Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Converting a 1e character to 3e - Page 2

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 3:47:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 1 May 2005 13:45:10 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> That is the case in just about every system, so it is not particularly
> special. In a cinematic-style heroic roleplaying game, I feel the heroes
> should be a bit larger than life. You cannot make a reasonable (i.e. not
> "watered down") Conan or Aragorn with standard point buy. Quite frankly, it
> is designed to punish more focussed characters. For a high powered (32
> point) example, look at the total modifiers granted to someone with five
> 14s and a 12 for stats (+11). Now give this guy an 18. Without dipping
> below 10, you would be looking at an 18, two 10s, and three 12s. The total
> modifier is now only +7. It punishes those with high stats vs those who are
> generalists.

As the system as a whole punishes generalists and rewards focussed
heroes, this balances out, IMO.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 3:47:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:g9qa71p4no18gdof7p5eaa862af8nu60qk@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 1 May 2005 13:45:10 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> That is the case in just about every system, so it is not particularly
>> special. In a cinematic-style heroic roleplaying game, I feel the heroes
>> should be a bit larger than life. You cannot make a reasonable (i.e. not
>> "watered down") Conan or Aragorn with standard point buy. Quite frankly,
>> it
>> is designed to punish more focussed characters. For a high powered (32
>> point) example, look at the total modifiers granted to someone with five
>> 14s and a 12 for stats (+11). Now give this guy an 18. Without dipping
>> below 10, you would be looking at an 18, two 10s, and three 12s. The
>> total
>> modifier is now only +7. It punishes those with high stats vs those who
>> are
>> generalists.
>
> As the system as a whole punishes generalists and rewards focussed
> heroes, this balances out, IMO.

You must never have done extensive multiclassing with the rules as written,
then. By "extensive," I mean no more than 2 levels in any class, spreading
it wide and thin. I can show you examples that are ridiculously powerful
compared to single classed, "focussed" characters.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:28:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 11:47:47 +1200, Rupert Boleyn
<rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 May 2005 11:03:17 -0500, Erol K. Bayburt
><ErolB1@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> Also, cheapening high stats isn't altogether a bad thing. If starting
>> scores are capped at 18, then raising the average of each score will
>> make opponent's 18s less dangerous. In particular, it makes spells
>> less dangerous, which I think is a good thing.
>
>IME it makes many spells almost ineffective, especially direct damage
>spells with saves (eg Fireball). One-shot take-out spells become less
>reliable, but they retain their value WRT direct damage (or enhance
>it). This makes the thing I object to most in the magic system more
>obvious - a lucky spellcaster can take out just about anything, which
>is fine in fiction, often not so good in an rpg.

I find save-or-else spells to be sufficiently annoying that I've
systematically nerfed them. But I'd also nerf them in a "standard"
attribute game. I don't see how higher stats make them worse than
other spells, though, unless maybe there's some synergy going on in
your games that I don't see or use.

>
>> If your average stat is in the 14-15 range, then your 18 will only
>> give you a net +2 vs your peers, which makes it less dangerous, but
>> you'll still have the full +4 vs ordinary joes, which allows your 18
>> to retain most of its 'coolness' factor. This also makes it easier to
>> 'power down' NPCs and monsters when you want to use relatively weak
>> opponents - just give them normal stats. In a "standard point value"
>> game, OTOH, you have to go through contortions if you want to create
>> particularly weak opponents. (E.g. the troll in the Sunless Citidel
>> module).
>
>So instead, you prefer to have to build all the 'normal' strength
>monster 'by hand', saving the pregen ones for 'weak' encounters. Seems
>like extra effort to me. On top of that, high stats make characters
>more capable for their level, so they can handle tougher encounters,
>and thus level up faster. Fixing that requires re-working XP and
>wealth awards, or redoing all the CRs. Redoing XP is easy, but redoing
>wealth is not.

Redoing wealth is hard, but IME it's easy to bleed off wealth with
shiny role-playing opportunities unless the players are feeling
power-starved and therefore miserly as a result. Part of the fun of
the game can be in pretending to be a rich bastard with gobs of gold
to toss around, rather than the working stiff or impoverished student
one is in real life.

But even that may not be necessary. IME players often feel pushed to
take uncomfortable risks due to power-starvation and the desperate
need for gp and xp to assuage it. With high stats, players feel more
powerful and so are less desperate. They take on the same encounters
as before, and get the same rewards, but have more fun in the process
because the risk isn't so insane for them anymore. YMMV but that's the
dynamic I've encountered.

>
>> Finally, making powerful characters with powerful via higher stats
>> rather than via more levels makes them play differently and "feel"
>> different. You point this out as a bug: High stats makes GMing harder.
>> But it can also be a feature, if the high stat "feel" is what one
>> wants. A Conan-clone just wouldn't feel very Conan-like if built with
>> the standard array & a fistfull of extra levels, rather than with a
>> high stat total and fewer character levels.
>
>A Conan-clone will need a decent number of levels to replicate Conan
>at any point past his initial arrival in civilisation anyway, because
>he's a very experienced gladiator and did a fiar bit of thieving once
>in the cities of the south.

True, but my point is that a level 9 barbarian created with 90 stat
points will feel much more "Conan-like" than a level 14 barbarian
built using the standard array. This despite the standard-array
barbarian being more powerful, even after allowing a +3 LA for the
first barbarian's higher stats.

