you drew the short end of the stick

[Barendd Nobeard]

I voted "No" because I've done this--sort of.

My die rolling was so crappy in one game, I was severly underpowered compared to the other characters. When that PC died, I had the option to make a new one or raise him (his death entailed some CHA damage, so that would have dropped his CHA from 7 to 4). When I opted for a new character, the DM said, "Kent's not going to 'settle' any more."

I had never complained about my underpowered characters, but I think he (and everyone else) realized that I was going to roll a new set of stats so I could play something closer in level to what everyone else was playing. I didn't mind being the "underpowered" PC for two years, but enough was enough. It's nice to "shine" once in a while; it's nicer to shine more frequently (i.e., as often as everyone else gets to "shine" ).

 

[Technik4]

It's a stupid example.

Its stupid because it showcases my point or that I used an example which highlights the extreme of what I was trying to say? Saying its stupid didn't seem to make it any less valid.

Even in your example, "a little more hp" is deceptive. For a wizard, a bonus differential of +1 is at least a 25% increase in hit points.

Fair Enough.

36pb Wiz8
Int 18
Con 16 (raised Con at 8th)
HP: 7d4+28 (avg 45.5)

26pb Wiz8
Int 18 (raised Int at 8th)
Con 14
HP: 7d4+20 (avg 35)

Yet according to you this disparity would be seen in every action they make rather than by having 10 more hp and a +1 Fort Save. Considering the disparity in point buy, there is a correspondingly low disparity between their effectiveness.

(And comparing these ability scores to the arrays of D&D editions from years past is irrelevant. The scale of modifiers is completely different.)

I entirely disagree. In fact, the differences were *more* pronounced in former editions because if you didn't roll any scores 15+ you usually didn't get jack, making the differences between you and the guy who did far more pronounced than they are in 3e.

If WOTC's next splatbook featured a longsword that did d10 damage instead of d8 (a 25% improvement) you'd hear folks scream bloody murder that it wasn't balanced.

That's really apples and oranges. How do disparities between the 'lower 3' scores of a PC (or NPC) make them more deadly (25%?) in any way?

In regards to other comments, see Coredump's. He's saying what I've been trying to say more clearly and concisely.

Technik

 

[Abraxas]

Question for Wulf - when you created Stonebear for the DOD did you roll stats or use point buy?
If you used point buy - how many points did you have to spend?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Question for Wulf - when you created Stonebear for the DOD did you roll stats or use point buy?
If you used point buy - how many points did you have to spend?

IIRC, he's a 32-point buy character, advanced to 16th level. I don't think I started with anything bought over a 14.

I don't know how stats were generated for the rest of the DoD characters. It's bound to be a mish-mash as some of those characters pre-date 3.0.

 

[Abraxas]

IIRC, he's a 32-point buy character, advanced to 16th level. I don't think I started with anything bought over a 14.

Do you feel he is sub par compared to Galthea, Mara or Priggle?
Do you feel Agar and Nolin are/were sub-par characters compared to Stonebear?

The first three work out to something like 40+ point characters, while the last two work out to be about 28 pt characters.

From reading PCs story I've never gotten the impression that the last two were sub par compared to the first three, but their ability scores are significantly lower from a point buy perspective.

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

Been there had the choice and took the low stat option - in S'mon's game. Though I must admit I got a wealth bonus in compensation - but as a new player joining that actually meant i had similar sort of wealth to the other players (or so it seemed - without checking out their PCS in detail no way I can say for certain.

Again harking back to the days pre-PB the difference between these characters is so minimal I doubt it would have any real effect - there are too many other variables. I know a guy who is so unlucky with dice his group let him use a d30 instead of a d20 which just about evens things up for him. Yeah the +1's here and there help, but it's only a crucial issue if your games focus on the dice and not on the story. In combat and considering the rule of averages it will have an impact - but it's not going to break the game - particularly when you consider the option presented - they're only slightly different in terms of effect.

That said these days I choose to use PB stat generation for two reasons. First of all it means that there isn't one person with killer stats and another without - the game's about fun and if one guy never gets the chance to shine then he's not having as much fun - having the stats helps to ensure no one is left out. I remember a cyberpunk game (stats were 1d10) where I rolled in front of everyone else and had 4 10s a 9 an 8 and some others (it was a while back). Another guy's highest stat was an 8. The result was I could load up on cyberware without worrying about my humanity too much, and still had the str, dex etc. to come out with a kick ass character. The other guy's just couldn't stand up to that when it came to combat (and Cyberpunk was pretty combat focussed). PB just balances things so no one feels they were dumped on by dumb luck.

