Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ithardin 02-11-06, 11:46 AM	I do not like stat dumping. I don't think that a PC "adventurer/hero" should have stats lower then the peasants they protect. Of course there are legitimate reasons to have low ability scores (the bookworm wizard who never works out, etc). But for the most part, you know why you do it. You do it to survive. Am I saying that somewhere the module writers collude to come up with things just to kill us and then using the "according to the mechanics this was an appropriate EL for your party" excuse? YES (he he he). So is that why we stat dump, because we are convinced that the writers aren't trying to challenge us, they are trying to kill us. I mean raise your hand if you have box text paranoia? I am still waiting on the "interrupt box text" combat card as part of the D&D Rewards program. So do we really have a catch 22? We stat dump because modules are meant to kill us, modules are meant to kill us so we stat dump?
redgamer 02-11-06, 01:04 PM	Sorry, but I think you are making logic errors here. There is only a catch 22 like you describe if dropping charisma from 10 to 8 has a noticable affect on your death rate which it doesn't. There is only a catch 22 if authors are colluding to make mods so difficult that only character with a 8 charisma can survive. As an author and friend to 5 authers this is not true. You state that survivability is the only reason to stat dump when there are clearly others. I've never seen box text cheat a party, so I wouldn't be raising my hand.
ithardin 02-11-06, 01:39 PM	Its not the 8 charisma, its the 20 Str/Dex to hit the BBEG or the 20 Con to survive being hit by the BBEG that inclines one to pick the 6-8 Cha. So you are saying that as a module writer/friend to them that they don't factor that in when they write modules? The idea that many of the people who choose to play their adventures will be lopsided stat-wise does not factor into what they write?
ithardin 02-11-06, 01:41 PM	"...You state that survivability is the only reason to stat dump when there are clearly others." Would you please list other reasons to stat dump so we can discuss them here?
Mortepierre 02-11-06, 01:59 PM	It is my experience that "stat dumping", as you put it, is done by players for one reason and one reason only: powergaming. You have only 28 pts to work with so you're going to put them where it will really help your PC. The catch being that - to have "good" scores - you need to reduce drastically some other stat(s). For instance, I can't count the number of barbarians I've met who had the Cha of a mole and the Int (or the Wis) of a worm. From a numerical point of view, it works. At low-level, it means you'll be really good at what your class does and by the time you hit the high-level, you'll have secured a few items to compensate. Problem is: few people bother to rp their low stats, especially if these are Int, Wis, or Cha. Does this powergaming finds its source in the way modules are written? Possibly. Monsters (and that include NPCs) in a module are - as far as I can tell from those I ran - nearly always min/maxed.. especially if they're half-orc brutes with 2-handed weapons.. but I digress :twitch: So much so, sometimes, that - as a DM - you've got to wonder if their whole life hasn't been dedicated to prepare for this one fateful encounter with the PC. Is it reason enough to do the same with our PC? Who knows.. Many play this game to win (whatever that means). To win, they've got to be the best. Whether it is to survive any encounter or to be able to brag about being the strongest guy on Oerth matters little. Personally, I see it as a vicious circle. Authors min/max encounters to offer suitable challenges to PC which they know have been min/maxed to the gills by their owners. But the latter often quote the difficulty of a module's challenge as the reason behind the min/maxing of their PC. In the end, the only consequence is that people that play PC designed primarily for rp (no stat above 14 or below 10, many skills, no feat chain, etc..) are forced to face tough to impossible challenges, trying to survive where others would simply yawn. There is no solution to this problem. No acceptable solution, that is. I wouldn't want to see - for example - a "rp police" starting to tell people what they can and can't do with their characters (beyond those rules approved by WotC). To do so would ruin the fun of everyone. Disclaimer: yes, I've met people who haven't practiced stat dumping. Yes, I've also met people who had done it but role-played it perfectly (and with a good background reason too). So, no, I am not saying everyone and their mother does it. Simply that I've witnessed it enough time to know a majority yields to the temptation.
