Is an 18/19/20 an absolute must?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Who said Eladrin clerics have to be bad, for someone to want to use Elf stats?

That was the avowed reason. Why if you want to be an elf is it so bad to BE an elf? lol. Like I say, its a matter of the way you view the contract between the players and the game. Play an elf and explain why your elf claims to be an eladrin. The person who suggested this seemed to believe he wanted to do it because he was being punished essentially by being saddled with a bad build. There are plenty of creative ways to get around that. Anyway, enough of that topic for now. I think I've demonstrated that you can make an eladrin cleric and he'll definitely have a 16 prime req and it ain't such a big deal.

 

[eamon]

That was the avowed reason. Why if you want to be an elf is it so bad to BE an elf? lol. Like I say, its a matter of the way you view the contract between the players and the game. Play an elf and explain why your elf claims to be an eladrin. The person who suggested this seemed to believe he wanted to do it because he was being punished essentially by being saddled with a bad build. There are plenty of creative ways to get around that. Anyway, enough of that topic for now. I think I've demonstrated that you can make an eladrin cleric and he'll definitely have a 16 prime req and it ain't such a big deal.

Sure, he'll be playable by virtue of the game being fairly balanced anyhow, but make no mistake; the elf will be noticably stronger. The eladrin racial and feats are fine; but the elf's racial is even better (though the feats are weaker), and he'll just hit more often and deal more damage. In any case, I doubt you're trying to argue that all races are equally capable of being any class; so in general the motivation to refluff remains: wanting fluff diversity without mechanical disadvantage.

We could argue about fluff forever, but balance wise there's obviously nothing wrong with refluffing. Whether it's a good option for a particular character in a particular campaign depends on the group, how well the new fluff matches the mechanics, and the style of play. I don't think it's useful to proclaim it a good or a bad idea here: let the group decide that. Without knowing the details, the only meaningful thing I can say is that it is balanced.

 

[ourchair]

As far as I'm concerned you really shouldn't be worried about the difference between having a score of 16 or 18 as your highest starting stat.

It all depends on the stats the rest of the party has -- obviously you don't want to be 'underpowered' next to your peers -- and the challenge level of the encounters that the DM throws at you.

In my game, we roll our stats (4d6, best of three arrays) and I happened to score a total of 15 worth of pluses. To keep everyone on the same power 'bracket' we determined a minimum of 10 pluses, and simply allowed the players to choose out of the first three arrays they got that amounted to more than 10 pluses.

The DM's rationale was that we are 'chosen ones,' exceptional among the already exceptional. She also gradually ramped up the difficulty of encounters to determine the sweet spot our characters could handle and found that our level 4 characters were more than capable of handling lvl 8 to lvl10 creatures.

What should be gathered from all this is that low or high, it's all about having the DMs and players able to make the game and the story adapt to the stats obtained.

 

[Rothe_]

What extra fun do you gain by having high scores compared to what the system proposes (22 point buy)?

I think that you just complicate things by making the assumptions about character power useless. Also, some classes get more out of having many high stats compared to others, so you skew the system balance by doing it.

The 22 point buy is already sufficient to create heroes. The normal people in the world don't have those 22 point to use, they have much less.

But if you enjoy it, that is great.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Reskinning is useful for all sorts of things (so you're wrong there), yet none of those things include changing the level of an antagonist by +10 (so your original example remains wrong).

Sure, explain it slowly for me again, if you must.

You didn't actually post any builds. Show me the stats, feats, powers, and synergistic equipment.

Or don't. I'm fine if you walk away and "consider... your... self... victorious..."

Cheers, -- N

1. Lol, you still don´t get it...

Orc --> Drow No level difference, as you can level up and level down as you like

Problem: What do players expect when they see the enemy?

An Orc which is powerful melee combatant that relies on a charge, drow: darkness or fearyfire...


2. I don´t have to show you a specific build as it is obvious that daggermaster is not the best choice, if you wield a rapier and if have greater strength than dexterity and thus can make good use of at will twin strike...
... also i don´t have to put items into any build, as I don´t consider (magical) items core to a build...


edit: and the 18/12/16/8/14/10 line are stats... and brawny rogue is a build... maybe you need to read more careful...

so that you needn´t read older post again:

e.g.: a longtooth brawny rogue with a rapier, paragon multiclass as ranger is arguably better than a longtooth shifter brawny rogue wih rapier taking daggermaster as paragon path...

edit: if you allow for dragon magazine, a scimitar dancing duelist brawny rogue also looks quite workable...

stats: 18/12/16/10/14/8 after racial

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, he'll be playable by virtue of the game being fairly balanced anyhow, but make no mistake; the elf will be noticably stronger. The eladrin racial and feats are fine; but the elf's racial is even better (though the feats are weaker), and he'll just hit more often and deal more damage. In any case, I doubt you're trying to argue that all races are equally capable of being any class; so in general the motivation to refluff remains: wanting fluff diversity without mechanical disadvantage.

