Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Red_Wizards_Rock 01-17-08, 01:47 PM	I'm just checking to see what everyone says, and if you would be kind enough to post if you Roll or use point system before you put how broken, and unfair one is over the other it would be easier thank you. I let my players roll 4d6 reroll 1's six times drop the lowest roll add the three highest rolls to get a stat, and than turn the lowest stat into an 18. As I do not feel this is broken, because stats don't make the character. This is also less of a headache to figure out what should go where.
Watsyurname529 01-17-08, 01:54 PM	Well, I allow my players to choose which method they want. A 30pt buy or roll 4d6, dropping lowest and re-rolling 1's. Also the 30pt buy is on a 1 for 1 basis and all stats start at 8 and no ability may go over 18 before racial adjustments. It seems a little high powered and it is. I use it for a couple reasons when DM-ing my games. I've had about a 33/66 split on people who take rolling over pointbuy and they usually get okay scores. The one thing I hate about rolling is if you have bad luck, you could end up with some crap for rolls. I've also seen a method where you use cards to generate the stats which was hailed as one of the best methods of generating random stats but I'd have to find it.
SolenVlos 01-17-08, 02:07 PM	IMC, we use something between 79 and 85 points, but you start at 0 on every stat and every point is bought in 1-to-1 points. I think this just works because we aren't hard power gamers. I mean, the fighter won't have str18, dex18, con18, int10, sab8 and cha7. our DM WOULD let us play like these, but my whole group agrees that characters like this are kind of lame.
Salla 01-17-08, 02:11 PM	I prefer 28 point buy via the DMG rules. When I run a game, that's how it's done. When I play, well, I'm stuck with what the DM wants, but I will always opt for a point buy if permitted. I want to make my character the way I want it, not the way the randomizers fell.
Krusk 01-17-08, 02:34 PM	I let players pick. 33-35 point buy (depending on the game) or roll 4d6 drop the lowest, do this twice and choose a set. Then arrange as you want. If they roll scores they don't want, they can opt to use a 32 point buy. Generally people who are not at the character creation session are required to just use point buy.
Character 01-17-08, 02:36 PM	I have a three step dice rolling process. My first step is to roll a single D3 down the statline. No swapping, what you roll for strength is what you get for strength. The second step is to roll 18D6 and assign three D6s to every stat. Don't just add all the dice together and dish out the points as you wish. I've had a few try this even after I distinctly said not to. The last one is to add the 3D6 assigned to that stat to the D3 that you first rolled for that stat. This usually ends up with higher than average stats, but then I think adventures aren't about being average.
rjsilverthorn 01-17-08, 02:45 PM	Our games always go with the dice, the fairly standard 4d6, drop the lowest reroll 1's plan. Most of our players are avid dice rollers and just like the chance they might end up with something truly outstanding. One of our DMs house rules four 6's as a 19. (rerolled 1's don't count)
Shiftkitty 01-17-08, 03:26 PM	We roll 4d6, reroll the lowest and pick the three you want, but 4 6's stand as rolled. It never happens often enough to tip the game, but we do have a cleric of an obscure god who put that 24 into his CHA. The party thought he was crazy, that he should have dumped it into WIS. Instead he stuck the 17 to his WIS and acts as the party's chief negotiator. He's also managed to convert several people, including a couple of PCs, to his religion. Also, most strangers think the cleric is the group's leader. He's had plenty of other fringe benefits as well.
Dog_O_War 01-17-08, 03:39 PM	I have my players (well, all but one group of them) use 36 points to build a character. This is because I have played in too many games where there is one or two guys who "roll" awesome. Cheaters, is what I'm getting at here. To nip this in the bud I just have them make characters with points. Except one group of very trustworthy friends; I let them roll 4d6 (drop the lowest), and usually allow for 2 or three sets of 6 to choose from. That is, they can roll all six stats for one set, then repeat 2 more times and pick from the three. I don't like to watch my players roll their stats BTW; makes me feel bad if I watch them roll bad (faulting under pressure and all that).
Nightshade 01-17-08, 04:42 PM	32 point buy, DMG rules. I've never had players that roll their stats honestly so forget about that. And 28 point buy is just a little too weak, not very heroic. Above 32 and the player's have stats that are too high when compared with the monster and humanoid builds provided in the Monster Manual.
Xavorin 01-17-08, 04:45 PM	I tend to do the classic 4d6 drop the lowest, but I let people re-roll scores below ten. If their six scores are bad, as I judge them, I let them re-roll all their scores. But only once. Recently I've been letting people replace their lowest score with a 18 but I think I'll stop 'cause that seems a bit IMBA.
Sinis 01-17-08, 04:53 PM	25-28 point buy. This prevents any sort of stat envy between players, prevents people from being really underpowered or overpowered. The only trouble I've had with point buy is that some classes (i.e. Monk) are extremely stat dependent and there just aren't enough points to go around. Rolling is... iffy. It's fun to roll stats, but I'm not sure I'd want to play a character who rolled exceptionally poorly (or exceptionally well, for that matter) for a campaign.
PrinceOfTheVoid 01-17-08, 04:57 PM	I roll my stats, 5d6 drop the lowest 2. 1s count as 6s. 2s count as 5s. 3s count as 4s. Generates between 12 and 18. I like my characters to be well-rounded and adept in all areas. Of course, my DMs don't usually know that I use that rule :D
Rebel7284 01-17-08, 05:12 PM	I roll my stats, 5d6 drop the lowest 2. 1s count as 6s. 2s count as 5s. 3s count as 4s. Generates between 12 and 18. I like my characters to be well-rounded and adept in all areas. Of course, my DMs don't usually know that I use that rule :D *pets* aww cute troll
Orenmir 01-17-08, 05:26 PM	Just curious... What does all this have to do with Races (the forum topic)? Regardless, I think the method isn't nearly as important as the outcome. A DM should approve all stats in his party to ensure balance. That makes point buy a good solution -- it's always balanced. Rolling is OK too, as long as nobody sticks out as being over or under powered. I recently rolled: 12 14 15 15 16 17 and opted to reduced 2 of my scores to 8 and 10, just because I knew the character would be overpowered compared to the other players.
Red_Wizards_Rock 01-17-08, 05:31 PM	To be honest I wasn't sure where to put it now I do. When I DM I give my players a choice either they can take what I roll or they can take there's and one other player is always watching my rolls when I roll my set of stats I'm offing, because I roll unbelievable last week I offered it to one of my players ended up getting 18,18,18,17,16,15. Needless to say that was a happy little Rogue. It's alot of fun because I look at there stats and I say things like "Those are awful nice I'm not sure I'd pass those up, and phffft I rolled better than that." It's fun.
Orenmir 01-17-08, 05:36 PM	I roll my stats, 5d6 drop the lowest 2. 1s count as 6s. 2s count as 5s. 3s count as 4s. Generates between 12 and 18. I like my characters to be well-rounded and adept in all areas. Of course, my DMs don't usually know that I use that rule :D So, the lowest values are 3 & 4 -- and you drop 2 of 5 dice. Mathematically speaking, all stats have a high probability of being 16s, 17s, and 18s. Sure, that sounds balanced. Well, most of them will be 17s, so I guess that's OK.
Orenmir 01-17-08, 05:37 PM	18,18,18,17,16,15. Game-breaker. A DM should never allow those stats to be played. The only way that could ever work is if you gave everbody those stats and then doubled all your CRs. Shame on you.:nonono:
Ivellius 01-17-08, 05:45 PM	In the games before now, our DM (and I, when I was one) has had us roll for stats. In the latest campaign, however, I decided I wanted a little less power and had them do 25-point buy, as per the DMG. Honestly, I'm glad with my decision--I don't think a character needs a +2 bonus to each stat to be competitive. I also drew up most NPCs with the "standard" array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8), reserving the "elite" array for some harder enemies.
bawb44 01-17-08, 05:48 PM	What me and my game group have started doing is this, whoever is DMing rolls one set of stats and everyone uses them. Kinda like the supposed "elite" array but we have all come to accept this rule.
Orenmir 01-17-08, 06:14 PM	What me and my game group have started doing is this, whoever is DMing rolls one set of stats and everyone uses them. Kinda like the supposed "elite" array but we have all come to accept this rule. I like it. Or, why even roll? A good DM can fabricate a well-balanced set of stats. It's completely fair, and the DM knows what power level the party is at -- making CRs easier to juggle. Call it: The "DM Array."
ZiggZagg 01-17-08, 06:31 PM	Personally, I like the method of 90 points, all abilities start at 0, and buy 1-for-1. Minimum of 4, max of 18 (before racial mods, that is, though 4 is the absolute lowest). When I make characters like this, I enjoy dex based characters, so I usually end up with str 14 dex 18 con 14 int 14 wis 18 cha 12 These stats may look high, but I prefer it that way. I beleive the adventurers are heroes, and should have heroic abilities :D
ZiggZagg 01-17-08, 06:47 PM	Personally, I like the method of 90 points, all abilities start at 0, and buy 1-for-1. Minimum of 4, max of 18 (before racial mods, that is, though 4 is the absolute lowest). When I make characters like this, I enjoy dex based characters, so I usually end up with str 14 dex 18 con 14 int 14 wis 18 cha 12 These stats may look high, but I prefer it that way. I beleive the adventurers are heroes, and should have heroic abilities :D
Orenmir 01-18-08, 02:23 PM	Personally, I like the method of 90 points, all abilities start at 0, and buy 1-for-1. Minimum of 4, max of 18 (before racial mods, that is, though 4 is the absolute lowest). When I make characters like this, I enjoy dex based characters, so I usually end up with str 14 dex 18 con 14 int 14 wis 18 cha 12 These stats may look high, but I prefer it that way. I beleive the adventurers are heroes, and should have heroic abilities :D So then, it's ok to have these stats: 18 18 18 18 9 9 ? :plotting: :nonono:
ZiggZagg 01-18-08, 02:25 PM	Yeah, why not?
