Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 happydaze Apr 26, 2009 11:26:11	I'm curious to know if anyone has something other than the three methods of ability score genration in the PHB. In my last game, only Method 1 and Method 2 were allowed, and nobody seems to like the idea of Method 3. Both methods created fairly good characters, but we're left wondering if it's OK for a (non-RPGA) game to have an adjusted baseline for PCs. For example, if we consider taking Method 2 and adjusting with one of two following options. Option A) Start with scores of 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 and spend 24 points to improve them (costs as per PHB). Option B) Start with scores of 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 and spend 22 points to improve them (costs as per PHB). The powergamers in our group - no offense to them - will strongly prefer Option A. It will give them more points to push their primary or secondary scores a bit higher. OTOH, Option B will give only the most modest of improvements - a slight boost to a dump-stat - and that's really just a 'feel-good' effect more than anything else. So, does anyone use a method other than the basic three from the PHB? What is your method, and how has it worked out for your group? Edit: What I'm considering for an upcoming campaign is an enhanced Method 1 with an Ability Score array of 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10. It won't boost the primary score of the set (the 16), but it does potentially increase one of the secondary scores to a 14. There will be no enhanced Method 2 alternative if this is used - all characters will use the same array of scores.
#2 silent_stone Apr 26, 2009 12:02:03	...but we're left wondering if it's OK for a (non-RPGA) game to have an adjusted baseline for PCs. Anything everyone in your group enjoys is okay. So, does anyone use a method other than the basic three from the PHB? What is your method, and how has it worked out for your group? So far, my very small gaming group used Method 3 from the Player's Handbook, which (combined with a liberal re-rolling policy in event of "unfavorable" results) made the resulting PCs significantly overpowered for their level, such that now, at level 14, they have to be treated as level 16 or 17 for the purpose of building challenging encounters. Really, this just made the game seem easy for the PCs (the PCs are more powerful), and much harder for the DM (more difficult to build a challenging encounter without essentially forcing a TPK, as they are not really level 17...). Personally, I prefer point-buy systems. Save the randomness for the d20 rolls, is what I say. That being said, small tweaks like what you are suggesting shouldn't upset the difficulty of the game much—it will likely result in a slight boost to a secondary stat, which will result in a slight boost in the PC's secondary abilities.
#3 happydaze Apr 26, 2009 16:07:43	How far above the norm did your characters roll? Unless you can somehow get scores greater than 18 before racial mods, I can't really see Method 3 producing much more than an additional +1 to all attacks and damage values, +1 to all defenses (possibly a +2 to what would ordinarily be your low defense), +1 initiative, a few more hitpoints , an extra healing surge, and an extra +1 or +2 on Skill Checks/Challenges. IMO, none of these would really seem to push a group up more than 1 level in overall effectiveness.
#4 erk_ Apr 26, 2009 17:02:25	Anything everyone in your group enjoys is okay. Seconded. My group rolls dice, and I allow players to reroll until they have stats that are, by point buy standards, absurdly high. In the solo game my finacee is running with me, I have a character with two 18s and two 17s after racial mods (this is high even for us). We just have more fun that way. I still haven't the slightest problem challenging my players, and in that solo campaign I've so far exhausted all my resources in every encounter, and still taken heavy injuries. In the end you're not going to see a huge difference from the extra +1/+2 your characters get from higher stats, really, nor from them qualifying for feats a little easier. Not if all your players have the same benefits. Our method is to roll anyd6 you like, typically 4d6-drop-lowest, and keep rolling arrays of 6 until you get one you like. If the modifiers don't total +9 the GM can adjust a few to bring it into +9 total modifiers. The total of the attributes themselves should be around 80-83, iirc.