Throwing more levels at a mid-level standard-array character doesn't
do the job of making him resemble a fictional icon. Increasing his
stats does.



--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@aol.com
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 4:44:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 1 May 2005 22:35:40 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Why is that? The save DCs are increasing at roughly the same rate as the
> attribute save-boosts. Take into account also that it only takes 1
> attribute to raise the save DC, whereas it takes 3 to boost all the saves
> (unless you have Divine Grace or the like).

Because most dedicated spellcasters can find a decent stat for their
casting ability, even in a moderate-stat game, but finding decent
stats for your save stats is quite hard - until you have a high stat
game, at which point there are decent scores for everything (or more
thing, anyway).

This is the same reason 'light' fighters become more effective in high
stat games (though with your variant it might be different) - a
character can have a decent Dex as well as good Str and Con, so having
heavy armour becomes less attractive.

> > One-shot take-out spells become less reliable,
>
> Choosing your one-shot becomes a bit more important. You avoid Fortitude
> take-outs for Fighter-types and Clerics, and Will take-outs for Clerics and
> Wizards.

IME with high stat games it actually becomes less important what save
you attack - they tend to be more even.

> > On top of that, high stats make characters
> > more capable for their level, so they can handle tougher encounters,
> > and thus level up faster.
>
> This does happen, relative to a lower powered game, but not quite as much as
> you might think. Characters can take more abuse without resting, for
> example.

Having run high-stat games since D&d3 came out, I've seen it quite a
bit. The more abuse between rests actually makes it worse, IME - more
encounters equals more XP. That didn't happen too much in my games,
but that's because the groups tend to muck about a lot, and because
they flip from extreme stupidity/bravery and extreme caution, neither
of which is an ideal approach to modern D&D encounters.

> That is true. It is also true that he will need to start with very high
> stats (higher than the "high powered" point buy) in order to be true to
> form.

"High powered" can give nice stats, but it's not (and I don't recall
claiming it is) super powerful. FWIW, I calculate it's about +1 LA
over the standard spread.

I'm currently favouring 28-point buy for the next game I run. That's
enough that a PC will be a bit better than a 'default' PC-classed NPC,
without being high enough to queer the CR/XP system. One reason I want
to run such a game is to see if my analysis stands up to play with my
group, and whether the difference I've observed between high-point and
low-point characters within one party is real, or merely one of
contrast. I'm fairly sure it's not, but it'll be nice to see.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 4:44:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 00:44:45 +1200, Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
scribed into the ether:

>On Sun, 1 May 2005 22:35:40 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
><capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

>> > One-shot take-out spells become less reliable,
>>
>> Choosing your one-shot becomes a bit more important. You avoid Fortitude
>> take-outs for Fighter-types and Clerics, and Will take-outs for Clerics and
>> Wizards.
>
>IME with high stat games it actually becomes less important what save
>you attack - they tend to be more even.

To an extent, but at say, 10th level, a fighter would need a bonus of +8 to
his wis/dex to keep up with what a cleric/rogue gets just for their class.

That's not something you could easily pull off even with a 40 point
character.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 4:44:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 1 May 2005 22:24:05 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > As the system as a whole punishes generalists and rewards focussed
> > heroes, this balances out, IMO.
>
> You must never have done extensive multiclassing with the rules as written,
> then. By "extensive," I mean no more than 2 levels in any class, spreading
> it wide and thin. I can show you examples that are ridiculously powerful
> compared to single classed, "focussed" characters.

I suspect you mean a different thing by 'focussed' than I do. I mean
focussed in what they do, not by class.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 4:44:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:2r2c7150036qps40ff45ma3i243jd5ca8f@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 1 May 2005 22:24:05 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> > As the system as a whole punishes generalists and rewards focussed
>> > heroes, this balances out, IMO.
>>
>> You must never have done extensive multiclassing with the rules as
>> written,
>> then. By "extensive," I mean no more than 2 levels in any class,
>> spreading
>> it wide and thin. I can show you examples that are ridiculously powerful
>> compared to single classed, "focussed" characters.
>
> I suspect you mean a different thing by 'focussed' than I do. I mean
> focussed in what they do, not by class.

To two generally go hand-in-hand, in my experience. There are some
exceptions, of course. Would you be so kind as to give me an example?

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 1:56:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:35:43 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> To an extent, but at say, 10th level, a fighter would need a bonus of +8 to
> his wis/dex to keep up with what a cleric/rogue gets just for their class.
>
> That's not something you could easily pull off even with a 40 point
> character.

I didn't say they became the same, just that they become more even.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 2:01:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 2 May 2005 09:48:55 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > I suspect you mean a different thing by 'focussed' than I do. I mean
> > focussed in what they do, not by class.
>
> To two generally go hand-in-hand, in my experience. There are some
> exceptions, of course. Would you be so kind as to give me an example?

A mobility based fighter type, with levels in fighter, rogue, and
prestige classes to suit (I can't remember how the one I saw in action
was built, and it was for 3.0 anyway). These days if you have the
stats for it, swashbuckler might be a good swap for fighter, but you
need the Int to make it worthwhile.

