"Metadesign Principles of D&D"

[Nail]

Allegedly the designers at WotC have this iconics built at every level from 1 to 20 and they used them for hands-on game balance testing.

The difficulty here is that the game has quite clearly evolved past the initial play test in 3.0e. I'm not sure anyone could claim otherwise, even when sticking with only core rules. It's not particularly important to understand how the game was meant to be balanced when it was first designed; it's important to know how the game is balanced now.

And really, I'm not talking about "super-munchkin-optimization". I'm only modeling reasonable choices given to well-played PCs using a sub-set of the published rules. The exact details can vary between different players of course, but I've found that on average spending about 15% of your expected wealth on increasing saves (for example) is reasonable. About 25% of your expected wealth is spent on increasing your ability scores. About 30% is spent on increasing your AC, etc. Most classes follow this.

Look over your own PCs. The results might surprise you.

If my assertion is true, then you can figure out the average bonus to each of these stats as a function of PC level. ...and that is really useful when you're crafting NPCs or judging PC survivability or creating new monsters.

It's been a blindingly useful insight for me, at any rate.

 

[glass]

"If you metadesign principle of D&D, kill him." -- old saying

'I never metadesign principal I didn't like!'

Great thread. Wish I had something more usefull to contribute!


glass.

 

[Nail]

Ooooohhhhh. Please stop punning. Ouch.

...and why does the phrase "wish I could think of something useful to contribute" keep popping up?

 

[KarinsDad]

And really, I'm not talking about "super-munchkin-optimization". I'm only modeling reasonable choices given to well-played PCs using a sub-set of the published rules. The exact details can vary between different players of course, but I've found that on average spending about 15% of your expected wealth on increasing saves (for example) is reasonable. About 25% of your expected wealth is spent on increasing your ability scores. About 30% is spent on increasing your AC, etc. Most classes follow this.

Look over your own PCs. The results might surprise you.

I think this is campaign specific.

In our campaign, two elements minimize this type of "min-maxing" players can choose what they want in the way of magic items:

1) Until the PCs actually acquire many of the Craft feats, most of the items they find are totally derived from the DM giving them to NPCs. There are no "magic item stores" with which to buy and sell magic items.

2) As DM, I assign treasure based on what I think the resources of the opponent should be, not on some table look up. I also have my NPCs hide some of their valuables in rather unique locations so that they cannot easily be found or stolen. So, my PCs tend to be somewhat on the poor side compared to the DMG chart. If my PCs want to be wealthy, they have to work at that (i.e. start up businesses, or purposely scry/search in libraries for treasure troves, etc.). Wealth is not something that comes in 1/13th of a level * x players chunks per encounter, hence by next level, you are y GP wealthier automatically and can buy what your level allows.

 

[Nail]

I think this is campaign specific.

Sure.

In your case, it seems as if the label "low PC wealth" applies. Note: that's neither "good" nor "bad"; it's just an observation. In the games I've played in or run, wealth has been a bit more typical of the "PC Wealth by Level" rules in the DMG 3.5e. I suspect that those groups which use published adventures might have the same experience -- whereas those in home-brew adventures will be more widely varied.

That said: the actual level of wealth per PC is irrelevant. That's the advantage of using percentages!

In our campaign, two elements minimize this type of "min-maxing" players can choose what they want in the way of magic items:

1) Until the PCs actually acquire many of the Craft feats, most of the items they find are totally derived from the DM giving them to NPCs. There are no "magic item stores" with which to buy and sell magic items.

Three points

• You'll note I didn't say "min-maxing", in fact I laid it out as only making "reasonable choices". Really, the reasonable choices are simply how much of your wealth boosts "saves", "AC", "ability scores", etc.
• Limiting magic items means limiting PC power....which means limiting the PC's ability to deal with CR-appropriate foes. The common assumption is that with less magic, your PCs overcome less challenging CRs. YMMV.
• "Minimizing Min-maxing" is only really necessary if most players don't make appropriate choices. If they all do it (or if they all don't do it), then there's no problem at all. In any case, the DM can easily adapt.

Either way, the point still holds: there will be a certain percentage of wealth your PCs will chose to spend on boosting certain stats. I think you might be surprised at the relative consistancy between PCs. It's not as complicated as you've been lead to believe, even at higher levels.

 

[Quasqueton]

How about:

Feats with an ability score prerequisite should have that prerequisite be an odd number. For instance, Str 13+, Int 15+.

Quasqueton

 

[KarinsDad]

Three points

• You'll note I didn't say "min-maxing", in fact I laid it out as only making "reasonable choices". Really, the reasonable choices are simply how much of your wealth boosts "saves", "AC", "ability scores", etc.

• 
  
  You cannot boost stats if those items are hard to find in the campaign unless the PCs take certain item crafting feats.
  
  Item slots also play a role in this. Certain slots gyrate towards certain types of items.
  
  If you play in a campaign like a Computer Game where there are stores where you can sell all the stuff that you find and buy the items you want, then "item min-maxing" is basically allowed and even encouraged.
  
  It is not as much about reasonable choices as it is playing the campaign like a computer game. Reasonable choice is: "We have one +2 Amulet of Health in the party. Who should get it?" Min-maxing is: "Does everyone have an Amulet of Health? No? Let's go buy one for everyone who wants one.".

 

[MatthewJHanson]

How about:

Feats with an ability score prerequisite should have that prerequisite be an odd number. For instance, Str 13+, Int 15+.

Which reminds me: Anything that improves and ability score should give an even bonus. (Except for Inherent bonuses, presumably because they're the most difficult to obtain).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Karinsdad,

You are forgetting a big piece of the puzzle: humanoid NPCs.

Certain kinds of magic items are more likely on the basis that they give good bang for the buck, as well as being an easy method of improving that character's forte.

If dead NPCs are not regularly providing these kinds of items, it means they are probably somewhat underpowered. That is not necessarily a bad thing as the PCs are also underpowered relative to the guidelines. But it will hit the NPCs proportionally harder because PCs have more ready access to animal buffs, Protection vs. Evil, etc.

 

[Shade]

Size modifiers for special actions (grapple, disarm, etc.) occur in multiples of four.