Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Hogwash.
Not so. How about we make a very basic comparison comparing unusually poor rolls (but not inconceivably so) with good rolls (but again not inconceivably so:
Fighter (good): Str 17, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 10, cha 8
Fighter (poor): Str 15, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8
Rogue (good): Str 14, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 15, wis 8, cha 11
Rogue (poor): Str 12, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8
Wizard (good): Str 8, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 18, Wis 8, Cha 13
Wizard (poor): Str 8, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 15, Wis 10, Cha 11
Cleric (good): Str 16, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 15
Cleric (poor): Str 14, Dex 8, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha 10
You'll note (for reference) that the good scores correspond roughly to 36 points, and the poor scores correspond roughly to 22 points. 4d6 drop the lowest averages, I'm told, to roughly 28 points. In my experience, you can get something similar to 36 points by taking the best of three rolls or so. 22 points is on the low end of a poor but playable roll.
Now, consider that there are basically two areas in which classes get direcly compared: combat and spellcasting. In the first of these arenas, the iconic fighter, rogue, and cleric invite direct comparison; in the second, the wizard and cleric invite direct comparison.
So, take the poor fighter vs the good cleric. You'll notice immediately that the good cleric will have, at first level (assuming a martial cleric), the same attack bonus, the same number of feats, nearly the same armor class, etc as the fighter--the primary difference is that the cleric has spells and the fighter doesn't. Comparing the good to good or the poor to poor, the fighter has a better attack bonus. At higher levels, the addition of clerical buffs will make a cleric with better base stats than the fighter a dramatically superior combatant. Given stats in the same ballpark, the fighter has the flexibility of selecting multiple feat chains and boosting his attack and damage (by increasing his strength to levels superior to the cleric's with level bumps) that enable him to remain ahead of the cleric.
Also, compare the poor fighter vs. the good rogue. The rogue will soon have the same attack bonus as the fighter, and, with the addition of sneak attack will deal dramatically more damage (since their strengths are almost equal and, from level 3 to level 8 or so, the rogue will have a higher attack bonus). The rogue is also likely to have as high an AC as the fighter--if the fighter nerfs his damage even further vis a vis the rogue by fighting sword and shield--otherwise, the rogue is better. (Until fullplate becomes possible for the fighter, it's likely comparing banded+dex+shield (AC 19 or 17 w/out shield) to chain shirt+(masterwork) buckler+dex (AC 18); when fullplate becomes available, the rogue will likely have a magic chain shirt or mithral chain shirt, further boosting his AC). And, of course, the good rogue has a lot more flexibility in terms of feat chains than the fighter. If he multiclasses a little bit, it's likely that he'll have far more options in combat and will still be just as good as the fighter if he decides to stay put and stick things with his sword. The fighter's role in the party is basically "flank provider."
Comparing the good stat fighter to a poor stat rogue reveals a similar unbalance. At that point, the rogue is obviously a third or fourth class citizen in the combat department and is reduced to scouting and trap detecting (which he's still not particularly good at due to poor int limiting his skill selections).
The poor stat wizard has a bit more oomph compared to the good stat cleric--if only because the good stat cleric is set up to be a good melee fighter as well as a spellcaster. By focussing on spells without saves, etc, he can still carve a niche for himself in the party. However, if there's a good stat wizard in the party as well, he's pretty boxed in. With fewer spells per day and those spells having dramatically easier DCs, less skill points, and less effective checks even on skills they've both maxed, the weak stat wizard is likely to be a permanent junior partner in the party unless he focusses heavily on no-save spells.
While poor stat wizards can be by in a party through clever spell selection and poor stat clerics can get by in the party by focussing on healing and buffing (though it's not a whole lot of fun being stuck in band-aid mode because you can't do anything else effectively if there's another cleric in the party who's actually doing things himself), poor stat fighters and rogues are easily outshined by better statted companions--even in an "everyone has his niche" iconic party.
sounds like you're the one with "childhood jealousy issues" to me. What's the matter, don't like people complaining that you're taking all the limelight with your minotaur fighter 4/wizard 5 in a party otherwise comprised of fifth and sixth level humans? (I had the misfortune of playing in such an unbalanced campaign once).
Well, actually that's probably not the case. Maybe you're a decent human being who's just dead wrong on this issue. If so, let the above paragraph serve as a reminder that other people out there can use ad homonim argumentation just as effectively as you and your attacks on their motivations are neither more nor less likely to be valid than their attacks on yours.
