Considering Banning 20s

[shamsael]

To improve the usefullness of more race/class combinations, I'm considering setting a maximum starting ability score of 19, or possibly 18.

I think a large reason people avoid things like Tiefling fighters, or eladrin paladins is because they feel obligated to have a 20 in their primary stat.

Having an 18 in ones primary stat doesn't really make your character weak, but seeing a 20 on another players paper might make it seem that way.

Players would be free to raise their ability scores to 20 and beyond as they level.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Depends on your group. Until I did an autoroll with the latest version of the character generator, none of my players set themselves up with 20 initial statistics. Of course, we also rolled our stats in front of each other, so meh.

 

[Holy Bovine]

To improve the usefullness of more race/class combinations, I'm considering setting a maximum starting ability score of 19, or possibly 18.

I think a large reason people avoid things like Tiefling fighters, or eladrin paladins is because they feel obligated to have a 20 in their primary stat.

Having an 18 in ones primary stat doesn't really make your character weak, but seeing a 20 on another players paper might make it seem that way.

Players would be free to raise their ability scores to 20 and beyond as they level.

We used the standard array for stats in the games we`ve played for 4E. Before that we would use 28 point buy (3E) and roll 4d6 drop lowest arrange to taste (2E & 1E).

There is only one player in my 2 groups that really wanted to start with a 20 in his prime stat. The really sad part about that was he was playing a paladin in a 7 person group and they really needed him for back up healing. A 12 wis and 14 Cha really doesn`t cut it.

My personal max is 19 after racial mods at 1st level if allowed. I usually end up going with 18 after racial mods just because I like to have a recent Con and be good a variety of skills.

I really don`t feel, if using point buy, the extra 4 points it costs to go from 17 to 18 (then +2 racial) is ever worth it. The rest of your stats will suck so then your defenses will lag far behind, ime not to mention an inability to qualify for many feats, poor skill bonuses etc.

 

[Kaelkatar]

My two preferred setups are:

18 13 13 10 10 8 which becomes 20 14 14 10 10 8 at level 8.
With perfect racial bonuses that is 22 16 14 10 10 8.
Total modifiers become +6, +3, +2, +0, +0, -1. (+10 total)
If we are lucky enough to line up the stats to Ref, Will, and Fort correctly, we have a total of +11 to them (6, 3, 2).
Advantages are (5% to hit, 1 damage, 1 AC {light armor, primary int/dex})

and

16 16 12 12 10 8 which becomes 18 18 12 12 10 8 at level 8.
With perfect racial bonuses that is 20 20 12 12 10 8.
Total modifiers become +5, +5, +1, +1, +0, -1. (+11 total)
If we are lucky enough to line up the stats to Ref, Will, and Fort correctly, we have a total of +11 to them (5, 5, 1).
Advantages are (+2 to all secondary stat modifiers, 2 AC {light armor, primary not int/dex}, can put the second 12 into con for 2HP and a surge/day)

My opinion of the data is that any striker easily wants the first package. 5% hit and 1 damage is too potent to pass up much of the time. Additionally if the character is DEX or INT based, a free AC is amazing. The opportunity cost is quite minimal.

I have no issues with 20s to start, where it really starts to become an issue is when players start with a 17 or lower in their attack stat. If a fighter with 20 STR, +1 to 2handers, and a sword has a 15% chance to hit better than a hammer cleric with a 18, then its not the fault of the 20, its multiple small issues and just part of the game. If a rogue with a 20 DEX hits 10% more than a rogue with 17 DEX then its not the fault of the 20, its the fault of the 17.

I agree that a game where hit %s are close is more balanced, but limiting 20s is not the solution I would ever implement to solve the problem.

 

[shamsael]

It's not that I think 20s are bad. What I don't like is the fact that nobody in their right mind will ever play a Tiefling Rogue, or an Elf Fighter.

The easiest way to fix this is to make it so players are not desperately trying to line up their racial bonuses with their primary stat.

 

[Kaelkatar]

There is a reason why the stats are the way they are, it is to provide racial specialization in classes.

If I want to play an elven fighter I have to come to terms that while my ability to fight quickly and smart is above average, that I am never going to be as brutally strong as a goliath, dragonborn, or half orc fighter. If I am unwilling to make that concession, then I am unwilling to play that class/race combination.