Another thing - lots of high stats makes monks, bards, and druids
better (and to a lesser extent clerics, barbarians, and paladins)
faster than it does wizards & sorcerers (and to a lesser extent
fighters). The more stats a class depends on, the more it benefits
from a game in which stats are high. This may or may not be a good
thing, depending on what you think of the balance between classes.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 4:37:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:28:57 -0500, Erol K. Bayburt
<ErolB1@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> I find save-or-else spells to be sufficiently annoying that I've
> systematically nerfed them. But I'd also nerf them in a "standard"
> attribute game. I don't see how higher stats make them worse than
> other spells, though, unless maybe there's some synergy going on in
> your games that I don't see or use.

While high stats tend to diminsh the effect of direct damage spells,
and those that hand out penalties (they become less reliable, and
characters have bigger bonuses and more hit points to soak the effects
with), one-shot takeouts become less reliable but retain their full
effect when they work. As a result they become better in comparison to
other spells.

> But even that may not be necessary. IME players often feel pushed to
> take uncomfortable risks due to power-starvation and the desperate
> need for gp and xp to assuage it. With high stats, players feel more
> powerful and so are less desperate. They take on the same encounters
> as before, and get the same rewards, but have more fun in the process
> because the risk isn't so insane for them anymore. YMMV but that's the
> dynamic I've encountered.

This is definately a mileage thing. In one group the demand for more
power, is driven by the power of the opponents - we spend money on
parties and nice clothes when we're ahead of the power curve, and save
it for shiny magic when we think we're behind. In the pther group I
think power and shiny magic causes addiction, and the more they have,
the more they must have.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 2:15:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:t62c715i7lcd9j746nseqvamarocqj73jv@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 1 May 2005 22:35:40 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> Why is that? The save DCs are increasing at roughly the same rate as the
>> attribute save-boosts. Take into account also that it only takes 1
>> attribute to raise the save DC, whereas it takes 3 to boost all the saves
>> (unless you have Divine Grace or the like).
>
> Because most dedicated spellcasters can find a decent stat for their
> casting ability, even in a moderate-stat game, but finding decent
> stats for your save stats is quite hard - until you have a high stat
> game, at which point there are decent scores for everything (or more
> thing, anyway).

True, but the spellcaster is almost always going to have an 18 in their
casting stat; you are not likely to have the same in all 3 save stats.

> This is the same reason 'light' fighters become more effective in high
> stat games (though with your variant it might be different) - a
> character can have a decent Dex as well as good Str and Con, so having
> heavy armour becomes less attractive.

The movement penalty is worse on that point that the Dexterity limitation,
in my experience (and there are enchantments to raise that limit). However,
being able to essentially soak tons of damage is very appealing.

>> > One-shot take-out spells become less reliable,
>>
>> Choosing your one-shot becomes a bit more important. You avoid Fortitude
>> take-outs for Fighter-types and Clerics, and Will take-outs for Clerics
>> and
>> Wizards.
>
> IME with high stat games it actually becomes less important what save
> you attack - they tend to be more even.

I have not had that experience. Fighters tend to have high Constitutions,
Rogues still have high Dexterities, etc. There is a pretty good gap there,
usually.

>> > On top of that, high stats make characters
>> > more capable for their level, so they can handle tougher encounters,
>> > and thus level up faster.
>>
>> This does happen, relative to a lower powered game, but not quite as much
>> as
>> you might think. Characters can take more abuse without resting, for
>> example.
>
> Having run high-stat games since D&d3 came out, I've seen it quite a
> bit. The more abuse between rests actually makes it worse, IME - more
> encounters equals more XP.

Our characters *do* tend to advance quickly when we are playing a
standard-XP game. Of course, that suits our group fine as well.

>> That is true. It is also true that he will need to start with very high
>> stats (higher than the "high powered" point buy) in order to be true to
>> form.
>
> "High powered" can give nice stats, but it's not (and I don't recall
> claiming it is) super powerful. FWIW, I calculate it's about +1 LA
> over the standard spread.

That sounds reasonable. I figure mine is somewhere in the neighborhood of
+2 LA, figuring about .2 LA per +2 to a stat, rounding up (based on some
comparisons).

> I'm currently favouring 28-point buy for the next game I run. That's
> enough that a PC will be a bit better than a 'default' PC-classed NPC,
> without being high enough to queer the CR/XP system. One reason I want
> to run such a game is to see if my analysis stands up to play with my
> group, and whether the difference I've observed between high-point and
> low-point characters within one party is real, or merely one of
> contrast. I'm fairly sure it's not, but it'll be nice to see.

That sounds pretty interesting.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:54:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> typed:

>
>"Jim Davies" <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
>news:01d571d6m2qvq0gpkujptmftquaspf9vib@4ax.com...

>> So why not just have everything as per the RAW?
>
>In what way are we not playing the rules as written?

Your method of character creation (90 pts total) is not afaict in the
PHB, but that's not really the point.

Having such a big pool and then limiting a stat to 18 seem
counterproductive. You'll either have a lot of 18s or a suboptimal
character. Your later example of Conan would look something like
Str 18
Dex 16
Con 18
Int 14
Wis 12
Cha 12
because you can't give him the awesome (20? 22?) strength he's
credited with. A 25-pt character can have an 18, so 18s still don't
look impressive. You're just producing all-rounders.

