The CR system and 50-point buy!

[the Jester]

Any DM who would trade the potential complete collapse of his campaign, and/or all the extra work it takes to rebalance the game, in favor of FIVE MINUTES OF FUN rolling up ability scores is not a DM I would trust.

I would say, rather, that any DM who would have their campaign completely collapse because some pcs have good stats is not a DM that I would respect.

It's easy to handle these things by eyeball imho. Again, YMMV- but I don't think uneven stats (or even, to a certain extent, levels) matter that much as long as the dm is paying attention.

 

[megamania]

My last group had incredible rolls similiar to your case. After a session or two of feeling it out I found that by adding roughly a +2 CR is indeed the way to go. Possibly a +3 if the creature falls into the groups greater strengths.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Instead of adjusting CRs or XP reward, just add +1 or +2 to all attacks, saving throws and special/spell DCs of monster. That should cover the differences between 25 to 50 point buy.
This might seem "unfair" as they don't get so much benefit from their incredibly scores in direct combat, but you will notice that the characters will probably play a lot more versatile. This will make other parts of the game easier (and more enjoyable) for them.

 

[darthkilmor]

I'm currently running a Ptolus campaign with 40 point buy. Yes, the PC's are more powerful than standard PC's. To balance it out, I give all monsters/NPC's Max HP, good feat selection(No Alertness or crap like that), and good tactics. No one's died yet but they've gone into the negatives several times. Its still challenging and thats what makes it fun. At 1st level, they're still stuck casting Magic Missle, they still only have 1d6 sneak attack die, can only power attack for 1 point, etc, and most importantly, still only have a few hit points. After a few sessions you should have a pretty good feel for what power level of enemy your PC's can handle. Remember also, some monsters are tough regardless of level (Things like Shadows that have touch attacks and deal str dmg, for instance).

 

[DwarvenDog]

My exact experience. My group began with 8 characters and something averaging a 50 point buy from good rolls. So there were several levels of balancing that needed to be done throughout the lifespan of the campaign.

Levels 1-5: The PC's could easily outshine anything between their own CR and CR+3. Attack rolls and saves succeeded far more often than normal. Enemies failed more often against the PCs' inflated DC's.

Resolved by boosting base monsters' stats to a 25 point-buy, and boss monsters stats to a 32-36 point-buy. 75% max hit points. No enemies used directly from MM. Every monster tweaked in some way. Campaign went along balanced for a while.

Levels 6-10: Dropped 2 players, but the extra attack gave melee PC's a power boost for 2 levels. Then the whole power level of the group began a decline. My "boosted" monsters began to be more of a threat as DR, SR, miss chances, and dispel magic became more prevalent. Elementals, Golems, and Demons usable out of the box towards level 9, but I only learned this after several near-fatal encounters with boosted examples of these.

Levels 11-13: Gained 2 new players, but still the biggest collection of PC deaths. Boosted/Advanced monsters dominated. Classed Monstrous opponents at 25 point-buy were even matches. Classed humanoids at 32-point buy were even matches. Dragons, Elementals, Golems, Demons/Devils all could be used as-is and presented reasonable challenges.

Levels 14-16: Dropped 2 players, but retained 7 total characters. Nearly everything was an advanced monster or a classed opponent. Even when picking monsters out of the book, feat substitution was constant. This set of levels was the most difficult to balance, with many opportunities to own the battle with one spell or multiple critical hits in a round. PC power began to rise again rapidly starting at level 15.

Levels 17+ PC's once again dominate against CR-CR+3 foes. They own the most powerful stat boosters. They rarely fail saves or attack rolls. Their foes are all classed opponents, advanced demons, or CR20+ foes. At this level, boosting monsters too much makes the DC of some abilities completely broken, so it's always a tough call on how far to take monster advancement. PC's are able to bypass most obstacles; movement, SR, DR, concealment, etc.