So you're saying that the problem never comes up in your game because you've got house rules that minimize the significance of original stat rolls anyway. Bully for you. However, just because your house rules weren't intended to mitigate the problem of stat-imbalance doesn't mean they don't have that effect. You might as well say that, if I let clerics cast spells spontaneously and open up the entire Sor/Wiz list to them because it's more "realistic" that their gods could do anything they want that wouldn't have any effect on the cleric/wizard balance.
So, in your campaign with your houserules the playing field levels as you play longer. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the playing field levels in a core rules game. (IME, the gap gets wider because D&D tends to reward the people at the margins--going from AC 31 to 32 is often more signifcant than going from AC 11 to 15 and going from DC 20 to DC 21 is more significant than going from DC 15 to DC 16; with strength, etc the effect is more subtle but, as trips, grapples, swallow whole, etc become more prevalent, individual stats are likely to have more effects/combat round and therefore a difference that remains static is likely to have greater effect).
And as for your experience with high stats "not mattering" because "the monsters are tough enough" that's directly opposite to my experience and a lot of other peoples experiences as discussed numerous times on these boards. Generally, my experience is that higher than average stats generally lead to more lethal games because the PCs offense outstrips their defense and thus they are capable of killing challenging monsters earlier than an average stat party (usually a level or two earlier) but are not as able to deal with the monsters' abilities, etc. as an average stat party.
So let me see. In your game, players can choose any stats they want and improve them ingame at a much higher rate than the core rules allow and you somehow think this proves that stat-imbalance is a non-issue in a core-rules game where players are stuck with the stats they roll. Not only that, but it proves it so decisively that anyone who disagrees is an adolescent whiner?!?
All it proves to me is that your game does not have some of the potential problems that core rules stat generation methods do (but may or may not have other problems that they don't have).
Hmm. And what is it that makes control essentially bad and unfun? After all, there's nothing inherently more controlling about limiting stats than there is about limiting, say, a first level fighter's ability to cast 9th level sor/wiz spells--something that nearly all rational observers of the D&D game would agree is a good thing. The question is not whether control is being exerted but whether or not it is creating a more fun and entertaining game for all involved. IME, and the experience of a lot of people--including, apparently the original poster--eliminating dramatic stat imbalances does create a more fun and entertaining game for all involved--hence the concern.
And I like that way of playing at least as much as I'd like your idea of how the game should be played.
To suggest that high stats (within "racial limits" so I'm assuming that an 8th level dwarf with str 20 (18 initial limit +2 for levels since only the initial score is limited in D&D 3.x), dex 18, con 20, int 18, wis 18, cha 16 is just fine by you) have no effect upon the balance of the game is to ignore reality. (Really, it effects a TON of things including the desirability of armor (that dwarf will have little use for fullplate (especially if he takes rogue levels) and no use for armor at all if he takes monk levels), the effectiveness of multiclassing (Ftr/Mnk/Pal would be a poor choice for nearly all of the characters I listed in my sample stats, for this character, it's a dramatically effective combination), the PCs' vulnerabilities (if a cleric, this PC has much less to fear from reflex saves than most clerics do; if a wizard, he has much less to fear from grapples and area effect damage spells than most wizards do), and the effectiveness of certain feats (for a normal rogue, skill focus: Disable Device and/or Nimble Fingers would be better choices since, without them, he is not nearly as likely to defeat a CR appropriate trap; for a rogue with these stats, one of the above is nice, but not really necessary).
If the "good" DM chooses to arbitrarily adjust the monsters ACs up by 2 (to account for the difference between str 15 and str 18), up their HP by 3/CR rating (again to account for the str difference to PC damage but this is really arbitrary since CR does not directly correspond to HD so this can't be accounted for with a con increase), and up all their other stats to account for differences in DCs, etc, you're really just playing a 28 point buy game with bigger numbers (like the old school arcade shooter games that gave 1000 points for blowing up a small bad guy and 1,000,000 points for an end-boss--it's the same thing as 1 point and 1000 points; you've just added a few zeroes onto the end to make things seem more important). And, if the "good DM" uses higher CR monsters instead or gives them all allies and buffs, etc, that is a different (and usually more lethal) style of game than would be possible without high stats. If the "good DM" does nothing then it's a different (and most likely easier) style of game than it would be without high stats.
It's inaccurate to say otherwise.
