anything on dwarves [Archive]

Krow

11-09-2002, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Ariadne

Originally posted by Krow

While I agree somewhat to the proposition that Dwarves could stand to have a -2 to DEX, I don't think having a +2 to CON is such a good idea. As the CON stat for Dwarves increases, too much unbalancing can occur.
Sorry, but if I think of the embodiment of endurance (of humanoids), I think of dwarves. The incensement of Con is a very good idea, as well as the Str increase. Dwarves are typical fighters and train for it, since they can walk. Otherwise they are not as dexterous as other races (and not as beautiful), that’s why reduced Dex and Cha. If you sum it out, the dwarf will have the ability modifiers +/- 0. It is balanced!

Good work, Keovar...

It's obvious that +2 +2 -2 -2 = 0. What I meant by unbalancing was in respect to other player characters and races. If a Dwarf gets a +2 to strength, that makes him eligible for 20 strength. This puts him in the same catagory of strength for a 2000 pound 18" stone giant. A dwarf, with a base weight of 130 pounds + 4d10 pounds for the racial modifer has a max (usual) weight of 170 pounds. This is saying that a 170 pound creature is as strong, not relatively, but equally, as a 2000 pound creature. Both these creatures would have a max press of 700 pounds. That's roughly 4 1/2 times the dwarf's bodyweight, vs. the 35% of the giant's bodyweight that he could max press.

Let's look at damage. This allows a dwarf to have a +8 damage modifier for strength alone. Let's pit this up as a fighting combat...Barehanded dwarf vs. human with a long sword, each doing minimum damage. The dwarf hits for a minimum damage of 9. The human, 1. It would take the human 9 attacks with a sword to do the same damage as the 1 attack from the dwarf.

The To-Hit modifier is the same thing, the dwarf is fighting barehanded against an armed opponent, this gives the dwarf a -4 to his attack roll. No problem, with this 20 strength, he gets a +3 to his attack rolls. Now, try adding all this up with a weapon in his hand.

Now with constitution, there's not much difference between 19 and 20, the resurrection survival chance stays the same and the system shock percentage stays the same, as well as the number of bonus hit points, 5. However, at 20 Constitution, the Dwarf has Regeneration. Isn't the +5 to saving throws enough?

This doesn't even take into account that the dwarves in Birthright take half damage from half the different types of physical attacks. The penalty to Dexterity and Charisma are a very small price to pay. You're uglier, and you take an extra hit out of every 10. But you've got regeneration, so that's negated in the long run.

So, as a Dungeon Master, you have a dwarven tank. Then, you have all your other characters. Even if they're powerful, they cannot compete. The Dwarf kills everything in one hit, leaving all the other players bored, because they don't even fall into the same universe as the dwarf. So, you bring in bigger creatures to throw at them for a more difficult combat. Surprise, everyone is way underpowered, except the dwarf with 20 strength and 20 constitution. So, the dwarf lives, everyone else dies.

This is what I referred to as "unbalancing".

Keovar

11-09-2002, 11:35 AM

Krow, it's obvious from the numbers you state that you've never played, or even seriously looked at, 3rd Edition D&D. The stat system is much less topheavy than it was in AD&D. The stat system is not capped at 25, so giants are much stronger than they were before, but the bonuses don't ramp up so sharply.

Score Modifier
1..................-5
2-3...............-4
4-5...............-3
6-7...............-2
8-9...............-1
10-11............0
12-13...........+ 1
14-15...........+ 2
16-17...........+ 3
18-19...........+ 4
20-21...........+ 5
22-23...........+ 6
24-25...........+ 7
26-27...........+ 8
28-29...........+ 9
30-31...........+ 10
etc...

Above is the chart for all the stats and the modifiers they impart to their associated skills and other character features. Technically, the chart never ends, but it's easy enough to see the pattern if you need to extend it further.

In the case of Strength, the bonus listed applies to both attack and damage rolls, as well as certain skills. I don't have my books handy, but if I remember right, ogres have a 21 Str, trolls are at 23, titans have a 35, and a great wyrm gold dragon has a 45 strength.

As you can see, a 20 strength is very good, but you won't be arm wrestling any stone giants. In fact, a creature's lifting capacity is affected by it's size category, so if a dwarf had a 21 strength like an ogre, the ogre will lift quite a bit more due it being size "large" while the dwarf is "medium".

3rd edition is much more internally consistant and balanced than previous editions, but if you do get an opportunity to try it out, remember, leave your preconcieved notions behind and look at it as if it were a completely new game. Those who have had bad things to say about it are nearly always those who look at it with alot of 1st and 2nd edition assumptions.

Keovar

11-09-2002, 12:22 PM

Just a few additional notes about your post, Krow...

Your human vs. barehanded dwarf example is flawed even if you are looking at it in 2nd edition terms. Even if you make the dwarf have a 19 strength, you are comparing a maxxed out dwarf with an average human.

Furthermore, saying that having a dwarf in the group means you would have a character with 20 Str and 20 Con (or even 19 in each if you are using the 2ND edition modifiers I listed), is very suspect. Do you give your players free 18's or what? The "18 or nothing" mentality that players of older editions have produces this assumption that every "playable" character will have at least one 18 is a symptom of the topheavy stat chart. I no longer even have players roll stats, but instead use a point-buy system that is presented as an option the the 3rd edition DMG. Even though players CAN buy one or sometimes two 18's, they usually don't, because the gradually sloped modifiers mean you don't have to be in the 16+ range just to be a bit above average.

Anyway, look at my original post again and you will see that I listed two different versions of the dwarven stat adjustments. Judge them each by the standards present in the game they were listed to go with.

Peter Lubke

11-09-2002, 12:29 PM

On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 17:04, Krow wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1068

Krow wrote:

Originally posted by Ariadne

Originally posted by Krow

While I agree somewhat to the proposition that Dwarves could stand to have a -2 to DEX, I don`t think having a +2 to CON is such a good idea. As the CON stat for Dwarves increases, too much unbalancing can occur.
Sorry, but if I think of the embodiment of endurance (of humanoids), I think of dwarves. The incensement of Con is a very good idea, as well as the Str increase. Dwarves are typical fighters and train for it, since they can walk. Otherwise they are not as dexterous as other races (and not as beautiful), that’s why reduced Dex and Cha. If you sum it out, the dwarf will have the ability modifiers +/- 0. It is balanced!

Good work, Keovar...

It`s obvious that +2 +2 -2 -2 = 0.

Actually it`s neither obvious or even true. It would be true if ability
scores were rolled on a d20, but we aren`t talking about a linear value
scale - ordinary (general) maths does not apply. They are rolled most
commonly with 3d6 (regardless of whether more dice were actually rolled
the pip count comes from 3d6). In some cases I have heard of DM allowing
players to set their stats from a given total point count (such a system
is patently unfair and most good DMs avoid it like the plague but I have
seen it happen ...).

In any event it is quite apparent to everyone that +1 to an ability
score of 10 has a completely different value to +1 on an ability score
of 18. The odds of rolling a 19 with 3d6 is 0%. We`ve all seen a
probability chart that shows the probability distribution of the 16
possible values. A +1 should be worth 6.25% on such a chart if it is to
be given equal weight (which it is), but the value change from 17 to 18
is 15 times that of the value change from 10 to 11. (these are the two
most extreme cases) What this means is that if there were 16 ability
scores and all but one were at 11 and the other at 17, it would be an
equal value exchange to reduce all the 11 scores and increase the 17
score.

As well, consider that you cannot trade apples for oranges here. A +1 to
one ability does not equate to a -1 in another ability. The scores may
be similar but the scales are not. In fact it is almost impossible to
even begin to set an exchange rate. The notion that all six abilities
have the same scale is ridiculous.

Not only all that (as if it isn`t enough), but the scales being used are
all human-relative. They can`t even begin to be applied once you move
away from the human norm by very much at all - fortunately dwarves and
elves are very similar to humans (although as we shall see later, even
dwarves and halflings have significant problems in this regard). Some of
this difference is reflected in restricted ranges for certain ability
scores among the demi-human races.

The constitution range for dwarves is 13 to 18 (pre-adjustment) in BR
AD&D 2nd Ed. This is only 56 of the possible 216 values, and the
distribution is not bell-curved. In fact it gives a percentile
distribution (after adjustment) of: 01-37 == 15, 38-64 == 16, 65-82 ==
17, 83-92 == 18, 93-98 == 19, 99-00 == 20.

What I meant by unbalancing was in respect to other player characters and races. If a Dwarf gets a +2 to strength, that makes him
eligible for 20 strength. This puts him in the same catagory of strength for a 2000 pound 18" stone giant. A dwarf, with a base
weight of 130 pounds + 4d10 pounds for the racial modifer has a max (usual) weight of 170 pounds. This is saying that a 170 pound
creature is as strong, not relatively, but equally, as a 2000 pound creature. Both these creatures would have a max press of 700
pounds. That`s roughly 4 1/2 times the dwarf`s bodyweight, vs. the 35% of the giant`s bodyweight that he could max press.