RanielK 02-11-06, 05:43 PM	Problem is: few people bother to rp their low stats, especially if these are Int, Wis, or Cha. (IC) Delmar has met Karg. Delmar has Karg's bucket. Karg can try to get bucket back at Winter Fantasy. Karg had better use BrAin. :P Delmar has met Leifskyoder. Leifskyoder needs to stop his treehugging ways and remember the big puppies in the woods with the really big teeth are not for hugging. Dude seriously lay off the ale. ;) Delmar is not even going to mention Rath Deathaxe. He's . . . scary. :D (OOC) That being said, most folks I've seen don't really play their stats either. Course with Delmar his main stat to consider is . . . age. He's got the 12 Int and 16 Wis and 14 Cha, but he is 15 and very . . . confident about his skills. Now we won't even contemplate the mental stats of Karg, Leifskyoder or Rath. Miles
RanielK 02-11-06, 05:52 PM	I mean raise your hand if you have box text paranoia? I am still waiting on the "interrupt box text" combat card as part of the D&D Rewards program. I have run into an encounter or two that have been basically "you hear nothing, then suddenly you are ambushed!!!! dun dun dunnnn" followed by a description of surprise round of tooling, followed by roll initiative, followed by the realization that every baddie has high Dex + Improved Init, followed by another round o' toolin', now PC's your turn. I have actually seen one (1) mod that states after the box text "this is not an ambush, the PC's get spot and listen checks against monster's hide and move silent." That being said, I think most judges forget the statement in the boilerplate to read OR paraphrase box text. Box text isn't combat, it is a description of what is going on and how combat starts. If everyone in the party fails the spot listen, then yes it is [box text]They jump out, tool you, point and laugh. [/box text] Take x damage, roll init, fight! Otherwise, box text is just flavor which doesn't deny PC's their chance to see 'em comin' and act appropriately. Miles
A'Talsen 02-11-06, 06:44 PM	Personally, I see it as a vicious circle. Authors min/max encounters to offer suitable challenges to PC which they know have been min/maxed to the gills by their owners. But the latter often quote the difficulty of a module's challenge as the reason behind the min/maxing of their PC. In the end, the only consequence is that people that play PC designed primarily for rp (no stat above 14 or below 10, many skills, no feat chain, etc..) are forced to face tough to impossible challenges, trying to survive where others would simply yawn. Just a note, but there is no guerentee that someone with 14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10 stats isn't powergameing. I have a character for whom that is simply the best point allocation. IMO: Powergaming is a good thing. There is a finite amount of atainable power by PCs or by authors writing within EL/APL. Once that limit is reached, the 'escalation' factore becomes zero. So if you don't like powergaming, then likely you simply don't like to play at that 'higher level' of game play. I want to build the badest PC out there, one that can take anything... and I also *want* said PC to be brutalized and barely walk away from encounters. My preference is a much tougher game than what I would consider 'average,' and I build the PCs for it. Strangely, what that means is that I am 'not challenged' by a good number of mods and since I am not beating my head against a wall trying to find a way to keep everyone alive, I have spare time to... Role Play! And those mods where I am working my but off to eek out a victory.. well I love that sort of thing for its own sake. Michael "Fish" Murphy
redgamer 02-11-06, 08:10 PM	Off the top of my head after thinking for a less than a minute: Player wants both dodge and combat expertise. Player thinks adventurers should be good at an adventuring role Player wants to roleplay a low stat. Player wants to roleplay a high stat more than they want to roleplay above average int and can't do both with point buy. Player wants his cleric to wear full plate without having to move 5 feet as a full round action. I don't see why stat dumping or any form of "powergaming" interfers with roleplaying but I won't try to convince you that people who play adventurers who are good at adventuring won't interfer with your fun and that authors are not out to get you or that you actually can build a roleplaying PC even by your narrower defenition of the word and survive LG mods. You started off saying that people are stat dumping because they can't survive the collusion of LG authors if they don't. I don't think stat dumping improves survivability very much and I know authors aren't colluding. I'll let you complain uninterrupted from here out.
