Even Steven Array

[keterys]

Expertise is never 'needed' - I imagine Nifft's theory was more that you're expected to take it by 14th because there's no mathematically better option by the time you're looking at your 8th feat (14th) and expecting it to jump to +2 at 15th.

 

[CapnZapp]

I've never used arrays for chargen in my past campaigns; my long-time group of players are point-buy hounds. I am now thinking about using them in the future.

As a DM, I like the idea of everyone agreeing to the same array, but that's very unlikely to happen, and I like to give players interesting choices in chargen. So instead I am considering giving them three or so arrays to choose from.

Perhaps you could start by telling us WHY all characters should conform to the same array (or small set of arrays)?

Point-buy is just another way of saying "you can select one of these arrays", after all.

So why limit them to 3? Why not twelve? Or "all of them"?

Besides, I've found that you ability scores are seldom or never referenced directly in the game.

In other words, I don't think this particular area is worth fretting over, not in 4E. Abilities in 4E is just a left-over from previous editions (where their values were actually used once in a while!) - in 4E, you simply have one great attack stat, a second average stat, a bunch of mediocre ones (contributing little or nothing to skills and powers), and probably a sixth one that actively drags you down (with its -1 modifier).

I would simply allow point-buy to get that step of chargen over and done with. As a 4E DM, you will almost never ask about the exact value of an ability ever again.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I can name one exception using an example you gave. You said that it is justifiable in some cases to use a 20 in your attack stat. As a weapon user, that gives you a +1 over the 18. If you take a +3 proficiency weapon, that gives you another +1 over the +2 proficiency weapons. That makes expertise not needed on the 20 primary character with the +3 because he's has the same hit probability as the 18 with the +2.

The issue here is that any character can almost always use another +1 to-hit. Just because your example character has a 2 higher to-hit bonus than another character is irrelevant. At some point Weapon Expertise will be the single best way to increase any characters to-hit using a feat. Both the 18 starting stat guy with the +2 prof weapon and the 20 stat guy with the +3 prof weapon are looking at the same math, they can both gain another +1/+2/+3 with Weapon Expertise and they will both be well advised to take it.

Worse than that if the 18/+2 guy is a player that isn't all that cognizant of this fact he may not take it, but the 20/+3 guy is much more likely someone who's looking hard at the numbers and he probably will take it. Now the to-hit difference between them is no longer 2 points, its 3,4, or 5 points. 5 points is a pretty big difference and starts to get into the territory where some PCs can't hit reliably enough to contribute to combat vs high defense targets. This is the nut of the issue people have with Expertise feats.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I have to chime in on the side of, "why limit the players' options?" Let them use any of the legal point-buy or array options.

You have enough to worry about as a DM without making niggling changes to how characters are built.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok, just don´t forget:

if you start an arms race with your DM by unbalancing attack and defense you should not cry when you get hit on the FRW defenses on a 2.

If everyone takes expertise at Lvl 15... you decrease all your defenses by 2. If you raise your highest stat by 2, by reducing all other stats by 2, your lose an aditional 2 defense to all other defenses.

So a 15/whatever after racial modifiers is perfectly viable if everyone agrees to take this array. Especially when you raise your secondary which gives nice effects and riders.

The only thing a 18/14/11 stat distribution for everyone doeas is increasing xp by increasing risk.

 

[KidSnide]

I have to chime in on the side of, "why limit the players' options?" Let them use any of the legal point-buy or array options.

You have enough to worry about as a DM without making niggling changes to how characters are built.

I have my PCs use an array (or, actually, a choice of 3 mostly identical arrays) because I wanted characters with a single stat focus to be as strong as characters with MAD.

Personally, I think having the PCs at approximately the same power level is very important to having everyone enjoy the game, so I think micromanaging character creation it time very well spent. YMMV.

-KS

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, but actually in most games you won´t even notice the difference between a 16 and an 18 or an 18 and a 20.

And you will notice which price the 20 strength 16 con guy with the mordenkrad had to pay. (low low reflex and will)

So there is no need to use an array. But if you use an array, make sure you use those that don´t unbalance the game math for everyone

16/14/14/13/10/8 or 16/14/13/12/11/10 or 16/16/13/11/10/8 or 16/15/14/11/10/8 are good choices fo a standard array

 

[Nifft]

I can name one exception using an example you gave. You said that it is justifiable in some cases to use a 20 in your attack stat. As a weapon user, that gives you a +1 over the 18. If you take a +3 proficiency weapon, that gives you another +1 over the +2 proficiency weapons. That makes expertise not needed on the 20 primary character with the +3 because he's has the same hit probability as the 18 with the +2.

No. If a character is justifying four dump stats in order to be really good at hitting, he's quite likely to want to be ... wait for it ... really good at hitting. Expertise might be the second or third feat he takes, because if he's willing to pay for a starting 20, he's likely to be willing to pay a feat to get that extra +1.

Otherwise, he's probably taken a fool's bargain: losing his tertiary ability bonus will usually cost him more than one feat could buy back.

I'm open to well-constructed counterexamples. Good luck finding one.

there's no mathematically better option by the time you're looking at your 8th feat (14th) and expecting it to jump to +2 at 15th.

There's seldom a mathematically better option by fourth level. It's just too obvious for anyone to ignore when it becomes +2.

At +1 to attacks, it's better than every other published feat.

At +2 to attacks, it's obviously better than every other published feat.

At +3 to attacks, it's not even worth talking about. If you don't take it, you're doing so out of nothing more than autonasalectomic spite.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Herschel]

LoL, you just completely ignored the premise I put forth in your "feat tax" garbage. You counter by assuming everyone who spent the 20 will also spend the feat. Sure, many will, but it's a build option period. I would argue the feat is most often a far "better" option for what I try to do than buying that 20, but I'm certainly not advocating it's the only way to do it "right".

 

[Nifft]

LoL, you just completely ignored the premise I put forth in your "feat tax" garbage. You counter by assuming everyone who spent the 20 will also spend the feat. Sure, many will, but it's a build option period. I would argue the feat is most often a far "better" option for what I try to do than buying that 20, but I'm certainly not advocating it's the only way to do it "right".

Again, I'm open to counterexamples.

Name-calling doesn't qualify as an argument, let alone a counterexample.

Good luck, -- N