Mercurius 01-18-08, 03:29 PM	I give my players a standard: Roll 4d6, drop the lowest, qualify for rerolls as per PHB standard. IF you don't like the stats you get, you can choose to instead use 32 point stat-buy. It's a very generous system, that ensures that everyone gets good stats, but very lucky people might have even better stats. Problem is, some of the players I've played with have been spoiled by even more generous DMs and complain when they can't reroll all their 1s and/or can't roll half a dozen sets of stats to choose from, and are instead stuck with "only" 32 points for stat buy. Personally, considering the sort of modifiers 32 points nets you, I think it's perfectly fine and reasonable to give it as the alternative to the standard rolls.
MrCelsius 01-18-08, 04:14 PM	32 point-buy. The idea of rolling is exciting and all, but I got sick of DMing parties where one member was a paragon of perfection and another was an abortive back-birth who shouldn't have made it past infancy. Yeah, D&D is built around the randomness of dice, but I think it's really only fun when dice control the ebb and flow from one moment to the next. Something enduring, like the shape of your character, shouldn't be left to cruel chance. This is the reason I also give players the option, at every level, to roll their hit points or take the average. I use 32 point-buy instead of the 'standard' because, frankly, I'm a lethal DM. I don't set out to kill the party, but invariably my thinking 'Ooh, that'd be an interesting and challenging encounter!' means extreme peril for the party. I think I simply overestimate the party's tactics. I'm getting better, but it helps for the party to have an edge wherever I can get them one. I'd rather they went in overstatted and I have to beef up the encounters than their going in understatted and I have to backpedal. After all, players find it much more believable when a fight abruptly becomes harder ("the wounded werewolf howls, and you hear the approaching footfalls of at least two of its kin") than when it abruptly becomes easier ("the balor suddenly realizes it forgot to TiVo tonight's episode of Boston Legal and immediately rushes home"). :P
Crimson_Concerto 01-18-08, 04:16 PM	I have my players use 26 point buy, as presented in the DMG. My group was really used to stuff like 32 point buys and roll 5D6 dropping the 2 lowest, so they were a bit reluctant to accept this lower-powered method at first, but I managed to convince them to give it a try, and now they're totally fine with it. :)
Orenmir 01-18-08, 04:21 PM	Yeah, why not? If you have to ask, then you're not playing the game the way it's intended. More specifically, a player with those stats would get bored with adventuring unless the DM gave the same uber-stats to all the Monsters. I learned in my 1st campaign as a DM: if the PCs aren't challenged, they players get bored. A player with 4 18s in his ability scores will not feel challenged by the standard CR system. So, unless the DM does something to compensate, the player will get bored.
Dog_O_War 01-18-08, 04:27 PM	Man, I can understand wanting to have high stats and all, but are the majority of you feeling that inept in RL that you must create a super-powered "hero" in this game? No offence intended, but there can't be alot of thrill to this game if you succeed at everything all the time. Gotta have challenges if you want to stay mentally sharp.
Dog_O_War 01-18-08, 04:29 PM	I give my players a standard: Roll 4d6, drop the lowest, qualify for rerolls as per PHB standard. IF you don't like the stats you get, you can choose to instead use 32 point stat-buy. It's a very generous system, that ensures that everyone gets good stats, but very lucky people might have even better stats. Problem is, some of the players I've played with have been spoiled by even more generous DMs and complain when they can't reroll all their 1s and/or can't roll half a dozen sets of stats to choose from, and are instead stuck with "only" 32 points for stat buy. Personally, considering the sort of modifiers 32 points nets you, I think it's perfectly fine and reasonable to give it as the alternative to the standard rolls. Hehe, "only". If "only" I were so lucky as to have 32 points. Been playing 25 points buy under various DM's for the last 2 years until I began running myself.
Xiuhcoatl 01-18-08, 04:35 PM	My "modern" campaign is 32-point buy. My Dragon-PC-Only campaign is 25 point buy ... but the dragon stat boosts more than make up for that.
Ivellius 01-18-08, 04:38 PM	Man, I can understand wanting to have high stats and all, but are the majority of you feeling that inept in RL that you must create a super-powered "hero" in this game? No offence intended, but there can't be alot of thrill to this game if you succeed at everything all the time. Gotta have challenges if you want to stay mentally sharp. I agree with this to an extent, and what made me think about it even more was an article by Justin Alexander comparing D&D mechanics to real-life. It really brought things home for me: just how good is that 18 in Dex, anyway? (Nearly Olympic gymnast level, you could say.) That made me want to scale back stats for my campaign a little, and I did make a kind of compromise in weakening NPCs. I'd like to think that this way the players appreciate that 12 or 14 more than they used to. And Dog_O_War, what have you allowed your players since you took up the screen?
Drodain 01-18-08, 04:39 PM	My group rolls 4d6 drop the lowest and reroll 1s. The DM decides if a characters stats are too weak for his campaign. We like high powered game play so we want higher stats. We've found a good balance though. I have let my players choose their stats. For the most part it's not a problem at all, but when it is I reserve the right to force them to roll 3d6 6 times for their stats. I wouldn't suggest it for most groups as there seem to be a lot of problems with players trying to get to much power but it works for us. Edit:Spelling
JamesMaissen 01-18-08, 04:52 PM	I'm just checking to see what everyone says, and if you would be kind enough to post if you Roll or use point system before you put how broken, and unfair one is over the other it would be easier thank you. I prefer a point buy. It levels the playing field, and the monsters are subject to it as well (based on which stat array they have). Seeing a disparity in permanent character features (stats, hps) based upon fixed rolls doesn't appeal to me either as a player or a DM. -James
Dog_O_War 01-18-08, 04:56 PM	And Dog_O_War, what have you allowed your players since you took up the screen? 36 points, and mainly to ease them into the 28 points I plan on using 2 campaigns from now (32 for the next, then 28). Also, I use points to prevent cheating, I posted why earlier. My players (not the people I usually play with) are used to high stats (roll 4d6, re-roll 1's. Top half of HD, and all that), so I've got to ease them into it. If they prove trustworthy, then eventually I'll just let them roll.
ZiggZagg 01-18-08, 05:01 PM	If you have to ask, then you're not playing the game the way it's intended. More specifically, a player with those stats would get bored with adventuring unless the DM gave the same uber-stats to all the Monsters. I learned in my 1st campaign as a DM: if the PCs aren't challenged, they players get bored. A player with 4 18s in his ability scores will not feel challenged by the standard CR system. So, unless the DM does something to compensate, the player will get bored. This is true...if your DM isn't good with his head and tactics. All the high abilities do not compensate for good challenges. Just press the player's limits. When you find them, remember them. Plus, if players are making stats like that anyway, they are probably powergamer. If that is the case, powergame back. A few high ability scores will not take away from the game if you know what you are doing. I have a character just like that right now and everyytime we play, I spend half the session at 3/4-1/2 hp, because my DM knows how to use tactics to exploit everybody's weaknesses. It is all about playing smart.
lunarflare1001 01-18-08, 05:12 PM	My group enjoys high-powered games, where we fight insanely powerful monsters, etc. so our method of rolling is: Roll 5d6 and drop the 2 lowest, this is your Stength Roll 5d6 and drop the 2 lowest, this is your Dexterity Roll 5d6 and drop the 2 lowest, this is your Constitution Etc... (High-powered organic) Then: we allow the player to "swap" two stats. THEN: we allow the player to completely re-roll one stat. Also: if the player rolls 4+ 6's on a stat, it counts as 24. These make uber-chars, but we find it fun.. If you ever want a wacky campaign of super-heroes, use the above method!
UAMDB 01-18-08, 05:16 PM	If you have to ask, then you're not playing the game the way it's intended. More specifically, a player with those stats would get bored with adventuring unless the DM gave the same uber-stats to all the Monsters. I learned in my 1st campaign as a DM: if the PCs aren't challenged, they players get bored. A player with 4 18s in his ability scores will not feel challenged by the standard CR system. So, unless the DM does something to compensate, the player will get bored. How dare you tell someone that they are not playing the game the way it is intended to be played. You have a lot of nerve. Nothing in the rule books says a character should not have multiple 18's in his/her stats. In the game I play we use 4d6 reroll 1's and 2's. In the game I run I gave everyone 18,18,17,16,15,14. Normaly I let them roll 4d6 reroll 1's and 2's. I have not had a single problem with either game as far as being challenged. Even with these "UnGodly" high stats that everyone gets it is still a fun and challenging game where players run the risk of dieing. Maybe if you were a better DM, you would not have to restrain your players. This post is only directed at one person. I have no problem with DM's who want to use point buy over rolling. I have a big problem with people who try to tell other people how the game is intended to be played, and that they are doing it wrong when it comes to things like this.