ithardin 02-11-06, 10:34 PM	Please re-read my original post and notice the "he he he" and the end of the sentence denoting that I was making a joke. I do not think that the writers collude to kill us. If they did, no one would be playing LG because we would all be dead. I have been asking authors though if the fact that many of the people playing their modules would be stat dumping effects how and what they right. So let me pose that question to you Redgamer... Do you and your fellow authors take that into account, and if so-how much does it effect the the way you do write an adventure/encounter. Please don't read these posts as complaints. If I were truly upset I would just not play LG. I enjoy the campaign and treasure the friendships I have made. If you feel in anyway slighted or attacked (and that goes to ANY author out there), I apologize. I greatly appreciate all you do for us.
JohnduBois 02-12-06, 12:20 AM	I feel that the low focus on mental stats for in-game application is purely the fault of combat-oriented authors and DM's. By spending more time on what interesting combats to run rather than developing a good story, Charisma (and to a slightly lesser extent Int and Wis) doesn't matter, as the party will always be able to fight their way through adventures. The only way to remedy this is for authors to decide to make the mental stats or roleplaying important and write modules that cannot be finished (or cannot be finished with the best consequences) without the use of mental stats. The big example of the type of module I want to see more of: Folly. You can get through the module with physical stats, but you miss a lot. Like in this module, the best rewards in an adventure should be reserved for those who can effectively fight AND roleplay...
RanielK 02-12-06, 12:44 AM	The big example of the type of module I want to see more of: Folly. You can get through the module with physical stats, but you miss a lot. Like in this module, the best rewards in an adventure should be reserved for those who can effectively fight AND roleplay... Ah, Folly. The mod where, if you were judging a table of 1st's you could TPK without entering combat. I got my first PC death, judging that mod, because I dropped a 50 lbs clue hammer on the group and they still didn't get it. And down went the 1st level girlfriend to a neg level at the end of the mod. I know he heard about it that day as they were driving home. Unfortunately, I had to eat that mod at its premier. So no Folly for me. :( I loved Baby Steps (by one of the Head Brothers and his wife). It's a year 4 NMR mod where you take care of a baby storm giant as you try to find a giant village to leave her. Combats included: 1)baby learning to crawl, 2)changing diaper, 3)2 out of the party being charmed (she's a budding Elder Storm Gaint with Charm Person spell-like ability) to steal her and "protect her" from the nasty mean not-PCs. My absolute favorite is the use of the most heavily armored fellow as a cuddle doll to get the baby to sleep and the use of the smallest fellow as a teething ring when she is on the crawling rampage. Just mean. hehehehe :evillaugh Miles
redgamer 02-12-06, 01:58 AM	I apologize. I did miss the joking tone. I don't feel personally slightled by any post here. I was attempting to remove myself from the conversation however as I think we approach the game differently and I doubt I could or even should change your mind. I would never presume to speak for someone else. I do feel comfortable saying that I don't not consider stat dumping at all when making encounters. I have no reason to believe that anyone else does. I do suspect that most year 4 and 5 interactives at high APL where written with the high level characters that the authors knew personally in mind. This worked because for the most part the authors knew the majority of the high level characters in their region. My goal is to make encounters so that parties of balanced non-gimped characters think (note I said think an easy encounter that appears difficult is good too) they have a chance of losing while non balanced parties can through being cautious, accepting help, fast-talking, etc can succeed almost all the time. If someone brings a gimped character to a table they should know this ahead of time reread the withdraw rules. When ever possible losing a combat shouldn't mean failing the mod. Whenever possible losing combat shouldn't mean death. I will not write a mod that has unrecoverable death below APL 14. I don't think a fighter with a 14 strength is gimped. They are certaintly weaker than a fighter with 18 strength. My archer was 14 strength so is a weak archer. He'll never be as good as a well built archer but I've found other ways to contribute. He is a capable adventurer even if only an average combatant. People should roleplay a character who is good at adventuring or they should accept that failing an adventure once in a while is just good roleplaying. People need to accept that combat is a major part of adventuring. If it weren't commoners would be adventuring-it