'Balancing' rolled characters

[Brekke]

I think it's a good analogy to discuss the concept of balance in general, as the party has such a gross imbalance as to clearly demonstrate any consequences.

Incidentally Gandalf was not just epic level he WAS a minor god.

Yeah to show that if you are going to adventure with a minor god you are not going to have a lot to do.

I have only used the point buy in two games the rest have been rolled PCs and I have never seen a big issue with balance. I think a lot of the problem maybe with poor DMs and poor players. A good DM makes sure all the players have things that challenge them. One way to bring up a PC with low stats is to give magic items. As for the players just because your wizard has a higer modifier for religion you don't have to shout out "I roll to see if I know what this is" before the party cleric gets a chance to try.

I also think that the style of game you play matters if you do nothing but combat then maybe a low stat PC will have nothing to do. I played for two and half years a character with way lower stats than the rest. I always had things to do I didn't die any easier than the others.

I find that the point buy gives generic characters with little flavor a lot of times a low stat can make an interesting background. I played with someone who rolled very well except for an 8 which she placed in con. The background she came up with was that she had been poisoned by a rival of her father.

 

[jester47]

And do you think the fellowship would make a good party for a fun game of D&D? I mean the party consisted of 4 high level fighting types, 4 ultra-low-level commoners, and a minor god..

DM: (Rolls dice) Aragorn - you hear a rustling in the trees. Your keen ranger senses warn you that a party of orcs is approaching fast. Legolas you notice this too.
Legolas: I get out my bow and get ready to nail some orcs to trees. I also tell the others what's happening..
Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli: We draw weapons and stand back to back
Gandalf: I draw my sword for some reason (even though I could easily wipe these orcs out with a thought using my godly powers)
Hobbits: We cower behind a rock. Again..

Unless of course you're really into the rock cowering scene I can't see this being much fun for the players stuck playing the hobbits..

I would say that the adventuring party was Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and Boromir. The Hobbits are dependants, and Gandalf is there as guide, but also as a DMs attempt to bump up the party for the ultra high level dungeon they are going to go into (moria).

 

[Bauglir]

I have only used the point buy in two games the rest have been rolled PCs and I have never seen a big issue with balance. I think a lot of the problem maybe with poor DMs and poor players. A good DM makes sure all the players have things that challenge them. One way to bring up a PC with low stats is to give magic items. As for the players just because your wizard has a higer modifier for religion you don't have to shout out "I roll to see if I know what this is" before the party cleric gets a chance to try.

What if (in a game where traps feature heavily, just for example) I were to make up a rogue to deal with the traps and ended up with my highest stat being a 12 (which I put in dex). Then another player comes along, and decides to make a rogue too. He rolls 2 18s and puts them in dex and int. We both do the same job, yet this new rogue does it a lot better than I do. I have just become redundant.

I also think that the style of game you play matters if you do nothing but combat then maybe a low stat PC will have nothing to do. I played for two and half years a character with way lower stats than the rest. I always had things to do I didn't die any easier than the others.

Combat always comes up in these kinds of discussions as it's a big part of D&D. For me the game has always been about challenges and overcoming them. Combat is only one of those challenges. In a very social game for example it will be the high charisma bards and rogues that hold the spotlight. Stats still matter; just different ones.

I find that the point buy gives generic characters with little flavor a lot of times a low stat can make an interesting background. I played with someone who rolled very well except for an 8 which she placed in con. The background she came up with was that she had been poisoned by a rival of her father.

What if the 8 had been her best stat? When rolling stats this is possible..

 

[jester47]

What if (in a game where traps feature heavily, just for example) I were to make up a rogue to deal with the traps and ended up with my highest stat being a 12 (which I put in dex). Then another player comes along, and decides to make a rogue too. He rolls 2 18s and puts them in dex and int. We both do the same job, yet this new rogue does it a lot better than I do. I have just become redundant.

I would say, if it was my character, that he has just become very jealous of the new talent. At that point I would take the other player aside and let him know that it makes sense that my character has it in for his character and would ask if it was alright if my character occasionally made attempts on his character's life.

Maybe the rogues are sent ahead, they find a deadly trap. My rogue says, you should take care of this... and then pushes him into the trap. He returns saying that the trap got the other guy. Then spends the rest of the time making sure that the party does not resurrect the better thief.

But this would only work if your plaers were into playing what they roll.

Aaron.

 

[Brekke]

(What if (in a game where traps feature heavily, just for example) I were to make up a rogue to deal with the traps and ended up with my highest stat being a 12 (which I put in dex). Then another player comes along, and decides to make a rogue too. He rolls 2 18s and puts them in dex and int. We both do the same job, yet this new rogue does it a lot better than I do. I have just become redundant.)