>> You seem to be playing
>> a rather superhero game with a party of destinied ubermensch battling
>> ubermonsters against a background of normal people.
>
>Powerful heroic characters fighting powerful foes and overcoming great
>challenges, yes. That is exactly what we are playing.
>
>> Maybe that's what you want, but it seems a bit strange.
>
>Why is that, pray tell? If I wanted gritty fantasy, I would play GURPS. I
>want cinematic heroism and larger than life heroes, with foes and challenges
>to match. D&D is altogether suitable for this. Have you actually looked at
>the iconic NPCs in the Forgotten Realms Handbook? They are similarly
>powerful.

I don't have any FR, but they do seem very munchy Mary Sue from what
I've inferred.

The point is that D&D is designed to do that anyway. Unless you're
specifically identifying your PCs as divinely favoured or demigods in
the making, ala Achilles / Aeneas / Hercules / Odysseus / Gilgamesh /
Hiawatha, I don't see why they need to stand so comprehensively above
the rest of the world. If they are, then fine.

In a later post, you claim that you've boosted your boss monsters to
Elite level. woohoo. That's a 25-pt character, considered the bog
standard PC and nowhere near what you're describing above.

But it's your game, so enjoy it.

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:54:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jim Davies" <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
news:s4sc715uuk60ct6mnsuhpim9q3u86mg3gq@4ax.com...
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> typed:
>
>>
>>"Jim Davies" <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
>>news:01d571d6m2qvq0gpkujptmftquaspf9vib@4ax.com...
>
>>> So why not just have everything as per the RAW?
>>
>>In what way are we not playing the rules as written?
>
> Your method of character creation (90 pts total) is not afaict in the
> PHB, but that's not really the point.
>
> Having such a big pool and then limiting a stat to 18 seem
> counterproductive. You'll either have a lot of 18s or a suboptimal
> character. Your later example of Conan would look something like
> Str 18
> Dex 16
> Con 18
> Int 14
> Wis 12
> Cha 12
> because you can't give him the awesome (20? 22?) strength he's
> credited with. A 25-pt character can have an 18, so 18s still don't
> look impressive. You're just producing all-rounders.
>
>>> You seem to be playing
>>> a rather superhero game with a party of destinied ubermensch battling
>>> ubermonsters against a background of normal people.
>>
>>Powerful heroic characters fighting powerful foes and overcoming great
>>challenges, yes. That is exactly what we are playing.
>>
>>> Maybe that's what you want, but it seems a bit strange.
>>
>>Why is that, pray tell? If I wanted gritty fantasy, I would play GURPS.
>>I
>>want cinematic heroism and larger than life heroes, with foes and
>>challenges
>>to match. D&D is altogether suitable for this. Have you actually looked
>>at
>>the iconic NPCs in the Forgotten Realms Handbook? They are similarly
>>powerful.
>
> I don't have any FR, but they do seem very munchy Mary Sue from what
> I've inferred.
>
> The point is that D&D is designed to do that anyway. Unless you're
> specifically identifying your PCs as divinely favoured or demigods in
> the making, ala Achilles / Aeneas / Hercules / Odysseus / Gilgamesh /
> Hiawatha, I don't see why they need to stand so comprehensively above
> the rest of the world. If they are, then fine.
>
> In a later post, you claim that you've boosted your boss monsters to
> Elite level. woohoo. That's a 25-pt character, considered the bog
> standard PC and nowhere near what you're describing above.
>
> But it's your game, so enjoy it.
>
> --
> Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
>
> D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:54:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jim Davies" <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
news:s4sc715uuk60ct6mnsuhpim9q3u86mg3gq@4ax.com...
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> typed:
>
>>
>>"Jim Davies" <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
>>news:01d571d6m2qvq0gpkujptmftquaspf9vib@4ax.com...
>
>>> So why not just have everything as per the RAW?
>>
>>In what way are we not playing the rules as written?
>
> Your method of character creation (90 pts total) is not afaict in the
> PHB,

....nor are most of the other methods discussed here. In fact, only one is
discussed in the PHB.

> but that's not really the point.

No, not at all. Why are you even bringing it up? D&D has traditionally
embraced "generate ability scores as your group feels comfortable". I am
still curious where you are getting this "not playing as per the RAW"
business.

> Having such a big pool and then limiting a stat to 18 seem
> counterproductive.

Why? It is the maximum starting ability score.

>You'll either have a lot of 18s or a suboptimal character.

....or you will have a generalist. Depending on the character and class,
this might be favorable.

> Your later example of Conan would look something like
> Str 18
> Dex 16
> Con 18
> Int 14
> Wis 12
> Cha 12

That seems pretty good, for the beginning of Conan's career.

> because you can't give him the awesome (20? 22?) strength he's
> credited with.

He gets a 20 Strength at 8th level, and a 22 at 16th. What is the problem?

> A 25-pt character can have an 18,

....and be gimpy in almost every other area. Can you build Conan at the
beginning of his career on 25 points?

> so 18s still don't look impressive.

Nonsense. The fact that you have to be moronic wheezing social leper in
order to have tremendous strength means that few will go that route. It is
not remotely cost effective, and in fact punishes those with a "high ability
score" character concept.

> You're just producing all-rounders.