#5 JayM Apr 26, 2009 17:06:59	In my last game, only Method 1 and Method 2 were allowed, and nobody seems to like the idea of Method 3. Both methods created fairly good characters, but we're left wondering if it's OK for a (non-RPGA) game to have an adjusted baseline for PCs. Sure, as long as the system is equally applied to all PCs, you can use just about anything the group will agree to. Just remember that if the characters get enhanced base line stats then the monsters need to be ramped up also, without handing out any extra XP. If the characters are 10% more powerful, then the XP budget for an encounter is also ramped up 10%, but the amount of XP you give them remains the same. For example, a 1000XP encounter would give you an XP budget of 1100XP but the party would still only get 1000XP for victory. The trick will be figuring out just how much of a power increase your change is. Even a small shift to point buy can radically change power levels, and the benefit can be different at different character levels. What I'm considering for an upcoming campaign is an enhanced Method 1 with an Ability Score array of 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10. It won't boost the primary score of the set (the 16), but it does potentially increase one of the secondary scores to a 14. There will be no enhanced Method 2 alternative if this is used - all characters will use the same array of scores. That seems fairly odd and pointless. For most characters it won't make any difference at all, but some split stat characters will benefit from the higher secondary stat. Jay
#6 kiyosa Apr 26, 2009 17:54:12	This is a tough question I've wondered about as well. For monsters we know that each level is equivalent to +1 to attacks and defenses and +1/2 to damage. I suspect that PCs are built around the same logic, in order to keep things balanced. +1/2 to most things per level is built into the system rather obviously, and the other +1/2 comes from magic items, stat increases, masterwork armor, etc. I have not explored the math of this assumption fully yet. So, if we end up with PCs that have stats that raise these secondary statistics +1 on average we should treat them as one level higher. Pretty simple. But when you get into specifics it breaks down quickly. Will increased point buy allowances really increase each NAD? Probably not. The effects of "secondary" stat additional effects such as given penalties, temp HP, forced movement effects, etc. are hard to balance. In general though, I'd compare the characters' ability scores to a standard array template and try to gauge how many +1's they have gained in the core stuff: to hit and defenses, then look at total HP (max HP + surges) vs. higher leveled standard array characters again. That ought to give a pretty good idea of the increased power level. Yet, some increased stats really won't do much. If the Barbarian or Rogue has a 16 INT but never multi-classes to take advantage of it, so what? Is it really going to skew game balance that the character has really sweet untrained history and religion checks? *** Figuring this out is pretty important for a lot of reasons: Some groups just enjoy the feel of characters that have really, really stupendous stats. I have a severely handicapped friend who was a phenomenal athlete in high school and was planning on joining the special forces one day. Table-top gaming is obviously a hero fantasy for him. The characters he creates in his head are true paragons of humanity... they just don't have stats below 14. If I ever DM for him again, I'd want to let him play the characters that make him tick but I'd also want to preserve the balance! There is a player in my current group, we'll call him Max, who rolled his stats in the privacy of his home and ended up with pretty stupendous figures. I calculated his chances of rolling that well in a standard "4d6 drop lowest" at about 1/3 of one percent. I know a lot of gaming groups have a Max in them. It's important to be able to balance around them, especially if it's just one character in several. As I mentioned above, his Rogue's 14 INT is unlikely to do much other than let MAX feel like his character is smart... but the 16 STR, 20 DEX, 18 CHA probably will.
#7 happydaze Apr 26, 2009 21:19:51	Sure, as long as the system is equally applied to all PCs, you can use just about anything the group will agree to. Just remember that if the characters get enhanced base line stats then the monsters need to be ramped up also, without handing out any extra XP. If the characters are 10% more powerful, then the XP budget for an encounter is also ramped up 10%, but the amount of XP you give them remains the same. For example, a 1000XP encounter would give you an XP budget of 1100XP but the party would still only get 1000XP for victory. The trick will be figuring out just how much of a power increase your change is. Even a small shift to point buy can radically change power levels, and the benefit can be different at different character levels. I don't think it's really necessary to ramp up encounters XP-wise to match increases in non-primary stats. If you use an increased point buy, there's no real way to tell what's more powerful - two players can use the same stat points and end up with different levels of effectiveness in their characters. Trying to track that is just madness. That seems fairly odd and pointless. For most characters it won't make any difference at all, but some split stat characters will benefit from the higher secondary stat. It's certainly not pointless - you'll almost always increase one NAD - but the effect on game blance should be minimal. Also, some players just don't like odd numbered ability scores in the endgame (they'll suffer with them through Paragon levels). Mostly, it's a feel-good improvement, and if it adds to the players' enjoyment, then that's the most important thing.
#8 arsaga Apr 26, 2009 21:45:27	The game that I play in, we really like rolling the dice. It gives a bit more of a personalized feel to the character than just some point buy or array template and traditional optimizing. We roll 4d6 keep three and re-roll any 1s. Usually you end up with 1 stat of 16+ and 2-3 in the 12-15 range. Try it real quick. Rolling 4d6 keep three and re-roll 1s. It gives scores that are almost certainly 10+ but not as much 16+ scores as you would think. I just did it and got 12, 14, 13, 15, 10, 17. That's good starting numbers for our group because we run with 3-4 players most sessions.
