just be able to survive it, hence the increase in Int from your recommendations. I took x-class skills like spot and balance. Really, hes being much more of a skilled point-man than the party tank. Sorry, long story, but my point is that under a system like yours, I wouldnt be able to do this. Im not saying that what Ive done is good, but it has been fun and theres no doubt that it is "playable." I couldnt have done it (as well) with a mandatory minimum system like you have suggested. Why then? If you are going to tell me, as a player, that I have to have certain attributes at a certain level, I want a good reason considering that it is going to result in me (even hypothetically) not playing the character I want in favor of your stereotype.
Jell_Moo 01-11-06, 12:01 PM	Druid should be down to 3 str and dex, and maybe 12 con. Even a 10 con could suffice. Wildshape ftw. And what does the Druid for levels 1-4? Cower behind a rock while the party fights?
Lina_Inverse 01-11-06, 12:41 PM	And what does the Druid for levels 1-4? Cower behind a rock while the party fights? Animal companion. Cast spells. That first one makes it more than the wizard is doing 1-4. Minium Attributes, no such thing. Higher is always better. The only thing you can codify is the best buy at a PB(Ie a wizard in any pointbuy needs an 18int) value and the nessasary attributes(ie the attributes you want at 18 to be optimium)
Jell_Moo 01-11-06, 01:29 PM	Animal companion. Cast spells. That first one makes it more than the wizard is doing 1-4. With a Str and Dex of 3? With an AC of 9 while wearing Hide armor. And no shield since the bloody thing will be too heavy. A single Ray of Enfeeblement has a 50% chance to drop the character (and it will hit thanks to the pathetic touch AC). This character is a dead PC walking. And what spells is this character casting? At least the Wizard has a few "bombs" like Sleep and Color Spray to shoot. Fight ending spells. I agree that the Druid can slack a bit when it comes to the physical stats, but a pair of 3's? No way.
OmiKapSi 01-11-06, 01:55 PM	To Lina and Seerow: Are you trying to be funny? This is geared toward characters that are actually going to participate in a moderately realistic campaign. A character with a strength and dexterity of 3 would effectively be a physical cripple, unable to do anything beyond basic self locomotion. Please don't waste my time with this sillyness. And these are the minimums, not the ideal attributes. Heck, with the exception of 1 point variation in strength, Puca proved my points about barbarians admirably. Perhaps someone could suggest somewhere I could post this where I'd get more rational responses. I thought it was pretty obvious that this whole concept was geared toward games where point buy was not involved. Apparently it wasn't. So, for everyone who's planning on posting something along the lines of 'point buy solves all your problems', don't bother, you're wasting time for both of us.
Lana "Silvertongue" 01-11-06, 02:03 PM	Any spellcasting class only need start out with a 14 in their spellcasting attribute. However they should do this with the caution that every point they achieve will have to go into their spellcasting attribute when they achieve them.
johnkretzer 01-11-06, 02:36 PM	While the experiment is interesting what the point of it as it does destroy one of the main great things about the game which is being choice? I mean I don't get the reason behind it at all. I do disagree with on of your points if you are not playing a blaster wizard you need atleast a 17 to 18 in your stat as at higher levels everything will be making it's save.
Puca 01-11-06, 02:58 PM	I thought it was pretty obvious that this whole concept was geared toward games where point buy was not involved. Apparently it wasn't. So, for everyone who's planning on posting something along the lines of 'point buy solves all your problems', don't bother, you're wasting time for both of us.It wasnt, but it is now. What is still not clear is exactly what your method is. Is it decide to take a class, and when you do you automatically get those stats then add the +’s? Or do I roll and have to meet those minimums to take the class? I assume the former. Are the +’s like the +5 for a cleric spent in the same way as a point-buy, e.g. 2 points to raise a score from 15 to 16? Details. Regardless, I still dont like it. Two reasons: One, its my character. Maybe charisma is a sub-optimal or even useless stat for a barbarian. If I want to have a barbarian with an awesome Cha and intimidate the hell out people, that should be my choice. Two, no reason. I asked you why, what your motivation was. Was there a problem you were trying to solve or a way that this made something better. Got no response except to talk about the 1-point difference between my barb and yours (which was in Int [a whole skill point lost] or in Con [hit points]). You are substituting your values and designs for my choice, which I might, maybe, in theory be able to accept if you had a good reason, but I dont even see a bad reason. Explain why you are trying to do this.
