Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MatteBlack 12-10-07, 09:44 PM	I know this isn't really a revelation but, it seems like if LFR gave us fewer points to buy abilities with, the impact optimization has on character balance would be much fairer. It is usually the character that is built one or two high stats that get factored in over and over that tend to stretch the range of character efficacy at a given level. It could still be done with fewer points but, players would have to take more liability stats to get there and we'd likely see 18s slide down to 16s and the multiple stacking of bonuses would be blunted somewhat. Don't get me wrong, having better stats is nice but, I hate the whole "optimal/suboptimal" expectations, perceptions, and scaling creep that seem to disuade creative ,unique and/or well-rounded builds in LG.
Iswald 12-10-07, 10:05 PM	I'd prefer to see how 4th ed is set up before pontificating. However, if there are classes like monk which require good scores in many stats, I'd like to see a method of character generation which will allow playable PCs with those classes, even if it means more points at character creation (if such a method even applies).
MatteBlack 12-10-07, 10:39 PM	Just trying to discuss what I think my title would show to be my opinion. It's based mostly on the current situation but, I have tried to keep an eye on the glimpses of 4th that are available. I thought I saw monk may be gone and haven't seen anything that pointed to a major overhaul of ability stats.
Vamroc 12-10-07, 10:54 PM	It might scale differently 9 and 10 might be free with eleven and twelve costing 3 and 4 points. I for one think we had too few and it really restricted what your PC could do in terms of multi classing. Fighters need high strength, high Dex, and high con if you wanted to then take rouge levels you would then need high charisma, high wisdom and high intelligence. If you take any other race than human you need to over spend to get the build you need to be optimal. If your human other than the bonus feat you get nothing that helps you reserve point totals for important stats.
chesspiece 12-10-07, 11:59 PM	Keep in mind the stat bonuses appear to be changing in 4e. I'm whether this will be significant or if it will mostly factor out (increased offense vs increased defense = 0 change). In 3e, going from a 12 (+1) to a 14 (+2) represented a 100% increase in the stat's bonus. In 4e, going from a 12 (+6) to a 14 (+7) represents a 16% increase in the stat's bonus. So perhaps the barbarians with 18/14/14/8/8/8 won't be as overwhelming. Also there have been comments about non-traditional abilities becoming more useful for certain classes. Wisdom for fighters was mentioned in an early Feats article.
MatteBlack 12-11-07, 03:13 AM	I think part of my question would be if we really "need" those very high scores if the game is properly scaled and every other player has the same limits. Most of the 3.5 feat minimums aren't prohibitively high unless your race has a penalty on that stat and would seem to be the only actual reason to need higher scores. As players began to optimize their characters regularly, a scaling issue between optimized and sub-optimal characters began to occur and which end of the scale a mod was written for became a consideration. I wonder if less of a possible range of abilities might close that gap to where both ends of the scale can better share the battlemat.
chesspiece 12-11-07, 07:59 AM	So should LFR be scaled to the "average" points level for 4e? That seems reasonable to me. LG went with 28 vs the 25 'norm' and it was run as a tougher / deadlier campaign. If LFR uses the average, they can scale challenges according to the recommendations in the Core DMG. OTOH, FR seems like more of a high-powered / super-heroic setting. IIRC, the Green Regent campaign had a 32-point buy or something. The trade-offs seem to be: - High powered, min/max PCs - Challenges must be balanced above Core levels - Campaign / setting flavor I think the last one is the most important, and it's too early (for outsiders like me) to tell what campaign flavor they will choose. However, in a Living Campaign it is desirable to have PCs be a little more durable than in Home Campaigns. Unbalanced tables, incompetent / uncooperative players, and the scaling that comes from being 1/6(+/-) of the party levels (vs 1/4 of the party), the inability for the GM to fudge a Raise Dead, and long-term playability goals make it more desirable to have tougher PCs. IMHO.
draxynnic 12-11-07, 08:41 AM	From memory, Green Regent only had a 25-point buy, but it was easier to gain access to noncore material.
