Adjusting XP for high power parties

[Kae'Yoss]

If you gave me the choice between rolling 4d6 or point buy, I would almost always go point buy.

I'm one of those people that just seems to be unlucky with dice. In groups that had a still-birth rule (any character without a stat of greater than or equal to X is discarded), it would almost always take me multiple attempts to generate a character. In groups without such a rule, frequently the GM would decide such a rule was needed.

It isn't a problem playing the wimp occationally. It is a problem when you always have inferior attributes to the rest of the group.

I really like point buy because it is more fair.

Hm... I sometimes thing that's the same with me. And I know people with astounding luck in rolling ability scores (and they often borrow the dice, so they probably aren't biased or something.)

There was a funny thing in a new campaign we started a month or so ago: I started to roll, had a classical rule-out (not a single 14 or better, so even the PHB lets you re-roll that!). Then another player rolled real great stats (a 17 and an 18 amongst them, I belief. He even got the one bad stat he so desperately wanted - at the last roll, after he complained he needed one !). After that I asked him if I may use his dice. He let me, and the second roll was a blast: a 17, a 16, and other good numbers (even though I play a wood elf I have no negative ability modifier). We figured then that the dice were enchanted - though they had only 2 uses per day, for the rest of the party used them, too, and only got crap.

 

[Dustin Clingman]

The key question at hand then seems if there is to be an adjustment based on high attributes.

Regardless of how a player gets an overall high attribute set, it stands to reason that it's not as difficult to defeat monsters with an 20 Strength or to continue to cast more spells with a higher intelligence. ( of course I know this is subjective, so I am looking for reasonable ground. )

Does the fact that a character has an inherent 20% bonus factor in to exactly how much experience he gains from defeating a monster or disabling a trap?

Dustin

 

[Fenes 2]

How does your group handle item creation? Do the creators still pay an xp cost?

We have not yet had xp costs. If one player would like to craft an item, I would craft an adventure for it - gathering components, choosing the right place etc. - and then make sure that the item would not be unbalancing.

 

[CCamfield]

By the rules, there is no reduction of XP based on stats. But by the rules, you'd never get characters with average stats of 17 or 18 unless you were rolling them and someone got incredibly lucky.

(108/6=18, right?)

But if you're going to allow such characters, then yes, it seems reasonable to reduce their XP.

I like the point buy system because you can get one 18, if you want it, but your other stats will be pretty average to compensate.

 

[Fenes 2]

Well, if the whole game's not so rules- and combat- oriented anyway, the ability scores won't have that much importance anyway. But in a combat-heavy (or even "normal" campaign, that might not work so good.)


And I'm no friend of the non-wighted point buy. Higher values are something special, as the chance to get one is lower (you have, with the standard method, about 1:45 chance to get one 18 amongst your scores), and the point buy should reflect that.

I just judge the whole of a PC, not only the stats. As long as the PCs are balanced, i.e. none is overshadowing the rest, I am fine with PCs that have multiple 17s and 18s and the corresponding 8s. A stingy attitude with magic items covers the rest. When you have no magic weapon or armor at level 9 it tends to compensate for higher stats.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The key question at hand then seems if there is to be an adjustment based on high attributes.

Not per standard rules. And I don't think it's necessary. Unless there are huge gaps between one character's scores and another's! Otherwise just make the monsters a little tougher, or give them full XP - after all, it's a high-powered campaign, maybe even power-gaming, and then they will appreciate the fast level-up (since they can take on higher CR monsters and get more XP)

Regardless of how a player gets an overall high attribute set, it stands to reason that it's not as difficult to defeat monsters with an 20 Strength or to continue to cast more spells with a higher intelligence. ( of course I know this is subjective, so I am looking for reasonable ground. )

First, they are not so commonplace in normal campaigns (for high-powered see above) and usually it will be only one (or maybe two) scores. (although that's usually enough). And that plus in ability scores becomes more and more meaningless when they're higher level, anyway (+5 attack for strength is much at 1st-level, but at 15th-level there won't be that much difference)

 

[Kae'Yoss]

As long as the PCs are balanced, i.e. none is overshadowing the rest,

Yea, that's very important, since it tends to make the weaker one unhappy (this can be helped via magic items that even them up a bit)

 

[Spatzimaus]

Once upon a time I was in a campaign where the DM did rolling this way:
4d6, drop low, rerolling any total below an 8 (low stats can be fun, but REALLY low stats just get distracting)
Assign that to one of the six stats before you know what the other rolls are going to be.
Repeat 5 more times.
At the end, you can trade 2-for-1 at will, but you can't make any stat go below a 10.
Then, apply racial modifiers/limits.

If someone rolled really badly, they were given the "silver bullet" to shoot the character with and start over, but they only got that once. Well, except for one guy whose second character had 8s and 9s across the board, we let him try again.

If someone rolled insanely well, the DM would tell them to deduct a certain number of points from their stats to bring them more in line with the others. It was up to them which stat to take the points from.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I like to be able to assign the stats as I want, not with some system that depends even more on luck than the usual method. I like to create my characters after the concept I have in mind for them, not because I happened to have only a 9 left for STR.

Also, if a player rolls well, he rolls well. I don't think that they should lose points.

 

[Victim]

If you gave me the choice between rolling 4d6 or point buy, I would almost always go point buy.

I'm one of those people that just seems to be unlucky with dice. In groups that had a still-birth rule (any character without a stat of greater than or equal to X is discarded), it would almost always take me multiple attempts to generate a character. In groups without such a rule, frequently the GM would decide such a rule was needed.

It isn't a problem playing the wimp occationally. It is a problem when you always have inferior attributes to the rest of the group.

I really like point buy because it is more fair.

Me too.

For my last 3e character, I used the following priorities in assigning the stats I rolled: Wis, Con, STR, INT, CHA, DEX. The other characters were a wizard, a sorcerer, and a fighter who soon multied to rogue. My cleric had the lowest STR, and was tied for the lowest CON, IIRC. Things went downhill from there.

However, I judge power on the basis of the complete character. A single class tank fighter with all 18s isn't that bad. Armor reduces the effectiveness of dex, and the fighter's pathetic skill list means that he won't be able to get many skills and thus apply his Wis or Cha to them. He mostly has better saves. The Monk, duelist, paladin, cleric, or some unholy combination of the above with all 18s is another story, because those classes can gain significant bonuses from more stats. Similarly, the cleric's overall power combined with my powergamer tendencies more then compensated for the low stats I rolled for the above character. If that character had been getting an XP bonus, he would have been excessively powerful.