Immortal's Handbook CR/EL Rules: Don't Count Ability Scores (Proof Positive Inside!)

[Anubis]

Wulf, you have totally lost all logic. You think all 14s or all 10s aren't unlikely? The odds of rolling the same score six times in a row are in the vicinity of 1 to 16,777,216. That isn't just unlikely, it's damn near never gonna happen!

You examples are amusing at best, but regardless of the supposed "accuracy", it simply doesn't hold up in playtesting. You can't balance the rules on a on-on-one basis, you have to use a party of PCs as the core because that is THE standard. Straight duels are mighty rare, and ability scores simply don't have that great an impact. Sure, a fighter with all 14s has an advantage over the guy with all 10s, but the difference in how many times one will win over the other is miniscule at best, probably in the realm of 60/40 in favor of the guy with higher stats, IF THAT. It just doesn't have enough impact.

As for counting templates, it's as was said, the POTENTIAL is what matters. The rolled potential with +4 to a stat goes from 3-18 to 7-22. If luck gives him a raw deal, well, that's luck. Making rules that account for luck is not only dumb, it's impossible! I have already showed a REAL GAME OCCURANCE where counting ability scores for PCs screwed the PCs over. All Wulf does is propose a bunch of stupid tests that couldn't even happen in a game, and no one has shown even one instance where not counting PCs' ability scores destroys or even hurts balance. I can give many examples on my side if people ask for them. (Hint: Try looking at ghouls.)

Plain and simple, count ability scores for templates if you want to, even count racial bonuses if you must, but never ever count anything regarding the rolled range for ability scores for PCs. That is the one major sticking point that breaks the system.

 

[Anabstercorian]

Well, maybe if you weren't such an insufferable to everyone, more people would listen to you.

 

[Anubis]

Get a life, Anabstercorian. If you had been paying attention to this thread, you would know that I never fired the first shot. I only get nasty when people are nasty with me first. So get off your little box and recognize that Wulf brought it all on himself as you now have. You're the jackass.

On top of that, people who don't pay attention to facts just because they don't like the person telling them are, well, just plain ignorant. If you wanna be ignorant just because you don't like how I react to direct attacks to me, that's your problem. I'm trying to contribute, but I don't need this from any of you as I can just do it my way and be done with you.

So bite me.

 

[Anubis]

Double post . . .

These supposed "upgrades" are more of a DOWNGRADE; the forums have been ultra-slow ever since . . .

 

[CRGreathouse]

You know what? It amuses me to respond to this post.

Wulf, you have totally lost all logic. You think all 14s or all 10s aren't unlikely? The odds of rolling the same score six times in a row are in the vicinity of 1 to 16,777,216. That isn't just unlikely, it's damn near never gonna happen!

Really, it doesn't need to be the exact same roll for Wulf's point to be valid. All that's needed for it to work is that one player has to roll strictly better than another (best roll P1 >= best roll P2, 2nd-best roll P1 >= 2nd-best roll P2, ...) and the better rolling player has to have a higher total modifier. In a group of 5, this seems pretty likely. (I did 10 trial runs (4d6 drop low), and in each this happened with at last one pair. I'd suppose the probability is over 95%.)

While this wouldn't make for a whole level difference, it will make some difference -- a big one when stats are far apart. I might make a better simulation that will count how far apart the best stats are from the worst to see how much of a modifier, on average, would be ignored by your method. I'd guess it's around a +8 to +10 modifier...

You examples are amusing at best, but regardless of the supposed "accuracy", it simply doesn't hold up in playtesting. You can't balance the rules on a on-on-one basis, you have to use a party of PCs as the core because that is THE standard.

So why does your "Proof Positive" rest on a single matchup?

In my mind, and in the minds of most posting on this thread, I'd wager, this is more an argument that a monster's CR is off than that ability scores don't matter... even among those who think ability scores aren't worth counting.

Sure, a fighter with all 14s has an advantage over the guy with all 10s, but the difference in how many times one will win over the other is miniscule at best, probably in the realm of 60/40 in favor of the guy with higher stats, IF THAT. It just doesn't have enough impact.

I'd question that assertion, but it's not worth my time to prove it otherwise. The fighter with 14s could have, for example, +7 damage (Power Attack) at the same attack bonus and AC, since the other fighter needs a shield to make up for his lack of Dex. He could instead have the same damage but +5 AC, or any number of other variations. Changing killrange from 4 hits to 2 is major, and reducing hits from 50% to 25% is similarly important.