Orenmir 01-18-08, 05:28 PM	@UAMDB The game has rules for a reason. Creating PCs with uber stats breaks the game (unless the DM compensates -- which I've already stated). Breaking the game is not the way the game is intended to be played. If you have a problem with that, you probably do a lot of game breaking yourself. Which is fine by me. I don't care if people break the game (unless it's my game). Just be prepared for fallout. In this case, the fallout is boredom -- which is simply the point I was trying to make. It sounds like you took quite a bit of offense by my post. No offense was intended. There is always a bit of emotional ambiguity when it comes to discussion boards. Interpretation becomes difficult. If anything, I am simply defending the intentions of the game for the sake of open debate to create better gaming as an outcome.
Ivellius 01-18-08, 06:32 PM	I don't know if I'd describe a game in which characters had all 18s as "broken," but I will readily concur that the core rules support lower stats. None of the methods given should result in a character having such superhuman ability scores without cheating (I know someone's going to post the odds of rolling all 18s with the normal 4d6 drop lowest method now). Besides, if you're going that far, why stop at 18? Why not put your scores into the 20s? I'm just wondering. If you want a higher-powered campaign, that's okay: I don't like that very much (in fact, I once refused to use a set of ability scores I rolled because they weren't flawed enough). But I don't think you can justify ability scores significantly higher than typical rolls from the PHB (or DMG alternate) method and claim that's how the game is meant to be played. *shrugs* But some people like playing deities or demigods in this, so there's all sorts of tastes.
thejibboo 01-18-08, 08:21 PM	Anybody let your players subtract 2 from one stat and add 1 from another (with rolling obviously, that'd make no sense on point buy). I don't think anyone else has mentioned it which is making me think it must be more of an oddball house rule than i would have guessed.
Ivellius 01-18-08, 08:42 PM	Yeah, it's a house rule...not a horrible one, but you could still use it with point buy by taking away two from a 14 or lower and use it to boost something to 17 or 18, assuming that would work in your group.
Shiftkitty 01-18-08, 09:00 PM	Anybody let your players subtract 2 from one stat and add 1 from another (with rolling obviously, that'd make no sense on point buy). I don't think anyone else has mentioned it which is making me think it must be more of an oddball house rule than i would have guessed. It's not a house rule. It goes back at least as far as my 1981 1e Basic Set. In the rulebook, page B6 it says When adjusting abilities, no score may be lowered below 9. When an adjustment is made, a prime requisite ability will be raised by 1 point for every 2 points that the adjusted ability is lowered. Wow. Prime Requisites. Remember those?
thejibboo 01-18-08, 09:12 PM	ah, that explains it, we're playing 2nd edition with an old school dm
Ivellius 01-18-08, 09:13 PM	This might just be me, but I think applying an old rule to a 3.5 edition game would be considered a "house rule." Addendum: Though not if you're playing in that edition.
fenderbassman2009 01-19-08, 03:27 AM	my current DM just has a 78 point buy in. minimum 8 for each ability maximum 18. with racial bonuses/penalties he would add on to the minimum or maximum. for example a stonechilds +8 str means his max would be 26. this method wouldnt change the amount of points you have at your disposal. i personally hated this so when i create my own characters for fun, i use the same 78 points, but instead racial bonuses/penalties are added or subtracted to the total ability score. it makes that characters not as weak as my DMs methods make them, and not nearly as broken as rolling.
UAMDB 01-19-08, 08:27 AM	Please state in the rules where it says characters are not meant to have multiply stats that are 17's are above. Almost everyone on this website has stated at least once that the CR system is not correct, and needs to be fixed. You can not argue that having high stats will mess up the CR system when the CR system is already messed up. Please tell me from your personal experience how I break the game. As I have stated before, my players are not bored with the game. If players are bored with the game, then I suggest it is a product of a bad DM and a bad story. I did take offense to your post. I take offense when people come on a message board and tell others how the SHOULD play their game. If someone is asking a rules question then discussion of the rules is fine. The rules on character creation list several options. However, under point buy it NEVER states that a certain point is what the game is intended to be played at.
FrostWolf 01-19-08, 08:35 AM	Roll three to five strings of 4d6 drop the lowest and then pick the set that fits your character is how my current group does things. I was turned off of point buy due to a DM that would do 26 point buy, half treasure, rare magical items and almost no down time with heavy combat. Not fun.
Dog_O_War 01-19-08, 09:27 AM	Please state in the rules where it says characters are not meant to have multiply stats that are 17's are above. Almost everyone on this website has stated at least once that the CR system is not correct, and needs to be fixed. You can not argue that having high stats will mess up the CR system when the CR system is already messed up. Please tell me from your personal experience how I break the game. As I have stated before, my players are not bored with the game. If players are bored with the game, then I suggest it is a product of a bad DM and a bad story. I did take offense to your post. I take offense when people come on a message board and tell others how the SHOULD play their game. If someone is asking a rules question then discussion of the rules is fine. The rules on character creation list several options. However, under point buy it NEVER states that a certain point is what the game is intended to be played at. The CR system accomidates (and assumes) stats are about 25 points buy. Tell me how having double and triple this amount for building a character would not increase (artificially) his CR? 50 points is akin to having +2 to every stat over 25 points buy; how is this on par and even with a lower points method? Also, Orenmir was pointing out how easy it is to break a game with such a high points buy/rolling method. Four 18's? C'mon, you know there is a balance issue with that; hell, giving an NPC elite array is a +1 to CR, and that is only because it is putting that NPC (supposedly) on par with the players. That and he didn't tell him how to play, he simply asked how it could possibly be fun in a game you cannot lose. Also, you put alot of trust in anonymous peoples of the internet on whether stuff is balanced, broken, or needs fixing. I gotta ask, do you take their suggestions on what character to build and what clothes you should wear as well? That might've been a cheap shot on my behalf here, but claiming 50 forum regulars are right in a game of 20 million is hardly an adamant concensus. Point is he had a legitimate question, one that many of us forum posters share; how is having all high stats fun and entertaining beyond the first few sessions, as well as "balanced" in a game where the most NPC's have (that you will encounter on a regular basis) 1/3 as high? You didn't need to freak out.
UAMDB 01-19-08, 10:03 AM	The CR system accomidates (and assumes) stats are about 25 points buy. Tell me how having double and triple this amount for building a character would not increase (artificially) his CR? 50 points is akin to having +2 to every stat over 25 points buy; how is this on par and even with a lower points method? Also, Orenmir was pointing out how easy it is to break a game with such a high points buy/rolling method. Four 18's? C'mon, you know there is a balance issue with that; hell, giving an NPC elite array is a +1 to CR, and that is only because it is putting that NPC (supposedly) on par with the players. That and he didn't tell him how to play, he simply asked how it could possibly be fun in a game you cannot lose. Also, you put alot of trust in anonymous peoples of the internet on whether stuff is balanced, broken, or needs fixing. I gotta ask, do you take their suggestions on what character to build and what clothes you should wear as well? That might've been a cheap shot on my behalf here, but claiming 50 forum regulars are right in a game of 20 million is hardly an adamant concensus. Point is he had a legitimate question, one that many of us forum posters share; how is having all high stats fun and entertaining beyond the first few sessions, as well as "balanced" in a game where the most NPC's have (that you will encounter on a regular basis) 1/3 as high? You didn't need to freak out. Can you please show me a page number where it states that adding an elite array ups the cr by +1. Can you show me a page number where it says that the game is balanced around 25 point buy? Where did I say I put my trust into other people on this website? I stated that most people on this website believe that the CR systme is wrong and messed up. I stated a perceived fact about other peoples opinions on this the Cr system. That is hardly placing trust in to others. You are correct about one thing. That was a cheap and unfounded shot at me. I have not attacked you. I stated in my earlier post that my comments were directed at one person. I even stated why my comments were directed at him. I have NO problem with people who want to play with 25point buy or what ever point buy they choice. I take great offense when people tell me or others that we are playing the game wrong and against the way it was intended to be played if we do not play the way they do. That is what the other guy was implying.
Ivellius 01-19-08, 11:13 AM	Well, I'm away from books right now, but I can give you a link to the d20 SRD that shows using Elite scores should add a +1 to CR. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm Scroll down most of the page and you'll find a table that summarizes such things. Using the Elite ability array is one of those, and is listed as adding a +1 to CR.