You`ve caught the essence of the problem quite neatly. Your typical
stone giant is 12 foot tall and weighs in at around 1400 pounds (scary
huh? - and that`s not even taking into account the fact that a stone
giant might be made of denser stuff than humans!). Now the problem with
that pesky strength table (all the abilities even) is that they are for
humans. (actually they`re based on a 6 foot tall 175 pound human male -
as all values came from the original D&D tables) You can`t make any
deductions about a Stone Giant from them, so I`m afraid that the last
part of your argument "This is saying..." is pretty much lost. (But we
can still make some deductions about the Stone Giant and what it can
lift from elsewhere - aha! .. you`ll have to read on)

Let`s look at your 170 pound dwarf. Allowing for the fact that dwarves
are about 1.9 times more dense that humans, (this time I will factor it
in - dwarves in Cerilia are being derived from stone etc - there`s a
sound basis behind the figure - just accept it for now), the dwarf would
be approximately 57 inches (4 feet 9 inches) tall - very big for a dwarf
(not unusual since it`s an extreme example).

One question that remains unanswered (so far) is where did that table in
the 2nd Ed Players handbook come from? Actually it comes largely from
the 1st Ed AD&D handbook - max press is STRx10 + WT_ALLCE/10 from the
first edition - however there`s an important distinction - 1st Ed tells
you outright - these values are for a 175 pound 6 foot human - adjust
for changes in height and weight accordingly (although they don`t tell
you "how" to adjust).

So how can we adjust - particularly in a non-human-centric way? Well,
there`s good reason and adequate support for using the average body
weight as the main adjusting factor. The values in the strength table
can now be looked at as a percentage modifier of 175 pounds - which will
give a figure (as an example) of +70% for a strength rating of 18.51.

Why 18.51? Well, 18.51 is the new 20 (at least as far as strength is
concerned). Most times when the game calls for an add of 1 it often
states "or a percentile if over 18". So a dwarf (even if given a +2 on
an 18) shouldn`t go to 20 but to 18.51 instead. (Now as for the "stone
giant" entries on the 2nd ed strength tables, who thinks that a fighter
having swallowed a potion of stone giant strength will be "exactly" like
a stone giant? - no-one? good, we`re being sensible -- certainly the
fighter is much stronger relative to the normal human values, but
realistically he`s not about to be able to mix it with the stone giant
equally in an arm-wrestling contest, he`s just not big enough

So how much can they all lift (bench)? A. Stone Giant 1400 pounds, Big
Dwarf with 20 strength 384 pounds, Average Human with 18 strength 250
pounds. Man that little guy is strong!!

Could a dwarf have a greater strength than a human and yet not be able
to bench-press as much weight? Absolutely! and why not? Strength "is a
measure of muscle, endurance, and stamina combined". (besides, by making
it relative to body weight - creating a universal bipedal scale for
strength instead of a human scale - it`s easy to see that most dwarves
are very strong due to their greater density - better weight to height
ratio - yet still will tend be weigh less than a human - but their
strength range is in the upper level of distribution - there are no
`weak` dwarves) Imagine, if you will, a 4 foot 9 inch human child
(around 7-8 years old) being able to lift weights very similar to a
full-grown man.

As for an "actual 20" versus 18.51 ("the new 20"); +3/+8 versus +2/+3
is far more sensible to adopt "the new 20".

Let`s look at damage. This allows a dwarf to have a +8 damage modifier for strength alone. Let`s pit this up as a fighting combat...
Barehanded dwarf vs. human with a long sword, each doing minimum damage. The dwarf hits for a minimum damage of 9. The human, 1. It
would take the human 9 attacks with a sword to do the same damage as the 1 attack from the dwarf.

The To-Hit modifier is the same thing, the dwarf is fighting barehanded against an armed opponent, this gives the dwarf a -4 to his
attack roll. No problem, with this 20 strength, he gets a +3 to his attack rolls. Now, try adding all this up with a weapon in his
hand.

Now, with constitution, there`s not much difference, the resurrection survival chance stays the same and the system shock percentage
stays the same, as well as the number of bonus hit points, 5. However, at 20 Constitution, the Dwarf has Regeneration. Isn`t the +5
to saving throws enough?

This doesn`t even take into account that the dwarves in Birthright take half damage from half the different types of physical attacks.
The penalty to Dexterity and Charisma are a very small price to pay. You`re uglier, and you take an extra hit out of every 10. But
you`ve got regeneration, so that`s negated in the long run.

So, as a Dungeon Master, you have a dwarven tank. Then, you have all your other characters. Even if they`re powerful, they cannot
compete. The Dwarf kills everything in one hit, leaving all the other players bored, because they don`t even fall into the same
universe as the dwarf. So, you bring in bigger creatures to throw at them for a more difficult combat. Surprise, everyone is way
underpowered, except the dwarf with 20 strength and 20 constitution. So, the dwarf lives, everyone else dies.

This is what I referred to as "unbalancing".

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Keovar

11-09-2002, 01:22 PM

Peter, you are making the same mistake as Krow, albeit in a more long-winded fashion. Please refer to my posts above, where I point out that 3rd Edition D&D is different from 2nd Edition AD&D.

In 3rd edition, the point-buy stat option is more balanced and fair than rolling (though rolling is still considered the standard).

There is no percentile strength in 3E, as the stat chart was created properly in the first place with no need of such a patchwork fix.

As I mentioned before, 3E handles the fact that size affects the application of strength. Let's go with a 10 strength for example. The top end of a heavy load for a medium sized creature is 100 lbs. This is the amount that they can carry and still walk (albeit slowly), and it's the amount they can lift above their head (so it's similar to the "max press" from 2E in that regard).

For creatures of other sizes, you apply the following adjustments to their lifting and load capacities:
Fine (example: insect)........ x1/8
Diminutive (toad)............... x1/4
Tiny (cat).......................... x1/2
Small (Halfling).................. x3/4
Medium (Human)................ x1 (no change)
Large (Ogre)...................... x2
Huge (Stone Giant)............. x4
Gargantuan (Purple Worm)... x8
Colossal (Great Wyrm)......... x16

Also, if the creature is quadruped (or has more than 4 legs), you would multiply the above by x1.5.

Furthermore, it's not even feasible to consider a Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creature as having a strength as high as 10, just as anything over Large isn't going to be as low as 10. For example, the Great Gold Wyrm averages a 45 strength, which means that if you were to roll it, you'd have 3-18 +34, thus the lowest you could get would be a 37.

3rd edition has internal consistency and verisimilitude that is worlds ahead of 1E or 2E, which is why most of us that have actually studied and/or played it don't ever want to go back to the old rules if we can help it.

Birthright-L

11-09-2002, 01:48 PM

I though this was a conversion manual for 3E. In 3E, a typical stone giant
has a Str of 27. In addition, it is Large, which among other things means
that it has a carrying capacity which is 200% normal, which equates to
another +5 Str for weight-carrying purposes. So a dwarf would have to have
32 Strength to carry around as much as a typical stone giant. And then ,
there are exceptional stone giants...

All in all, giants don`t have to fear competition from dwarves when it comes
to carrying stuff.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Krow" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: anything on dwarves [2#1068]