We could argue about fluff forever, but balance wise there's obviously nothing wrong with refluffing. Whether it's a good option for a particular character in a particular campaign depends on the group, how well the new fluff matches the mechanics, and the style of play. I don't think it's useful to proclaim it a good or a bad idea here: let the group decide that. Without knowing the details, the only meaningful thing I can say is that it is balanced.

I think people maybe need to get away from the very analytical DPR based thinking about character "power". Even in a purely combat sense the eladrin cleric will only miss one out of 20 attacks that the elf cleric would hit on. That's maybe one attack in three combat encounter? At recommended encounter distribution that's probably 1-3 times per LEVEL at most. I agree its not totally nothing when you sit down and do the math, but it is pretty far down there in the noise and is pretty unlikely to make a crucial difference. The two characters may even ACTUALLY have the same to-hit depending on choice of weapon.

Class power-wise its rather hard to say that ANY class power stands up to Elvish Accuracy. Maybe the Deva's is almost as good, but not quite. So why isn't the whole game made of elves? Mostly because it is just not THAT crucial. Overall your right, I do agree that the elf cleric has a bit more combat power, but its an almost imperceptible amount more in play and other variations like who gets the best item are on a par with it.

As for refluffing races, why would it create GREATER diversity? Assuming players play non-optimum builds DESPITE their slightly inferior mechanics purely because they feel like playing something different I'd expect allowing race refluffing would result in only mechanically optimum builds. Every bow ranger will be an elf, every defensive fighter a dwarf, every paladin a dragonborn, and every wizard an INT race. That isn't added diversity in my book. But see how you look through the opposite end of the telescope at it? Neither starting point is wrong.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

the intend is powergaming:

you use elf stats when you want the mechanical best race for a bow ranger... refluffing for roleplaying purposes is nice but if roleplaying was your main concern you wouldn´t even ask to refluff...

 

[keterys]

Either it's unbalanced to be the race or it's not unbalanced.

Whether someone is comfortable giving up character aspects in order to roleplay or not, the end result that gets them to roleplay more is the right one.

It's interesting because this may actually be a case where a policy intended to reduce powergaming reduces RP instead. Intriguing.

 

[Infiniti2000]

In any case, I doubt you're trying to argue that all races are equally capable of being any class; so in general the motivation to refluff remains: wanting fluff diversity without mechanical disadvantage.

Maybe you don't realize this, or maybe you do, but this is exactly what I think you're arguing. I.e. you are arguing that "all races are equally capable of being any class." That's the only way that reskinning makes any sense whatsoever from a pure mechanical standpoint.

If you're not arguing that, then you agree with our point that reskinning is purely a powergaming option. Otherwise, there's no reason at all to reskin. Just stick with the mechanics of your chosen race.

The whole point of this isn't arguing one race over another, it's answering the question as to WHY you want the mechanics of one race over another. The only reason possible for choosing mechanics is powergaming.

 

[eamon]

Maybe you don't realize this, or maybe you do, but this is exactly what I think you're arguing. I.e. you are arguing that "all races are equally capable of being any class." That's the only way that reskinning makes any sense whatsoever from a pure mechanical standpoint.

If you're not arguing that, then you agree with our point that reskinning is purely a powergaming option. Otherwise, there's no reason at all to reskin. Just stick with the mechanics of your chosen race.

The whole point of this isn't arguing one race over another, it's answering the question as to WHY you want the mechanics of one race over another. The only reason possible for choosing mechanics is powergaming.

Is choosing the best weapon available to you powergaming? Is that a bad thing? I don't personally have any particular dislike for character optimization. If you think it's inherently a bad thing; well, we'll have to agree to differ (or, at least, start a new thread...).

Assuming you have a particular mechanical build in mind, refluffing that does not affect balance.

Whether or not said refluffing is good or bad depends on the context of the group's campaign. I'm not saying it's a good thing for you (looks like it'd be a source of disagreement to you). I'm just saying it's not negatively going to affect balance.

If somebody wants to reflavor the fullblade to be a lightsaber, that's not going to have a negative impact on the mechanics of the rules. That doesn't mean it's a good thing to allow, it just means that you're not going to screw up anything inherent by doing so. And as to fluff, well, whatever floats your boat is fine as far as I'm concerned. If it's not my campaign, it's not my problem.