you drew the short end of the stick

[Abraxas]

(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.")

Ah, I was under the impression from your statements that this discussion wasn't about balance but playability. My mistake.

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.

I believe I understand the CR power curve (I even followed along in the UK threads until they became annoying excerisizes in minutiae ) and in actual gameplay I've not seen an effect (in 3E or 3.5E) when ability score differences that would equate to the 25pt/36pt disparity exist.

Oh well, I think I'll go see if there's a DoD update yet.
Cya

 

[Tom Cashel]

Just want to get a last post in here before things get locked down...

Wulf, I completely see your point. Different stats do indeed equal a disparity in the odds over time.

But the game is not based purely on numbers. If we were talking about a computer RPG, where nothing happens but what is based on probabilities boiled down, presumably, from rules, you're completely right. The character with less ability points is at a decided disadvantage.

But D&D is not solely probability-based. Everything that happens at the table is filtered through the perceptions and judgments of one person: the GM. As far as I know, they haven't quite figured out the algorithm for that dude yet, so in effect he throws any numerical analysis of D&D out of whack.

So yes, I think that disparity matters, but only as much as the GM lets it matter.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't roll specifically so that players don't have to play characters with such differences. If a DM told me I had a 25 point buy and everyone else had a 36, then I would walk out the door. So, I voted "this is a stupid suggestion." Of course, given a 36 point buy group, a 25 piont buy character would be the less powerful member of the group, and I can't imagine anyone going out of their way to play the weakest character in the group, or enjoying such a thing for long.

 

[Coredump]

Yes, I would say it would be approximately 25% better to have a few skill points, to have a positive bonus to will saves, spot and listen. That's my opinion, but then Will saves, spots and listens are always a fighter's weak points - if they really suck then you are going to be taken advantage of by any enemy worth his salt.

[sarcasm]Okay, I guess that is why all those fighter builds stress having high charisma and wisdom all the time That must be why fighters always take Iron Will and Cosmopolitan before weapon focus. Or why the fighters are always arguing over who gets the headband of intellect, instead of being stuck with the guantlets of Ogre power[/sarcasm]

having a +1 Wil save does very little for the power level of a fighter. Sure it is nicer than not having it. But how often do you really think it would be utilized? 2-4 times a year, maybe? It is str con dex that make a fighter more powerful. Not a few extra skill points.

 

[Crothian]

having a +1 Wil save does very little for the power level of a fighter. Sure it is nicer than not having it. But how often do you really think it would be utilized? 2-4 times a year, maybe? It is str con dex that make a fighter more powerful. Not a few extra skill points.

That's one way to play. There ar eways that make the other areas of the fighter more important then the pure combat abilities.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

[sarcasm]Okay, I guess that is why all those fighter builds stress having high charisma and wisdom all the time That must be why fighters always take Iron Will and Cosmopolitan before weapon focus. Or why the fighters are always arguing over who gets the headband of intellect, instead of being stuck with the guantlets of Ogre power[/sarcasm]

having a +1 Wil save does very little for the power level of a fighter. Sure it is nicer than not having it. But how often do you really think it would be utilized? 2-4 times a year, maybe? It is str con dex that make a fighter more powerful. Not a few extra skill points.

[sarcasm]OK, I guess you like when the rogues sneak up on your witless fighter, sneak attack them, then hide again - hell the fighter's 0 spot skill should be easy enough to beat. Or having Hold Person cast on you, because everyone knows that yeah, he hits hard, but he sure is thick.[/sarcasm]

Just because you play fighters that need no skills does not mean that everyone plays such bland characters, nor that they would wish to. Yes, the headband of intellect is going to go to the wizard, if he doesn't have one. If he does, why not the fighter? I like the tactical, intelligent fighters. Of course, I play in 40 point buy usually, so I am rarely shoehorned into playing a character who is only good at what his class dictates he should be good at.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wulf, are you even looking at these numbers???

No, this whole game design thing I do day in and day out is pretty much a ruse. I'm flying blind here.