So my observations:

PC's dominate with inflated stats at first. (1-5)
Monsters in the mid-high CR range have the advantage towards the middle (8-13)
PC's re-gain dominance at the upper-end (15+)

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The main reason I believe a 50-point-buy PC is not "twice as powerful" is the premium cost point-buy places on higher stats. So, I would use your solution with a difference in ability bonus instead of ability:

For example, a character with stats 18 (+2), 17 (+1), 15 (+1), 14 (+1), 14 (+2), and 10 (+1) has a CR adjustment of about +0.8 (2+1+1+1+2+1).

I agree-- they aren't twice as powerful. It may, by stroke of luck, be true at 1st level, but the impact lessens as levels increase.

I like your solution as well-- which is also relevant when dealing with anecdotal evidence of supercharacters. Even at the same point buy, not all characters will be equal. The progressive pricing of point buy is designed to discourage really high (18+) stats, but it's certainly accommodating of lots of 14's. As point buy values go up, the barrier to 18's drops, there are plenty of points to shore up any weaknesses, and so a player is much more able to front load some ability scores.

With identical point buys, a fighter with one high score, one medium score, and 3-4 dump stats is more effective than a paladin or monk with the same point buy, but only one dump stat.

Again, the impact is lessened as levels go up.

But to suggest that a fighter with an 18 STR is not head and shoulders more effective than a paladin with a 14 STR is just silly. Against a typical array of opponents the fighter is going to hit more often for more damage.

Players tend to notice when they are sucking compared to the guy next to them.

I would say, rather, that any DM who would have their campaign completely collapse because some pcs have good stats is not a DM that I would respect.

To be sure, this has as much to do with the players as the DM. It's certainly no fun to play a (randomly rolled) 20 point character in a group with a (randomly rolled) supercharacter.

(Feel free to assert an irrelevant anecdote about how fun it is to play sub-par characters; I consider that argument dead and settled circa 1981.)

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion of what you feel is over-powered
I will continue to rely on expirience. (I would encourage others to do the same.)

There is certainly no shortage of people who prefer to rely on anecdotal evidence even when the underlying design principles are pointed out.

I could say with all conviction, for example, that giving a 1st level party a Deck of Many Things is a grade-A bad idea, and you can certainly come back with a story of how well it worked out in your campaign-- and we can both be right.

The OP seems like he leans towards worrying about balance, and wants to figure out the right solution.

 

[phindar]

I don't mind higher than recommended stats. My group tends to use 32pts as standard, or we roll as a group and average around 40 (4d6, drop the lowest). I've let groups use 46 points for stats. I've also let groups take HP at half+1 per die, 75% of the die, or Max HP.

What I typically do is factor in a small ECL bump (usually +1, although if they're way over budget with magical items I might go to +2), and when I am generating important npc's (BBEG's and their lieutenants, major players, "name" npcs) I use the same numbers. If the pc's have 50 stat points and Max HP, you better believe main people they're fighting have 50 stat points and Max HP. (Schmoes, not so much, although when I use Max HP, schomes have at least half and mooks have 75%.)

 

[roguerouge]

If you're using modules from Paizo or something like Red Hand of Doom, my recommendation is to play it as written for a while. Published adventures tend to be meat-grinders and having this kind of cushion just cuts down on trips to the Raise Dead NPC.

 

[Xath]

My group LOVES high stats. I think most people would be appalled by how high our stats tend to be. (4d6, roll 7 times, re-roll all 1s).

The players have more fun with it, and the GM responds by rolling the same way for the major baddies.

For each PC, arrange their scores from highest to lowest, then subtract 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8. (This is the elite array.)

Add up the remaining total, and multiply by .1 (or just shift the decimal point 1 place to the left).

This is the approximate increase in CR (or ECL, if you prefer...) for that PC. You can take the average across all characters, adjusting encounters accordingly, but you will end up with the strongest characters having a bit of an easier go of it, and the weaker characters (relatively speaking) having a bit more trouble.

For example, a character with stats 18 (+3), 17 (+3), 15 (+2), 14 (+2), 14 (+4), and 10 (+2) has a CR adjustment of about +1.6 (3+3+2+2+4+2).

I think this is a fantastic idea! *swipe*

 

[Hussar]

A while back, I collected a thread that covers Factors that affect CR that might be of help to you.

Wulf, I like that method of adjustment too. That's pretty sweet.