certaintly pays better. Having bad stat means you don't perform you role as well as you should but does not mean you are gimped. Spending 2 more points to make your lowest stat a 10 rarely means you have bad stats. You aren't gimped until you can't perform your role at all such as meleeist with +1 BAB or arcanist casting lvl 1 spells at APL 6 or wizards regularly fighting with double weapons they aren't proficient with. I've played with all 3 of these characters and only the wizard died and that death was the players fault not the characters. With that said I would suggest that new players make characters that are very good at combat and wait till they are more experienced to make characters whose numbers say they can't contribute in combat (although if anyone asked I would say D&D is the wrong game to play a character whose is bad at combat) so at least they can use good strategy to keep near the excepted contribution level. I will admit to beleiving that the use of shad-ar-ki (enemies that traditionally use spiked chains) in year 4 Bissel mods came about because people where complaining that year 3 Bissel mods where too difficult. The nifty thing about this is because some many people had spiked chain weilder most players understood the strengths of spiked chains and being far more resourceful than NPCs could counter the shad-ar-ki where NPCs could not counter PC spiked chain weilders. Since I've gone on this long I'll keep going. Having slightly below average int does not make someone incabable of good strategic thinking. Smart people stick their foot in their mouth at least as often average people. I couldn't bluff to save my life but when I feel like it I'm am a very smooth talker. People don't always inherently like or dislike someone based on their charisma. Charismatic people can and do rub some people the wrong way. Uncharismatic people are sometimes in situations where everything they say is the right thing to say. Observant people are not always wise, wise people are not alway observant. What I'm trying to say is that if someone doesn't play a 8 charisma character as a bumbleing oaf they are not inherently roleplaying poorly. PCs are adventurers, successful adventurers they must have learned something about how to not get eaten, not insult the over king, or any one of a number things that cause adventurers to become ex-adventurers. I bet the dumbest veteran infantryman could teach me about living in the woods and I read survival guides for fun. The least wise ambassador could teach me about reading people and protocal.
King Kashue 02-12-06, 02:36 AM	There are great authors who tell compelling stories and provide balanced modules... There are good authors who do a bit of both, but have some issues... And then there are authors who blatantly ignore environemental factors to EL or out and out do their EL calculations wrong (over and over again) and think to themselves "If I add one level of an NPC class to my monsters, the CR doesn't change but they become more powerful...cool!" (that one ticks me off to no end)... I'm not the only person I know with an author blacklist...It doesn't have many names on it, but it definitely exists... However, in general, most LG authors are really trying to provide a great experience to people and I'm really grateful for all the folks who not only give me (and tens of thousands of other people) free entertainment, but also have to take a load of crap and complaints that the free entertainment isn't up to the exacting standards of the folks benefitting...
redgamer 02-12-06, 02:47 AM	However, in general, most LG authors are really trying to provide a great experience to people and I'm really grateful for all the folks who not only give me (and tens of thousands of other people) free entertainment, but also have to take a load of crap and complaints that the free entertainment isn't up to the exacting standards of the folks benefitting... All authors are really trying to provide a great experience. Some fail, but even if they failed miserably if there where ever even one author who didn't try to provide a great experience I would be shocked that they where crazy enough to spend the time to write something without the chance of writing something good and shocked that this wasn't immediately apparent to every single editor and playtester.
King Kashue 02-12-06, 03:51 AM	All authors are really trying to provide a great experience. Some fail, but even if they failed miserably if there where ever even one author who didn't try to provide a great experience I would be shocked that they where crazy enough to spend the time to write something without the chance of writing something good and shocked that this wasn't immediately apparent to every single editor and playtester. However, talking to some writers, the approach that some (a very few) have is that the point of the module is to "oppose" the players, not "challenge" them...Some DMs also think in this way, they think the point is to "beat" the players and that's the same as a "good adventure"...