MatteBlack 12-11-07, 09:28 AM	I guess the scores the NPCs of the Realms are built with would have have alot to do with what would work. As far as character durability goes, I think higher ability scores are sort of a double egde sword. Yes, your character will probably be tougher but, you might suffer from writers scaling against players who have used those extra points to even better effect than you. My belief would be that, smaller ranges of scores will breed less imbalance across characters but, ultimately living campaign players need to get a grip of what level their character actually plays at and not just what the level at the top of the sheet says.
aljergensen 12-11-07, 10:29 AM	I'm going to go against the tide here (and probably be accused of being a stat-mongering cheese weasel), but I want similar or more points. Why? I like playing heroes. Yes, a normal person can be thrown into a situation needing courage and sacrifice and still perservere. If I want to be normal, I have reality. When I game, I like to run a bad-ass. IMHO lower points won't stop the min-maxing that some people do. I saw Eberron MOH characters (which used 'standard' point buy) with primary stat maxed out just as much as LG. But it was harder to build a character that was balanced to fit a different vision. For example, I wanted to play a two-weapon fighter/tank with a reasonable strength, dex, con and int. I'm able to do that in LG, it would have been much tougher in MOH. The few extra points make little difference when adding to big numbers, but they do have a big impact when trying to round out 'secondary' scores. As far as effective character vs role-playing, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Nor do I believe that people who don't enjoy gaming for the RP opportunities are a lesser sub-species of gamer. I also don't think lowering the points available will have much affect on what style of play people enjoy. Allen.
Butterface 12-11-07, 12:54 PM	I'm going to go against the tide here (and probably be accused of being a stat-mongering cheese weasel), but I want similar or more points. Why? I like playing heroes. Yes, a normal person can be thrown into a situation needing courage and sacrifice and still perservere. If I want to be normal, I have reality. When I game, I like to run a bad-ass. IMHO lower points won't stop the min-maxing that some people do. I saw Eberron MOH characters (which used 'standard' point buy) with primary stat maxed out just as much as LG. But it was harder to build a character that was balanced to fit a different vision. For example, I wanted to play a two-weapon fighter/tank with a reasonable strength, dex, con and int. I'm able to do that in LG, it would have been much tougher in MOH. The few extra points make little difference when adding to big numbers, but they do have a big impact when trying to round out 'secondary' scores. As far as effective character vs role-playing, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Nor do I believe that people who don't enjoy gaming for the RP opportunities are a lesser sub-species of gamer. I also don't think lowering the points available will have much affect on what style of play people enjoy. Allen. Agreed. For someone who is used to rolling stats, 28 point buy seemed unbelievably harsh, but I got used to it. Don't take those points away!
MatteBlack 12-11-07, 02:12 PM	I don't specifically correlate a desire for more points with cheesey builds or bad roleplay except to say that more points would seem to enable builds that abuse the build system and might help draw the focus of character to how he is built over how he is played. I actually would like to see more usable builds out there but, unfocused builds will be left in the dust if optimization has too big of an impact on efficacy. I can't even prove that fewer points would be the answer in the current system so speculating now is, likely, too early. It will probably take several months and a few splatbooks to tell how badly character builds can be powergamed. I just hope the campaign heads take a good look at how many points are really needed and maybe consider a bit of conservatism. It would be alot more easy to tell players they can have a few more ability points than tell them they need to trim a few.
MatteBlack 12-11-07, 02:29 PM	Agreed. For someone who is used to rolling stats, 28 point buy seemed unbelievably harsh, but I got used to it. Don't take those points away! It depends what rolling method you use. Purely on averages, 3d6 per stat would make for a 15pt character. You would need a fairly permissive one to regularly outpace 28pts. For the record, I don't think I'd be suggesting lower than 25pts.
bitznarf 12-11-07, 04:17 PM	IIRC, the default is not 3d6, but rather 4d6.takehighest(3)
mmockus 12-11-07, 04:42 PM	IIRC, the default is not 3d6, but rather 4d6.takehighest(3) Which would shift the average stat to being a 12, or a 24 point buy. Though with the rolling you can come up with sub 8 stats, or a couple over average stats (15+)
aljergensen 12-11-07, 06:02 PM	I think this revolves around personal style and preferences. It's also making a lot of assumptions about how 4e will work. Maybe I could build my two-weapon tank in 4e with a lower point buy and still make them heroic. But no matter how many points are handed out some people will build effective combat characters, others won't. I've seen people play gray elf wizards with a 20+ int and a 6 con in LG who wonder why their character keeps dying. I've played 25 point buy systems where I made what I considered an effective chain-fighter tank that probably would have stood up to most LG characters. He did a fraction less damage than he would have with a higher point buy system, but not by much. The real problem seems to be using a point buy system and min/maxing to the extreme. About the only way around that would be to hand out pregenerated stat blocks for people to use. I don't think anybody wants that. Also, do 3 points really make the difference between a well-crafted character and a munchkin? In my personal experience it meant the I had to select 2 "dump" stats instead of 1 (if I had a dump stat at all). Fewer points limits seems to reduce flexibility in character design (in 3e) without much benefit. Will there be munchkins in 4e? Probably. Would there be fewer munchkins with a lower point buy? Personally, I doubt it. Allen.