#9 CCS Apr 26, 2009 22:23:10	Outside of the RPGA any method that you & your players find acceptable is fine. Here's what I plan on doing the next time I DM: .Option #1 - choose an array. .Option #2 - standard point buy .Option #3 - roll (with the group as witness, roll up 7 sets of 4d6, drop the lowest die from each, then choose 6 of the 7 results, place as desired. Whatever you roll here is what you get, no re-rolls or scrapping in favor of a different option if you gamble....) Each player gets to choose for themselves wich option they'll use. Thus the conservitives/cowards in the group can ensure that they've got stats they can live with while those who like to take risks are free to do so. (personally, I'm a gambler. So were I making a character I'd roll) But as a DM? I don't care what option they pick. Truth be told, I don't even really care what their stats are {"balance" is not my Holy Grail}. And I most certainly don't care if someone develops stat envy. If they do, well, that's their own * problem - afterall, they hand picked their own creation method.
#10 silent_stone Apr 26, 2009 23:23:39	How far above the norm did your characters roll? Unless you can somehow get scores greater than 18 before racial mods, I can't really see Method 3 producing much more than an additional +1 to all attacks and damage values, +1 to all defenses (possibly a +2 to what would ordinarily be your low defense), +1 initiative, a few more hitpoints , an extra healing surge, and an extra +1 or +2 on Skill Checks/Challenges. IMO, none of these would really seem to push a group up more than 1 level in overall effectiveness. When I said "liberal re-rolling policy" I probably should have said "the DM told me to re-roll until I either got a set I liked, or I got tired of rolling"...for my primary character I ended up with an 18, 17, 16, 16, 14, 13 before racial modifiers (yes, it took me a while. A long while. Terribly silly, I know; in any case, this has renewed my love of point-buy systems, especially in 4E). Compare that to the standard array of 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10: exactly as you say, I have at least a +1 across the board, which given that the level modifier increases at +1 per 2 levels, makes my level 14 function like at least a level 16 character in all ways but the following: I don't have the hit points from the 15th and 16th level, and I don't have the level 15 daily, the level 16 utility, the level 16 feat, or the level 16 paragon path feature. Saying it plays like a level 17 character in my previous comment was a bit of an exaggeration on my part. But still, my level 14 is like a level 16 in some ways, but it really isn't in others, which makes it difficult to keep the challenges challenging. 4E is balanced with the assumption that the PCs will be built in a certain way...the whole point of my comment was simply to say that the more you change things like this, the more difficult it will be to easily make encounters suitable for the PCs. But ultimately, I will be the first to admit that I'm no expert on this; this is merely my personal experience with the 4E system and my opinions. Grain of salt, and all that.
#11 kiyosa Apr 27, 2009 10:09:27	exactly as you say, I have at least a +1 across the board, which given that the level modifier increases at +1 per 2 levels, makes my level 14 function like at least a level 16 character in all ways but the following: I don't have the hit points from the 15th and 16th level, and I don't have the level 15 daily, the level 16 utility, the level 16 feat, or the level 16 paragon path feature. I think saying that the level mod only rises by 1/2 per level is over simple. Players get bonus from a lot more than just that, magic items, masterwork armor, statistic increases and feats all play into the total number bonuses you get to any "derived" attribute like a defense or attack bonus, and they all are linearly additive with levels. This is again why the balancing for increased attributes is probably a little tough. ** The lack of future features can change things drastically, or hardly at all. Level 11 and 16 tend to be huge "power up" levels for instance. ** Different builds get more out of their secondary stats. A Pit Fighter or Orb Wizard that gets a big free boost to WIS is far more empowered than say, a Paladin who gets the same. ** The effect of initially high attributes will diminish over time. Even if you start much higher, you will equalize towards other standard characters over time with the same attribute boosts. Overall I think the rough hand version of how to rebalance encounters around exceptional stats is simply to knock the level up by 1 or 2. I would use an increased encounter budget but not grant additional XP, unless you really wanted faster leveling. The DM should be able to get a feel for the group fairly easily, if the group pound out 2+ milestones consistently or takes more encounter per extended rest than normal... turn up the heat! 4e's modular design and generally transparent mechanics will really help here, the DM can knock encounters down and up a notch on the fly pretty easily.
#12 Stuntman Apr 27, 2009 11:10:21	I'm curious to know if anyone has something other than the three methods of ability score genration in the PHB. I found that the standard method 2 works quite well in my game. No one complained about the ability scores generated. Personally, I find that yeah, you probably could use another 1 or 2 points higher in some ability, but I'd probably feel the same way regardless. I don't think that the scores generated by the standard method causes any issues with the majority of builds. It's even better than the standard point buy from 3.5. Both methods created fairly good characters, but we're left wondering if it's OK for a (non-RPGA) game to have an adjusted baseline for PCs. If the characters that are generated by the standard method were "fairly good," why are you thinking of changing it? If you offered a method that will generate higher scores, I'm sure almost everyone will be in favour. Is anyone really complaining about the standard method? You seem to be asking for a solution to a problem that doesn't seem to exist in your group. Does your group feel that the standard method of generating abilities create characters that are too weak?