Treebore said:
Not so. How about we make a very basic comparison comparing unusually poor rolls (but not inconceivably so) with good rolls (but again not inconceivably so:
Fighter (good): Str 17, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 10, cha 8
Fighter (poor): Str 15, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8
Rogue (good): Str 14, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 15, wis 8, cha 11
Rogue (poor): Str 12, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8
Wizard (good): Str 8, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 18, Wis 8, Cha 13
Wizard (poor): Str 8, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 15, Wis 10, Cha 11
Cleric (good): Str 16, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 15
Cleric (poor): Str 14, Dex 8, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha 10
You'll note (for reference) that the good scores correspond roughly to 36 points, and the poor scores correspond roughly to 22 points. 4d6 drop the lowest averages, I'm told, to roughly 28 points. In my experience, you can get something similar to 36 points by taking the best of three rolls or so. 22 points is on the low end of a poor but playable roll.
Now, consider that there are basically two areas in which classes get direcly compared: combat and spellcasting. In the first of these arenas, the iconic fighter, rogue, and cleric invite direct comparison; in the second, the wizard and cleric invite direct comparison.
So, take the poor fighter vs the good cleric. You'll notice immediately that the good cleric will have, at first level (assuming a martial cleric), the same attack bonus, the same number of feats, nearly the same armor class, etc as the fighter--the primary difference is that the cleric has spells and the fighter doesn't. Comparing the good to good or the poor to poor, the fighter has a better attack bonus. At higher levels, the addition of clerical buffs will make a cleric with better base stats than the fighter a dramatically superior combatant. Given stats in the same ballpark, the fighter has the flexibility of selecting multiple feat chains and boosting his attack and damage (by increasing his strength to levels superior to the cleric's with level bumps) that enable him to remain ahead of the cleric.
Also, compare the poor fighter vs. the good rogue. The rogue will soon have the same attack bonus as the fighter, and, with the addition of sneak attack will deal dramatically more damage (since their strengths are almost equal and, from level 3 to level 8 or so, the rogue will have a higher attack bonus). The rogue is also likely to have as high an AC as the fighter--if the fighter nerfs his damage even further vis a vis the rogue by fighting sword and shield--otherwise, the rogue is better. (Until fullplate becomes possible for the fighter, it's likely comparing banded+dex+shield (AC 19 or 17 w/out shield) to chain shirt+(masterwork) buckler+dex (AC 18); when fullplate becomes available, the rogue will likely have a magic chain shirt or mithral chain shirt, further boosting his AC). And, of course, the good rogue has a lot more flexibility in terms of feat chains than the fighter. If he multiclasses a little bit, it's likely that he'll have far more options in combat and will still be just as good as the fighter if he decides to stay put and stick things with his sword. The fighter's role in the party is basically "flank provider."
Comparing the good stat fighter to a poor stat rogue reveals a similar unbalance. At that point, the rogue is obviously a third or fourth class citizen in the combat department and is reduced to scouting and trap detecting (which he's still not particularly good at due to poor int limiting his skill selections).
The poor stat wizard has a bit more oomph compared to the good stat cleric--if only because the good stat cleric is set up to be a good melee fighter as well as a spellcaster. By focussing on spells without saves, etc, he can still carve a niche for himself in the party. However, if there's a good stat wizard in the party as well, he's pretty boxed in. With fewer spells per day and those spells having dramatically easier DCs, less skill points, and less effective checks even on skills they've both maxed, the weak stat wizard is likely to be a permanent junior partner in the party unless he focusses heavily on no-save spells.
While poor stat wizards can be by in a party through clever spell selection and poor stat clerics can get by in the party by focussing on healing and buffing (though it's not a whole lot of fun being stuck in band-aid mode because you can't do anything else effectively if there's another cleric in the party who's actually doing things himself), poor stat fighters and rogues are easily outshined by better statted companions--even in an "everyone has his niche" iconic party.
sounds like you're the one with "childhood jealousy issues" to me. What's the matter, don't like people complaining that you're taking all the limelight with your minotaur fighter 4/wizard 5 in a party otherwise comprised of fifth and sixth level humans? (I had the misfortune of playing in such an unbalanced campaign once).
Well, actually that's probably not the case. Maybe you're a decent human being who's just dead wrong on this issue. If so, let the above paragraph serve as a reminder that other people out there can use ad homonim argumentation just as effectively as you and your attacks on their motivations are neither more nor less likely to be valid than their attacks on yours.