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1068
>
> Krow wrote:
>
Originally posted by Ariadne
>
>
>
Originally posted by Krow
>
> While I agree somewhat to the proposition that Dwarves could stand to have
a -2 to DEX, I don`t think having a +2 to CON is such a good idea. As the
CON stat for Dwarves increases, too much unbalancing can occur.
> Sorry, but if I think of the embodiment of endurance (of humanoids), I
think of dwarves. The incensement of Con is a very good idea, as well as the
Str increase. Dwarves are typical fighters and train for it, since they can
walk. Otherwise they are not as dexterous as other races (and not as
beautiful), that’s why reduced Dex and Cha. If you sum it out, the
dwarf will have the ability modifiers +/- 0. It is balanced!
>
> Good work, Keovar...
>
>
>
> It`s obvious that +2 +2 -2 -2 = 0. What I meant by unbalancing was in
respect to other player characters and races. If a Dwarf gets a +2 to
strength, that makes him eligible for 20 strength. This puts him in the same
catagory of strength for a 2000 pound 18" stone giant. A dwarf, with a base
weight of 130 pounds + 4d10 pounds for the racial modifer has a max (usual)
weight of 170 pounds. This is saying that a 170 pound creature is as strong,
not relatively, but equally, as a 2000 pound creature. Both these creatures
would have a max press of 700 pounds. That`s roughly 4 1/2 times the
dwarf`s bodyweight, vs. the 35% of the giant`s bodyweight that he could
max press.
>
> Let`s look at damage. This allows a dwarf to have a +8 damage modifier
for strength alone. Let`s pit this up as a fighting combat...Barehanded
dwarf vs. human with a long sword, each doing minimum damage. The dwarf hits
for a minimum damage of 9. The human, 1. It would take the human 9 attacks
with a sword to do the same damage as the 1 attack from the dwarf.
>
> The To-Hit modifier is the same thing, the dwarf is fighting barehanded
against an armed opponent, this gives the dwarf a -4 to his attack roll. No
problem, with this 20 strength, he gets a +3 to his attack rolls. Now, try
adding all this up with a weapon in his hand.
>
> Now, with constitution, there`s not much difference, the resurrection
survival chance stays the same and the system shock percentage stays the
same, as well as the number of bonus hit points, 5. However, at 20
Constitution, the Dwarf has Regeneration. Isn`t the +5 to saving throws
enough?
>
> This doesn`t even take into account that the dwarves in Birthright take
half damage from half the different types of physical attacks. The penalty
to Dexterity and Charisma are a very small price to pay. You`re uglier, and
you take an extra hit out of every 10. But you`ve got regeneration, so
that`s negated in the long run.
>
> So, as a Dungeon Master, you have a dwarven tank. Then, you have all your
other characters. Even if they`re powerful, they cannot compete. The Dwarf
kills everything in one hit, leaving all the other players bored, because
they don`t even fall into the same universe as the dwarf. So, you bring in
bigger creatures to throw at them for a more difficult combat. Surprise,
everyone is way underpowered, except the dwarf with 20 strength and 20
constitution. So, the dwarf lives, everyone else dies.
>
> This is what I referred to as "unbalancing".
>
>
************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives:
http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

11-09-2002, 01:48 PM

On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 22:35, Keovar wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1068

Keovar wrote:
Krow, it`s obvious from the numbers you state that you`ve never played,
or even seriously looked at, 3rd Edition D&D. The stat system is much less
topheavy than it was in AD&D. The stat system is not capped at 25, so giants
are much stronger than they were before, but the bonuses don`t ramp up so
sharply.

Firstly, I was responding to a comment that was (from the data supplied)
based on 2nd Ed AD&D.

Actually I have seriously (and critically) looked at it. (My conclusion:
good try, for a beginners attempt, but lacks knowledge and understanding
of role-playing basics, has mechanics that are both overly-simplified
and overly complicated, attempts combat simulation - must have
computer-based roots influencing it..., although I love the drawings and
Illustrations). Perhaps the "New, Improved" marketing label has
influenced your viewpoint. Personally, I like to make up my own mind as
to what is (a) "New", and (B) "Improved" - you generally have to back
these claims up when speaking to me. I have seen very little "new" and
even less "improved" in 3rd Ed. When I play (as opposed to DM), I play
"basic D&D", which is a pretty rare system these days - our DM Stuart is
one crazy guy but he`s very imaginative so it`s always a load of fun.
When I DM, it`s a version closest to 1st Ed AD&D but adopting some
improvements from both 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed.

(Although 2nd Ed had almost no "new", most of its` "improved" was in
what it didn`t approve rather than what it did - and was generally an
even bigger waste of money - especially the handbooks - no good drawings
and illustrations as mitigating circumstances there.)

Just to prove a point though: (while staying on subject)
3 to 18, or 1 to 50,000, it doesn`t matter: the system is still flawed.
(although, to be fair I do think that this is one of the few areas in
which 3rd Ed is an improvement - it could still be better though).

Score Modifier
1 -5
2-3 -4
4-5 -3
6-7 -2
8-9 -1
10-11 0
12-13 + 1
14-15 + 2
16-17 + 3
18-19 + 4
20-21 + 5
22-23 + 6
24-25 + 7
26-27 + 8
28-29 + 9
30-31 + 10
etc...

Above is the chart for all the stats and the modifiers they impart to their
associated skills and other character features. Technically, the chart never
ends, but it`s easy enough to see the pattern if you need to extend it
further.

So, (ahem) where does the human range start on each chart? And where
does it (the normal human range) end? ---- see the point yet? ---
and; Q. did you actually read my earlier post? apples and oranges etc.

In the case of Strength, the bonus listed applies to both attack and damage
rolls, as well as certain skills. I don`t have my books handy, but if I
remember right, ogres have a 21 Str, trolls are at 23, titans have a 35,
and a great wyrm gold dragon has a 45 strength.

As you can see, a 20 strength is very good, but you won`t be arm wrestling
any stone giants. In fact, a creature`s lifting capacity is affected by it`s
size category, so if a dwarf had a 21 strength like an ogre, the ogre will lift
quite a bit more due it being size "large" while the dwarf is "medium".

^^^ As you have already pointed out - I wasn`t discussing anything in
the context of 3rd Ed. But if you want to draw parallels - then I didn`t
champion the use of the absolute strength table in 2nd ed - I pointed
out instead that it was meant only for humans - and that this should be
interpreted in the context of the size/bodyweight of the creature - thus
coming to a similar end-result conclusion as the 3rd ed rule.

Personally I find the following faults with the 3rd Ed rule:

(i) It`s still based around a human norm
(ii) It attempts an `absolute` point of reference which leads to
`silly` numbers (e.g. how intelligent is a `smart` plant, how strong
is a `weak` troll?
(ii) suffers from linear modification to unknown distribution
disease (e.g. is a human with a 15 strength 1/3 of the strength of
a dragon with a 45 strength? -- does +1 have the same value at all
points on the strength continuum for example)

The solution I offered is (as outlined) is far more elegant but suffers
from:

(i) Does not allow for direct comparisons between different creature
types (yet it is possible to draw direct comparisons with some
calculations)
(ii) Still has that pesky +1 not having the same value at all
points; (but it does allow for dragons with a strength of 3, or even
[and this was meant to e humorous] `smart` plants, with an
intelligence of 18)

3rd edition is much more internally consistant and balanced than previous
editions, but if you do get an opportunity to try it out, remember, leave
your preconcieved notions behind and look at it as if it were a completely
new game. Those who have had bad things to say about it are nearly always
those who look at it with alot of 1st and 2nd edition assumptions.

Firstly, you are right; it is "a completely new game" (shouldn`t even be
able to take the 3rd edition tag - still they paid for the company
name). Secondly, you`re wrong I do not find it "more internally
consistent" (In fact, like many "new" games - it has more bogies and bad
points than a more refined version, worse it has inherited so many bad
points that this is doubly so). And thirdly, I don`t hold 2nd Ed up to
be any paragon of consistency or even, in this instance particularly, a
good example.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

11-09-2002, 06:20 PM

Keovar wrote:

Hey, you do realize I was replying to the Krow post rather than to you
(and your post)?

Krow points out the inadequacy and flaws of the 2e system quite well,
but gets his example wrong. Most of the flaws are still present in some
form in 3e however, but are less severe in their effect.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

11-09-2002, 06:20 PM

On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 00:22, Keovar wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?
TID=1068

Keovar wrote:
Peter, you are making the same mistake as Krow, albeit in a more
long-winded fashion. Please refer to my posts above, where I point
out that 3rd Edition D&D is different from 2nd Edition AD&D.

In 3rd edition, the point-buy stat option is more balanced and fair
than rolling (though rolling is still considered the standard).

No, I`m afraid I disagree there. `point-buy` systems have their place
for sure. Not, IMO, in role-playing at all. However that`s a matter of
taste. Given that you want a point-buy system in a game, to be fair you
have to be able to use a standard currency as base, and, it must be
understood equally. 3e does not provide a standard currency as base -
read my earlier post, although it refers to 2e, the comments still apply
to 3e when using a point-buy system that values a point of strength the
same as a point of intelligence. However, no-one said that rolling is
`fair` - so a point-buy system (even a fatally flawed one) is by default
`fairer`. `Balanced` .. oh, don`t even start with that -- the one thing
that 3e is most definitely worse than all previous D&D systems at is
`balanced`. Again, though - why? - why do you need balance? - it`s not a
competition.

There is no percentile strength in 3E, as the stat chart was created
properly in the first place with no need of such a patchwork fix.

`Properly` - no, (while agreeing that the percentile strength is also a
mistake) the stat chart for 3e may be improved but is still flawed.

As I mentioned before, 3E handles the fact that size affects the
application of strength. Let`s go with a 10 strength for example.
The top end of a heavy load for a medium sized creature is 100 lbs.
This is the amount that they can carry and still walk (albeit slowly),
and it`s the amount they can lift above their head (so it`s similar
to the "max press" from 2E in that regard).

Never disputed it old boy. Just pointed out to the other poster that the
2e system should have been interpreted that way too (as the 1st edition
was).