A loss of 5% hit and 1 damage will not ruin a character, and what it lacks in those areas it will may up in others, and even if it doesn't completely may it up, so be it, that is allowed.

If your members are power-gamers who demand 20s in their attack stat, then let them, if your players are flavor players that care more for character concept than sheer effectiveness, then let them, but limiting either of their archtypes only makes the game less enjoyable for those players. Removing a player who cares about maximizing's ability to maximize is akin to removing a roleplayers ability to roleplay to his fullest.

In any case, the problem will only get better with the new +X and +Y or +Z racial bonuses that will come in a month or so with essentials. All I can say is balancing the game around making Gnome Barbarians as effective as Dragonborn Barbarians just makes races less important.

 

[Kzach]

One of the changes made to 4e was based around reducing the amount of 'negatives'. Basically the idea was that people like bonuses and resent drawbacks. So we lost things like penalties to ability scores.

I tend to agree with this line of thinking. Offer the carrot and not the stick. Provide an incentive to do something rather than a restriction or a penalty.

In this case, the simplest answer isn't to penalise the players and restrict their choices, but to do the exact opposite and give them more choice and less restrictions. Give every race a flat +2 bonus (in place of their regular, static bonuses) to any two ability scores (including humans who, at this point, need it anyway).

A lot of people will cry that it's unbalanced to do this, but I've done it in several games and it's really nothing to worry about. And even if someone could prove that it's somehow mathematically overpowered, the benefit gained, IMO, far outweighs the negative risks of having a character who has slightly more power than they would otherwise.

 

[Chimera]

A 20 in your primary stat to start only means the rest of your stats suck. Which means two of your defenses are lower, and many of your skills are lower. It also means that any abilities relying on secondary stats are unavailable, including feats that require those higher stats.

There's a big trade off. Some people think you're a fool of your primary stat is not a 20 to start. I think you're a fool if you gimp your character in so many other ways in order to have that big two zero.

 

[Kaelkatar]

I don't know if you read the post I did on some of the basic mathematical differences between 18-13-13-10-10-8 and 16-16-12-12-10-8, but I think the general thought that you are gimping your character in many other ways is a fallacy. I'll admit levels 1-3 are slightly weaker due to starting your secondary and tertiary as odd numbers.

If done right, you have the same total + to Ref,Fort,Will at all levels. Even scenarios where your Primary and Secondary, or your Secondary and Tertiary have the same associated defense, starting 18 and 16 are within one of each other, sometimes the with 18 actually come out ahead with total +1 saves. INT/DEX characters are undeniably harder to hit with an 18 build. Con as a 4th stat only increases by 2 HP and 1 surge/day between the builds, the only scenario where you reap more than that is when Con is your secondary stat, and even then it is only 6 HP and 3 surges. Skills tend to favor the 16 build, but in certain cases (Such as a INT, STR, CON swordmage) where you end up with more total + to skills going with the 18 build.

The reduction to secondary effect can vary from powerful to useless depending on class. I'll admit for some classes, particularly leaders who give large bonuses like (-Secondary Attribute to attack rolls on hit), having that extra 15% reduction is key, but in many cases such as (Slide the taget 2+Secondary Attribute on hit) it really doesn't matter all that much.

I think the best way to balance it more in favor of Less 18s and more balanced attributes is to make more feats that have ability score requirements. Other than the occasional Armor Specialization or those wacky +1 to two elemental damage types feats, I never feel like I'm missing out on anything featwise by pulling a 18.

Put short though a correctly done 18 primary build is in many cases just as strong, or only slightly less strong in non hit and damage areas, and much better in hit and damage areas.

 

[shamsael]

In any case, the problem will only get better with the new +X and +Y or +Z racial bonuses that will come in a month or so with essentials. All I can say is balancing the game around making Gnome Barbarians as effective as Dragonborn Barbarians just makes races less important.

In the end, though, the gnome barbarian is still NOT as effective as the dragonborn barbarian.

The gnome will still have to spend 7 more points than the dragonborn to get his 18 in strength, meaning the dragonborn barbarian will be a more wellrounded barbarian (it came naturally to him and he was able to focus attention on other pursuits as well) while the gnome will still hit just as often with his powers, still become a perfectly good barbarian, but will lack in his other fields (he didn't have time to train his other attributes because becoming a barbarian required all of his attention).