#13 happydaze Apr 27, 2009 19:11:21	I, as the DM in the game, considered them to be 'fairly good' - but there were some players that actually felt that they needed more points for their 'more heroic' concepts. One was a player that had been brought up on Darksun and liked the idea of bigger scores even if everyone has them too, while the other was just comparing stats with the basic "PC monsters" as seen below. While monster stats are not really directly comparable to PC stats in D&D4e, some players will not accept this - they are used to games with a bit more 'evenness' in application. If they are a human hero, they expect to be considerably better statted than a typical "human guard". Tiefling Heretic = 63 points (note maximum adjusted Dex for PC will be 19) Eladrin Fey Knight = 45 points (note - maximum adjusted Dex for PC will be 21) Elf Archer = 27 points Longtooth Hunter (Shifter) = 26 points Razorclaw Stalker (Shifter) = 25 points Elf Scout = 24 points Human Guard = 22 points Gnome Skulk = 21 points Gnome Arcanist = 20 points Dwarf Hammerer = 19 points Warforged Soldier = 19 points Dragonborn Soldier = 18 points (note - minimum adjusted Cha for PC will be 10) Dwarf Bolter = 18 points Human Bandit = 17 points Halfling Slinger = 16 points Halfling Thief = 12 points Eliminating the highest two values and the lowest two values gives our 'Monstrous PCs' a range of 17-27 points. The mean value is 21.33 and, as some of my players have expressed, they'd like to be better than 0.67 points above the average. Of course, halfing heroes are going to look really good while elves (not to mention eladrin and tieflings) look like total chumps... Like I said, it's mainly an issue of player perception and how I can improve this without unduly imbalancing the game. For the record, I hardly think that even a whopping 27 points of ability scores would make characters that break the game.
#14 kiyosa Apr 27, 2009 21:39:15	I have a solo player game in which I gave the player more points to play around with. What it really boils down to in a lot of cases is that the character can simultaneously pursue two builds effectively. A rogue that can keep DEX STR and CHA up there can effectively play a Brutally Artful Dodging Scoundrel and get away with it. Multi-classing also becomes lot easier. However, since you aren't dishing out more attribute increases, this effect will probably diminish over time. Players will be significantly better "stated out" than MM stuff due to class features and powers, but if your players absolutely need to feel they are numerically superior I can see where they are coming from. Tiefling Heretic is pretty off the hook, isn't she? To preserve the parallel with players did you remove racial bonuses and stat increases? Certain races seem to be implied to be "more powerful" in the fluff. There are Humans, Orcs and Elves only in the low levels, but there are Eladrin and Dragonborn that are epic. This is kind of a fluff nudge to me as a DM that the Eladrin and Dragonborn just have more powerful individuals in the world.
#15 happydaze Apr 28, 2009 0:14:31	To preserve the parallel with players did you remove racial bonuses and stat increases? Absolutely - and from wherever it was most expensive. The values given are the cheapest way you could get those stats. This is kind of a fluff nudge to me as a DM that the Eladrin and Dragonborn just have more powerful individuals in the world It sadly makes PCs sometimes feel pretty crappy - as if they have to hang out with humans and such since they suck so much compared to their racial 'heroes'.
#16 Stuntman Apr 28, 2009 0:21:18	Like I said, it's mainly an issue of player perception and how I can improve this without unduly imbalancing the game. For the record, I hardly think that even a whopping 27 points of ability scores would make characters that break the game. There is something important about 4E that your players should understand. There is a reason there are differences between PC stats and monster stats. If players start comparing their stats with MM stats, they will definitely see some discrepancy. The general reason is that monsters are designed to last pretty much only one encounter and in fact not even to last the encounter. Also, monsters are designed for a single person (DM) to run a bunch of monsters. All of the numbers, powers and other stats for monsters are designed with this in mind. PC's on the other hand are designed to last a significant portion of a campaign. If you start giving players ability scores comparable to MM creatures, players will start looking at other stuff like hit points. If you look at hit points, PC's have way fewer hit points than something comparable in the MM. If you let PC's have ability scores of MM creatures, the PC's may start asking for comparable hit points as well. Although adding a few more stats is likely not much of an issue, it could lead to other things. Just keep this in mind as something that may happen in the future. If the PC's start fighting some monsters and start to notice it has more hp than something a PC can get, you never know, PC's may cry unfair and ask for comparable hp. I'm not saying don't give them extra points. If that's what they like and it doesn't affect the game, go ahead. Just watch out in case they start asking for more stuff. MM creatures are not created by the same rules. This may seem unfair for your PC's if they look just at ability scores, but if you take everything into account, PC's are still way better than any MM creature of comparable level. If they do not believe this, just have them play monsters and put them against enemies generated by the rules used to create PC's.