Simpi 02-12-06, 07:30 AM	For instance, I can't count the number of barbarians I've met who had the Cha of a mole and the Int (or the Wis) of a worm. I always keep my characters wis and int to minimum of 10 (usually one will be 12) as that way I can justify taking part in investigative scenarios. My half-orc tank did dump his charisma because then I can easily roleplay arrogant and borderline evil MOF ( = be my own self :D ). S.H, the guy from Naerie
DuctShuiTengu 02-12-06, 04:52 PM	Okay, slightly guilty on this one. All three of my characters have 1 stat at either 8 or 6. That said, I do make a point of playing it up at least some. My Charisma 8 Wood Elf is an arrogant jerk (though he's learned how to shut up and let other people do the talking. Well, most of the time.) My Charisma 6 Half Orc is an oafish lout who hasn't even learned the fine art of shutting up and letting someone else do the talking. And then there's my Wisdom 8 Dwarf. The people who know him have learned to dive for cover when he utters phrases like "What's the worst that could happen?" That said, I agree, it's annoying to watch people try to RP a 6 in something as though it were a 16. Edit: Then again, I find it just as annoying to watch someone RPing a 16 in a stat as though it were a 6.
Objulen 02-12-06, 08:39 PM	I don't find this surprising in the least. LG is very much like an MMO, and MMOs are generally RP'ing optional at best. The modular play means that you need either a group that knows their stuff, or the "holy trinity" (main damage dealer, tank, and healer for MMOs) to get through some of the modules, because the DM can't tailor the scenerio to gives a team of rogues a few extra potions because that's what people want to play -- like Disney, everyone gets on the same rides. And thus, we have stat dumping because of this. There are limited points (LG is a hard campaign), and LG really is about combat first and RPing second, so people are going to stat dump for the most effective character, especially at early levels when it makes the most difference -- basic economics for a high demand, low supply resource. And if the dumb brute isn't really what they wanted to play, or they don't really care so much... it's not like there's going to be an on-going storyline from module to module (at least from the modules I've seen, which are loosely tied together at best), especially if the player game hops, because then it doesn't matter if they were tied together to begin with (unless there are some sort of AR notes, but there's only so much you can do with that). Now, LG is table top, so there is better adherance to RPing, but who's going to try a half-orc wizard when they can pick a grey elf and start using Alter Self and Polymorph to get their way to victory? The set-up simply doesn't support it.
ithardin 02-13-06, 09:20 PM	RedGamer, I appreciate your apology and though it wasn't necessary-I accept it and extend my own as well. I think your suggestion of LG first-timers being encouraged to play a more combat oriented PC at first is a good one. I am seeing more and more modules with excellent chances for the use of investigatory skills with a nice mix of combat. Voice of Reason has become a quick favorite amongst our group (I think I have run it four times in the last month). It also makes sense that many regional high level adventures and interactives take into effect the more "famous" characters of a region. I will admit I laughed out loud with "what's the worst that could happen?" We have an elf we play with who is not wise or charismatic and he consistently does things like neglecting to mention secret doors he locates to the non-elves in the party. So far my rogue (who speaks elven) has been able to bluff finding the secret door without letting on he knows everything the elf is saying, etc. I would also assume that authors get a little protective of their work. I know one author in our region who actually called his wife on her mobile in the middle of running a mod he wrote and said "there's this (expletive) Druid who keeps breaking my mod!" So are we saying that its okay to stat dump-just try your best to RP ALL your stats while playing? I can completely live with that (and may even stat-dump my next PC!)