As for counting templates, it's as was said, the POTENTIAL is what matters. The rolled potential with +4 to a stat goes from 3-18 to 7-22. If luck gives him a raw deal, well, that's luck. Making rules that account for luck is not only dumb, it's impossible!

No it isn't. You could, for example, count 'luck' in rolling ability scores by making better ability scores count towards ECL/CR.

If a character's highest rolled stat is 14, there's no potential to get a 22 with just a +4 racial bonus. Since it's possible to track when the stat *can* go beyond 3-18, there's no reason to dismiss it as an impossiblity.

I have already showed a REAL GAME OCCURANCE where counting ability scores for PCs screwed the PCs over.

You've shown one example where a monster you said was harder than it should have been without counting ability scores was too hard counting them. U_K said that the monster was probably underrated. Most people agree.

Using the same example, I could make a case for any part of the system being 'broken', since anything that would drop the PCs ECL or raise the monster's CR would make the fight more even. The example doesn't single out ability scores in any way.

All Wulf does is propose a bunch of stupid tests that couldn't even happen in a game, and no one has shown even one instance where not counting PCs' ability scores destroys or even hurts balance.

Sure they have. One character's stats are 2 lower than another's across the board. (This isn't unlikely with a normal-size group using the standard method, if you count this case and cases more extreme It's happened in many gaves I've been in.) That character takes a template granting +2 to all ability scores at the cost of +1.2 ECL. The group, underpowered by the lower-leveled character, is promptly destroyed by _______. [/tongue in cheek]

One level is a big difference, especially at low levels.

Frankly, though, I don't understand how you fail to see this. I can think of lots of examples. Consider the differences between, say, 3d6 and 6d6 drop lowest 3, or 15 point buy vs. 42. I've seen serious debate about how much more powerful 32 point buy is than 28 point buy -- and you can't see the difference between any two stat methods?

Heck, I played a game with 7-point buy characters. Do you think the DM matched CR based on our level as though we used 32 points?

Plain and simple, count ability scores for templates if you want to, even count racial bonuses if you must, but never ever count anything regarding the rolled range for ability scores for PCs. That is the one major sticking point that breaks the system.

You used *one* example to back this up, which in *no way* singles out ability scores as the root of the problem. Everyone else agrees it's a fluke based on a likely-misrated monster. You bring no additional proof to the table, while filling the thread with acrimonious ramblings. Wulf, disgusted by your conduct, ignores you -- allowing you to claim his lack of posts as a victory.

Well, believe what you must. You certainly don't have to count ability scores in your game -- as Sorcica pointed out, it's often not worth the effort.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Get a life, Anabstercorian. If you had been paying attention to this thread, you would know that I never fired the first shot. I only get nasty when people are nasty with me first. So get off your little box and recognize that Wulf brought it all on himself as you now have. You're the jackass.

OK, let's set the record straight. Wulf's first post on the thread made two points: 18s vs. 3s is a pretty big difference, and the matchup is likely the result of the rounding rules -- which Wulf doesn't like. He points out that your chosen monster is much closer to 3/2 than 2/3.

His next 7 posts are in response to other posters -- and, I might add, are quite polite. Your next post in response to Wulf was peppered with insulting phrases: "I'll shoot your little argument down quickly and effectively here...you can't account for ID10T errors on the DM's part, nor should the system account for gaming stupidity...all of your examples are invalid."

Wulf's next post does manage to snipe at you once ("If you had any common sense..."), but attempt to deflect the trouble -- noting that the CR of the zombies is suspect.

Your next post is indicitive of the remainder of your conduct on this thread: "If you had any common sense...KISS MY ASS...you moron...Slam your head against the wall...Do you get it yet, monkey?...go home, kid." His only response to the conduct: "you ARE on my ignore list."

I can just do it my way and be done with you.

This might be better for all involved.

 

[Anubis]

Before going on, I should point out that even when bumping up the CR of the monster in question to 1.5, counting the ability scores of PCs STILL results in a TPK. I showed this to be true, as my party would have to face six troglodyte zombies for a "moderate 25% encounter" if the PCs' ability scores were counting. Only by not counting PC ability scores did the norm actually get reduced to a managable two troglodyte zombies.

Now then . . .

Well, believe what you must. You certainly don't have to count ability scores in your game -- as Sorcica pointed out, it's often not worth the effort.

Sorcica's point is actually even better than mine, even though it has no basis in balance. Counting PC ability scores is truly annoying and nowhere near as simple as 1 Level = 1 CR. On top of that, not counting ability scores gives us absolutely no balance problems.