Lina_Inverse 01-11-06, 03:17 PM	To Lina and Seerow: Are you trying to be funny? This is geared toward characters that are actually going to participate in a moderately realistic campaign. A character with a strength and dexterity of 3 would effectively be a physical cripple, unable to do anything beyond basic self locomotion. Please don't waste my time with this sillyness. And these are the minimums, not the ideal attributes. Heck, with the exception of 1 point variation in strength, Puca proved my points about barbarians admirably. Perhaps someone could suggest somewhere I could post this where I'd get more rational responses. I thought it was pretty obvious that this whole concept was geared toward games where point buy was not involved. Apparently it wasn't. So, for everyone who's planning on posting something along the lines of 'point buy solves all your problems', don't bother, you're wasting time for both of us. Useing dice 3s will inevitably crop up. And then youll have a 3. Where do you put said 3, The miniums must take into account multible 3s as charecters can be generated with such stats. Any spellcasting class only need start out with a 14 in their spellcasting attribute. However they should do this with the caution that every point they achieve will have to go into their spellcasting attribute when they achieve them. 15 Minium actully, if he wants to be able to cast spells. You wont hit 19 untill 20th, which is 3 levels too late.
OmiKapSi 01-11-06, 03:47 PM	Sorry Puca, I thought that my follow up post clarified this. I now realized that the whole thing required a bit of deduction that I kind of took for granted. Incidentally, the +X that is by each stat indicates the total modifiers. I was under the impression that this was a standard method of evaluating an attribute set. I'll edit the original post to make this more clear. Thanks for pointing this out, sometimes I get a little caught up in the theory aspect, and lose sight of what I was trying to work out in the first place. I'm also removing the reference to point buy, since I see now that this was confusing some people. -edit: pulled the edited paragraph from the opening post in response to puca's statement below. When generating attributes with any degree of randomness, one is inevitably going to end up with a set that cannot be used to make a viable character. For example, if no stat is 15 or better, one cannot make a viable wizard, sorcerer, druid, cleric, or other spellcasting heavy class. If one has a single 14 and five 12s one cannot make a really viable character in any class, despite having a +7 character. There are a number of other variations, but I'm sure that you all get the idea. Thus, what would be the minimum set of attribtues that would gaurantee that one could make a viable character, of any class. While the classes don't have minimum attribute requirements any more, many have features that require at least a positive modifier, and most of those are significantly better if that modifier is greater than +1. Keep in mind, these are the minimums for the archetypal versions of these classes. One could make a bruiser cleric, for example, with lower than indicated charisma and intelligence and high strength and wisdom, who only used their magic for out of combat buffing. Also, this doesn't take into account multiclassing. For example, a character who was only taking up to 4 levels of cleric in their build wouldn't need a wisdom higher than 12 to make the most of those levels. An analysis of that sort would involve much more exposition, since it would require a level by level breakdown.
Puca 01-11-06, 04:01 PM	STOP! Maybe its just me, but I hate that. Repost your changes rather than go back and edit your OP. 1) People joining the conversation later will have no idea what respondents are talking about because theyre reading something different. 2) There is a way to compare the new and the old versions when it is a new separate post. Am I the only one who is bothered by this?