For creatures of other sizes, you apply the following adjustments to
their lifting and load capacities:
Fine (example: insect)........ x1/8
Diminutive (toad)............... x1/4
Tiny (cat).......................... x1/2
Small (Halfling).................. x3/4
Medium (Human)................ x1 (no change)
Large (Ogre)...................... x2
Huge (Stone Giant)............. x4
Gargantuan (Purple Worm)... x8
Colossal (Great Wyrm)......... x16

Also, if the creature is quadruped (or has more than 4 legs), you would
multiply the above by x1.5.

Furthermore, it`s not even feasible to consider a Fine, Diminutive, or
Tiny creature as having a strength as high as 10, just as anything over
Large isn`t going to be as low as 10. For example, the Great Gold Wyrm
averages a 45 strength, which means that if you were to roll it, you`d
have 3-18 +34, thus the lowest you could get would be a 37.

3rd edition has internal consistency and verisimilitude that is worlds
ahead of 1E or 2E, which is why most of us that have actually studied
and/or played it don`t ever want to go back to the old rules if we can
help it.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Ariadne

11-09-2002, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Krow
Let's look at damage. This allows a dwarf to have a +8 damage modifier for strength alone.
As Keovar and Peter already pointed out, a 20 in an ability only gives +5, not +8.

In 3rd Edition you must have good abilities, if you want to have any chance to fight anything apart from goblins, humans or halflings without using magic.

Most don't even role their abilities, but I hate this point buy system. May be, that a 16 to 18 is rare to very rare with this system and it is balanced, but it steals the kick creating the character. Further it is common to create “Baldurs Gate-Characters”, what means, a fighter has Str and Con 18 (unmodified by race), but Wis, Cha and Int 7.

That's why I could live with a rolled 8, if I must, but to "puzzle" it (if you like to have acceptable abilities), is awful.

Err, how do you mention the Bloodline (ability) creation without rolling? I'm not sure, that anybody can be glad with it...

Mark_Aurel

11-09-2002, 06:59 PM

Peter, in that very lengthy post of yours, you make lots of references to the fact that you think 3e isn't a good game, that it has "inherited numerous flaws," etc etc - yet, I don't see much backup for it at all.

Remember, when debating the systems, your _house rules_ are _irrelevant_ - such as your reference to your allowing giants to carry more than the tables indicated in previous editions. If you're saying that 1e or 2e is somehow better than 3e, then applying a house rule to show why, your argument doesn't stick very well together. What you're really doing isn't comparing 3 to 1/2e, but comparing it to your own homebrew, which you will inevitably like better, since you made it yourself.

3e uses the same mechanics pretty consistently - thus, it _is_ more internally coherent throughout, even though there are definitely relics and sacred cows from previous editions. A system where you roll 1d6/1d10 for initiative, 1d20 (low) for proficiencies, 1d% (low) for thief skills, and 1d20 (high) for saves and attack rolls does not seem very consistent or elegant, now, does it?

So, (ahem) where does the human range start on each chart? And where
does it (the normal human range) end? ---- see the point yet? ---
and; Q. did you actually read my earlier post? apples and oranges etc.

What point? The normal human range is still 3-18. I don't really quite see what point you're referring to, or trying to make. "apples and oranges etc." Fine, a typical obscurement device for dodging the actual issue - does the 3e system for ability scores work better and easier than 2e/1e (barring any of your favored house rules)?

Some elaboration on your grievances would be better than all this hyperbole.

geeman

11-09-2002, 07:00 PM

At 01:24 AM 11/10/2002 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

> In 3rd edition, the point-buy stat option is more balanced and fair
> than rolling (though rolling is still considered the standard).
>
>`Balanced` .. oh, don`t even start with that -- the one thing
>that 3e is most definitely worse than all previous D&D systems at is
>`balanced`. Again, though - why? - why do you need balance? - it`s not a
>competition.

I`d contend that 3e really is more balanced than previous editions, though
the distinction is probably rather vague. If nothing else 3e has some
systems of charts for the value of equipment, sets of "standard" stat
blocks and defines class abilities and feats where previous editions had
nothing like that to use as a basis for comparison. A careful examination
of those factors shows how 3e isn`t balanced, but there is at least some
basis for analysis. To do a similar comparison in a previous edition one
had to come up with the charts, standards and definitions for class
abilities first (a la S&P--but with some sort of legitimate point values
rather than the ones used in that text) then examine the inequities of the
game based on that. Most of those inequities, incidentally, are the
product of pre-D20 thinking in developing 3e. If you take a look at the
imbalanced aspects of 3e they usually come from the portrayal of a 2e or 1e
"sacred cow" into 3e. The magic system, ranger`s 1st level class
abilities, the rogue`s skill points are probably the most glaring examples.

As for why one would want balance there are two major reasons. First, many
people want a set of balanced characters so each member of the party
represents an equitable portion of the group. That way no one player has a
more significant role during play based on his PC`s stats. Second, having
a system of balanced characters allows the DM to rate numerically the
relative power of the party, which he can use to design adventures. 3e
came up with such a system in their CR/ECL/EL system. While there are
certainly flaws in that system it`s much more consistent than anything that
existed in previous editions.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Mark_Aurel

11-09-2002, 07:07 PM

In 3rd Edition you must have good abilities, if you want to have any chance to fight anything apart from goblins, humans or halflings without using magic.

Actually, that's not true. If anything, characters should be able to get by with lower scores in 3e than previous editions. In 1e and 2e, abilities didn't really matter until they hit 15 or so, which was statistically rare, with the ability generation method used. In 3e, bonuses come in at significantly lower scores, especially considering that the standard now is 4d6, drop lowest, arrange as desired, not straight 3d6. What this means is simply that characters doesn't need supremely high ability scores to get some bonuses. I hope people eventually come to terms with this; one of the legacies of 1e and 2e seems to be the 18/18/17/16/16/10 complex. In 3e, though, certain classes benefit more from higher scores - i.e. monks and paladins become more powerful as classes with a more generous ability score distribution method, whereas fighters and rogues, that depend on fewer ability scores, tend to not gain as much.

3e is generally balanced around an average ability score of 12 or so; if you use higher average scores than that, it can be cause for some EL adjustments; i.e. fighting certain monsters becomes a heckuva lot easier if your scores are 16 across the board.

Mark_Aurel

11-09-2002, 07:19 PM

I`d contend that 3e really is more balanced than previous editions, though
the distinction is probably rather vague. If nothing else 3e has some
systems of charts for the value of equipment, sets of "standard" stat
blocks and defines class abilities and feats where previous editions had
nothing like that to use as a basis for comparison. A careful examination
of those factors shows how 3e isn`t balanced, but there is at least some
basis for analysis. To do a similar comparison in a previous edition one
had to come up with the charts, standards and definitions for class
abilities first (a la S&P--but with some sort of legitimate point values
rather than the ones used in that text) then examine the inequities of the
game based on that. Most of those inequities, incidentally, are the
product of pre-D20 thinking in developing 3e. If you take a look at the
imbalanced aspects of 3e they usually come from the portrayal of a 2e or 1e
"sacred cow" into 3e. The magic system, ranger`s 1st level class
abilities, the rogue`s skill points are probably the most glaring examples.

Overall, again, I'd like to see more specific grievances. Looking at the last part of your statement, and knowing your thinking from previous posts, I'd say it seems that at least the rogue class skill part represents more of a playing style issue than a balance issue with the game itself. Classes are definitely at different power levels depending on the campaign style; if you play a game where skills play a significant role, then rogues and bards will be more powerful. If you play a game where ability scores are high, rangers, paladins, and monks will be stronger. If you play a game where the level of magic items distributed is low, wizards, sorcerers, and other spellcasters will be more powerful. There's a pretty large list of considerations like this, very dependent on campaign style, and 3e by itself can't possibly be balanced for all of them. However, I do think that 3e has better potential for being adapted to different styles of play than previous editions did, exactly for reasons of the analytical tools you mention.

CR and EL is also lightyears ahead of previous editions in terms of balancing encounters; one interesting point there is that previously, you had a sort of levelling-off effect at around 9th level, at which point most parties could theorethically face almost any challenge; the AC was capped, meaning that a fighter at that level would be able to almost always hit anything; monster hit points were low, meaning a single high-level spell could fell dragons; wizards were really the only class that continued to advance significantly in power in previous editions. Now, with hit points continuing to advance, and AC not being capped, high-level fighters are much more significant. Better balance between characters, at all levels.

kgauck

11-09-2002, 11:08 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark_Aurel" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 1:07 PM

> In 1e and 2e, abilities didn`t really matter until they hit 15 or so,
> which was statistically rare. [...] What this means is simply that
> characters doesn`t need supremely high ability scores to get some
> bonuses.

In addition, feats can be used to mimic higher ability scores to some
extent. Dodge nicely reflects a +2 Dex bonus in some situations, Lightning
Reflexes the same in others. Every four levels, you get a bonus to ability
score, so a charter who starts out with a 15 in a key ability can get that
to 18 by 12th level.