I'll add that all matters regarding counting PC ability scores occur at Levels 1-3 more than anything. I make a big deal of this because those are absolutely critical levels during which PCs are at their most fragile, and at those levels, ability scores do almost nothing to make the PC less fragile. At higher levels, it's hard to find any difference.

I said I would give more examples if people asked for them. No one asked, so I didn't take the time to write them out. Just so you know, though, there are problems like this with all lower zombies, ghouls, goblins, and orcs, just to name a few. All problems occur when you match up Level 1-2 parties with a larger number of lower CR creatures. Of course this can be found at upper levels as well, but that is more of an argument against throwing large numbers of monsters at PCs. (An occurance comes to mind where a party at Level 10 took on a virtual army of about 100 orcs. I had to cheat some rolls to get the party through it alive; it really is true that a large enough number of anything can kill more powerful creatures.)

Nonetheless, all my points have been shown clearly, and a few templates don't prove me wrong. Sometimes caution and balance are more important than accuracy; this is one of those times. I will never count PC ability scores and I would urge any wise DM to follow my lead. Counting templates and even racial modifiers can work, but counting PC ability scores is simply a disaster waiting to happen. Besides, as Sorcica said, it's just not worth the trouble; the trouble far outweighs the gain. Since there is no loss of balance doing it the "quick" way of counting each character singularly at a Level/CR ratio, there is no need to take extra time to determine a party CR/EL (especially since XP isn't even determined like that anymore) and there is no need to use the ultra-complex method of determining EL for multiple creatures.

Just do it the simple way and you get all the accuracy that's needed PLUS you don't risk killing your PCs AND you can follow the DMG method of giving XP.

 

[Anubis]

Your next post in response to Wulf was peppered with insulting phrases: "I'll shoot your little argument down quickly and effectively here...you can't account for ID10T errors on the DM's part, nor should the system account for gaming stupidity...all of your examples are invalid."

Let ME set the record straight. Aside from the "shoot down your little argument", which isn't an insult, the rest of that wasn't directed AT HIM. The wording is pretty clear: "the DM's part", "gaming stupidity", etc. It is stated in what I said that, plain and simple, the rules should not attempt to account for things the DM does out of stupidity such as give super stats to weaker creatures, hand out godlike templates for no reason, etc. Basically, that statement directly affirms that I am against trying to make the system foolproof; doing so just mars everything. Allowing a player to play with all 3s, allowing dice tricks that could give someone all 18s, and just handing out power are all things only a foolish DM does. My next words directed AT him are "all of your examples are invalid" . . . which they were! He talks about all 3s, all 18s, and other assorted things that simply do not happen in a normal game! As I said, in my experience, a player usually rolls around 80 points of ability scores, oddly enough an average of 13-1/3 per score. I don't care what "statistics" say, playtesting shows 13-1/3 to be the average roll using the 4d6 method. Oh, and by the way . . .

Really, it doesn't need to be the exact same roll for Wulf's point to be valid. All that's needed for it to work is that one player has to roll strictly better than another (best roll P1 >= best roll P2, 2nd-best roll P1 >= 2nd-best roll P2, ...) and the better rolling player has to have a higher total modifier. In a group of 5, this seems pretty likely. (I did 10 trial runs (4d6 drop low), and in each this happened with at last one pair. I'd suppose the probability is over 95%.)

Over the course of rolling somewhere around a thousand or more characters using the traditional 4d6 method, I have almost never seen a substantial difference in ability scores. Maybe about 5% of the time, but no more than that. Of course your example happens, easily since you use ">=", meaning "better than or equal to". You fail to mention how little a difference that makes, though. By what you're saying, someone rolling 16, 15, 15, 15, 14, 14, 14 is substantially better than someone who rolls 16, 15, 15, 14, 14, 14, 10. That just is not the case. Depending on the class, it may not make any difference whatsoever! (What is #1 is a monk and #2 is a fighter who puts that 10 in Charisma? That means no substantial power difference at all!) You also fail to recognize that some stats are "throwaway stats" to some classes, such as Charisma to fighters or Intelligence to barbarians or perhaps Strength to wizards or Dexterity to clerics.

Wulf's next post does manage to snipe at you once ("If you had any common sense..."),

Which was the first attack, his toward me.

but attempt to deflect the trouble -- noting that the CR of the zombies is suspect.

Your next post is indicitive of the remainder of your conduct on this thread: "If you had any common sense...KISS MY ASS...you moron...Slam your head against the wall...Do you get it yet, monkey?...go home, kid." His only response to the conduct: "you ARE on my ignore list."