Dog_O_War 01-19-08, 11:37 AM	Can you please show me a page number where it states that adding an elite array ups the cr by +1. Can you show me a page number where it says that the game is balanced around 25 point buy? Sinse I do not have my books handy at the moment, and the SRD (informatively) states that elite array is applied when adding class levels to a monster, I'll conceed this point. Where did I say I put my trust into other people on this website? I stated that most people on this website believe that the CR systme is wrong and messed up. I stated a perceived fact about other peoples opinions on this the Cr system. That is hardly placing trust in to others. That is the problem though; that perception is not indicative of the whole. You use it as a point of relavence (placing trust) to uphold your counter-arguement against Orenmir's position. You are correct about one thing. That was a cheap and unfounded shot at me. I have not attacked you. I stated in my earlier post that my comments were directed at one person. I even stated why my comments were directed at him. While your statements were directed at him, they were generalized as to include those that would think and say things similar to him. I did take offense to your post. I take offense when people come on a message board and tell others how the SHOULD play their game. If someone is asking a rules question then discussion of the rules is fine. The rules on character creation list several options. However, under point buy it NEVER states that a certain point is what the game is intended to be played at. The underlined is where you make the generalization that others (and not just Orenmir) are included. While I didn't feel attacked directly, I feel that Orenmir's comments mirror my own feelings on the subject. That is why I defend it (the position) and him. I have NO problem with people who want to play with 25point buy or what ever point buy they choice. I take great offense when people tell me or others that we are playing the game wrong and against the way it was intended to be played if we do not play the way they do. He never said you played the game wrong, or that other do. He said that yours (and other's) versions are hard to percieve as fun since there is no challenge when you play superheroes vesus the normals. I added to that in how a 75 or even a 50 points character is not on equal footing (in terms of CR) when compared to 25 points character. Also, I would like to ask everyone a question; instead of "rolling" 5d6 drop 1's, 2's, 3's, 4's, and 5's (hyperbole), why not just skip the middle man and just give the guy the stats you desire him to have? I think it would be more honest instead of many of the prescribed "high powered" methods presented here.
Orenmir 01-19-08, 11:47 AM	Well, I'm away from books right now, but I can give you a link to the d20 SRD that shows using Elite scores should add a +1 to CR. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm Scroll down most of the page and you'll find a table that summarizes such things. Using the Elite ability array is one of those, and is listed as adding a +1 to CR. Thanks, Ivellius. There's proof that ability scores affect CR. I take great offense when people tell me or others that we are playing the game wrong and against the way it was intended to be played if we do not play the way they do. I never said you have to play the way I do. I just said that you should play the game the way it is intended. Using the rules laid out in any official book, the chances of getting ability scores of 18 18 18 18 X X is astronomical. It only takes a little common sense to realize that playing with these stats (without any compensation) will drastically affect the game balance. Playing an unbalanced game goes against what the authors intended. IMO (which I'm certain is shared by many), playing an unbalanced game is wrong. Don't take offense to that. It takes a wise man to admit when he's doing something wrong. In my early days as a DM, I did many wrong things with the game. I realized it; then I fixed them. If I was flossing my teeth wrong, I'd want my wife to tell me I was doing it wrong so I could correct the problem before getting cavities. (Sorry, I have an affinity for analogies.) Also, if you noticed, I keep putting caveats in parenthesis in many of my statements referring to compensation. To clarify: You can use these uber stats with certain conditions... The whole party gets uber stats (including NPCs); and, the monsters get uber stats or a CR adjustment. That will balance game play out, hopefully.
UAMDB 01-19-08, 12:35 PM	[QUOTE=Dog_O_War;14866009] That is the problem though; that perception is not indicative of the whole. You use it as a point of relavence (placing trust) to uphold your counter-arguement against Orenmir's position. While your statements were directed at him, they were generalized as to include those that would think and say things similar to him. The underlined is where you make the generalization that others (and not just Orenmir) are included. While I didn't feel attacked directly, I feel that Orenmir's comments mirror my own feelings on the subject. That is why I defend it (the position) and him. He never said you played the game wrong, or that other do. He said that yours (and other's) versions are hard to percieve as fun since there is no challenge when you play superheroes vesus the normals. I added to that in how a 75 or even a 50 points character is not on equal footing (in terms of CR) when compared to 25 points character. QUOTE] I am not good at breaking up quotes like you are so please bare with me. I did not use anyone elses opinion to come to the conclusion that the CR system is messed up. I states what others believed to show that I am not the only one that believes this. Sorry if this confused you into thinking that I let others think for me. If you tell others how they should play then game then it applies to you. And yes that would offend me. I have NO problem with you thinking that having high stats can be a problem. However, there is a differnce between stating "you don't like high stats" and "Your not playing the game right if you have high stats". Do you see the difference? From Orenmir: The game has rules for a reason. Creating PCs with uber stats breaks the game (unless the DM compensates -- which I've already stated). Breaking the game is not the way the game is intended to be played. If you have a problem with that, you probably do a lot of game breaking yourself. Which is fine by me. I don't care if people break the game (unless it's my game). Just be prepared for fallout. In this case, the fallout is boredom -- which is simply the point I was trying to make. Me now: I am sorry but stating that you do X. X = not playing the way the game is intended to be played (ie doing it wrong) is the same thing as saying your not playing the way the game is intended to be played. BTW: I am not trying to argue that character should or should not have high stats. My point is that it is the DM's call on the matter. There is no right or wrong way to do it. I also want to stat that after playing and DM'ing for years, I have not had a single player get bored because he had high stats. We have always run appropite (sp) CR's for the encounters. There has been a few fights when the PC's walk over the monsters. There also has been some encounters that the PC's had to run for their lives because it was too powerful for them even though it was the right CR and I did not change a single stat from the book.
UAMDB 01-19-08, 12:45 PM	I never said you have to play the way I do. I just said that you should play the game the way it is intended. If I was flossing my teeth wrong, I'd want my wife to tell me I was doing it wrong so I could correct the problem before getting cavities. (Sorry, I have an affinity for analogies.) . You play the way the game is "intended". You think I should play the way the game is intended. Therefor I should play the way you do. You are such a wise man but you can not figure that one out huh. That is such a bad analogy I will not respond to it. You keep putting in you caveats about using high stats. My response is that in all my years of playing (going back to '91) I have never had problem with character with too high stats. We will ignore the 2nd years since there was no CR system. As stated in my post to Dog O'War, I have never had a problem that you keep telling me I will have. I have never had to change a monster's stats because the PC's were tooooo powerful and God like. The fact is having high stats does not make the game to easy for the PC's, and they will not get bored with the game because they have high stats. Players get bored with a game because the DM runs a boring game. I have talked to more players that left games because they were underpowered (forced to have low stats and no many items) and thus on the verge of dieing ever game session, verses none who left because they could walk through every encounter.
Dog_O_War 01-19-08, 01:05 PM	You play the way the game is "intended". You think I should play the way the game is intended. Therefor I should play the way you do. You are such a wise man but you can not figure that one out huh. That is such a bad analogy I will not respond to it. You keep putting in you caveats about using high stats. My response is that in all my years of playing (going back to '91) I have never had problem with character with too high stats. We will ignore the 2nd years since there was no CR system. As stated in my post to Dog O'War, I have never had a problem that you keep telling me I will have. I have never had to change a monster's stats because the PC's were tooooo powerful and God like. The fact is having high stats does not make the game to easy for the PC's, and they will not get bored with the game because they have high stats. Players get bored with a game because the DM runs a boring game. I have talked to more players that left games because they were underpowered (forced to have low stats and no many items) and thus on the verge of dieing ever game session, verses none who left because they could walk through every encounter. I understand now where you are coming from. As personal experience, I hope you will never have to experience the latter (bolded for emphasis); I've played under a DM who was very pro-high stats. Nearly every game he ran died within a few weeks of it starting. Players got bored because there was no challenges (and in a few of them, players made challenges by fighting each other!). He'd present an interesting, well thought out game. Could run the NPC's of it well, but would throw challenges at the players (I wasn't always playing in those games. Once was enough) of a proper CR geared for a party with far lower stats (somewhere between 25 and 40 points). As a person that understands the mechanical aspects of the game better than most, these high-stated games were (are) not challenging for me. Boredom in power given, not obtain/earned and all that. I just find that high stats give me one less thing to look forward to. :tiphat:
Orenmir 01-19-08, 01:08 PM	having high stats does not make the game to easy for the PC's If you had followed that statement with something like: "as long as the DM makes appropriate adjustments." -- it would make perfect sense. But, you didn't; so, it doesn't. I've singled this statement out, because I believe it is the crux of the problem. According to you, 18 18 18 18 X X are high stats. And these stats don't make the game easy for the PCs (without any adjustments to monster stats or CRs). I would have to disagree. A party with those stats would annihilate every unmodified standard CR encounter coming their way. And it's not because the CR system is out of whack. It's because those stats are way too high for what the CR system is built for. As far as having fun goes... I will concede that "fun" is way too subjective to argue about. If you think single-handedly killing a band of orcs without getting scratched is fun, so be it. Personally, I think it's more fun/exciting/challenging to face a few cunning baddies that condone an intelligent tactical riposte concerning how they could be defeated while nearing 0 HPs. But, maybe that's just me. To each his own.