Puca 01-11-06, 04:36 PM	For example, if no stat is 15 or better, one cannot make a viable wizard, sorcerer, druid, cleric, or other spellcasting heavy class. If one has a single 14 and five 12s one cannot make a really viable character in any class, despite having a +7 character. There are a number of other variations, but I'm sure that you all get the idea. In my experience, there is a much bigger difference between a point-buy system and a roll system. In a point-buy you decide a lot of stuff in advance: class, race, maybe even feats and PrCs. The ground work for personality and personal history can also be started, or even done, before stats are assigned. If you dont have some idea what you want to do, you just stare at a row of 8s and shake your head. When you roll for scores, you cant have any of that, and if you do, youre bound to be disappointed. I might want a high-dex fighter who feints a lot, but if I have to put that 9 in Cha or Con, either way my concept is ruined. With rolling you get your scores and then find a class, choose a race, and the whole process begins with the stats as opposed to ending there. Now, the reason I bothered with all that is I dont really see how what you propose solves the problem you addressed better than a point-buy. From a point of view (I have a concept already and now need scores) it is better than rolling, but it is a lot more restrictive than the current solution. So, where is the up-side? Why should we consider this as an alternative to the point-buy? Sell it, man!
OmiKapSi 01-11-06, 05:11 PM	Actually, this is none of the above. This will potentially be the basis for an attribute generation system that will involve dice rolling, but will limit it to some extent. The reason I posted it was to get feedback on whether these numbers were consistent with other people experience as to what were minimums for workable characters. For example, if 4 of the minimums were consistently met with a sampling of various character builds for the given class, I'd say that they were a reasonable basis for a system that would follow that would hit 4 of those minimums on a regular basis. Heck, if I had a large enough sampling of starting character builds of any given class, I wouldn't have needed to post it at all. I probably still would have, since I prefer to bounce ideas around, rather than just working with my own brain and no outside influence. I'm trying to create something that I could later share with other people, after all. I'm not trying to sell random generation as superior to point buy. The only reason I mention point buy at all is that I want to achieve the balance that it offers, but step away from the mentality where attributes are just means to an end. Under that system, nearly every fighter who uses combat expertise has an intelligence of 13, and if they don't, it's generally lower. With that fighter example, I think it would be interesting to have a character where one could gaurantee minimums, but have to potential to have something higher, and perhaps have some surprises. A fighter is still quite playable if he has 15 strength instead of 18 strength, for example. Now, not everyone is going to have all the minimums indicated. There may be some points where one attribute will be lower than expected, and another will be higher than expected.
Gnarl 01-11-06, 05:23 PM	When you roll for scores, you cant have any of that, and if you do, youre bound to be disappointed. I might want a high-dex fighter who feints a lot, but if I have to put that 9 in Cha or Con, either way my concept is ruined. With rolling you get your scores and then find a class, choose a race, and the whole process begins with the stats as opposed to ending there. Yeah, and when they roll poorly, players cry and beg you to let them roll again. And when you finaly get bored of it, you accept, and all the other players except the one with the highest stats complains about it, and at the end, all your players will have stats on par with the best first character. And if you don't let the players reroll their characters, which is in my opinion poor DMing since you deprive them of some fun in not allowing them to play their character concept. Plus it's funny how those characters all too often end up as cannon fooder. I've been DM for over 10 years now, and there are at least two key facts on players: 1) Players cheat or beg on stat rolls. 2) Players cheat or beg on hit point rolls.
Neeek 01-11-06, 07:08 PM	Now, the reason I bothered with all that is I dont really see how what you propose solves the problem you addressed better than a point-buy. From a point of view (I have a concept already and now need scores) it is better than rolling, but it is a lot more restrictive than the current solution. He was providing neither a problem nor a solution. He was merely trying to give an idea of what attribute scores are necessary to use various classes' ablities fully. So Fighters need a 13 Int, 13 Str and a 15 Dex, since those are requirements for various fighter feats. I don't think he was trying to make some sort of BNT of rolling.