Second a PB system allows the player to build the character he wants to play, not play the character he's left with. This doesn't mean we don't see characters with poor stats, just that the palyer gets to decide what he wants to play - which is the point of the game we play. So I give my players the option I feel will give them the chance to play the character they had in mind. Haven't had any complaints yet - but for us the stats are less important than the story.

 

[FireLance]

Funny - when one character is significantly more effective than the rest, the player is a munchkin and the game becomes less fun for the other players because encounters that can challenge him will kill off the other characters.

When one character is significantly less effective than the rest, the player sees himself as a good roleplayer instead of a liability to the rest of the party because they need to make an additional effort to protect him.

That's the basic intent behind the question, isn't it? Not whether the clever manipulation of numbers in a point buy can make a high point buy look like a low one.

Yes, the effectiveness of a character does not simply depend on his statistics. The ability of the player to make good choices and use good tactics counts. The ability of the player to make the character memorable counts. A character filling a particular niche in a party may seem as effective as the other party members because nobody else is filling that niche. Still, all else being equal, statistics mattter. Most players just don't notice when it happens. When they miss an attack roll, a saving throw, or a skill check by one point, it's simply dismissed as a close failure. They don't think, "Aaargh, if I had rolled better at character creation/had more points to spend on ability score X, I would have succeeded." They don't realize it, but it's true.

Fundamentally, D&D is a game, not a simulation of real life or a fantasy novel. In games, there is usually some concept of an equal starting point. Most real-life or fantasy novel battles don't start out with each side having the exact same number and complement of combatants, but chess does. Some games, like golf, do have the concept of handicaps, but D&D has not yet evolved to that level.

Some players like the randomness of die rolling, or the challenge of playing less effective characters, and it's great if they enjoy it. However, I think that many players would find it fundamentally unfair on some level if they had to play a character that was weaker compared to the rest of the party, to the point that it would interfere with their enjoyment of the game.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Do you feel he is sub par compared to Galthea, Mara or Priggle?

Yes, yes, and... who?

Do you feel Agar and Nolin are/were sub-par characters compared to Stonebear?

I believe they're both at least one level ahead of Stone Bear. Nolin, something like 2 or 3.

I wish I could give you more precise information but I haven't the slightest idea of the specifics of anyone else's character sheet. Suffice to say that the current power distribution sits well with Stone Bear's predilection for being an impartial observer.

(This is a self-imposed situation, by the way. As I said before, I can sympathize with playing an under-powered character, but I have no delusions that "desire" to play an under-powered character equates to "balance.")

But your question hints at a lack of understanding of the actual power curve of CR. I would not generally expect a vast disparity of power between 17th, 18th, or 20th level characters without other major CR-skewing differences to widen the CR gap.

From reading PCs story I've never gotten the impression that the last two were sub par compared to the first three, but their ability scores are significantly lower from a point buy perspective.

And from all the art museums I've visited, I've never gotten the impression there's all that much to the manufacture of paint.

 

[Desdichado]

So, in another thread a poster made what he callsa bold claim ( and I agree) that 36 point buy and 25 point buy could be played in the same campaign without much difference. You are not being forced to, the campaign will be long and even if you guy dies any new character will be 25 point buy, and all characterswill be treated the same. So, would you play a 25 point buy character in a game of 36 point buy characters?

Uh... I'm not getting it. Why would anyone even make this suggestion again? What purpose does it serve to give someone the shaft so blatantly?

I mean, honestly, I probably would if there were a good reason. Heck, with rolling your stats, you end up that way half the time anyway. But I still would have to wonder what the point is.

 

[Technik4]

Uh... I'm not getting it. Why would anyone even make this suggestion again?

A few threads back we were talking about point buy characters and how some people feel certain point buys are just way too much. It was brought up that a large differential in point buys could be seen as an effective ECL adjustment. At the time I agreed, but after thinking about it, chose to disagree. To provide an example, I made the claim that was a catalyst for this poll.

Characters can play alongside each other despite a seemingly high disparity in point buy, it doesn't even necessarily mean that one player won't get to shine (which seems to be most peoples' problem with the concept) rather that in certain situations they will be hampered. Why are they hampered in certain situations? Due to the low point buy they had to relegate some stats lower than they might have otherwise wanted.

Technik