Ivellius 01-19-08, 01:30 PM	One of the things I like about D&D is that it can accommodate a variety of tastes, and in that sense there isn't a wrong way to play. Still, CR is meant to balance monsters against a role-balanced party of four characters with balanced (i.e., approximately the elite array) abilities. That's not to say that some creatures aren't a greater or lesser threat than CR indicates, but problems in the system don't excuse making it worse. That said, I'm glad you haven't had problems with PCs being overpowered. I haven't in the adventures I've DMed, but that's because the first was just disastrous anyway and the second I switched to point buy. I have, however, been a player in a couple of campaigns with another player who power-gamed with his stats. Did he honestly roll them? Maybe, but I leery of accepting that all of his four characters had at least two 18s for their scores. If I remember correctly, his last one had nothing lower than a 14--and he played a druid, which is widely accepted as one of the most powerful classes. Did he still the spotlight? Not...entirely, but I know that I at least resented the character. I didn't want that kind of character in my campaign, so I switched to point buy. I don't find it as enjoyable if a character is near-superhuman at everything, and I don't think my players would enjoy having someone who's nearly invincible against creatures of an appropriate CR. My personal theory is that adventurers should be rare in the world: only the foolish, risk-taking, or very powerful would set out so far from civilization. The lower power campaign we now have is more enjoyable for me to prepare for, and no one's complained so far (even though we only started a couple of weeks ago). Orenmir, I think I'd enjoy gaming with you. Recent events have made me appreciate those 14s, 15s, and 16s a lot more, despite not using point buy in the campaigns in which I've played.
kelvinaw273 01-19-08, 01:50 PM	Point buy, every time.
Orenmir 01-19-08, 02:05 PM	Orenmir, I think I'd enjoy gaming with you. Recent events have made me appreciate those 14s, 15s, and 16s a lot more, despite not using point buy in the campaigns in which I've played. Cheers. :pint: Whenever a DM lets me roll up a character, I think of 16 as the best stat I can get. Anything above is just icing! With a 32 point buy, I'll make a stretch to grab one 17, nothing higher. With a 25 point buy, 16 is tops. My current character was rolled up using 4d6 drop the low. I rolled 12 14 15 15 16 17. I opted to balance this uber roll with: 8 10 14 15 16 17 -- still, a very good set of stats. After LA +1 racial adjustments: 8 10 13 16 17 18.
unundindur 01-20-08, 12:37 PM	We usually have to vote about it, because we never agree. I dislike rolling, because I have been in both ends of the game (lv 18 monk with an average roll of 7,5 and a 8 rogue with an average of 1,5). Having a high roll is nice enough, but having a low roll is devastating.
serrated_soldier 01-20-08, 01:40 PM	As a dm i realize that people dont really like to differ on power levels from other characters, unless of course they are stronger. for that reason i give them an array of scores anywhere from 8,10,12,12,14,16 to 12,14,14,16,18 depending on my power level for the campaign. this way no one feels left out and if their character is weak it is their fault.
EvilVegan 01-20-08, 03:19 PM	Both actually. 4d6 drop lowest, 28 point buy minimum. Nobody has met the minimum yet. . . actually the first time I implemented it nobody got higher than 20 point buy. Unlucky rolls. Sometimes I use 4d6, reroll ones, drop lowest. Sometimes I use 36 point buy, gestalt, max HP.
UAMDB 01-21-08, 08:01 AM	If you had followed that statement with something like: "as long as the DM makes appropriate adjustments." -- it would make perfect sense. But, you didn't; so, it doesn't. I've singled this statement out, because I believe it is the crux of the problem. According to you, 18 18 18 18 X X are high stats. And these stats don't make the game easy for the PCs (without any adjustments to monster stats or CRs). I would have to disagree. A party with those stats would annihilate every unmodified standard CR encounter coming their way. And it's not because the CR system is out of whack. It's because those stats are way too high for what the CR system is built for. To each his own. I have to completely and totally disagree. You can argue all the statistics that you want. I am coming from Personal Experience. I have been playing 3.x ever since it was released. We have been using these stats since we have been playing. I have played with several different groups. About 5 different groups in total. I moved alot thanks to jobs and college. I have never had to adjust the CR of monsters, and I have never had to adjust the stats of a monster. The PC's have had hard challenges, easy challenges and normal challenges when facing CR's equal to there level. Now one thing that might make a difference is I do not play with what I consider Power Gamers. I play with people who create very effective characters, and most have there levels already planned out in advance. But I would not consider then power gamers. It appears as if you are trying to say that it is a hard fast rule that higher stats makes the encounters easier. I am telling you that it is not true. Also my biggest complaint which you still have not apologied for is that you were telling people that they were not playing the game properly because they did not play your way.
kelvinaw273 01-21-08, 09:32 AM	I have to completely and totally disagree. You can argue all the statistics that you want. I am coming from Personal Experience. I have been playing 3.x ever since it was released. Sadly, personal experience is skewed. From personal experience (and I've played the game since '78) I could say: Power Gamers do not role-play There is no mechanical reason for this, and I will concede that there are probably many power-gamers that DO role-play - Stormwind Fallacy and all that - but Personal Experience says they don't. All that means is I've had bad personal experiences with power gamers. Personal Experience varies for all of us. Bottom line is, there is a way the game was designed to be played, and it involved PCs having a wide range of ability scores, with very high and low starting scores being rare. Stray too far out of here, and you are no longer playing in the designed-for field, and things are likely to be different or 'broken'. However, this does not make it WRONG. It does make it a minority view that few people can be expected to agree with.
Orenmir 01-21-08, 10:15 AM	I have to completely and totally disagree. Nothing wrong with that. Disagreement is the basis for debate. So what you're saying is that your party of PCs, all with 18 18 18 18 X X stats, have an average time with non-modified CR encounters. What do you think would happen with that party if they all had the elite array? In other words, through your experience as a player always using these uber stats, do you think you would have survived with the elite array? I think there is some variable about your D&D experience that you have left out, in order to make these uber stat parties seem to have average success. Also my biggest complaint which you still have not apologied for is that you were telling people that they were not playing the game properly because they did not play your way. Please quote my text that directly backs up your claim. You are either misinterpreting or spinning my statements. Here is what I stated and intended: You are not playing the game properly if you are not playing the game the way the authors intended. If you are not playing the game properly and you come to these boards -- be prepared for corrections, not apologies.
UAMDB 01-21-08, 10:41 AM	Sadly, personal experience is skewed. Personal Experience varies for all of us. Bottom line is, there is a way the game was designed to be played, and it involved PCs having a wide range of ability scores, with very high and low starting scores being rare. Stray too far out of here, and you are no longer playing in the designed-for field, and things are likely to be different or 'broken'. However, this does not make it WRONG. It does make it a minority view that few people can be expected to agree with. I have no problem being in the minority. That does not concern me, nor did I expect people to change any of there notions about what stats characters should have. My whole point was that having high stats does not require you to change monster stats. People have been saying that if characters have uber high stats then they will walk through everything, and get bored. They are talking in absolutes. I am stating that the absolutes are not correct. Even though it is only my personal experience that I speak of it still proves that the absolute is not true. Considering that most of my players stats are around the 40-50 point buy (I think) average being about 14,15,16,16,17,18 or somewhere around that mark. I have not truely beed keeping records of all player stats over the last 5 years. I have not had a single player quit due to boredom. The players have not walked through ever single encounter like people suggest they would. Also one more point, the DMG does not set a limit on the number fror point buy. It also does not stat that the encounters should be adjusted if you go over a certain number for point buy. At least not that I have read. If it does stat that then I will concede that point of my arguement. Since there is no limit in place, the game is intended to be played with what ever stats the DM deems reasonable.
UAMDB 01-21-08, 10:58 AM	Nothing wrong with that. Disagreement is the basis for debate. So what you're saying is that your party of PCs, all with 18 18 18 18 X X stats, have an average time with non-modified CR encounters. What do you think would happen with that party if they all had the elite array? In other words, through your experience as a player always using these uber stats, do you think you would have survived with the elite array? I think there is some variable about your D&D experience that you have left out, in order to make these uber stat parties seem to have average success. Please quote my text that directly backs up your claim. You are either misinterpreting or spinning my statements. Here is what I stated and intended: You are not playing the game properly if you are not playing the game the way the authors intended. If you are not playing the game properly and you come to these boards -- be prepared for corrections, not apologies. I think the same characters would survive just as well as the other parties if they had the elite array. I am sorry but I feel that party synergy and team work has a bigger effect on who wins a fight than the actual physical stats of the fight. By this I mean a party with all 18's and a party with all 12's would have about the same chance of suriving the same fight. Would the party with all 18's have a slight advantage? Yes, I never said they would not. While you did not say that exactly you clearly implied it. Lets do some Proofs from Geomotry My way =/= proper way of playing the game You have implied that your way of playing is in line with the proper way of playing Your way = proper way Therefor My way =/= Your way. So you are telling people that they are not playing properly because they are not playing your way. And please tell me a page number from either the DMG or the Players Handbook that it is improper to have all 18's. Or that you must adjust the EL for the party. If you can provide me with a page number I will concede the argument.
Orenmir 01-21-08, 11:07 AM	My whole point was that having high stats does not require you to change monster stats. People have been saying that if characters have uber high stats then they will walk through everything, and get bored. They are talking in absolutes. I am stating that the absolutes are not correct. Even though it is only my personal experience that I speak of it still proves that the absolute is not true. A sound argument. Some advice: State that your view is of the minority before getting on your soapbox. The response will be much less accusatory. More advice: Don't get on a soapbox with minority views. Being of a minority, you won't have many to back you up! Also one more point, the DMG does not set a limit on the number fror point buy. The DMG never states it's OK to use any other stat generating system than what is included. The highest point buy in the DMG is 32. It doesn't have to tell the user to adjust CRs, because it is assuming the user will adhere to its rules. Your method of stat generation is not in the rules.