So you're saying that the problem never comes up in your game because you've got house rules that minimize the significance of original stat rolls anyway. Bully for you. However, just because your house rules weren't intended to mitigate the problem of stat-imbalance doesn't mean they don't have that effect. You might as well say that, if I let clerics cast spells spontaneously and open up the entire Sor/Wiz list to them because it's more "realistic" that their gods could do anything they want that wouldn't have any effect on the cleric/wizard balance.
So, in your campaign with your houserules the playing field levels as you play longer. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the playing field levels in a core rules game. (IME, the gap gets wider because D&D tends to reward the people at the margins--going from AC 31 to 32 is often more signifcant than going from AC 11 to 15 and going from DC 20 to DC 21 is more significant than going from DC 15 to DC 16; with strength, etc the effect is more subtle but, as trips, grapples, swallow whole, etc become more prevalent, individual stats are likely to have more effects/combat round and therefore a difference that remains static is likely to have greater effect).
And as for your experience with high stats "not mattering" because "the monsters are tough enough" that's directly opposite to my experience and a lot of other peoples experiences as discussed numerous times on these boards. Generally, my experience is that higher than average stats generally lead to more lethal games because the PCs offense outstrips their defense and thus they are capable of killing challenging monsters earlier than an average stat party (usually a level or two earlier) but are not as able to deal with the monsters' abilities, etc. as an average stat party.
So let me see. In your game, players can choose any stats they want and improve them ingame at a much higher rate than the core rules allow and you somehow think this proves that stat-imbalance is a non-issue in a core-rules game where players are stuck with the stats they roll. Not only that, but it proves it so decisively that anyone who disagrees is an adolescent whiner?!?
All it proves to me is that your game does not have some of the potential problems that core rules stat generation methods do (but may or may not have other problems that they don't have).
Hmm. And what is it that makes control essentially bad and unfun? After all, there's nothing inherently more controlling about limiting stats than there is about limiting, say, a first level fighter's ability to cast 9th level sor/wiz spells--something that nearly all rational observers of the D&D game would agree is a good thing. The question is not whether control is being exerted but whether or not it is creating a more fun and entertaining game for all involved. IME, and the experience of a lot of people--including, apparently the original poster--eliminating dramatic stat imbalances does create a more fun and entertaining game for all involved--hence the concern.
And I like that way of playing at least as much as I'd like your idea of how the game should be played.
To suggest that high stats (within "racial limits" so I'm assuming that an 8th level dwarf with str 20 (18 initial limit +2 for levels since only the initial score is limited in D&D 3.x), dex 18, con 20, int 18, wis 18, cha 16 is just fine by you) have no effect upon the balance of the game is to ignore reality. (Really, it effects a TON of things including the desirability of armor (that dwarf will have little use for fullplate (especially if he takes rogue levels) and no use for armor at all if he takes monk levels), the effectiveness of multiclassing (Ftr/Mnk/Pal would be a poor choice for nearly all of the characters I listed in my sample stats, for this character, it's a dramatically effective combination), the PCs' vulnerabilities (if a cleric, this PC has much less to fear from reflex saves than most clerics do; if a wizard, he has much less to fear from grapples and area effect damage spells than most wizards do), and the effectiveness of certain feats (for a normal rogue, skill focus: Disable Device and/or Nimble Fingers would be better choices since, without them, he is not nearly as likely to defeat a CR appropriate trap; for a rogue with these stats, one of the above is nice, but not really necessary).
If the "good" DM chooses to arbitrarily adjust the monsters ACs up by 2 (to account for the difference between str 15 and str 18), up their HP by 3/CR rating (again to account for the str difference to PC damage but this is really arbitrary since CR does not directly correspond to HD so this can't be accounted for with a con increase), and up all their other stats to account for differences in DCs, etc, you're really just playing a 28 point buy game with bigger numbers (like the old school arcade shooter games that gave 1000 points for blowing up a small bad guy and 1,000,000 points for an end-boss--it's the same thing as 1 point and 1000 points; you've just added a few zeroes onto the end to make things seem more important). And, if the "good DM" uses higher CR monsters instead or gives them all allies and buffs, etc, that is a different (and usually more lethal) style of game than would be possible without high stats. If the "good DM" does nothing then it's a different (and most likely easier) style of game than it would be without high stats.
It's inaccurate to say otherwise.