clannagh 02-20-06, 08:14 PM	This is a contentious issue in our local group. I have a fighter character with a single stat of 8 ( and that is a racial -2 stat so it actually has 2 points invested) and highest stat 18 (racial plus 2 so only spent 10 points) which some people call "min maxed" in a derogative fashion. Now personally i do not perceive a fighter as an eredite well educated charming extremely good looking movie star .. more a battle hardened veteran who often became a fighter because he wasnt overly bright or skilled but was naturally good at the physical stuff, but i wouldnt object if someone played a movie-star heroe its just not my vision. In my experience the benefit of taking a stat to 18 or 20is a huge advantage at lower levels but the benefits drop off quickly as you level up. The one exception perhaps being 20 con which will always be a good thing. Oddly high con characters rarely get criticised. With regard to the dump stats that result from taking one stat up: - in some cases ...take the classic scarred hardened half-orc war veteran fighter as an example .... a charisma of 8 is actually too high for role playing purposes :) - where there is a -2 racial adjustment, getting that stat to "10" requires 6 points out of 28 or nearly 22% of your points into what is usually an unuseful stat and in the case of fighters a stat which "fluffwise" might be traditioanlly low anyway. - some classes such as clerics need balanced stats, other classes such as fighters (both for role play and gamewise) need to be biased in their stat build. - if the minimum stat was meant to be 12 that is what the rules would say As far as RPGA LG mods go, I have run maybe 30 or so as a GM and my assessment is .. 1. There are enough mods with 2d6 con damage ranged weapons or traps to require Con must be 12 or better for a characters to have good survival chances. 2. The mods seem to assume that characters, if not min maxed, are at least optimised for combat and furthermore often seem to assume a carefully selected party with the traditional tank + rogue + healer + ranged + mage combination. Crafting a good party is possible with home games but at games days the most common PC deaths are the random nature of the characters that turn up to play. 3. There is a huge difference in LG between playing a mod with a party of 4 PC's all one below the APL and a party of six PC's all one level above the APL .. in some cases the DM will adjust for this by perhaps staggering the arrival of monsters over a round or two if the party is below par or soem such but many GM's are pedantic and make no allowances.
Puggle Halfwine 02-21-06, 12:51 AM	Here in Perrenland we call this the 'Arms Race'. PC's minmax, module authors write hard modules, PC's minmax more, module authors write deadly modules... Speaking for myself, I consider the EL system a guide. An Allip is a perfect (EL wise) encounter for an intro mod... but a human fighter is a far better choice, gameplay wise. If you've written a module which absolutely, absolutely must have an Allip in it... you should consider rewriting that segment of the module.
scottishswash91 02-21-06, 12:58 AM	Okay, I'm a first time LG player. I'm playing an elven swashbuckler: Str 13 Dex 16 Con 12 Int 12 Wis 11 Cha 12. Play average(in a home game) stats and you have a decent character in LG. Quit your whining and get creative. It's not about numbers, it's about role-playing.(Hence ROLE-Playing Gamers Association.) :P
paigeoliver 02-21-06, 02:01 AM	I give almost all my characters 8 Wisdom because I have 8 wisdom and I find it hard to realistically play a higher wisdom than I actually have. Its easier to play a higher charisma than you actually have, since you can just open your mouth and your higher charisma makes it work better in game. But having a higher wisdom on your character sheet won't help you make wiser choices, hence my series of characters with 8 wisdom scores. Also, most GOOD gamemasters should be able to get around the PCs "breaking" a module. The characters might destroy the whole plot, but remember you still have the bad guys from whatever encounters they never got to. Those guys might do something, or the characters can run into them someplace else, etc.
ezreal2001 02-21-06, 08:23 AM	I give almost all my characters 8 Wisdom because I have 8 wisdom and I find it hard to realistically play a higher wisdom than I actually have. Often wondered how people would rp 20+ mental stats Also, most GOOD gamemasters should be able to get around the PCs "breaking" a module. The characters might destroy the whole plot, but remember you still have the bad guys from whatever encounters they never got to. Those guys might do something, or the characters can run into them someplace else, etc. LG doesn't quite give you latitude to do that, of course short circuiting a game can bring on the situation where most, if not all the high XP encounters are missed...