Puca 01-12-06, 12:48 PM	Gnarl, I wasnt saying that one system was better; though I like something about the randomness of rolling, the old-school flavor/feeling of it. Our group uses a point-buy and it is balanced and fair and all that, but tell me your class/race and I bet I can guess your scores within one. I am amazed though at how normally rational, mature adults will suddenly turn into nine-year-olds as soon as they start rolling stats or hit-points. ____________________ Actually, this is none of the above.So, these minimums are not the system you are working on, but really just data that you will use in formulating a new system? Sorry, I was confused. I still am though, confused. Are you looking at sort of an average starting character for a given class or the minimum points that youd see in a given stat for a given class? In the former case, I think youre pretty close. In the latter, I think some of your “minimums” might be high in some cases. Sorry Im having such a time figuring out what you want, but I am willing to offer you what Ive experienced at least. I like your idea of trying to give the surprise of rolling with the balance of a point buy, and that to my mind satisfies the “why” I was harping about.
Tony Vargas 01-12-06, 01:17 PM	I guess with the kind of minimums you're talking about, a character would need a 12 in any stat where he gets a class-based bonus, and a 14 in any caster stat (to eventually, even if it is at 20th, be able to cast 9th level spells). For instance, a Paladin would need a 12 CHA, minimum, since he has class abilities based on CHA, without a CHA bonus, he doesn't effecitvely have those abilities, He'd need an 11 WIS to be able to cast 1st level spells at 4th level (if he put a point into WIS at 4th), and a 14 by 20th. He really won't be much of a pally, though - what he really needs is to /maximize/ his CHA. I think it's safer to talk about priorities: A Paladin should get all the CHA he can, that's his top priority. He can't afford to skimp on WIS, because he'll eventually need a 14 to be able to cast all his spell levels. He can't skimp on CON because he's a melee fighter and need hps. He can't skimp on STR because he's a melee fighter, and needs to be able to move in his heavy armor and hit things hard enough that they feel it. He can't outright dump INT because he only gets 2 skill points and has several good skills (Diplomacy & Sense Motive, for instance). He can afford to skimp on DEX because he can depend on heavy armor for AC, and has Divine Grace to improve his REF save. Long ago, there was a stat generation method where you rolled a (fairly large) pool of dice for each attribute, taking the three highest - the size of the dice pool for each stat depended on the class you wanted, but the total number of dice was constant. A couple of years ago I used a method based on that: each player got 30 dice to roll for stats, he had to roll a minimum of 3 dice for each, but the other 12 could be rolled all on one stat, or distributed however he liked. One player, for instance, rolled 5d6 for each of his stats. But, you could do something like that, sticking with the original idea of it being class based. For instance, with the pally it might go: S: 6d D: 3d Co: 5d I: 4d W: 5d Cha: 7d or S: 4d D: 3d Co: 4d I: 3d W: 4d Cha: 12d good luck
OmiKapSi 01-13-06, 03:34 AM	Yay! I'm comprehensible. It's a start. Yes, this is the first part of the data that I intend to use as a basis for the construction of a system for generating attributes. Don't worry about the confusion, I seem to have that effect on people. Tony; You're on the right track. However, using multiple dice simply skews the results upwards in some cases. Yes, you'll hit the minimums, but you have strong potential to end up with people rolling a series of all high stats if they get even moderately lucky on their straight 3d6 rolls. I know most would be ok with that, but I'm not. What I'm going to be working toward is a system with randomness in a relatively narrow range. As an example, a system I worked out a while ago (and will use until I've got something better) would generate a series of random attributes whose total, if added together, had a variance of 10. For comparison, the normal rolling system has a variance of 90 (all 3s versus all 18s), and even the standard point buy (28) has a variance of 8. (2 17s, a 10, and 8s, versus 4 13s and 2 12s). What I'm looking for is the minimum necessary to make a functional character in any given class. Someone who is going to be able to fulfill their role with moderate success in a party while dealing with standard scenarios. To put it another way, could these (and the other stat arrays that I'll post once I've got an idea that doing so wouldn't simply be clutter), be any lower and still workable alongside someone who had, for example, the 'normal' array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.