D&D 4E How Badly Do Randomly Rolled Stats Affect 4E Math?

[Black Knight Irios]

You can't simply say my players' ability score bonuses are better than the average PB22 result therefore I need to increase the difficulty of all eners. There are other things to consider like:
a) player skill in tactics
b) how well the chars are build/optimized
c) party composition/synergy
d) ...

I guess you have to start by testing their combat prowess with encounters of varying difficulty.

 

[Garthanos]

I am a big fan of 4E, but let me tell you:

ENCOUNTER LEVEL DMG, page 56​

Poppycock. (I honestly don't think anybody is that poor of reader )

A hard encounter is described right after the standard.. as two to 4 levels above the parties level... and says explicitly "It is a good idea to vary the difficulty (ie easy medium and hard) over the course of the adventure (on page 57)....( nowhere does it say not to - it explicitly says vary them)

You taint your writing with things that are just plain false EWarisms (which don't even relate to your point)

 

[Garthanos]

You can't simply say my players' ability score bonuses are better than the average PB22 result therefore I need to increase the difficulty of all eners. There are other things to consider like:
a) player skill in tactics

This

 

[keterys]

Even if their stats are slightly better from random roll, they're likely so in terms of increased tertiary+ stats, which won't make a big difference in the long run. A point buyed character will have a pair of 16s or an 18 14, base, in their important stats. A rolled character will be pretty similar. Sometimes slightly worse. Sometimes slightly better. In general it won't make a difference of more than plus or minus 1 attack/damage, all defenses, and/or all skills.

I'm not really pro-rolled stats at all, but there you go.

 

[ourchair]

Okay, let's just assume that ALL stats are higher than normal.

I don't really care about the notion that 4e requires a very specific ability score spread (16-18, no stat lower than 8, et al) and the notion of what constitutes balance, or the merits of point buy vs. the risks of random generation.

I just want to know one thing:

My players have higher stats than normal and how do I recalculate the guidelines for encounter design to accommodate for that?

@Black Knight Irios: I'm obviously considering their tactics and party synergy, the approach they take in building and/or optimization, but I'm going to assume that all things equal, how does it scale if you follow those DMG guidelines?

 

[keterys]

They have the equivalent of +1 to two of Fort, Ref, Will and most skills, probably. Maybe another 3 or so hp too. So... increase skill challenge DCs by 1.

You're fine otherwise.

If you really want, give the monsters +1 attack.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

I just want to know one thing:

My players have higher stats than normal and how do I recalculate the guidelines for encounter design to accommodate for that?

PCs only improve their stats every four levels. New powers, feats, and magical items have much more of an impact on encounter design than ability stats and mods. An additional +1 to your primary and/or secondary stat only means your characters will hit 5% more often and monsters will hit 5% less often. Better tertiary stats don't really impact the game. Improved Con helps with starting HP, but no one has ever tried to argue the Toughness feat breaks the game.

Your PC's are not enough better to worry about.

So stop worrying about it.

If you insist on worrying about it, here's a checklist to cut and paste to your DMG for easy reference:

1. Build your encounters as you would if your players had average stats.
   
2. Then adjust monster defenses so they are 2-5 points lower than your player's expected attack rolls. (So your players will hit 60-75% of the time).
   
3. Adjust monster HP so they can take at least 4-6 hits from a player's expected damage per round.
   
4. Adjust monster accuracy so they hit the players 60-75% of the time.
   
5. Adjust monster damage so they can take down a player in 4-6 hits.

 

[mkill]

My players have higher stats than normal and how do I recalculate the guidelines for encounter design to accommodate for that?

You don't. Higher stats is just one element of the puzzle. The others are: Number of players, character building skill of each player, tactical skill of each player, wealth level / magic item supply, number of encounters per day, your own tactical skill, use of environment ...

In the end, you just run encounters as normal. If you feel that encounters are too easy, add more monsters / add hampering conditions / use stronger monsters. If you feel encounters are too hard, reverse.