WarpigX 01-21-08, 11:14 AM	Lots of debate with this thread. Our group uses several types of stat generation. 32 point starting with 8's, 2 columns of 6 roles using 4d6 dropping the lowest die, 5d6 straight down dropping the lowest 2 dice. The newest one we just did was one column of 4d6 without dropping the lowest dice, but you can't go over 18. Worked out pretty good for me. I ended up with 18,18,14,14,12,9. On top of that, we had to have our characters made up before we rolled and we did't know how we were going to generate the stats. As for high-powered vs average, I'd say that it depends on each group. We usually have only 2 or 3 party members, so if you get crappy roles it makes it hard to play an arcane caster if there are only 2 adventurers. We also started to change things up with the Gestalt and Monster classes to add flavor and survivability. As for CR's, they make me shake my head. We just experienced this last gaming session. One DM and one player. One faced 2 CR 15's with ease the other faced 1 CR 15 and struggled. When you look at the creatures you think that whoever gave them the same CR was having a stroke at the time. Oh well, makes it interesting.
Orenmir 01-21-08, 11:22 AM	By this I mean a party with all 18's and a party with all 12's would have about the same chance of suriving the same fight. IMO, this statement is absurd. Are you claiming stats have little to no relevance in combat success? What would it take to make a difference? A party of all 4s? Would they have about the same chance of surviving the same fight? Where do you draw the line? I'm ignoring your comment about proofing because it includes an implication, which nullifies a proof. Also, you are making the connection from A to B to C, not me. Can I help it if I play the game properly and you don't? I play properly; you don't -- the fact that you aren't playing my way is consequential and unavoidable. And please tell me a page number from either the DMG or the Players Handbook that it is improper to have all 18's. Or that you must adjust the EL for the party. If you can provide me with a page number I will concede the argument. If you are implying that it's not improper to play a PC with all 18s, you are definitely in the minority. So much in the minority, it would behoove you to only post mentions of it in theoretical or comical situations. Sometimes proof is generated from common sense. There's no rule stating you can't play with all 18 stats. The concept is simply absurd and should be met with skepticism and incredulity when mentioned on these boards.
Orenmir 01-21-08, 11:26 AM	As for CR's, they make me shake my head. We just experienced this last gaming session. One DM and one player. One faced 2 CR 15's with ease the other faced 1 CR 15 and struggled. When you look at the creatures you think that whoever gave them the same CR was having a stroke at the time. Well, I think that happens a lot. Simply put, the rolls of the dice make big swings like that happen. You could get lucky with a couple of crits, or you could get unlucky with nothing over 5! It happens.
Ivellius 01-21-08, 11:42 AM	Hmm...let's do the math and proofs, then. Consider a party of 4--fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric--with all 18s in their stats and a sample CR 1 encounter of two orcs compared with that same party with all 12s. Orcs have 5 hp, and AC of 13 and a +4 to their attack, which deals 2d4+4 per hit (not including crits). With an initiative of +0, party members have to roll a 5 or lower to go after them, assuming no one has improved initiative. The high-powered party's fighter will have 14 hit points, meaning only a critical drops him in one hit, and can reasonably be assumed to hit on a 7 or higher with Weapon Focus. Even with a dagger he'll kill the orc in one hit, as his STR bonus is enough to take it down to 0. His armor class, meanwhile, will be at least 17 or even as high as 19 with a shield. Each orc needs a 13 or higher to hit the lower number, although flanking could bring it down a couple of points. If the rogue goes into melee, a 9 or higher will hit for a kill with any weapon. If the rogue decides to throw weapons at them, she could kill them outright with daggers, darts, javelins, or even a sling. Hey, even a wizard with a starting AC of 14 could mix it up in melee with these guys--he doesn't need a better weapon proficiency than his club or dagger, although I'd probably cast Mage Armor or Shield first to protect that 8 hp. If he casts Sleep, these orcs need a 17 or higher to save. This isn't even considering what the cleric could do. Now think about the party with all 12s. They can use tactics and win this encounter, but it'll be a lot harder for them. The fighter can get an AC of 16 with a shield, which is still less than a THW fighter with all 18's. His hit points will only be 11, so one good hit can take him down. The wizard will immediately go down if he gets into melee, and his spell save DC is a more reasonable 12 (the orcs do need a 14 or higher, though--their Will saves are abominable). Yes, the orcs still won't last more than a couple of hits, but with the party's lower initiative and ACs, they actually have a decent chance to do damage and use up some of that cleric's spell slots. Without ambushing the party or using loaded dice, the first two orcs hardly have a chance. How many encounters like that can a party average in a day? 8? 9? Hard to say. The second group won't handle nearly as many before they use up their resources. And this gap gets much worse as levels scale, because spellcasters with lower ability scores won't even be able to cast higher-level spells at certain points. I'm away from my books at the moment, but I'll admit that I don't know of any place in which they say you shouldn't have 18s in every ability score, which is equivalent to a 96-point buy. Not even the highest recommendation goes near that score, so do they have to say you shouldn't? If they meant for you to have scores that high, the game designers would've given you methods that lead to that--but they didn't. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that game designers would have given us methods to get such high scores if they wanted us to.* If game designers meant players to have all 18s, they would have implemented methods that lead to those scores. They didn't include methods that generate such high scores. Therefore, they don't want players to have those scores. That follows this rule: If A, then B. Not B. Therefore, not A. I realize that the above simulation doesn't accurately cover a lot of variables, but surely it's enough to see that high-powered characters have much more than a slight advantage over low-powered ones. * If you don't make such assumptions, then yes, the following can be debated. But I'm accepting it as self-evident. [Edit: Man, that was a long post. I wish I wrote this much for my school assignments.]
UAMDB 01-21-08, 11:43 AM	First off I do not have to state that my opinion is in the minority. I never stated that it was the majority. I don't need anyone to back me up. I am not asking anyone to back me up. BTW: If through out history if people in the minority did not speak up and get on their soapboxes, then most major changes never would have occured. Do you really think that Slavery in America would have changed if the maniority had not gotten on their soapboxes? How about womens right to vote? Or I guess you have never heard the phrase "Silent Majority" and "Vocal Minority" before. I also like how your concede that I make a strong arguement that you are wrong, but then say that I really should not be speaking. I do wish this website had an ignore funtion so I would not have to listen to narrow minded people like you who think your way of playing is the only way to play the game.
WarpigX 01-21-08, 11:46 AM	Well, I think that happens a lot. Simply put, the rolls of the dice make big swings like that happen. You could get lucky with a couple of crits, or you could get unlucky with nothing over 5! It happens. It was more than that although roles can make the difference. The creatures were a Mummy Lord and some type of giant from the MM4 or 5 (both CR15). The giant had around a 30 AC, deal out around 100 hp per round and had Dispel Magic, Magic Missile and Dimension door as spell-like abilities - some at will, some quickened and others 3/day. A Mummy Lord would get obliterated and a standard 4 person party would be lucky if someone didn't get killed, let alone only use 25% of their resources.
Orenmir 01-21-08, 12:04 PM	First off I do not have to state that my opinion is in the minority. I never stated that it was the majority. I don't need anyone to back me up. I am not asking anyone to back me up. BTW: If through out history if people in the minority did not speak up and get on their soapboxes, then most major changes never would have occured. Do you really think that Slavery in America would have changed if the maniority had not gotten on their soapboxes? How about womens right to vote? Or I guess you have never heard the phrase "Silent Majority" and "Vocal Minority" before. I also like how your concede that I make a strong arguement that you are wrong, but then say that I really should not be speaking. I do wish this website had an ignore funtion so I would not have to listen to narrow minded people like you who think your way of playing is the only way to play the game. If you have something to contribute to the debate, please present it. The personal attacks will be ignored (and are also prohibited by the CoC). Concerning soapboxes... possibly a bad analogy on my part. I'll dismiss the analogy. I simply wanted to convey that your acceptance of unbalanced stat usage is so extreme that your defense of it should come with a disclaimer, such as: "My view of stat generation is extreme and should not be used as an example condoned by the official rules." Claiming that your argument is sound is by no means a concession on my part. I'm simply respecting your position. That's why I proceeded with a counter. You are welcome to do the same; but, your quoted post is not considered a counter IMO. Let's keep the debate productive.
MrCelsius 01-21-08, 03:41 PM	What single stat has the greatest effect on the relative difficulty of encounters, a campaign, and entire game of D&D in total? INT. Not character INT. Not NPC INT. Player and DM INT. If the party never tries to flank high-armor targets, if they never use aid another, if they make no attempts to prepare for specific foes beforehand, or any of the dozens of other strategic elements of the game which are necessary for competent play, then a stat spread of all 18's might be a necessary compensation. Hell, my players aren't idiots, but I'm a bit too clever for my own good in designing challenges, so I boost their stat spread into 'high-powered' to compensate. If they were total morons and I had a high lethality quotient? Hell yeah. I'd give all-18's a shot. I see where people are coming from, saying that all-18's would require CR or other compensation to keep from ruining the game, but I'm just pointing out that all-18's can be compensation for a handicap that exists between the character sheet and the chair, thus requiring no further modification. Hell, there's a schlemiel in my group I wouldn't hesitate to give all-18's to if it wouldn't annoy the other, intelligent players.