Once he started it, the gloves came off. Sorry, but I take no prisoners. You insult me once, you get it constantly.

This might be better for all involved.

Well many people here are seemingly to be increasingly not worth my time. No one listens to logic or the fact that I've played things out. No one has even given me one example where balance is lost. Your little templates aren't an example of balance loss, it's accuracy loss. Sorry, but I'll throw accuracy to the wind for caution and balance. I like my PCs alive and I do not like a TPK because of a stupid mistake like that.

By example, I mean give me a clear-cut example where not counting ability scores while using a normal party in the core rules (because everything else is subject to the possibility of the source itself being unbalanced, such as splatbooks or anything from those super character threads) leads to a balance issue. You gotta use a party that would happen in a normal game against normal monsters, not just random things you throw together. You see, THAT is my trump card. I use a real normal game, I don't just hunt around for things. If you can do the same and prove me wrong, do so. If all you can do is throw random things together, don't waste my time. The rules should be inteneded to balance CR/EL in standard games above all others, plain and simple.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Over the course of rolling somewhere around a thousand or more characters using the traditional 4d6 method, I have almost never seen a substantial difference in ability scores. Maybe about 5% of the time, but no more than that. Of course your example happens, easily since you use ">=", meaning "better than or equal to". You fail to mention how little a difference that makes, though. By what you're saying, someone rolling 16, 15, 15, 15, 14, 14, 14 is substantially better than someone who rolls 16, 15, 15, 14, 14, 14, 10. That just is not the case. Depending on the class, it may not make any difference whatsoever! (What is #1 is a monk and #2 is a fighter who puts that 10 in Charisma? That means no substantial power difference at all!) You also fail to recognize that some stats are "throwaway stats" to some classes, such as Charisma to fighters or Intelligence to barbarians or perhaps Strength to wizards or Dexterity to clerics.

This is true, though it's still enough to make my point -- the template added could just give +4 Cha, for example. But to make the point more effectively, keep the >= constraints and require the highest score from player 1 to be 2 or more above the highest score from player 2. Then there's no question of the difference.

This would happen well over half the time in a normal-sized group (~5 members). I'll get back to you with specifics if I get a chance.

Once he started it, the gloves came off. Sorry, but I take no prisoners. You insult me once, you get it constantly.

That's why everyone seems to ignore you on this thread, you know.

Well many people here are seemingly to be increasingly not worth my time. No one listens to logic or the fact that I've played things out. No one has even given me one example where balance is lost. Your little templates aren't an example of balance loss, it's accuracy loss. Sorry, but I'll throw accuracy to the wind for caution and balance. I like my PCs alive and I do not like a TPK because of a stupid mistake like that.

You've failed to make a valid point. You certainly can lay no claim to balance; as mentioned before, the example doesn't single out abilities in any way and could be used to attack any part of the system.

By example, I mean give me a clear-cut example where not counting ability scores while using a normal party in the core rules (because everything else is subject to the possibility of the source itself being unbalanced, such as splatbooks or anything from those super character threads) leads to a balance issue. You gotta use a party that would happen in a normal game against normal monsters, not just random things you throw together. You see, THAT is my trump card. I use a real normal game, I don't just hunt around for things. If you can do the same and prove me wrong, do so. If all you can do is throw random things together, don't waste my time. The rules should be inteneded to balance CR/EL in standard games above all others, plain and simple.

But your example is irrelevant... it fails to meet the basic criteria of having anything to dowith the point at hand. I could claim it's proof of the undervaluing of undead HD, or the overvaluing of PC class levels, or of any number of things. They all make as much sense as your argument.

 

[Upper_Krust]

...deep breaths...try to relax...

...okay...where to start...

Ah yes. Anubis. I think we need to have one of our private chats on messenger mate. I have a few things to say and I don't want to break the asterisk key on my keyboard in posting it here.

For those who don't want to use Ability Scores. Don't. Use v3 instead.

Just don't try and pretend ability scores are not relevant. They must be factored into a monsters and PCs CR. But if you are happy with a potential CR discrepancy* for PCs (of +/-4 CR or more for monsters) for brevity or some other reason then go for it.

*Thereby partly defeating the point of an accurate CR system to begin with.

Seemingly we have went over this all a hundred times before (though maybe its just me but it seems like a million times before); so I personally don't want to dwell on it too much (I have better things to do) - though feel free to argue amongst yourselves.