What is the standard ability score set? Are most games playing too high?

[Cheiromancer]

Where the difference really shows though is in feat selection. A 15 point character doesn't qualify for a large number of feats. A 40 point character can choose pretty much any feat that fits his fancy.

There are also various powers tied to an ability bonus. The amount of healing a paladin does; the number of extra AoOs you can take with Combat reflexes. The number of turnings per day a cleric has (which strongly affects how good the cleric's turning feats are). Stuff like that.

I think it might be possible to sell players on low point-buy characters if it is packaged as a "negative LA". I.e. their 2nd level character gets to take an extra class level in something in exchange for low stats. They probably won't be playing any paladins, though.

 

[Hussar]

See, I don't understand what the big issue is for playing paladins. 25 point array is:

15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. So, to build a decent paladin, we go:

S 15 D 10 C 12 I 8 W 13 Ch 14

He's going to be in heavy armor, so, dex isn't going to do him any good. The Int penalty only really hurts him in number of skills. So what? You don't play a paly as a skill monkey. He can bump his Wis to 14 at some point to gain access to all spells and his Cha gives him a +2 mod. The straight fighter will likely have a 14 Con, so, he's 1 hp on average/level behind, not a huge issue.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Emirikol]

Because only overpowered characters can be heroes? [just kidding]

People perhaps place the paladin on too high of a pedistal. He's a CORE CLASS the same as any other. He's equal to a barbarian.

Paladin = barbarian = bard = fighter.

The paladin is only special on "theme" otherwise he's just another class.

jh

 

[Hussar]

Honestly Emrikol, I think that you may be onto something there. There seems to be a pretty strong feeling that unless a PC has at least one 18 and probably several other high stats, he's too weak to be played.

I think its a holdover from earlier editions where bonuses didn't start until a stat hit 15.

 

[Glyfair]

Honestly Emrikol, I think that you may be onto something there. There seems to be a pretty strong feeling that unless a PC has at least one 18 and probably several other high stats, he's too weak to be played.

To be fair, there is some truth to that for high level spell casters. That's mitigated, of course, by 3E's feature that allows you to increase your stats as you level.

I doubt I'd want to play an 18th level wizard without at least a 19 INT without magic items (that might be taken away). Not being able to use 9th level spells is a huge handicap. Still that only requires you start with a 15 INT at first level and sink all your stat increases into INT.

 

[Emirikol]

I doubt I'd want to play an 18th level wizard without at least a 19 INT without magic items (that might be taken away). Not being able to use 9th level spells is a huge handicap. Still that only requires you start with a 15 INT at first level and sink all your stat increases into INT.

Although I would sympathize with the Rare player that this might ironically happen to, I don't think that is justification for power escalation.

Not everyone is guaranteed anything they want in D&D. Those limits are what keep us wanting more don't you think?


jh
always wanting more

 

[molonel]

Because only overpowered characters can be heroes? [just kidding]

Actually, I think Hussar has a point about the 18s, in this case. I can still easily remember the days when a 16 strength for a fighter (+0 to-hit, +1 damage) was absolutely unthinkable for a melee type.

On the other hand, in 3rd Edition, I've played a successful melee type with a 14 strength.

 

[Emirikol]

Actually, I think Hussar has a point about the 18s, in this case. I can still easily remember the days when a 16 strength for a fighter (+0 to-hit, +1 damage) was absolutely unthinkable for a melee type. On the other hand, in 3rd Edition, I've played a successful melee type with a 14 strength.

Yea, it had to be 18/something in the old AD&D days.

My first fighter in BD&D had a 15 strength..for 36 levels. Had a lot of fun with that character and it had nothing to do with the score Ah, the days of +3 swords being practically epic....

jh

 

[molonel]

My first fighter in BD&D had a 15 strength..for 36 levels. Had a lot of fun with that character and it had nothing to do with the score Ah, the days of +3 swords being practically epic....

Pfft! Is that all?

Why, back when I played, we didn't even USE stats. You had to beat the DM in a wrestling match whenever there was combat. Sometimes, we'd switch it up and use boxing gloves. Whoever won initiative got to take the first swing.

That's how WE resolved combat. We didn't need none of these fancy new-fangled "plus" items you keep talking about.

As if LOTR characters needed "plus" items!