clannagh 02-21-06, 04:54 PM	LG doesn't quite give you latitude to do that, of course short circuiting a game can bring on the situation where most, if not all the high XP encounters are missed... Whilst the LGCS documentation clearly states GM's should not play with the encounter levels (adding changing or removing monsters is forbidden) the mods are in essence role playing and therefore must be more of a framework for the gm to build a game around. Even with combat there is some leeway. Unless the mod specifically says so, there is no rule that says, for example, that the 12 bugbears MUST hide and then charge the party of 3 bards and one wizard with falchions. If the party clearly deserves to lose experience (example: the thief steals the handbag and runs down the alley towards the ambush and the party decide they are too busy to pursue him and wander off) then they lose it. In cases like that I will simply tell them at the end of the game why they lost experience and what they did wrong. But if through clever deduction they simply jump ahead in the plot they should not be punished and the creative gm-ing will usually allow you to insert the missed encounters at some later point. The one issue I do have with some mods is that a diplomatic party that cleverly avoids combat through good role play can often lose access to items that the unthinking hack and slashers automatically pick up.
jhorred 02-27-06, 11:37 PM	I agree. At Winter Fantasy one of the games I played the party took a big hit on XP and GP as we decided to avoid a combat we knew was coming. We decided that our characters would avoid the combat instead of metagaming and fighting it when it made no sense to. It happened to be the combat where most of the XP and GP came from. This has happened to me more than once. Unfortunately the system encourages fights even when it often makes sense to avoid them. Oh, the stat dumping thing. I dislike penalties so I do my best to get at least a 10 in each stat though both of my characters have sub 10 CHAs. Heck my Wizard has a 12 STR.
Lomiat 02-28-06, 10:02 AM	I played at a table that avoided pretty much the entire module. It's still legal, so I won't say much, except that when an investigative mod allows you to Scry for your goal, there's no reason to track every (mis)lead along the way. We went from Point A to Point: Encounter 7. The DM was absolutely fair in giving us full XP because we accomplished all our goals; however, we missed some story access, which stinked a little, but was again absolutely fair. And stat dumping? I dump like crazy. But I play the negative modifiers. CHA 8 wizard? Arrogant. WIS 8 fighter? Crazy. CON 8 cleric? Skinny little kid. In fact, good roleplayers tend to do a better job of playing penalties than of playing bonuses. One of my favorite (now defunct) characters was a 6 INT, 6 CHA half-orc who went around wiping his nose on his sleeve in the presence of nobles, asking where the bathroom was as he was about to be let into audience with the Council of Lords, ran after squirrels and shiny things right before our party was about to be jumped, stood around and watched fights until someone told him to smash, and so on and so forth. He was fun until the player got tired and started just talking numbers in power attack vs. to-hit bonuses. But that's the way it goes.
solbergb 02-28-06, 07:10 PM	I have been asking authors though if the fact that many of the people playing their modules would be stat dumping effects how and what they right. So let me pose that question to you Redgamer... Do you and your fellow authors take that into account, and if so-how much does it effect the the way you do write an adventure/encounter. . I have seen zero evidence of the "vicious powergaming/author" circle that I see talked about on these boards. My sample size of modules prepped includes year 2-6, it includes core, Pale regional, NMR metaregional, interactives, minimissions. My sample size of modules played includes the above plus about 2 cons worth of Duchy mods, 1/2 con each of Ket and Tusmit and 1 con of Nyrond mods. I've also talked to most of the local authors, playtested local mods and cores and have also had dialogs with some of the more "notorious" writers about specific encounters that were unusually tough at some APL's. In all cases they were trying to balance the storyline with the challenge you have to put in a round of mods, plus trying to scale across APLs. Sometimes this lead to bad scaling (it is natural to just go up the Slaad tree, but the jump between green and grey is large, and the jump between grey and death is larger...likewise scaling air elementals up a size category each APL works on paper, but the huge elementals are tremendously tougher to deal with than the large ones, and the medium and small ones are over-CR'd unless your party is entirely size small and tiny creatures). Sometimes they just make mistakes (the Hardness in Tiger in Ahlissa's notorious final encounter should have been APL scaled and the author was unable to get it erattad. A more recent core mod has a similar problem - animated object hardness is usually set for flavor reasons...what is the