Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8581369" data-attributes="member: 93670">First thing I tried was the elite array & love that the math laughed at me <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />.  After that I tried some "what would it look like if I had an x" with some extremes.   I did it in excel but human error is possible  & GIGO might have produced some results by accident <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Initially I made a mistake & On the second chart balanced for three I got an 18/14/11/10/6/3 that adds up to zero.  That makes for a great array for almost any  class that isn't too MAD so can have something like  +4 primary stat  +2 con (or whatever) & a couple +0's (ie dex/wis/cha/str depending on class) plus a pair of  deep dump stats with a -2 & -4 that will very much be felt when they come up just as that starting 18 is felt round after round with an early launch into feats aiding it but then I moved on to the other chart & noticed my mistake.  That mistake is corrected on everything below (I think)<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">shifting that to a 3 I wound up with an array of  18/14/12/12/6/3</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">shifting that to take advantage of +1/+1 I got 18/13+1/13+1/12/6/3  It feels a bit high since there is a lot of value in being able to balance out just enough lows for jus enough high  but it works well</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">for a MAD build I tried a few starting 3x16 arrays like 16/16/16 & 15/15+1/15+1/16 & ran into an interesting problem of not being able to get that to three with 16/15+1/15+1/10/4/4 coming in at a zerowinding up with a 3 point underspend  that feels great</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">For an extreme generalist I came up with 15+1/15+1/15/15/4/3 and it feels awesome even coming in at 0 rather than 3</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Using those same numbers in the first chart I got<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the elite array is a big no  here too huzza!</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">18/14/12/12/6/3 came in at +1 cost but shifting to 18/14/12/11+1/6/3+1 a -1.  I think it's interesting & that players would squeal in glee at either array so no concern here</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">18/13+1/13+1/12/6/3 came in at 0  making it an interesting question of if the prior 18/14x/x/x array that underspends, is the prior starting 18/14/12/12/6/4 n\better or worse than this 18/14/14/12/6/3 better or worse for this character I love this</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">15+1/15+1/15/15/4/3 came up with a fascinating -10 point underspend.  Replacing one of the 15's with a 16 drops it to a 4 pointunderspend -4.  That's a lot of good generalist (or extreme multiclass) scores for a really interesting character paired off against those big deficits.</li> </ul></li> </ul>TL;DR: I really like these & love some of the interesting choices that come up with trading off underspending vrs less perfect stats that spend moreedit: I don't know which one is easier, but in my limited testing it seemed easier to remember that a cost of zero or less was the goal with the first one  while the second one (possibly coincidentally)seemed to have a lot of arrays coming up at 3 or zero while the first was all over when under cost so might be easier to target.</blockquote>

Verification