Between getting bonuses starting at 12, having feats mimic higher ability
scores, and being able to get higher ability scores with experience, high
ability scores is no where near the kind of all or nothing advantage it was
back in the 1st and 2nd ed.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

11-09-2002, 11:36 PM

At 08:19 PM 11/9/2002 +0100, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>
I`d contend that 3e really is more balanced than previous
> editions, though
>the distinction is probably rather vague. If nothing else 3e has some
>systems of charts for the value of equipment, sets of "standard" stat
>blocks and defines class abilities and feats where previous editions had
>nothing like that to use as a basis for comparison. A careful examination
>of those factors shows how 3e isn`t balanced, but there is at least some
>basis for analysis. To do a similar comparison in a previous edition one
>had to come up with the charts, standards and definitions for class
>abilities first (a la S&P--but with some sort of legitimate point values
>rather than the ones used in that text) then examine the inequities of the
>game based on that. Most of those inequities, incidentally, are the
>product of pre-D20 thinking in developing 3e. If you take a look at the
>imbalanced aspects of 3e they usually come from the portrayal of a 2e or 1e
>"sacred cow" into 3e. The magic system, ranger`s 1st level class
>abilities, the rogue`s skill points are probably the most glaring examples.
>
>
>Overall, again, I`d like to see more specific grievances. Looking at the
>last part of your statement, and knowing your thinking from previous
>posts, I`d say it seems that at least the rogue class skill part
>represents more of a playing style issue than a balance issue with the
>game itself. Classes are definitely at different power levels depending on
>the campaign style; if you play a game where skills play a significant
>role, then rogues and bards will be more powerful.

Sure, but in designing a system of game rules we have to assume that play
style is a neutral factor and design game mechanics with an attempt at
making overall features of the system as generalized as is practicable. My
house rules, for example, include an entirely reworked skill system that is
much more balanced than the 3e skill system. (It`s a much more logical,
intelligently articulated, and versatile system too. I know that sounds
like quite a boast, but I`ve put a lot of effort into it--and to be blunt
the 3e skill system is really a first try at such a system of skills for
D&D and it has many faults. It`s a quantum improvement from NWPs, and
provided and excellent base point for my house rules, but it has a lot of
problems.) However, even after having rewritten the skill system I
wouldn`t say I run a particularly skill-centered game. Skill checks are
probably less common than initiative checks when I DM. Well, maybe not
quite.... My point, though, is that a balanced system is still possible
(and is a good goal) despite play style.

As for the specific imbalancing factor of the rogue`s skill points; let`s
look at it this way. There are three main features of character class each
of which is comprised of several subfeatures; combat abilities (as
reflected by BAB progression, HD, saving throw progressions and access to
armor/weapons), special abilities (including optional feats and
spellcasting) and last but not least skills (a combination of skill
points/level and access to particular skills as class skills.) So let`s
compare the class with the greatest access to fighting abilities (fighters)
with that of the class with the least (wizards.) The following table isn`t
going to show up well on the birthright.net message boards, and I`m not
going to go to the trouble of rewriting it in HTML, but if someone feels
ambitious that`d be cool....

Ftr to Wiz
Fighter Wizard ratio
BAB 1-20 1-10 50%
HD d10 d4 40%
Saves 1 fast 1 fast 100%
Armor 10 0 0%
Weapons All Smple 50-70%
OVERALL 48-52%

The ratios for BAB and HD are pretty much simple math. Ability score
modifiers, of course, can improve or penalize such progressions, but we`re
talking about class features here so we shouldn`t include such
variables. Saving throws is a bit debatable since one could argue the fast
Fortitude save progression is more useful in relationship to a fast Will
save progression or vice versa, but I think that pretty well balances them
out. (IMO Reflex saves are the most useful in general gaming terms, but
let`s not worry about that for now.) Access to armor is similarly
debatable since there are conditions on armor that modify dexterity bonuses
and the wizard _can_ wear armor--just with serious penalties to his
abilities and class abilities. Even with such factors taken into
consideration, however, the ratio of access to armor for fighters and
wizards is still 100/0. Access to weapons is basically decided by
determining the "average" damage of the weapons that the particular class
is most likely to employ. Fighters generally wield weapons that do a
maximum, unmodified damage of 8-12 and have better critical threat/damage
ranges, so I assign a value of 8 to that [6 for the "average" damage of d8
and d12 or 2d6 weapons (it`s really between 5.5 and 6 but I`ll round up for
these purposes) and +2 for their greater critical threat/damage.] Wizards
have access to weapons that do 6-8 damage (a heavy crossbow does d10
damage, of course, and has a critical of 19-20 but it`s rate of fire
reduces its value somewhat, so I`m excluding it from this evaluation) and
with the exception of crossbows and daggers have the normal x2 critical
damage rating. That gives them an overall weapon rating of 4.5 (Daggers,
of course, have an increased critical threat range, but their d4 damage
isn`t really enough to influence this rating IMO.) That comes out to
56.25% but there are more than a few assumptions made to come up with that
assessment, hence 50-70% in the assessment above. You could tweak these
numbers here and there, and I encourage anyone with the inclination to do
so and post them for discussion purposes, but I`m pretty sure most tweaking
will wind up give results pretty near to the assessment above. Overall
that makes the class with the best access to combat related character class
factors about twice that of the class with the least access to the same
factors.

The above assessment also assumes that all the relative subfeatures of
character classes are equal to one another. Just like in the particular
class features one could debate the relative value of the fastest BAB
progression with that of access to armor or weapons, HD vs. saving throws,
etc. In practice, however, I think we`d still wind up with a variation of
about 2:1. It could easily wind up being more like 5:2 or so depending on
how much value you want to place on a particular subfeature. Again,
however, those are debatable conclusions and another person could easily
make the opposite assessment, so I`m going to go ahead and work with all
the above factors being roughly equal to one another.

OK, so having described that particular aspect of the character class
system, let`s take a look at the skill system feature by comparing the
character class with the greatest access to the skill system (rogues) with
that of the class with the least access (sorcerers.)

Rog to Sor
Rogue Sorcerer ratio
Skill Pts 8 2 25%
Class skills 31 7 22.5%
OVERALL 23.75%

The ratio of skill points is, again, pretty straight forward
math. Intelligence is a factor, but since we`re looking at class features
by themselves we shouldn`t include that modifier. As for class skills
that`s straight math, but it`s debatable how useful certain skills are in
comparison to others. The rogue`s access to Read Lips (in fact his
exclusive access to that skill in 3e) is certainly not as significant as
the sorcerer`s access to Spellcraft or Concentration. One could also
debate the relationship between a class skill`s relative value and its key
ability in that class skills with key abilities that aren`t particularly
significant for the class in question are of less value. Sorcerers are
particularly short changed in this regard having no class skills based on
their most significant ability score; charisma. As before I`m going to go
ahead and assume that the particulars here roughly equal out. Untrained
skills are not included as a factor even though all character classes get
access to them at effectively rank 0. In my experience such access to the
skill system isn`t particularly significant during play. YMMV. I`ve not
accounted for skills excluded to the classes because there are 2 or 3 for
either class and excluding a skill or two isn`t really that significant an
influence on the skill system IMO. (There should be no such thing as
excluded skills, but that`s another issue.)

So overall, the rogue`s access to the skill system represents something
like 4 times that of the sorcerer. Twice as drastic a difference as that
of the most effective fighting class in comparison to the least effective
fighting class.

When it comes to other specific issues... well, the continuation of the
1e/2e magic system into 3e is just whacked. Spellcasting ability
represents essentially a variable 1/day special ability, and the speed with
which spells power up (most notably from 2nd to 3rd level spells) is highly
imbalanced. If you assign some sort of realistic point value to those
spell effects, plus take into consideration that they can be changed based
on a wide range of spells then they become very significant indeed. I`ll
not reproduce the table I came up for assessing those values since it`s
rather a long one....

When it comes to the ranger`s class abilities that`s a rather well-covered
area, so I don`t think we should bore anyone with it. Let`s just say that
the systems I`ve seen for assessing class features show that the ranger`s 3
class abilities at 1st level make that character class highly
imbalanced--even the point systems that appear to have been designed
intentionally to balance the character classes against one another.

Another interesting imbalanced class feature is the ability of paladin`s to
attract a warhorse. If one uses the expanded lists of such mounts in DotF
then you can get some very imbalanced results. The relative power of
various feats is also something that I think should be
revised--particularly in regards to the aforementioned paladin. As a
player in one campaign I created such a character who--by taking the
leadership feat and a sorcerer level--had a dire wolf as a mount, a 6th
level cohort and a falcon familiar with more hp than the party`s rogue. I
controlled more than half the characters in the marching order. Of course,
the DM could have stepped in and not allowed the dire wolf mount or the
Leadership feat pretty easily--and I wouldn`t have blamed him a bit--but
that`s still an example of a pretty imbalanced situation that is within the
current 3e system without any particular effort at min/maxing those rules.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

11-10-2002, 12:11 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 5:30 PM

> IMO Reflex saves are the most useful in general gaming terms

That`s interesting. In BR, I certainly use Willpower the most, may three
times as often as the others. This may have something to do with the fact
that I can`t rember the last time I used a trap, and a great deal of action
takes place at court. Most of the spells thrown back and forth are of the
mind control variety.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Mark_Aurel

11-10-2002, 12:19 AM

The ratios for BAB and HD are pretty much simple math.