object made of? If it isn't wood or cloth, the hardness is likely too high for APL2-4) Many authors, including one circle member, use core-only NPC's to playtest the encounters (solo simulations). This is also how I prep mods, but I'm weird that way. Authors are more likely to do this than judges. Live playtests will usually only be a few level ranges (low, mid, high) for time reasons, and the tables will be made up of whatever characters are in the local judge pool (which granted, are USUALLY better than iconic, PHB PC's but in the lower levels are often worse, due to PRC-pre-planning or multiclass builds that won't come together until level 9 etc) Nowhere at all on the radar screen is whether or not folks are optomizing their attribute distribution. If Tordek and Mialee and Lydda and Jozan can get through the adventure (or a random mix of 5 of the PHB iconics) at all APL's, you're likely ok. 6 weak characters, 5 average characters, 4 strong characters, regardless of class balance, can do most LG mods, with "rough patches" caused mostly by their own actions. I've seen less than a half dozen encounters that would reliably kill a single character and only a couple that could cause a TPK on anything but an extraordinary run of bad luck (which happens, which is why TPK's sometimes happen). Of those, when I checked with the author, every single one came out tougher than they expected, ie it was accidental. Some authors write extremely challenging encounters with NPC's written and behaving as if they are PC's. I like those encounters - if those NPC's are elite, or experienced adventuring teams, etc (and they usually are). They put the lie to the idea that character encounters are "easy" (many are, as disorganized bandits, regardless of character level, won't match up well to a team with diverse abilities, especially since they'll always be lower level than the party, unless they're outnumbered). Others get the most out of outsiders, or really big CR1/3hd or CR1/4hd monsters, showing why an elemental in its home terrain should be feared, etc. As long as the CR is adjusted up or down for the situation that favors or disfavors the monster, I'm happy. An example of something done right - a mod in play has an encounter where the bad guys spend a surprise round turning into monsters, while the entire party (no spot checks etc needed) gets to act. It was rightly bumped down a CR, because giving a party a chance to take actions, while they have NO chance to take actions, buff or otherwise prepare typically means they start their battle at a severe disadvantage (unbuffed vs buffed, wounded or even one dead before they get to act, spellcasters on the wrong end of readied actions, etc). It's like the monsters were caught in boxtext :) Seriously the reason I'm very down on judges who run encounters like this in reverse (ignoring all capabilities of the party, and giving the monsters surprise rounds for no reason) is it pretty much shifts the encounter by a whole CR. Now if they are using abilities they actually have, such as the displacer beast's fairly formidable hide score and built-in concealment, their ability to sneak up and ambush is part of their CR. If they are gargantuan vermin...sorry, part of their LOW cr is their inability to sneak up on you unless they've got friendly spellcasting or a hurricane or something similar for cover. In the mod where the PC's got the "boxtext" it fitted the story perfectly, so the bad guys were a touch tougher than they might have been. I wrote one encounter where I both raised the CR (close quarters in environment where it was easy to break things and lots of distracting innocents will fight or do annoying actions instead of running away...plus lots of witnesses to any PC misbehavior) and lowered it (one of the four combatants had a primary objective of escaping, and would use most of his actions and even those of teammates to ensure his escape)...but not by making the escapee's CR vanish...his escape tended to draw PC's off from the main fight to pursue..it's a tough balancing act sometimes.
scottishswash91 03-01-06, 02:44 AM	Look as a long time player but recent LG player I'd rather have average stats than minuses. Maybe two or three characters into the campaign I'll change my mind but 0's are better than negs(IMHO). _____________________ Don't drink and type or you'll be editing all night long!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
solbergb 03-01-06, 03:03 PM	It's a philosophical thing. Do I mind sucking more at things I'm bad at? (accept a -1 attribute penalty) Or do I mind being a little worse at things I'm good at? (not get an extra +1 in your key attribute or attributes because you were raising 6s and 8s to 10 instead of raising something from 10 to 14, or 14 to 16) Given pointbuy you can't dump a stat below 8, without racial help. My bias is to being good at my character's main schticks, and letting weaknesses fall where they may. But since consistency is foolish if adhered to blindly, not all of my characters are built this way...although I don't think any of them don't have an "8" somewhere, some are built along the "all 14s and 12s" lines.