Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
poilbrun said:To sum up the discussion which took place before, if you raise the CR of the fighter who's got all 18's, basically, you punish him because he was lucky in his dice rolls, which is not the least logical.
How is it illogical to challenge a character with all 18's with opponents suited to his abilities, and to give him experience based on an equitable challenge?
Likewise, why is it logical to reward the lucky character with the same amount of XP when he cakewalks through an encounter that is challenging for the average character?
Throw an orc at both the average fighter, and the all 18's fighter, and see what happens. Then tell me that the all 18's fighter is as challenged as the average fighter and as deserving of equal XP.
But just to be clear, my concern isn't so much with punishing or rewarding the players. The intent is to make sure that the encounters thrown at them are appropriate for their effective level-- and that's whether it is the characters who have all 18's, or the orc fighter who has all 18's, or even just a couple of key 18's (and is a far more deadly opponent than an orc with the standard array, without question).
Ability scores are relevant. Denying it cuts the legs out of the integrity of the whole system. I'm not attacking UK, and I'm not saying the info isn't there, and I'm not even saying it's not as if I can't "fix it" myself.
I'm simply saying it is a disservice to the system and the hard work of the designer to come out and state that ability scores are not relevant. They obviously are. Why go through all the mathematical acrobatics-- which are brilliant-- and leave a gaping hole in the logic?
Wulf