Not a bad analysis, but it seems to be missing one crucial point in terms of assigning ratios; if we take the way you look at BAB - wizards at +10 and fighters at +20 - that is not a 100% difference - it is, in fact, a much greater difference. Consider that a lot of monsters are balanced with a fighter BAB in mind - if they weren't, fighters would generally hit everything too easily.

Let's say the fighter can hit a creature on a 6 or higher with his initial attack. That means a fighter has a 75% chance to hit. The wizard has a 25% chance to hit with his first attack; the fighter will hit three times as often. With the second attack, the fighter will hit in 50% of all cases, or ten times as often as the wizard, at 5%. The fighter also has a third and fourth attack, at 25% and 5%. Overall, the fighter will land at least four times as many blows as the wizard; this is simply considering BAB, not all other types of bonuses that accrue over the levels.

My point is simply that you need to consider the ratios within the range of the chance to hit on a d20, not as simple values divorced from the actual playing of the game. The point of this is that the gap between a fighter's BAB and a wizard's is more than comparable to the gap between a rogue's skill points and a sorcerer's; the wizard's combat skill is likely to be all but useless at any time the fighter is challenged to make a hit, which can happen often, particularly with "boss monsters."

It may also be of some interest for you to point out that classes were designed partially around a "die size" philosophy - fighters use d10, barbarians use d12, clerics use d8, etc. The generally most advantageous fighter-type to play is the sword/shield/heavy armor type - using an exotic weapon proficiency to use a bastard sword or dwarven waraxe; a barbarian is generally best suited to using big weapons, like greataxes - the extra strength bonus comes out best in that case.

Intelligence is a factor, but since we`re looking at class features
by themselves we shouldn`t include that modifier.

Actually, you should. Wizards use intelligence as their prime ability, and thus will likely have a skill point or three up on other classes with 2 basic skill points. For the rogue, Int is probably the #2 most important ability after Dex. This is really a great example of the fact that you can't complete an analysis without also examining the whole situation; wizards are head and shoulder above other 2+Int classes for that simple reason; bards will likely have the best social skills in any party, due to their high charisma combined with skill points.

[Oh yes, and one of my own house rules is actually to give sorcerers bluff, diplomacy and intimidate as class skills. No system is perfect, but I wouldn't really mix my own little modifications into a debate about the system itself.]

Another interesting imbalanced class feature is the ability of paladin`s to
attract a warhorse. If one uses the expanded lists of such mounts in DotF
then you can get some very imbalanced results. The relative power of
various feats is also something that I think should be
revised--particularly in regards to the aforementioned paladin. As a
player in one campaign I created such a character who--by taking the
leadership feat and a sorcerer level--had a dire wolf as a mount, a 6th
level cohort and a falcon familiar with more hp than the party`s rogue. I
controlled more than half the characters in the marching order. Of course,
the DM could have stepped in and not allowed the dire wolf mount or the
Leadership feat pretty easily--and I wouldn`t have blamed him a bit--but
that`s still an example of a pretty imbalanced situation that is within the
current 3e system without any particular effort at min/maxing those rules.

Oh, what you're saying here is basically not that the warhorse ability is imbalanced by itself - but that it was made imbalanced by using a variant rule from an accessory, namely the dire wolf. This, frankly, is the greatest source of imbalances in 3e - the problem is similar to one that was endemic in 2e, but less so now - namely that each product does not necessarily consider all the possible constellations that are possible by using all other products. I.e. by combining feats, spells, and prestige classes from many different sources, the end result will most definitely break the game balance. This isn't as bad a problem in 3e as it was before, though, due to the greater transparency of the rules modules; the previous way gave far less overall transparency to this.

The character example you're using is somewhat similar to one I designed myself - a conjurer with the leadership feat; basically a "beastmaster" character. I don't really think that the character type you're mentioning is imbalanced by itself, though. By taking a multiclass level to add the familiar to the cohort/warmount mix, you're significantly nerfing your combat abilities - an effective -1 to hit and -3 hp may not sound like that much, but it really is; see my earlier point about d20 probabilities. Controlling half the characters in the marching order isn't so bad, really - though it depends on just how strong those characters are, compared to the regular party members. I.e. was the cohort given NPC equipment, and no more? If so, a PC of the same level should be quite a bit more powerful. And in 3e, a single powerful character is probably more generally useful than many less powerful ones; i.e. if each of your pets operated at 60-75% of the efficiency of any given party member, I'd considered that fairly balanced, actually, since you'd taken some sacrifices (a level and a feat) to acquire it all, thus somewhat reducing the actual efficiency of your own character (say 90%).

Personally, though, I'd make the "variant special mount" rule require a feat, similar to "improved familiar," unless the mount was strictly fairly mechanically balanced with the standard mounts permissible to paladins (within a 10-20% margin). That, again, is in the realm of house rules, and not debating the rules as they are, but the rule in question is a variant anyway.

geeman

11-10-2002, 02:18 AM

At 01:19 AM 11/10/2002 +0100, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>
Intelligence is a factor, but since we`re looking at class features
>by themselves we shouldn`t include that modifier.
>
>Actually, you should. Wizards use intelligence as their prime ability, and
>thus will likely have a skill point or three up on other classes with 2
>basic skill points. For the rogue, Int is probably the #2 most important
>ability after Dex. This is really a great example of the fact that you
>can`t complete an analysis without also examining the whole situation;
>wizards are head and shoulder above other 2+Int classes for that simple
>reason; bards will likely have the best social skills in any party, due to
>their high charisma combined with skill points.

Ability scores are always variables, though. Sure, character classes
emphasize particular scores, but if you include such modifiers into a
system of class abilities it winds up obscuring the values of those
abilities rather than accurately reflecting the relative power of
them. What makes more sense in my experience is to come up with values for
various ability score points spent on "standard arrays" of ability scores
and then assess the ECL effects based on that. At 5th level, for instance,
a character with a 12 constitution score has, essentially, +1 HD more than
another character with d8 or d10 hit dice. A 12 strength equates to +1
BAB, 12 intelligence to +1 skill point, etc. If one assesses the values of
ability scores separately from class features then one can assign a similar
value to them without interfering with the assessment of the class features.

I`ve several tables that show such values in Excel spreadsheets. If anyone
would care to see them email me directly at geeman@softhome.net and I`ll
send them along.

>[Oh yes, and one of my own house rules is actually to give sorcerers
>bluff, diplomacy and intimidate as class skills. No system is perfect, but
>I wouldn`t really mix my own little modifications into a debate about the
>system itself.]

I couldn`t agree with you more on this one. Those should definitely be
class abilities for sorcerers. It`s a nice quick fix. Boosting the
minimum number of skill points for each class up from 2 to 4 is also
sensible in many cases. I also have spreadsheets illustrating this issue....

>Oh, what you`re saying here is basically not that the warhorse ability is
>imbalanced by itself - but that it was made imbalanced by using a variant
>rule from an accessory, namely the dire wolf.

It`s imbalanced all by itself in comparison to other class abilities. The
imbalance is more obvious given the optional rules from the accessory, but
just the class ability by itself is significantly better than most other
class abilities.

>Personally, though, I`d make the "variant special mount" rule require a
>feat, similar to "improved familiar," unless the mount was strictly
>fairly mechanically balanced with the standard mounts permissible to
>paladins (within a 10-20% margin).

That`s sensible in the context of the rest of the 3e
feats/system. Personally, I`m leaning towards a more universal system of
followers based on a reputation/leadership score. A paladin would have an
advantage in this area since it`s part of one of his more important ability
scores. Characters could then "spend" those points to create cohorts,
mounts, familiars, etc. as an overall class feature rather than making it
part of the special ability/feat aspect of character class. This would
have a lot more BR significance too since it would relate pretty strongly
to the role of the domain/LTs, etc.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

11-10-2002, 02:18 AM

At 05:54 PM 11/9/2002 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > IMO Reflex saves are the most useful in general gaming terms
>
>That`s interesting. In BR, I certainly use Willpower the most, may three
>times as often as the others. This may have something to do with the fact
>that I can`t rember the last time I used a trap, and a great deal of action
>takes place at court. Most of the spells thrown back and forth are of the
>mind control variety.