So a fighter with
Str 16, Con 15, Dex 14, Wis 13, Int 12, Cha 11

Is going to be *25%* more effective than one that has
Str 16, Con 14, Dex 14, Wis 10, Int 9, Cha 8

Really? 25% more?? Even though they have the same hit points, the same AC, same damage, etc.?

25% more effective? I never said anything of the sort.

You were the one that brought it up. You tried to make it sound like a big deal if the enemy got the same kind of boost.

No, I said, without any specifics, that a 36 point buy is demonstrably better than a 25 point buy. Tecknik responded with the stupid example that you're currently trying to hang your hat on.

The *only* think Tecknik is really doing is boosting the *LOWER 3* stats. I could probably do that to all monsters in the campaign, and hardly notice any change at all.

You're right, you probably could. But that's not what's at issue here.

Let's take a general concept, say, Starting Wealth. Fighter A gets 17,000 gp. He spends it all on tools of his trade: weapons and armor. Fighter B gets 170,000 gp and buys a rod of Metamagic: Greater Quicken.

Have I just proved that it's possible to have a 10:1 disparity in starting wealth and yet the poorer character is more effective?

You can if you know where those modifyers are being applied.

Here we go again...

Example. two fighters get a magic item. One gets a +6 to str. one gets a +6 to charisma. Are they equally effective? Nope. Because *where* those bonuses go is even more important than what they go on.
Example two. One figher gets +4 Str, and +2 Con, other fighter gets +6 Cha and +6 Int.
WOAH! Way out of balance.... second one got double the bonus of the first!!!
Except the first will still be a more effective fighter

This is remarkable.

Again, what Tecknik is trying to do is *not* increase the 'important' stats, and will increase the 'dump' stats.

No, what Tecknik is trying to do is take a general concept like "36 point buy is better than 26 point buy" and attempt to disprove it by providing stupid examples of how you can balance it out. He's taught you well.

Lets try the 'concept' again. The 'concept' is that raising the *lowest 3* stats a few points doesn't change the balance much. You challenged this by bringing up Goblins. By raising the Goblin Cha, Int, Wis a few points, there is almost no change in encounter difficulty, thus refuting your point.

No, that wasn't and still isn't the concept, no matter how much you may want to frame the discussion that way.

 

[Technik4]

No, what Tecknik is trying to do is take a general concept like "36 point buy is better than 26 point buy" and attempt to disprove it by providing stupid examples of how you can balance it out.

Didn't know thats what I was trying to do. I thought I was trying to say that 26 pt buy characters can play alongside 36 pt-equivalent array characters without a problem. I was also trying to say that 36 pt-equivalent array characters aren't necessarily 25-50 (or whatever percent) better than say a 25 pt character. And finally I was trying to say that if you let your players use this 36 pt-equivalent array:

16,15,14,13,12,11

I don't think you need to be concerned about upping the inherent statistics of Monsters in any d20 book and further someone could make a 25 pt buy character in the same campaign and not constantly be 'outshone' by such a character. Finally I was saying that using such an array may improve the roleplaying potential of your characters, as your non-combat necessary scores are a little higher than other point buys or arrays (elite for instance).

That was what I was trying to say. I do apologize if I hadn't been clear on what I was trying to say, but I think the above is fairly consistent with what I've been saying the whole time.

Technik

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Didn't know thats what I was trying to do. I thought I was trying to say that 26 pt buy characters can play alongside 36 pt-equivalent array characters without a problem.

And as we've also proven, characters with 10x as much starting wealth can play alongside regular characters without a problem.

Ergo, this is "balanced."

 

[Technik4]

And as we've also proven, characters with 10x as much starting wealth can play alongside regular characters without a problem.

It may surprise you, but I agree with that assertation. Wealth like point buy or attributes are useless to evaluate without human intelligence to make decisions.

And giving a low-level character an expensive item that they 'shouldn't have' according to the RAW could certainly provide for some interesting roleplaying.

Technik