In what area is Aragorn deficient?

>>> You seem to be playing
>>> a rather superhero game with a party of destinied ubermensch battling
>>> ubermonsters against a background of normal people.
>>
>>Powerful heroic characters fighting powerful foes and overcoming great
>>challenges, yes. That is exactly what we are playing.
>>
>>> Maybe that's what you want, but it seems a bit strange.
>>
>>Why is that, pray tell? If I wanted gritty fantasy, I would play GURPS.
>>I
>>want cinematic heroism and larger than life heroes, with foes and
>>challenges
>>to match. D&D is altogether suitable for this. Have you actually looked
>>at
>>the iconic NPCs in the Forgotten Realms Handbook? They are similarly
>>powerful.
>
> I don't have any FR, but they do seem very munchy Mary Sue from what
> I've inferred.

There are high powered characters with high stats on both sides of the fence
in that setting. Check out the iconic Greyhawk characters while you are at
it.

> The point is that D&D is designed to do that anyway.

I know that. It works perfectly fine.

> Unless you're specifically identifying your PCs as divinely favoured or
> demigods in
> the making, ala Achilles / Aeneas / Hercules / Odysseus / Gilgamesh /
> Hiawatha, I don't see why they need to stand so comprehensively above
> the rest of the world.

Why does any fantasy character?

> If they are, then fine.

> In a later post, you claim that you've boosted your boss monsters to
> Elite level. woohoo.

No, I mentioned that I use the same ability score array that the PCs get.

> That's a 25-pt character, considered the bog
> standard PC and nowhere near what you're describing above.

Read more carefully.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 4:11:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 23:54:16 +0100, Jim Davies
<jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> The point is that D&D is designed to do that anyway. Unless you're
> specifically identifying your PCs as divinely favoured or demigods in
> the making, ala Achilles / Aeneas / Hercules / Odysseus / Gilgamesh /
> Hiawatha, I don't see why they need to stand so comprehensively above
> the rest of the world. If they are, then fine.

That's another thing I don't really like about really high stats as
the defining feature of 'real' heroes - a PC (or other major
character) can never truely be their equal unless they are similarly
endowed. If levels are used to shows coolness a PC can aspire to the
same levels of excellence.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 4:11:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:4m4g71pvg733vvao7iiti6rtu3fegtqith@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 23:54:16 +0100, Jim Davies
> <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> The point is that D&D is designed to do that anyway. Unless you're
>> specifically identifying your PCs as divinely favoured or demigods in
>> the making, ala Achilles / Aeneas / Hercules / Odysseus / Gilgamesh /
>> Hiawatha, I don't see why they need to stand so comprehensively above
>> the rest of the world. If they are, then fine.
>
> That's another thing I don't really like about really high stats as
> the defining feature of 'real' heroes - a PC (or other major
> character) can never truely be their equal unless they are similarly
> endowed.

Agreed.

> If levels are used to shows coolness a PC can aspire to the
> same levels of excellence.

Yes, but "real-world" heroes tend not to share this "level" concept, so that
can be a bit difficult to implement.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 7:50:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> Jim Davies wrote:
> > Malachias Invictus typed:
> > > Jim Davies wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So why not just have everything as per the RAW?
> > >
> > > In what way are we not playing the rules as written?
> >
> > Your method of character creation (90 pts total) is not
> > afaict in the PHB,
>
> ...nor are most of the other methods discussed here. In
> fact, only one is discussed in the PHB.

It seems pretty obvious to me that he meant in the PH or the DMG.
Several people, myself included, think it silly that point-based and
array-based stat generation isn't in the PH.

Personally, I don't care how other people generate stats. :D 

> > You're just producing all-rounders.
>
> In what area is Aragorn deficient?

Aragorn is not a useful comparison. Being Dunedain, he's got a level
adjustment and unbalanced racial stat modifiers, just like any
Middle-Earth elf does.

> > I don't have any FR, but they do seem very munchy Mary
> > Sue from what I've inferred.
>
> There are high powered characters with high stats on both
> sides of the fence in that setting. Check out the iconic
> Greyhawk characters while you are at it.

The 3e versions of the iconic Greyhawk characters aren't particularly
munchkin, from what I can tell (though not many of them have been
fully statted out).

> > Unless you're specifically identifying your PCs as divinely
> > favoured or demigods in the making, ala Achilles / Aeneas /
> > Hercules / Odysseus / Gilgamesh / Hiawatha, I don't see why
> > they need to stand so comprehensively above the rest of the
> > world.
>
> Why does any fantasy character?

Stand above <> stand comprehensively above. PCs are better than the
average folk, but most games' PCs aren't better than the average folk
in absolutely every fashion, including being better than other
adventurers.

In my games, other elite adventurers are built exactly the way PCs are
(36 stat points), generic adventurers are built with the standard
array, and townsfolk have the non-elite array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8)
if I want them better than most commoners at their job, or the generic
array, or whatever it's called (11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10).

Obviously, YMMV on the top end, and does.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 9:26:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 3 May 2005 22:15:32 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > Because most dedicated spellcasters can find a decent stat for their
> > casting ability, even in a moderate-stat game, but finding decent
> > stats for your save stats is quite hard - until you have a high stat
> > game, at which point there are decent scores for everything (or more
> > thing, anyway).
>
> True, but the spellcaster is almost always going to have an 18 in their
> casting stat; you are not likely to have the same in all 3 save stats.