Yeah, I haven`t actually tracked this, so I wouldn`t argue the
point. Reflex saves being more useful is just my impression. In the last
session I ran Will saves were definitely more important than Reflex saves
even though there were about 50% more Reflex saves because the Will saves
tended to have much more drastic effects. A few dice of damage vs. a charm
spell being the most obvious event....

When one looks at the saving throw progressions of the various classes,
however, the fastest Reflex save progression is a bit more "rare" so if
that scarcity is any influence then it ups the value of that save a bit.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Mark_Aurel

11-10-2002, 02:24 AM

When examining the relative value of saves, one thing that comes to mind is that reflex saves generally reduce damage taken; fortitude and will saves are generally of the "save or die" variety; a 1st-level character that succumbs to a sleep spell will probably never wake up again; a finger of death is rather more obvious, etc. For this reason, you could likely compensate for a bad reflex save with high hit points, but a similar compensation could not be made with the other save types; i.e. a fighter won't be hurt as much by a poor reflex save as a wizard would; a finger of death will be equally brutal to both a rogue and a wizard, though, regardless of hit points, if the save is failed.

Peter Lubke

11-10-2002, 03:17 AM

On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 05:49, Gary wrote:

At 01:24 AM 11/10/2002 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

> In 3rd edition, the point-buy stat option is more balanced and fair
> than rolling (though rolling is still considered the standard).
>
>`Balanced` .. oh, don`t even start with that -- the one thing
>that 3e is most definitely worse than all previous D&D systems at is
>`balanced`. Again, though - why? - why do you need balance? - it`s not a
>competition.

I`d contend that 3e really is more balanced than previous editions, though
the distinction is probably rather vague.

To do a similar comparison in a previous edition one
had to come up with the charts, standards and definitions for class
abilities first (a la S&P--but with some sort of legitimate point values
rather than the ones used in that text) then examine the inequities of the
game based on that.

no argument there -- however this data is all there - it`s just not
neatly charted/tabulated etc, the evolution of the classes from D&D to
AD&D to AD&D 2nd ed, to 3rd Ed -- shows that we "knew" which classes
were over-powered, which ones to change etc -- it`s the nature of the
changes along the way which is important.

The 2nd edition authors are the only ones to significantly reduce a
class`s functions (and to do away with some classes altogether). Every
other time, the response has been to "power-up" the weaker class(es).
(or even the monsters) You absolutely cannot get it right this way -
using a one-sided adjustment, you have to set a mark and adjust up or
down to meet it. (of course 2e went and undid all its good work by
releasing the `handbooks`)

Most of those inequities, incidentally, are the
product of pre-D20 thinking in developing 3e. If you take a look at the
imbalanced aspects of 3e they usually come from the portrayal of a 2e or 1e
"sacred cow" into 3e. The magic system, ranger`s 1st level class
abilities, the rogue`s skill points are probably the most glaring examples.

Yes. Most changes have not tried to take anything away. The more people
that you have involved in the design process the less likely it is to be
able to do so - and the 3e project leader and his sponsors were weak* -
their philosophy was "let the people have what they want, we will
package it nicely and sell it to them". This was a good marketing
strategy, but poor game design. (*`weak` from a design development point
of view that is - they were weak sponsors, and weak project leaders)

As for why one would want balance there are two major reasons. First, many
people want a set of balanced characters so each member of the party
represents an equitable portion of the group. That way no one player has a
more significant role during play based on his PC`s stats. Second, having
a system of balanced characters allows the DM to rate numerically the
relative power of the party, which he can use to design adventures. 3e
came up with such a system in their CR/ECL/EL system. While there are
certainly flaws in that system it`s much more consistent than anything that
existed in previous editions.

I find that in practice, a PCs abilities are far less important than the
players abilities. Having said that, I agree that a balanced set of
classes allows for better role-playing, as the character class chosen by
a player is influenced by his/her style and approach rather than trying
to min/max the characters abilities. [Your reasons are good, I agree
with the principles, but the method ...]

3e greatly encourages min/max`ing. It is inherent in the design
philosophy and deeply ingrained into the rule sets (e.g. buy-points
themselves). That such is so, makes a mockery of any attempt to
`balance` out. The aim of the game (3e) or the focus of the players if
you like, is to build a better character, to gain levels, to get a
prestige class .. etc etc -- in other words it becomes a competition. My
main objection to this is that it detracts from role-playing, but it
also fosters imbalance.

Now it`s not possible to avoid this entirely. What can be done however,
is to make it not important!
While most people pay lip-service to "no monty-hauls", many people are
still playing characters at much higher levels than they are actually
entitled to. Now partly this is because everyone (including the DM)
likes a `happy and successful ending`. At the end of your `balanced`
CR/ECL/EL adventure, the players win (because it was designed for them
to win), everyone is happy and successful. They all gain experience and
levels - this is good right?

Wrong. (well not always wrong, but wrong in philosophy) The players
should not get to win every time, you have to have them experience and
role-play the whole gamut of adventuring - in fact one way to keep the
adventure alive is to beat them up all the time - keep them moving from
one disaster to the next (read your fantasy books - not the D&D ones).
Have them investigate a wizards tower, get beaten up - and have that
wizard (and/or his minions and agents) on their trail from one week to
the next. They players have to learn when to run, when to fight, and
when to beg and plead, when to cut their losses, and when .... to be
heroic .... not to be heroic all the time. For a truly good adventure is
never balanced - most of the time the heroes are dead heroes. But did
they have fun? because that is the real aim and goal of role-playing.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Mark_Aurel

11-10-2002, 03:37 AM

Yes. Most changes have not tried to take anything away. The more people
that you have involved in the design process the less likely it is to be
able to do so - and the 3e project leader and his sponsors were weak* -
their philosophy was "let the people have what they want, we will
package it nicely and sell it to them". This was a good marketing
strategy, but poor game design. (*`weak` from a design development point
of view that is - they were weak sponsors, and weak project leaders)

So what exactly is wrong about selling people a game they'd want to play? You make it seem like a virtue to sell a game that is unplayable or that people don't want to play...

While most people pay lip-service to "no monty-hauls", many people are
still playing characters at much higher levels than they are actually
entitled to.

Whoa. You aren't "entitled" to play the game as you like it? How exactly do you determine which level PCs are "entitled" to? Are you simply applying a 1e/2e paradigm to 3e level advancement? Almost sounds like it.

How exactly you construe a system for building balanced encounters (the CR system) into being a "monty haul engine" is quite beyond me; the DMG explicitly handles several different campaign models for setting up encounters - it recommends specifically that about 5% of all encounters be overpowering ones, where the PCs will "probably lose" - the point here is that, if the DM creates such an encounter, he should keep in mind that PCs must either be able to escape somehow, avoide the encounter, or be able to win - otherwise, there is no fun, is there? The DM might as well say - "well, you die."

Most of your points seem to have nothing to do with 3e as a game system at all, but rather certain styles of playing, which can be applied to any system.

As for the game balance issue, 3e does encourage minmaxing - the designers even said so themselves; the core system is pretty robust, and will hold up to a pretty fair amount as such; it is when all the variant rules and accessories come into play that a lot of headaches can arise. Qualifying for prestige classes, if done _right_, is an excellent role-playing opportunity, and a good way to support mechanically weak character concepts; the sagely wizard/loremaster being a good example.

kgauck

11-10-2002, 03:37 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark_Aurel" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 8:24 PM

> When examining the relative value of saves, one thing that comes
> to mind is that reflex saves generally reduce damage taken; fortitude
> and will saves are generally of the "save or die" variety.

This may be true in general. I don`t really know. IMC, mind-affecting
enchantments are the threat to PC`s requiring Will saves. For NPC`s there
is also the check to see if PC persuasion has been effective.

During my last session, the PC`s went to meet an old sage (expert/druid) who
was supposed to have some key information regarding the location of the
Scroll of Grey-Cloak. He had a hidden agenda, and wanted some revenge taken
on an old rival of his who was connected with the adventure. The sage
burned an incense which had been used as a spell storage device, like an
infusion, but inhaled rather than consumed. The incense was charged with a
Suggestion spell, and the sage advised the party to kill his rival on their
path to obtaining the Scroll. Everyone made their Will save except the
rogue, who did, BTW, end up killing the sage`s rival. This will have
consequences down the road for the party and/or the rogue.

This kind of thing is the typical cause for a Will save IMC.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

11-10-2002, 04:41 AM

On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 05:59, Mark_Aurel wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php
?TID=1068

Mark_Aurel wrote:
Peter, in that very lengthy post of yours, you make lots of references
to the fact that you think 3e isn`t a good game, that it has "inherited
numerous flaws," etc etc - yet, I don`t see much backup for it at all.