#17 happydaze Apr 28, 2009 0:36:56	They understand the difference re: hitpoints (and the associated healing surges), but with Ability Scores, they just don't see a reason for the PC/NPC divide. I can't really see a good reason for it either.
#18 kaliban7 Apr 28, 2009 3:22:51	They understand the difference re: hitpoints (and the associated healing surges), but with Ability Scores, they just don't see a reason for the PC/NPC divide. I can't really see a good reason for it either. "monsters" and NPC are not PC. They don't have feats, have far less trained skills, etc. Their "abilities" include this. Then, you have to keep in mind than "monsters" abilities are not used the same way as PCs abilities. The to hit bonus of a monster is not dependent on its abilities, but on its role and level. Same thing for the defenses : they are calculated depending on role and level, and then may recieve a +1/-1 bonus malus if a corresponding ability is veru high or very low, and it is not even mandatory. Abilities are the main source of bonuses for the PCs, and are complemented by feats. For monsters, abilities are just a measurement of what they can do that is not covered higher in their stat block. They are not on the same "scale" as the PCs values. Just like hit points, number og healing surges, etc.
#19 erk_ Apr 28, 2009 13:41:35	"monsters" and NPC are not PC. ... Everything you just listed is a good reason NPCs should not have higher stats on average than the PCs. It just makes the PCs look crappier on average than the high ranking NPCs of their race. The NPC can be mechanically challenging without appearing to overshadow the PCs. Including one or two more less-than-trained skill bonuses would reduce the other discrepancies. But this is quite off topic, and I would say the problem is with the NPCs rather than the PCs.
#20 kaliban7 Apr 29, 2009 5:26:21	Everything you just listed is a good reason NPCs should not have higher stats on average than the PCs. It just makes the PCs look crappier on average than the high ranking NPCs of their race. The NPC can be mechanically challenging without appearing to overshadow the PCs. Including one or two more less-than-trained skill bonuses would reduce the other discrepancies. But this is quite off topic, and I would say the problem is with the NPCs rather than the PCs. You are right. In my "demonstration", I included NPCs but I should not have. In fact, if you follow the NPCs creation rules at the end of the DMG (not the class template rules), an NPC as the same range for abilities than a PC, and less trained skills. Feats and training are "abstracted" as a special "level bonus" added to their skill rolls, attack rolls, etc. I don't know about NPCs in official adventures.
#21 Stuntman Apr 29, 2009 12:06:36	They understand the difference re: hitpoints (and the associated healing surges), but with Ability Scores, they just don't see a reason for the PC/NPC divide. I can't really see a good reason for it either. If giving the PC's higher abilities solves the problem, then just do that and move one. It sounds like this is the easiest solution for your group. You know your group better than I, so you're better at judging whether or not their "perception" of feeling inferior (or not-superior) is genuine or if they are just trying to coerce you into giving them a few extra bonuses to their stats. The bottom line is, that PC's are still more powerful overall than those NPC's of the same level even if the NPC's have slightly higher ability scores. It just seems like a weak argument to me.
#22 Chameleon-X Apr 30, 2009 19:43:59	My DM used a slightly different "Standard" array to make above-average characters; 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8. Also, my most recent characters have basically been created with customized ability scores placed wherever I want them. For example, my level 9 Eladrin Swordmage is 12, 20, 14, 21, 16, 10. Cut that down to Lv 1 and it would be 12, 18, 12, 17, 16, 10 before racial and Lv up Bonuses. Well within the realm of fairness, I'd say.
#23 warden_dresden Apr 30, 2009 21:39:14	The group i play in likes the sort of heroes legends are made of games, the kind where the pc's are the best of the best. we've found that using the same point buy chart in the phb with a 34 points, starting with 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, and only starting with one 18 works well. it helps us round out the stats and you dont really need to start with a 8 or 9 in something. its really for high power gaming and the dm never uses equal lvl encounters to balance it out. we usually go lvl+1 on everything. just a thought if it helps