However, the spellcaster is likely to have 16+ even in a low-stat
game, whereas the save stats will tend to go from 10-16 to 14-18 (the
high end being a rogue's Dex or a Cleric's Wis) - a net gain for the
saves. Because the casting stats are closer to the cap already, high
stats boost them less than they boost the save stats.

> That sounds reasonable. I figure mine is somewhere in the neighborhood of
> +2 LA, figuring about .2 LA per +2 to a stat, rounding up (based on some
> comparisons).

I've been assuming +6 points in stats gives +1 LA, assuming reasonably
intelligent placement.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 9:26:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:evmg71d543vq58efo4i1a98vue0n72337a@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 May 2005 22:15:32 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> > Because most dedicated spellcasters can find a decent stat for their
>> > casting ability, even in a moderate-stat game, but finding decent
>> > stats for your save stats is quite hard - until you have a high stat
>> > game, at which point there are decent scores for everything (or more
>> > thing, anyway).
>>
>> True, but the spellcaster is almost always going to have an 18 in their
>> casting stat; you are not likely to have the same in all 3 save stats.
>
> However, the spellcaster is likely to have 16+ even in a low-stat
> game, whereas the save stats will tend to go from 10-16 to 14-18 (the
> high end being a rogue's Dex or a Cleric's Wis) - a net gain for the
> saves. Because the casting stats are closer to the cap already, high
> stats boost them less than they boost the save stats.

Good point. Then again, characters also have their primary stats, etc. to
consider, and tend to (as you said) max them out. That still can end up
leaving few points for secondary stats. Also, point buy per the book
encourages a wide variety of middlin' high stats because it costs so much
per stat point at the high end.

>> That sounds reasonable. I figure mine is somewhere in the neighborhood
>> of
>> +2 LA, figuring about .2 LA per +2 to a stat, rounding up (based on some
>> comparisons).
>
> I've been assuming +6 points in stats gives +1 LA, assuming reasonably
> intelligent placement.

Per the point buy? That seems way off, when you look at sample races, their
LAs, and their stat adjusments. If you mean per *stat point*, then that
ends with the same result as mine, at least at the low end (.6 rounds to +1,
1.2 rounds to +2).

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 9:26:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 3 May 2005 22:02:35 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > If levels are used to shows coolness a PC can aspire to the
> > same levels of excellence.
>
> Yes, but "real-world" heroes tend not to share this "level" concept, so that
> can be a bit difficult to implement.

Yeah, well. They don't generally do stats in great detail, either.
Maybe we should all go play Fudge. :) 


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:38:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Nikolas Landauer <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote:
> In my games, other elite adventurers are built exactly the way PCs are
> (36 stat points), generic adventurers are built with the standard
> array, and townsfolk have the non-elite array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8)
> if I want them better than most commoners at their job, or the generic
> array, or whatever it's called (11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10).

I use something similar. I use the PC method
  • for major NPCs, the
    elite array (8-15) for minor NPCs with PC classes, the warrior array
    (8-13) for minor NPCs with NPC classes, and the monster array (10-11)
    for foes with no class levels.

  • I use a PC stat method intended to accommodate both point-buy and
    random-roll advocates. If you prefer point-buy, you get 30 points to
    spend (which I've previously calculated to be roughly equivalent to the
    random methods). If you prefer random rolls, you roll up a set of stats
    using the "organic" 4d6 method. If you don't like the resulting stats,
    even after the one re-reroll, you can rearrange the stats to taste (but
    then you don't get to keep the re-roll).
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
    Anonymous
    May 5, 2005 6:41:06 AM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jim Davies <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
    > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> typed:
    >>"Jim Davies" <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
    >>news:01d571d6m2qvq0gpkujptmftquaspf9vib@4ax.com...
    >
    >>> So why not just have everything as per the RAW?
    >>
    >>In what way are we not playing the rules as written?
    >
    > Your method of character creation (90 pts total) is not afaict in the
    > PHB, but that's not really the point.
    >
    > Having such a big pool and then limiting a stat to 18 seem
    > counterproductive. You'll either have a lot of 18s or a suboptimal
    > character. Your later example of Conan would look something like
    > Str 18
    > Dex 16
    > Con 18
    > Int 14
    > Wis 12
    > Cha 12
    > because you can't give him the awesome (20? 22?) strength he's
    > credited with. A 25-pt character can have an 18, so 18s still don't
    > look impressive. You're just producing all-rounders.

    FWIW, I don't know that the gaps between stats should be so great.

    Yes, he's an excellent physical specimen, but also mentally remarkable.
    He's very intelligent -- uneducated, perhaps, and superstitious, but he
    he learns a *lot* over the course of his career (may be modeled as just
    having buckets of skill points; side effect of intelligence?). He's got
    great senses and awareness (both physical and metaphysical -- he's been
    known to notice movement in his sleep). Charisma he's got *huge*
    amounts of, many of the stories discuss how overwhelming his presence
    can be (and he does, after all, get many of the girls...).