Orenmir 01-21-08, 04:05 PM	I'm just pointing out that all-18's can be compensation for a handicap that exists between the character sheet and the chair, thus requiring no further modification. An astute observation. I've been giving UAMDB the benefit of the doubt for the sake of debate. Plus, I hate to make assumptions about people I haven't even met (so much interpretation is skewed via text-based only interaction). But, your suggestion is definitely a viable consideration. :clap: One point of disagreement -- I think a player (not PC) with a low INT score learns more from having their PC die than from a full 18 stat array. I have no basis of comparison, just a hunch; for, I did learn much about the game back when my PCs used to die a lot (my INT score was much lower back then ;)).
MrCelsius 01-22-08, 02:09 PM	One point of disagreement -- I think a player (not PC) with a low INT score learns more from having their PC die than from a full 18 stat array. I have no basis of comparison, just a hunch; for, I did learn much about the game back when my PCs used to die a lot (my INT score was much lower back then ;)). Could be, but I think the player in that case needs to have enough WIS to make the spot check to see what the hell zie did wrong. Or maybe a listen check to actually LISTEN when people explain that it wasn't just the DM deciding to kill zir. Either way, WIS. If, however, it's a player like mine, the aforementioned schlemiel who was born with average STR and CON and everything else like a power-gamer's dump stat... well, you cut him every advantage you can and just try to enjoy the time you have left before he gets himself hit by a bus, stabbed in the face, or mauled to death by a pack of wild dogs. :nonono:
UAMDB 01-22-08, 02:23 PM	An astute observation. I've been giving UAMDB the benefit of the doubt for the sake of debate. Plus, I hate to make assumptions about people I haven't even met (so much interpretation is skewed via text-based only interaction). But, your suggestion is definitely a viable consideration. :clap: One point of disagreement -- I think a player (not PC) with a low INT score learns more from having their PC die than from a full 18 stat array. I have no basis of comparison, just a hunch; for, I did learn much about the game back when my PCs used to die a lot (my INT score was much lower back then ;)). I am sooooo glad you have been giving me the benefit of doubt for the sake of debate. I wish you would have been listening to me instead. I NEVER once said characters HAVE to HAVE high stats of all 18's. I said that have high stas does not make the game boring. I said having high stats does not make the characters walk through ever encounter with out a challenge. If you had been actually reading my post instead of deciding that I was wrong because I did not agree with you, you might have noticed the difference.
Dog_O_War 01-22-08, 02:43 PM	I am sooooo glad you have been giving me the benefit of doubt for the sake of debate. I wish you would have been listening to me instead. I NEVER once said characters HAVE to HAVE high stats of all 18's. I said that have high stas does not make the game boring. I said having high stats does not make the characters walk through ever encounter with out a challenge. If you had been actually reading my post instead of deciding that I was wrong because I did not agree with you, you might have noticed the difference. You are wrong though. Multiple people have said so. High stats might not make a game boring, but it can and often does for many of us. Also, it does make a game boring in the fact that all characters would be the same if they had sets of 18's. One character could not be the "strong guy" if they all had 18 str's. Same goes with every other stat. A high set of stats eliminates RP opportunities as much as it can create them. Points buy does this as well. Rolling is the only way to get the full range of possible RP opportunities, making the game more diverse.
UAMDB 01-22-08, 03:32 PM	I am wrong? So if every character has high stats then the game WILL become boring? There is no exceptions to this? It is a fact of life that if all characters have high stats then the game WILL be boring? There has never been a game with everyone having high stats, and that game did not become boring? (And I don't mean from just your own personal experiences.) In case you are wondering the answer to the last question, my games have not become boring. My players enjoy showing up and look forward to our games. This is what people have been stating. Again all I am trying to do is state that it is not a given that the game will be boring. Can it become boring? Yes. Can a game with everyone having a 25pt buy become boring? Yes.
Totentanz 01-22-08, 03:41 PM	We use this: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=11391927#post11391927 We have found it gives people a sense of "accomplishment" that some want with rolling, but it lessens the disparity between the player that would get kicked out of Vegas and the one who really should never touch dice. It is also easily customizable for whomever is DM'ing by virtue of being able to add/subtract points. Also, anyone using saying "the game the way it was meant to be played" is asinine, at best. The CR system is utterly broken by around level 12 even with 25 point-buy. I have played with so many different rolling systems, and by extension power levels, that I can say with certainty that like any other RPG the enjoyment of the party is based on the DM's ability and willingness to make it so. If a DM can't compensate for the extra +2 on the fighter's to hit, then he needs to give up the screen. More importantly, DnD 3.5 is a system rife with glaring inconsistencies on every level. Some critters in later MM's are easily twice as powerful as their forebears in the original core book. It's even more laughable when you start using PC classes as opponents. Getting the same XP for defeating a 10th level Fighter as a 10th level Druid? Come on, that's highway robbery. We all know Fluffy the animal companion is just as challenging as the Fighter on his own. My point is you can't rely on the system to accurately determine anything with regards to party power. A party of 4 Radiant Servants will completely whoop up on a vampire and then die horribly when faced with one of those crazy Elder Evils. DnD was meant to be played one way, and one way only: what makes everyone have a good time. If someone came on here and said "we always play 20 point-buy commoners that then multi-class into NPC classes and finally make it into PC classes around level 10," then that would be just fine. Saying the game wasn't designed for other use is silly, as it implies the game functions within stated parameters, which it doesn't. Saying "the DM would have to compensate" is even more silly, as that implies that in some magical, balanced situation the DM doesn't have to. If the DM didn't need to account for the players and their characters, why have a DM? The game always needs a DM for just that purpose, and if your reasoning for only using certain systems is "I have to work harder," then you are just plain lazy. What's the matter? Afraid you might actually have to try to challenge your players in a world built in your own mind? :P
Dog_O_War 01-22-08, 03:45 PM	I am wrong? So if every character has high stats then the game WILL become boring? There is no exceptions to this? It is a fact of life that if all characters have high stats then the game WILL be boring? There has never been a game with everyone having high stats, and that game did not become boring? (And I don't mean from just your own personal experiences.) I never said will. I said can and often does. In case you are wondering the answer to the last question, my games have not become boring. My players enjoy showing up and look forward to our games. Cool. This is what people have been stating. Again all I am trying to do is state that it is not a given that the game will be boring. Can it become boring? Yes. Can a game with everyone having a 25pt buy become boring? Yes. Maybe everyone needs to pull away from absolutes then. You are right in this last statement here though. Can is a yes. Can and often will is a yes. Low points can be as agrivating, which leads to boredom. Many of us see that low stats is a challenge though in a game where challenges can be hard to come by. While the DM is the person to set the challenges, is it fair though to increase the challenge of say, climbing a knotted rope, just because the players have high stats? Seems counter-intuitive to do it that way, so high stats can and will eliminate certain challenges. Maybe it is a thrill for some of us to succeed on stuff that should be hard without magic. Kinda boring if the wizard just casts spiderclimb every time the group comes up to a wall. Thief and fighter might feel bored then because it eliminates something they took time to perfect. Just something to consider when you do high stats.
Frozen Yakman 01-22-08, 03:47 PM	I've done a variety of different modes when: 4d6 drop lowest 4d6 drop lowest reroll 1s 3 sets of 4d6 drop lowest choose the set you want 3d6 in any order But my favorite is 1) Choose the stats you want 2) Show me for approval Most players freak a bit and roll stats anyway other try to pull something a couple times (like straight 18s or other silliness) but after a few times of me saying "no" they end up making something sane.
Ixion_Silvermane 01-22-08, 03:53 PM	roll 4d6, keep 3d6, re-roll 1 and 2. make 12 rolls, pick best 6. that is how we have done it for years.
Suspect_Unusual 01-22-08, 03:56 PM	I know this might be a slightly-off topic post, given the current discussion, but... My groups have a variety of stat-generation methods. For the most part, we do the standard "roll 4d6 six times, drop lowest, reroll if scores are hideously subpar" routine. DMing is done on a rotating basis, and one of the DMs of one of my groups has us roll 4d6 seven times instead, dropping one of our choice. In that DM's game, I rolled an 18,17,16,14,14,12 - crazy powerful stat array, by any standard. I'll be playing a melee role that uses a Long Spear, though, so hopefully I'll stay within the realm of balance. Another of my DMs, for a different group, had us choose our own ability scores - everyone chose reasonably (I believe there were 2 or 3 18s in the group of 5 people, and everyone had at least one score of 10 or lower), though to help myself stay reasonable, I restricted myself to 32 point buy. I, personally, much prefer to use Point Buy over rolling dice - Like another poster stated earlier, I'd much rather have the stats reflect the character I want than utilize a set of stats that were randomly determined, completely apart from the character I have in mind. Yes, one can adapt the character to the stats given... it's simply occasionally vexing. For example, in one campaign I was playing a Dragonwraught Kobold Psion. I wanted him to be decent all-around (10s and 12s in most scores) with an unnatural toughness (14ish after race) and a particularly but not overwhelmingly keen intellect (16ish). Instead, I got 9,9,10,11, 13,18. Yes, I adapted the character to the stats... I just wish I could have adapted the stats to my preferred character concept instead.