Vamroc 12-11-07, 09:04 PM	IIRC, the default is not 3d6, but rather 4d6.takehighest(3) Well your kind a right It's 4d6 drop the lowest one rolled so you keep three out of four d6. I've also played where you reroll ones but that seems to be an optional rule. You could just roll three D6 and keep the results rolled and still reroll ones and twos. However with four your odds of getting solid rolls increases by twenty five percent.
mmockus 12-12-07, 01:38 AM	Well your kind a right It's 4d6 drop the lowest one rolled so you keep three out of four d6. I've also played where you reroll ones but that seems to be an optional rule. You could just roll three D6 and keep the results rolled and still reroll ones and twos. However with four your odds of getting solid rolls increases by twenty five percent. 4d6 dropping 1's and 2's drastically shift the average, to a 15 as your AVERAGE stat. So a standard 4d6 similar to a 24 point but your 4d6 drop 1's/2's pushes the buy equivalent to a 48 point buy. So a drastically different game you are player with regards to power level. It also makes the difference in stats very nominal. You're average character will have 2 exception stats 17/18, 2 high stats 15/16, and 2 moderate stats 13/14, on a rare occasion you will see a 9 or 10.
Nutation 12-12-07, 02:13 AM	I know this isn't really a revelation but, it seems like if LFR gave us fewer points to buy abilities with, the impact optimization has on character balance would be much fairer. Good for you, I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocate for fewer points in a D&D campaign. Most folks want more points (because they are stat-mongering cheese weasels ;) ), not realizing that that also means the monsters should be scaled up. 4.0 is a brand-new game, and I think the administrators should choose whatever the baseline point-buy is (equivalent to 25 points now) unless they have some compelling reason to change it.
ankhwearer 12-12-07, 02:17 AM	It's entirely possible that the PHB will only have one method for determining stats, with a single point value (or whatever) listed. Part of the "tuning it to be more fun!" If that's the case, the RPGA will have no choice but to go with the core rules.
gomeztoo 12-12-07, 05:52 AM	The RPGA didn't really go with the Core rules in LG either (as in: they used a different point buy than the PHB).
MwaO 12-12-07, 11:07 AM	I know this isn't really a revelation but, it seems like if LFR gave us fewer points to buy abilities with, the impact optimization has on character balance would be much fairer. Actually it gets a lot less fair. The problem is that you're assuming that all players will behave rationally. Take the following two types of players: The guy who has to have an 18 in their primary stat. The guy who has to have at least a 10 in all stats and wants a feat chain that is based off of the 14 that is not Con(Dodge or Combat Expertise) The 1st person is probably going for 18/14/14/8/8/8. The 2nd is probably going for 16/14/14/10/10/10. There's nothing especially that different about the two of them. The feat choices are what will really make the difference. But make them 25 point buy... The 1st person probably drops his 14 in say Dex to 11. His AC takes a small hit, maybe nothing with some of the armor choices available. The 2nd has a much larger quandry - he can only drop the 14 to 13. He needs to take 2 points from somewhere else. Now most people in that situation, would take 2 off of one of those 10s, but that's not something he'll do. So he's either taking 2 off of Str or 2 off on Con. Meaning he's at a penalty to hit/damage or easier to kill...