    As for the physical end of things, he's strong, fast, and tough. His
    reflexes and reaction speeds are very fast (probably Improved Initiative
    and highish Dex), he's good at ranged attacks. His feats of exceptional
    strength and damage-absorption could come at least in part from bonuses
    due to raging (on top of good strength and constitution scores).


    Of course, much of that is drawn from non-canon (i.e. not-REH) stories,
    so it's possible that not all of the above is true. OTOH, REH writes
    pretty consistent barbarians, and they all exhibit many of the same
    traits, so it's not unreasonable to expect that Conan does.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
    Anonymous
    May 5, 2005 3:05:37 PM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 4 May 2005 12:42:32 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
    <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > > I've been assuming +6 points in stats gives +1 LA, assuming reasonably
    > > intelligent placement.
    >
    > Per the point buy? That seems way off, when you look at sample races, their
    > LAs, and their stat adjusments. If you mean per *stat point*, then that
    > ends with the same result as mine, at least at the low end (.6 rounds to +1,
    > 1.2 rounds to +2).

    Per stat point, which just happens to mean that for most characters
    32-point buy is +1 LA over the 25-point standard point buy/standard
    array. It seems to work okay for characters up to 2-3 LA worth apart.
    After that the way some really high stats give more bonuses than you'd
    expect tends to distort things (for example a really good Int for a
    high level wizard).


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
    Anonymous
    May 5, 2005 3:05:38 PM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > I've been assuming +6 points in stats gives +1 LA, assuming reasonably
    > intelligent placement .... [According to this assumption,] for most
    > characters 32-point buy is +1 LA over the 25-point standard point
    > buy/standard array. It seems to work okay for characters up to 2-3 LA
    > worth apart.

    While that may be true, a 32-point character is not +1 LA over a
    character rolled according to the PHB method. The standard 4d6 method
    results in characters worth about 30 or 31 points on average. While
    random stats probably won't be as optimal as bought stats, they're still
    better IME than what you get from 25 points.

    Therefore, it'd be more accurate to say that 25-point characters are
    suboptimal by about -1 LA, and 32-point characters are closer to the PHB
    average.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
    Anonymous
    May 5, 2005 3:48:46 PM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 04 May 2005 23:32:39 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    <bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > > I've been assuming +6 points in stats gives +1 LA, assuming reasonably
    > > intelligent placement .... [According to this assumption,] for most
    > > characters 32-point buy is +1 LA over the 25-point standard point
    > > buy/standard array. It seems to work okay for characters up to 2-3 LA
    > > worth apart.
    >
    > While that may be true, a 32-point character is not +1 LA over a
    > character rolled according to the PHB method. The standard 4d6 method
    > results in characters worth about 30 or 31 points on average. While
    > random stats probably won't be as optimal as bought stats, they're still
    > better IME than what you get from 25 points.

    ISTR that when 3.0 came out this was analysed, and 4d6, drop low came
    out at about 28-points on average.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
    Anonymous
    May 5, 2005 3:48:47 PM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd wrote:
    >> While that may be true, a 32-point character is not +1 LA over a
    >> character rolled according to the PHB method. The standard 4d6 method
    >> results in characters worth about 30 or 31 points on average. While
    >> random stats probably won't be as optimal as bought stats, they're still
    >> better IME than what you get from 25 points.

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > ISTR that when 3.0 came out this was analysed, and 4d6, drop low came
    > out at about 28-points on average.

    I did that analysis, and the average point value was over 30.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
    Anonymous
    May 5, 2005 3:48:48 PM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
    news:slrnd7j3ku.dei.bradd+news@szonye.com...
    > Bradd wrote:
    > >> While that may be true, a 32-point character is not +1 LA over a
    > >> character rolled according to the PHB method. The standard 4d6 method
    > >> results in characters worth about 30 or 31 points on average. While
    > >> random stats probably won't be as optimal as bought stats, they're
    still
    > >> better IME than what you get from 25 points.
    >
    > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > > ISTR that when 3.0 came out this was analysed, and 4d6, drop low came
    > > out at about 28-points on average.
    >
    > I did that analysis, and the average point value was over 30.

    The result would depend on how you counted costs for scores lower than 8.
    If you assume 0 points or reverse the system you will end up with very
    different results.

    How did you do the analysis btw? A series of trials?
    Anonymous
    May 5, 2005 3:48:49 PM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    >>> ISTR that when 3.0 came out this was analysed, and 4d6, drop low
    >>> came out at about 28-points on average.

    Bradd wrote:
    >> I did that analysis, and the average point value was over 30.

    Symbol wrote:
    > The result would depend on how you counted costs for scores lower than
    > 8. If you assume 0 points or reverse the system you will end up with
    > very different results.
    >
    > How did you do the analysis btw? A series of trials?

    I found the original thread, titled "Point-buy method too stingy?" and
    posted in January, 2001. For the full details, see:

    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/b...

    I enumerated all of the possible results for the 3d6, 4d6, and 5d6
    methods and calculated their values with a few different techniques for
    valuing scores less than 8. For the 4d6 method, the most conservative
    calculation had a mean of 30.25, median of 29, and mode of 28. The most
    generous calculation had a mean of 31.86, a median of 31, and a mode of
    29. The two intermediate calculations both had a median of 30.