Dog_O_War 01-22-08, 04:25 PM	Also, anyone using saying "the game the way it was meant to be played" is asinine, at best. The CR system is utterly broken by around level 12 even with 25 point-buy. Broken how? Many of us manage to survive regularily with that many points. In our areas of expertise stuff at CR 12 isn't even a challenge sometimes. I have played with so many different rolling systems, and by extension power levels, that I can say with certainty that like any other RPG the enjoyment of the party is based on the DM's ability and willingness to make it so. If a DM can't compensate for the extra +2 on the fighter's to hit, then he needs to give up the screen. Same here, and the best one I found (well, the one I most liked) was the deadlands system. Also, that isn't just +2 to the fighter's to hit, it is an ogre's strength score to put it into perspective. That score can become a 34-36 without buffs (via belt and gloves*), which makes him stronger than an elder earth elemental. That would seem very prestigeous, but if everyone had high stats, it makes such a thing mundane and hard to challenge. More importantly, DnD 3.5 is a system rife with glaring inconsistencies on every level. Some critters in later MM's are easily twice as powerful as their forebears in the original core book. It's even more laughable when you start using PC classes as opponents. Getting the same XP for defeating a 10th level Fighter as a 10th level Druid? Come on, that's highway robbery. As a fighter player (because people call them "weak") I resent that. I could lay out a fighter that can and will make a druid cry, "Oh no! A fighter!" But this is besides the point. Given that a caster party will waste a fighter, and a fighter party will waste a druid (trust me), Some things are more challenging to a certain party than others. We all know Fluffy the animal companion is just as challenging as the Fighter on his own. Actually, some people seem to think that the animal companion is just as challenging, but of those that know, we know it to be lies. My point is you can't rely on the system to accurately determine anything with regards to party power. A party of 4 Radiant Servants will completely whoop up on a vampire and then die horribly when faced with one of those crazy Elder Evils. That is correct, but you obviously are unaware that CR is an approximate and not an absolute. The "average" challenge those radiant servants give is still the same, as it is a balance between weaknesses and strengths. Where they are strong in one area, they are weak in another and the median is the approximation of challenge. DnD was meant to be played one way, and one way only: what makes everyone have a good time. Can't argue with that. If someone came on here and said "we always play 20 point-buy commoners that then multi-class into NPC classes and finally make it into PC classes around level 10," then that would be just fine. Saying the game wasn't designed for other use is silly, as it implies the game functions within stated parameters, which it doesn't. Actually, the game was not designed for this. You tell me how a CR 2 versus this party of 2nd level commoners is an equal challenge. The game assumes 25 points, or elite array, as this is the sum average of 4d6 (drop the lowest) rolled 6 times and placed where desired. The game was designed for a power range in mind and to deviate from that is to be more or less powerful and thus out of design specs. It can still be fun, but you will not be in the target range for many challenges. Saying "the DM would have to compensate" is even more silly, as that implies that in some magical, balanced situation the DM doesn't have to. If the DM didn't need to account for the players and their characters, why have a DM? The game always needs a DM for just that purpose, and if your reasoning for only using certain systems is "I have to work harder," then you are just plain lazy. He does not have to, if the DM accounted for 25 points buy characters and that is what the players made. But if the DM pulls challenges from the book (designed for 25 PB) and expects them to offer that challenge versus 70 points buy characters, then he will be sorely mistaken.
UAMDB 01-22-08, 04:33 PM	Maybe everyone needs to pull away from absolutes then. You are right in this last statement here though. Can is a yes. Can and often will is a yes. Low points can be as agrivating, which leads to boredom. Many of us see that low stats is a challenge though in a game where challenges can be hard to come by. While the DM is the person to set the challenges, is it fair though to increase the challenge of say, climbing a knotted rope, just because the players have high stats? Seems counter-intuitive to do it that way, so high stats can and will eliminate certain challenges. Maybe it is a thrill for some of us to succeed on stuff that should be hard without magic. Kinda boring if the wizard just casts spiderclimb every time the group comes up to a wall. Thief and fighter might feel bored then because it eliminates something they took time to perfect. Just something to consider when you do high stats. I agree we all need to pull away from the absolutes. I also agree that having high stats can make some mundane things like climbing a knotted rope an auto success. Of course that DC is only like a 5 anyway, but that is besides the point. I also agree that magic can make the game boring. Esp when it is used to avoid something that is ment to be a challenge. Like "How do we get across the river now that the bridge fell" Insteasd opf the fighter sayng he'll swim across carrying a rope to make a new "bridge" the mage just goes "Mass Fly" problem solved.
Orenmir 01-22-08, 07:28 PM	I am sooooo glad you have been giving me the benefit of doubt for the sake of debate. I wish you would have been listening to me instead. By default, I give everybody the benefit of any doubt in any debate. It keeps things fair that way. I have been listening. Your accusation is hollow and unproven. I don't believe you have been listening -- and I'll prove that with this following counter... I NEVER once said characters HAVE to HAVE high stats of all 18's. I said that have high stas does not make the game boring. I said having high stats does not make the characters walk through ever encounter with out a challenge. I never once said that you claimed to say characters have to have high stats of all 18s. Are you saying that I did? If so, please prove your accusation with a quote. If you had been actually reading my post instead of deciding that I was wrong because I did not agree with you, you might have noticed the difference. If you're still hung up on this concept, post some valid and direct arguments that prove I'm not listening. I don't respond to every sentence of your posts. I have a tendency to only respond to the ones that are pertinent to the debate. My apologies to the thread readers and participants for this obviously personal post that doesn't contribute to the debate. I was simply defending myself against personal attacks (passive and direct).
Khazzan 01-22-08, 07:56 PM	Our DM lets us use the standard 32-point buy system. Once the stats are determined (with racial modifiers applied) and arranged the way we want them, our DM will review the stats and then let us add an additional 1 point to any 2 stats we like (not 2 points to the same stat). It's his way of showing that our characters are somehow 'just a little bit special', in the eyes of the Gods, and helps us to get started a bit, since his campaign can be a tough one... ;)
CryoSilver 01-22-08, 08:03 PM	When I DM online, I use 32 point buy. With my friends (there's 3 of them), they each roll 4d6 drop twice, and the resulting 6 stats, plus one I roll, are distributed as they please, dropping the lowest score. It's a good way of letting them roll, but still making everyone even.
Mad_Jack 01-23-08, 06:10 PM	I've always given people a choice... 1. Roll d6 and add it to the standard 25pt buy... or 2. Use the standard "4d6/drop lowest/assign as desired", but with a few considerations... - no score lower than 6, and if you get one score with a penalty you have to keep it, but any additional low scores may become a 10 if you wish - You can choose to "take 10" with as many scores as you like, choosing to take the average score of 10 *instead of* rolling something better or worse. But you can't roll something low and *then* decide to "10" it. - If you have at least one score with a penalty and you don't roll at least one 15, then your highest score becomes 15. (Subject to reality checks - if you rolled five 14's and an 8, don't even think about it, lol) - you can only reroll one "1" per roll. If you roll a 1 and reroll it, if it comes up 1 again you're stuck with it. Say you rolled 1,1, 1, and 6... you can drop one of those, you can reroll one of them, but you're stuck with the last one. If the 1 you rerolled comes up 1 again, then 1+1+6=8, and that's what you get. - you can trade points on a 1-1 basis between scores up to 16, above that it's 2 points for every 1 pt increase... No score can be raised more than 4 points or above 18. No score can be lowered more than 4 points or be lowered below 8. *However*, any point-by-point adjusting of scores in this manner must be approved, and must have a valid role-playing justification, i.e., you must convince me that your character, as you see him, is actually that strong/smart/dumb/clumsy/whatever, and you're not just doing it for the bonuses. Switching one point from one score to another without changing the bonus to either of them isn't a particularly big deal. Or, for example, if you have a fighter with a decent wisdom score but who's not particularly supposed to be that enlightened, and you want to drop it from 13 to 11, I'll give you those 2 points to get rid of your charisma penalty or pop your intelligence from 10 to 12 for that extra skill point. But if you dropped your charisma score from a 12 down to an 8 in order to add more points to your fighter's strength, you need to give me a reason why he's super strong but socially inept - was he born a slave and raised to be a pit fighter? And I will hold you to those justifications when you are roleplaying, lol... :D
Drackthor 01-24-08, 06:38 PM	If you have to ask, then you're not playing the game the way it's intended. More specifically, a player with those stats would get bored with adventuring unless the DM gave the same uber-stats to all the Monsters. I learned in my 1st campaign as a DM: if the PCs aren't challenged, they players get bored. A player with 4 18s in his ability scores will not feel challenged by the standard CR system. So, unless the DM does something to compensate, the player will get bored. If the game as intended isn't fun to them, I don't see why playing it how it wasn't intended is any less of a proper decision.
Orenmir 01-24-08, 06:51 PM	If the game as intended isn't fun to them, I don't see why playing it how it wasn't intended is any less of a proper decision. A valid point -- as I did later concede that "fun" was way too subjective to successfully debate. Afterwards, we moved the debate forward with more tangibles such as the relationship between ability scores and CR ratings. What's your take? Do you think they are related? Do you think a party of all 18ers would fare the same against a standard CR encounter as a party of all 12ers?