Vamroc 12-12-07, 01:46 PM	4d6 dropping 1's and 2's drastically shift the average, to a 15 as your AVERAGE stat. So a standard 4d6 similar to a 24 point but your 4d6 drop 1's/2's pushes the buy equivalent to a 48 point buy. So a drastically different game you are player with regards to power level. It also makes the difference in stats very nominal. You're average character will have 2 exception stats 17/18, 2 high stats 15/16, and 2 moderate stats 13/14, on a rare occasion you will see a 9 or 10. Did I say 1s and 2s I meant 1s or 2s because I've had rolls where the dice wanna pi$$ me off. I've had consistent low rolls on a 4d6 where it's like 10, 11, 9, 13, 14, and 9. I'm sorry you just can't play a play a fighter or spell caster with a rolls like that. At least in 3.5 you can't from what I heard in another post the bonuses are going up a lot in 4.0. I wouldn't consider 14 high at all it seems to be the number that make most classes functional. In LG you spending 6 points for a plus two bonus while it should one for one above ten. Meaning a fourteen costs four and twenty would cost eleven points nine plus one for being a double digit point value and another plus one for being the start of the next plateau.
Dempster 12-12-07, 07:56 PM	Have you ever wondered why the point buy system starts at 8? I mean 10-11 is the middle of the scale...that is obvious by the o modifier. So why start at 8? Why start all stats at a negative 1 modifier and have us buy the points back to up to an average stat? Why not start at tens and have less points. Aren't heroic characters supposed to better than average? From the PHB page 7 " the average ability score for a typical commoner is 10-11, but your character is not typical. The most common ability scores for PCs are 12 and 13. Thats right the average player is above average" It just seems weird to me. P.S. SAVE THE GNom....................oh who cares wizards doesn't listen to us anyway
mmockus 12-12-07, 08:23 PM	Have you ever wondered why the point buy system starts at 8? I mean 10-11 is the middle of the scale...that is obvious by the o modifier. So why start at 8? Why start all stats at a negative 1 modifier and have us buy the points back to up to an average stat? Why not start at tens and have less points. Aren't heroic characters supposed to better than average? From the PHB page 7 " the average ability score for a typical commoner is 10-11, but your character is not typical. The most common ability scores for PCs are 12 and 13. Thats right the average player is above average" It just seems weird to me. P.S. SAVE THE GNom....................oh who cares wizards doesn't listen to us anyway Just because the characters are supposed to be heroic, I would say it does not assume above average, this is the norm, but there are plenty of fantasy literature with an average hero. Even if we assume above average, does not necessitate that they are above average in every manner. It allows for a player to determine which stats are above average and which flaws they have. Dragonlance for example. Raistlin: maybe a 7 CON. Caramon: 8 INT, Tass: 9 WIS, etc...
kennew 12-13-07, 12:08 AM	Actually it gets a lot less fair. The problem is that you're assuming that all players will behave rationally. Take the following two types of players: The guy who has to have an 18 in their primary stat. The guy who has to have at least a 10 in all stats and wants a feat chain that is based off of the 14 that is not Con(Dodge or Combat Expertise) The 1st person is probably going for 18/14/14/8/8/8. The 2nd is probably going for 16/14/14/10/10/10. There's nothing especially that different about the two of them. The feat choices are what will really make the difference. But make them 25 point buy... The 1st person probably drops his 14 in say Dex to 11. His AC takes a small hit, maybe nothing with some of the armor choices available. The 2nd has a much larger quandry - he can only drop the 14 to 13. He needs to take 2 points from somewhere else. Now most people in that situation, would take 2 off of one of those 10s, but that's not something he'll do. So he's either taking 2 off of Str or 2 off on Con. Meaning he's at a penalty to hit/damage or easier to kill... I agree completely. I have played in games with a 32 point build (Living City, Living Arcanis), a 28 point build (Living Greyhawk) and a 25 point build (Mark of Heroes). IMO, 28 points are necessary for players who want characters who are moderately good at most things, without being too good at one thing. With the exception of primary casters (who require a 15 in their spell casting stat in order to gain spells of the appropriate level at the correct time), none of my characters has ever had a score higher than 14 at first level. The standards may be different in 4e. I believe that the mechanics of 3e led to stat inflation. I am hoping this is not the case in 4e. In my gaming group, most of our home games use a 28 or 32 point build. I think I prefer 28. I know that the 25 point build in Mark of Heroes felt gimped to me.