Note that "too easy" and "too hard" also varies from group to group: Some groups may feel that the game is too hard if the PCs have to use tactics and most encounters end with everyone bloodied. Other groups may feel that the game is too hard if the group runs out of healing surges on most days. Some groups feel the game is too easy if there is are encounters that don't end in a near-TPK!

And one general comment: The issue about rolling stats is not that PC power level could be different from some hypothetical "standard party". The problem is power difference within the group. It creates a source of player envy and conflict that can be avoided.

 

[Iron Sky]

We played a rolled-stat game from level 1 to 21. A few statistics:

Four of the players rolled amazing stats. (Between 18 and 30 points over point buy). One rolled 3 points over point buy.

The "3 point player" made a cleric due to this fact since he thought he'd be better off not slowing the party down. He was noticeably less powerful than the other characters throughout the game, though still extremely useful since he was our primary healer.

By mid-heroic, our DM stopped throwing anything less than Level+2 encounters at us. By mid-paragon, he stopped throwing anything less than level+4 at us. In contrast, as a DM for point-buy players, I can challenge them with a level+1/2 encounter much of the time.

It's especially powerful with synergistic Paragon Path abilities (like my rangers Stormwarden abilities) and Hybrid classes. Some combinations that wouldn't work due to MAD can be made to work with good rolled stats. If it helps make the character you have envisioned, it's great. If you have powergamers in the group, it can be bad, noticeably increasing the disparity in power level between those with good stats/game mastery and those with poor stats/game mastery.

We never used point buy in any edition of D&D prior to 4e, but after playing a campaign with rolled stats for a year and a half, we unanimously agree that point-buy is a better fit for the design considerations of this edition.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I also DM a campaign where I allowed the players to roll, but my experience is not similar to Iron Sky's.

I have 5 players. 3 rolled pretty well (above point buy), with one of those being really quite good (I think he had 3 17s, a 15, and then some lower teened stats). 2 rolled poorly, and I let them use point buy instead.

My findings are that it hasn't made much difference. Certainly, by allowing the unlucky to use point buy, there is no feel of unballance as between the various players. Indeed, the only character with an 18 pre-racial in a stat is one of the point buy characters. Indeed, its fairly unlikely for a rolled character to have an 18, so in the builds that favour an 18 pre-racial in a stat, point buy will actually have a better prime stat.

So, rolling DOESN'T give one an advantage as to their prime stat - so, rolling/point buy characters will have similar to hits and damage will be appropriate for their class and role. It likely does give a boost to their secondary and certainly their tertiary - this makes effects and boosts triggered off of those stats more powerful. It likely gives characters a bit higher con (and a few more HPs). It increases skills and NADs that aren't based on the prime stat. The big effect is that it makes it much easier to meet feats with attribute requirements, therefore opening up options that a character would not have otherwise had.

Some of these changes I like - for example, I like that it narrows the gap between the high skills and the low skills in the party, making more skills viable for skill challenges and helping reduce it being the same guy who always uses diplomacy, for example.

I too find that n or n+1 encounters are easy, n+2 or n+3 are average and only n+4 or above are difficult. That said, I don't think that's because of allowing rolled stats. Rather, other factors such as player tactics, not being a "balls to the wall" GM who uses the best tactical options for his monsters, lots of party healing and generally short adventuring days play a bigger role.

My experience as a PC matches this - I had a warlock with rolled stats. When PH2 came out, the DM let me remake the character as a sorceror, as that better matched the character concept. When I did so, I also got the DM's permission to ditch my rolled stats and use point buy instead - the rolled stats were on average better, but using point buy let me get better stats in the attributes that actually mattered to me.

That said, my players are not optimisers, and have not hit paragon yet, so your mileage may vary.

My own opinion is that you should simply tailor your encounters to the level that is fun for your party, point by or not point. Then, tailor the experience to match the pace of progression that's good for your players and the campaign. Myself, I simply use more challenging encounters (I like having a lot of monsters on the board - makes the party wizard feel useful), and give normal XP for them. I don't give out quest XP, however.