    I concluded that the 4d6 method results in 30-point characters on
    average, and that a campaign that permits both random and point-buy
    chargen should use 28-30 points for the point-buy characters. (I put 28
    points at the low end because it was the RPGA standard at the time and
    because it reflects point-buy's slightly greater potential for
    min-maxing.)
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
    Anonymous
    May 5, 2005 4:11:29 PM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
    news:slrnd7jtmf.fls.bradd+news@szonye.com...
    > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > >>> ISTR that when 3.0 came out this was analysed, and 4d6, drop low
    > >>> came out at about 28-points on average.
    >
    > Bradd wrote:
    > >> I did that analysis, and the average point value was over 30.
    >
    > Symbol wrote:
    > > The result would depend on how you counted costs for scores lower than
    > > 8. If you assume 0 points or reverse the system you will end up with
    > > very different results.
    > >
    > > How did you do the analysis btw? A series of trials?
    >
    > I found the original thread, titled "Point-buy method too stingy?" and
    > posted in January, 2001. For the full details, see:
    >
    >
    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/b...
    a460c8d1e67ada/45b779938427af69
    >
    > I enumerated all of the possible results for the 3d6, 4d6, and 5d6
    > methods and calculated their values with a few different techniques for
    > valuing scores less than 8. For the 4d6 method, the most conservative
    > calculation had a mean of 30.25, median of 29, and mode of 28. The most
    > generous calculation had a mean of 31.86, a median of 31, and a mode of
    > 29. The two intermediate calculations both had a median of 30.

    Interesting. Not surprisingly there is a skewed distribution so median
    would allow a better comparison. You could also safely ignore the No
    scores < 8 rolls IMO so that gives the remaining 3 results as 29,30 & 30.

    You did dump "hopeless rolls". I had wondered about that. This seems like
    a pretty fair comparison.

    Personally I think values lower than 8 should be scaled. I read your point
    about the typical exponential costs and linear cost of penalties we see
    elsewhere but this doesn't really apply to stat generation where a +2
    racial bonus for at one is (or can be depending on which stat) offset
    by -2 to another.

    > I concluded that the 4d6 method results in 30-point characters on
    > average, and that a campaign that permits both random and point-buy
    > chargen should use 28-30 points for the point-buy characters. (I put 28
    > points at the low end because it was the RPGA standard at the time and
    > because it reflects point-buy's slightly greater potential for
    > min-maxing.)

    30 seems reasonable to me. You lose flexibility when rolling but you also
    gamble on getting among the batches of higher scores with only a minimal
    risk of getting lower ones.

    We have now moved away from using 25 point buy (to 28). This confirms that
    it was a good idea! Might see if I can reproduce your results though.
    Anonymous
    May 7, 2005 3:09:28 AM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> typed:
    snip
    >Jim Davies <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
    >> ...Conan would look something like
    >> Str 18
    >> Dex 16
    >> Con 18
    >> Int 14
    >> Wis 12
    >> Cha 12
    >> because you can't give him the awesome (20? 22?) strength he's
    >> credited with. A 25-pt character can have an 18, so 18s still don't
    >> look impressive. You're just producing all-rounders.
    >
    >FWIW, I don't know that the gaps between stats should be so great.

    I did have some trouble with this, it must be said.

    >Yes, he's an excellent physical specimen, but also mentally remarkable.

    True. Barbarian senses, willpower and whatnot, so I wasn't sure
    whether to put the 14 in Int or Wis. I considered 14 Dex, 14 Int, 14
    Wis.

    But Str and Con just *have* to be on the verge of superhuman. Almost
    every story has an account of his astonishing brute strength, and his
    stamina is almost as dominant.

    >Charisma he's got *huge*
    >amounts of, many of the stories discuss how overwhelming his presence
    >can be (and he does, after all, get many of the girls...).

    Often he gets the girl by being the only one left standing, or being
    the only one who hasn't tried to sacrifice said girl to Things Man Was
    Not Meant To Know.

    >His feats of exceptional
    >strength and damage-absorption could come at least in part from bonuses
    >due to raging (on top of good strength and constitution scores).

    There is that, but only as justification for not going above 18.



    --
    Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

    D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
    Anonymous
    May 7, 2005 3:09:33 AM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> typed:

    >"Jim Davies" <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
    >news:s4sc715uuk60ct6mnsuhpim9q3u86mg3gq@4ax.com...
    >> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> typed:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Jim Davies" <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
    >>>news:01d571d6m2qvq0gpkujptmftquaspf9vib@4ax.com...
    >>
    >> Having such a big pool and then limiting a stat to 18 seem
    >> counterproductive.
    >
    >Why? It is the maximum starting ability score.
    >
    >>You'll either have a lot of 18s or a suboptimal character.
    >
    >...or you will have a generalist. Depending on the character and class,
    >this might be favorable.

    OK, so it *might* be what you want. If you want to play Aragorn with a
    string of 16s and 14s, excellent. If you want to play a specialist,
    probably not fine. As others have said, wizards, sorcerers and
    fighters are relatively nerfed by this, whereas rangers, monks and
    bards are buffed.

    As you've broken through the overall chargen limits (this is 48-66
    points depending on distribution), I don't see why you shouldn't break
    through this one. It's not as though one or two 20s are going to make
    a huge difference.

    --
    Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

    D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
        • 1
        • 2 / 2
    !