Dempster 12-13-07, 02:02 AM	Just because the characters are supposed to be heroic, I would say it does not assume above average, this is the norm, but there are plenty of fantasy literature with an average hero.Dragonlance for example. Raistlin: maybe a 7 CON. The official D&D stats for Raistlin at 6th level are S 10 D 16 CN 12 I 17 W 14 Ch 10 In my opinion your estimation of Raistlin's con would fit him better.
mmockus 12-13-07, 01:40 PM	The official D&D stats for Raistlin at 6th level are S 10 D 16 CN 12 I 17 W 14 Ch 10 In my opinion your estimation of Raistlin's con would fit him better. So assuming he bumped INT at 4th. That is a 34 point buy, for a character on his way to godhood, so I'd assume a RARE character.
mmockus 12-19-07, 04:06 PM	OK from the latest Confessions of a Full-time Wizard (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drcw/20071214), it would appear that a point buy is the default build option, though rolling dice is still an option. Not definitive, this may just have been the judge or playtest rules, but it seems to imply that point buy is the default build.
pedr 12-19-07, 09:13 PM	On ENWorld, Scott Rouse has said that there are three options in the PH: 'Standard Array', 'Customised Array' and random. It'd be a bold move, but interesting for game balance to require all characters to use the standard array! I expect we'll probably use the default customised array though I suppose there's a reasonable chance we'll get a few extra points as happened in LG.
cetiken 12-20-07, 04:52 PM	So assuming he bumped INT at 4th. That is a 34 point buy, for a character on his way to godhood, so I'd assume a RARE character. Well per some readings of Races and Classes Godhood is a reasonable objective for epic level play.
Newpaintbrush 01-16-08, 05:44 PM	I know this isn't really a revelation but, it seems like if LFR gave us fewer points to buy abilities with, the impact optimization has on character balance would be much fairer. It is usually the character that is built one or two high stats that get factored in over and over that tend to stretch the range of character efficacy at a given level. It could still be done with fewer points but, players would have to take more liability stats to get there and we'd likely see 18s slide down to 16s and the multiple stacking of bonuses would be blunted somewhat. Don't get me wrong, having better stats is nice but, I hate the whole "optimal/suboptimal" expectations, perceptions, and scaling creep that seem to disuade creative ,unique and/or well-rounded builds in LG. With all due respect, I completely disagree. 1. Living Greyhawk is often horribly lethal. Of the 28 points you get, the first 6 points should always go to Constitution, leaving 22 discretionary points, and god help you if you're an elf. Really, characters in Living Greyhawk pretty much have to combat optimize just to survive, and I'm sure that any party that's been hit by three fireballs or two cones of cold in the same round will agree. 2. All you do with fewer points is to make the cheese-mongers use fewer points for their cheese. That is, you will STILL have these "optimal/suboptimal" expectations, perceptions, and scaling, only on a 25 point basis (or whatever) instead of 28.
GreenKnight 01-16-08, 06:40 PM	Good for you, I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocate for fewer points in a D&D campaign. Most folks want more points (because they are stat-mongering cheese weasels ;) ), not realizing that that also means the monsters should be scaled up. Actually, I do realize that, and I'm fine with it. The thing about point buy is that, if you have to few points, then it effectively closes off certain character builds. And frankly, I don't want to have to shelve my idea to play a Paladin/Wizard/Spellsword because I've only got 25 points to spend. Nevermind that, as others have pointed out, low point buy is murder on character classes like Paladins and Monks (Monks, incidentally, WILL be in 4E. Just not in the first PHB). With so many stats which're requirements for those classes, it's hard to make them stand out from one another. Thanks but no thanks. So if the monsters get boosted in the process, great. It isn't about cheese, or trying to create an overpowering character. It's about being able to create even the most offbeat character, which is just something you can't do when you have to few points to spend. Low point buy doesn't limit cheesemongering, as the cheesemongers will always find a way to tweak their characters. But it DOES limit creativity.
trollbill 01-16-08, 08:14 PM	In my experience having fewer than 28 points only promotes character optimization and minimizes roleplaying. With 25 points I can buy a character that I consider skilled enough in whatever it is he does to be considered competent/heroic at it, but that's it. There really is no wiggle room. I spend all my points and I have a competent character and that's it. With 28 points I find I have a few points left over that I don't feel I have to spend on optimization, but rather I am free to character developement. Maybe my sorcerer is strong for a spellcaster or my fighter is actually charismatic. Of course, there are those that will spend those extra points to optimize their characters even further, but that will be the case no matter how many, or how few points there are. Regardless, how many points you have to build a character will never change this. In fact, decreasing the points is more likely to put a focus on optimization because the less points you have, the more important each point becomes. Of course, the dynamic of all of this is likely to change in 4th. So what sort of point buy can only really be talked about right now in general terms like heroic or epic stats.