At this point the DM needs to step in. Maybe tell the new player to play something else or allow the lower character to redo his stats. The game is supposed to be fun if a player is deeply unhappy with his rollls to the point that it is going to effect his ability to enjoy the game then by all means fix the problem. But I have played with people who are not happy unless every stat has at least a +2. And I have played with players who don't care as long as they have a few good stats. If you follow the DMG's advice on how many points to give which is 32 for a high power game then you are not going to get a lot of high stats. And I think this can hurt the players playing paladins and monks who need two good stats it also hurts humans and half elves who don't get any modifiers. So you are facing with that a kind of in balance.


(Combat always comes up in these kinds of discussions as it's a big part of D&D. For me the game has always been about challenges and overcoming them. Combat is only one of those challenges. In a very social game for example it will be the high charisma bards and rogues that hold the spotlight. Stats still matter; just different ones.)

Yes stats matter I never said they didn't which is why most people but their high roll in the stat that they use the most. So the fighter has a 18 strength and the rogue has a 14 dex that does not make the rogue less valuable than the fighter. So the fighter is a little better at fighting than the rogue is at disarming traps. And say the fighter has a high dex too he is still not going to be able to disarm traps any better becasue he does not have as many skill points to work with as the rogue.


(What if the 8 had been her best stat? When rolling stats this is possible..)


But under the rules that is reroll type of character.

 

[LostSoul]

What if (in a game where traps feature heavily, just for example) I were to make up a rogue to deal with the traps and ended up with my highest stat being a 12 (which I put in dex). Then another player comes along, and decides to make a rogue too. He rolls 2 18s and puts them in dex and int. We both do the same job, yet this new rogue does it a lot better than I do. I have just become redundant.

What if a Ranger comes into the group with 18 Dex and Int and 1 level of Rogue? The Ranger is better at everything you focus on, and much better at those things that you don't. With 10 (or 11, if human) skill points per level, he can afford to keep Disable Device max-xed out.

What if a Rogue decides to put high stats in Dex, Con, and Str while the Fighter is left with a 10 Con and 12 Str? Who will be the better warrior?

 

[S'mon]

I let players reroll until they're happy with their rolls. They get a lot less starting money than standard IMC so it seems to balance out.

 

[Cedric]

The more I think about this...the more I think that D&D has become too clinical. Too calculated.

I wonder if the prevalence of computer games, especially MMORPG's like EverQuest has had an influence on the development of D&D.

Before 3rd edition, I can't remember hearing of anyone crying out for balance of all character classes...of course, the internet wasn't as available then.

But it seems like now people want to break it down into how much Damage Per Second you can deliver.

My favorite characters have not always been the most powerful characters I've played.

Someone gave an example of making a trap disabling rogue with a 12 int (where 12 is your highest score) and someone else making a rogue with two 18s in dex and int who also concentrated in trap disabling. Their point was that the second rogue would make their character completely redundant.

My response? Maybe your character should be more then a collection of skills.

Stop thinking with your dice and think with your heart. Enjoy this game and enjoy your characters for who they are. Not by how fast or how many "bad guys" you killed...but by how much fun you had.

Oh well, I'm starting to lecture so I'll stop. I promised myself that I wouldn't be the type of person who tells people how to enjoy their hobbies and games.

Just suffice it to say that if the dice deal me an underdog or a god, I'll have fun playing either one.

Cedric

 

[National Acrobat]

Someone gave an example of making a trap disabling rogue with a 12 int (where 12 is your highest score) and someone else making a rogue with two 18s in dex and int who also concentrated in trap disabling. Their point was that the second rogue would make their character completely redundant.

My response? Maybe your character should be more then a collection of skills.

I agree with this whole heartedly. I DM a group that usually has 8-10 players, which means that many, if not all character classes are at least represented twice, which means that obviously one of the two or three is going to be better than the other. It's just something that you have to get used to in my group. If there are 4 fighters, obviously one is most likely going to be better than the others, same for rogues, spellcasters, etc. It is up to the player in that situation to make the difference, make your character stand out. My current group has 2 Wizards, 2 Rogues, 2 Clerics, 2 Paladins and 2 Fighters. There is an obvious disparity between the paladins, for instance, based on how the players chose to arrange their scores and choose their focus. There has to be. One of the thieves is the trap guy, the other is the face for the group. It can be done.

 

[diaglo]

An unbalanced adventure can only stay viable until the dice start to roll. When you think about it, it's next to miraculous how a couple of untrained hobbits made it all the way across mordor alive. Were you to actually run a game of that, they would be pretty likely to die messily and early...

i ran a game like this for 10+ years. with 14 players.

edit: and everyone had fun and kept coming back for more.