Remember, when debating the systems, your _house rules_ are _irrelevant_
- such as your reference to your allowing giants to carry more than the
tables indicated in previous editions. If you`re saying that 1e or 2e
is somehow better than 3e, then applying a house rule to show why, your
argument doesn`t stick very well together. What you`re really doing
isn`t comparing 3 to 1/2e, but comparing it to your own homebrew,
which you will inevitably like better, since you made it yourself.

In respect of the particular argument, I wasn`t suggesting that 2e was
`better` than 3e - but pointing out that the flaws from 2e are still
there while the improvements of 3e haven`t addressed the issue. There is
no rule in 1e or 2e for how much a giant can carry, in fact not even for
how much a human with giant strength can carry - but that`s nit-picking.
The 2e rules for encumbrance appear to be based on human bodyweight, but
this is never actually stated.

Actually, the main thrust of my original post had nothing to do with 3e.
It was aimed at some 2e specific comments.

3e uses the same mechanics pretty consistently - thus, it _is_ more
internally coherent throughout, even though there are definitely relics
and sacred cows from previous editions. A system where you roll 1d6/1d10
for initiative, 1d20 (low) for proficiencies, 1d% (low) for thief skills,
and 1d20 (high) for saves and attack rolls does not seem very consistent
or elegant, now, does it?

Oh you`ll get no argument from me that earlier versions have consistent
mechanics. It`s a mish-mash of table-top battle rules - HP come from
ther, naval ship combat rules - that`s where AC comes from, and other
stuff. However, using a d20 for everything doesn`t make 3e consistent
either.

So, (ahem) where does the human range start on each chart? And where
does it (the normal human range) end? ---- see the point yet? ---
and; Q. did you actually read my earlier post? apples and oranges etc.

What point? The normal human range is still 3-18. I don`t really quite see
what point you`re referring to, or trying to make. "apples and oranges etc."
Fine, a typical obscurement device for dodging the actual issue - does the 3e
system for ability scores work better and easier than 2e/1e (barring any of
your favored house rules)?

If I had to answer yes or no. No. It doesn`t work better. But it`s no
worse either.
Okay, let`s put it into an example.

If your character had a 10 constitution, and you had 5 buy-points
left, for which you could have either (a) 1 point of constitution;
or (B) a suit of leather armor (assuming you have no armor and can
gain full benefit from wearing leather armor); -- which would you
choose?

What if your character had a 18 constitution? -- would that change
your answer? If so, why? Why would 1 point of constitution hold
greater value at 18 than at 10?

My first point is that +1 does not have the same value in all contexts.
The statement that "+1 -1 = 0 is balanced" is therefore incorrect.

Even if you trade equal value points between abilities this is not a
fair trade either. Another example:

A character with a 10 constitution and an 11 charisma has +1 to con
and -1 to charisma. This would be numerically a clean (or equal)
trade. (But only if the distribution of both statistics were the
same e.g. 3-18, a dwarf with different ranges and distributions does
not get a fair trade)

But of far greater impact is that in order to standardize the range
of 3-18 for humans across all six abilities, a scale must be
attached to each table. This scale is different for each ability
score. We set the minimum point of the scale to the value 3, and the
maximum point on the scale to the value 18 - in order to derive
values within the scale. That the actual value of each scale is
identical is a preposterous notion - thus one point of strength (an
`apple`) and one point of constitution (an `orange`) have different
values too. So even given equal distributions (previous para), and
equal starting positions - even then -- +1 con -1 str does not
balance.

You can`t use general maths on ability scores and get `meaningful`
results. Suppose you were filling out a survey with a question.

Q. How do you feel about President Bush`s performance?
(1) Highly approve
(2) Somewhat approve
(3) Neither approve or disapprove
(4) Somewhat disapprove
(5) Greatly disapprove

In statistics analysis a variable `approval` (cf strength) may be
assigned a value of 2.3 based on the responses from a number of
respondents. What does this value (2.3) tell us? Not much actually. What
if the value was 5.0? -- then our scale was wrong.

Okay so what? The average human strength is 10.5 -- if an ogre is on
average twice as strong as a man then the average ogre strength is 21
right? Wrong, you`re applying maths to a statistic again. The value 10.5
isn`t a measured value, it`s a chosen statistical mean. It`s the mean
value over the distribution of 3d6. Each population (group of measured
values) will have it`s own distribution and mean. So, to treat all races
consistently they would ALL have ranges of 3-18. But we don`t, we have a
human norm 3-18 and ALL are measured against that statistic. The
problems occur when there is a creature that is stronger/more
intelligent/wiser/more charismatic etc than any possible human; or if
the statistical distribution of the sub-population (at either end) does
not span any points. BTW the implication here is that if 1 is the lowest
value then 20 is the absolute highest possible value - so once you have
something that is "stronger than the strongest human" - they have a
strength of 20.

So was it `right` to use a statistical range for strength et al?
Actually, why not? (as long as you don`t draw any wrong conclusions
about it). Is it right to extend this table to values like 45 for an
old wyrm? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

And now, just to spoil the whole bunch of apples. Strength is the
only statistic for which measured values have ever been given (But
only in 1e, not in 2e or 3e). Whether those measurements were scaled
to the 3-18 range or whether all the ability score ranges were
derived from the range for strength I do not know.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Mark_Aurel

11-10-2002, 05:09 AM

Ok, fair enough - you're basically stating that you don't like the way statistical ranges for ability scores work in 3e; I'm not really clear on what exactly is your purpose in this particular case, though...

If you consider ability scores to be based on some absolute value (i.e. 10.5 = IQ 100, a certain lifting capacity, etc), then you can extend them indefinitely in one direction (towards infinite - infinitely strong, infinitely smart, etc), but only to 0 in the other. If the value of 10.5 is the baseline average human value in any given category, then you can generally extrapolate from that, and create a scale that goes from 0 and up towards infinite, correct?

To put this in a more specific perspective; you mentioned the example of a human and an ogre. Let the human at 10.5 serve as the basepoint. The ogre, at 21, is then roughly 8 times as strong, or would be only 4 times as strong if it were at the same size as the human. A human with a strength of 5 is at half the strength of the one at 10; underneath this, the basic system of doubling in strength every 5 points breaks apart. I do not, however, see any inherent flaw in extrapolating towards the infinite, an abstract value to measure a creature's strength, agility, or mental acuity, based on a human norm.

Could a creature be ten times as strong as a human? Certainly. Can this be expressed along the same scale? Seeems simple enough to extrapolate - a strength of 27 or so is roughly 10 times as strong as one of 10. A great dragon's strength is similarly measurable, along the same scale.

The other issue you seem to touch is more vague; whether creatures would follow the same range of statistics as humans, to which the answer is most likely not. I.e. a creature whose average intelligence is 1 should not vary from 0 (lowest possible) to 10 (3d6-8, as extrapolated from 9-1). In this case, rolling 1d3-1 or something similar would seem a more apt range of statistical distribution, though perhaps a needless complication.

What I mainly get from reading your latest post is that you're assuming that ability scores are supposed to be a statistical average measure, rather than measure an absolute value of an ability; i.e. a given range for any race, and a different scale for each. Not necessarily a bad assumption, as some types of intelligence can be as different as their level (i.e. mind flayers to humans). In all cases, though, it's a tremendous, though very playable, simplification.

The second issue, the one of constitution; is a +1 modifier at 18 really worth more than one at 10? That is probably a trickier issue than you're making it out to be; as ability scores get higher and higher, the relative difference between scores becomes smaller and smaller; the difference between a +14 and a +15 modifier isn't really as earth-shattering as the difference between +1 and +2, relatively speaking. In 3e game terms, a +1 bonus to a 10 and an 18 Con really does not grant anything dissimilar; the only possible gain is fulfilling the requirements for certain feats, which has a cost of its own. This, of course, is an entirely mechanical viewpoint - but you're not really getting anything for either value; the +1 is probably generally worth more the lower the ability is to begin with, relatively speaking. The coolness factor of having a 19, of course, is far higher than having an 11, and the score of 19 itself is a LOT better than one of 11, but the modifier itself is not really worth more to either character.

Peter Lubke

11-10-2002, 05:27 AM

On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 14:37, Mark_Aurel wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read
.php?TID=1068

Mark_Aurel wrote:

Yes. Most changes have not tried to take anything away. The more
people
that you have involved in the design process the less likely it is to be
able to do so - and the 3e project leader and his sponsors were weak* -
their philosophy was "let the people have what they want, we will
package it nicely and sell it to them". This was a good marketing
strategy, but poor game design. (*`weak` from a design development point
of view that is - they were weak sponsors, and weak project leaders)

So what exactly is wrong about selling people a game they`d want to play?
You make it seem like a virtue to sell a game that is unplayable or that
people don`t want to play...

Does your DM give the party everything they want simply because they
want it?
That`s not what I said at all -- and I suspect you know it -- don`t go
putting meaning into my words that wasn`t even vaguely there.

While most people pay lip-service to "no monty-hauls", many people are
still playing characters at much higher levels than they are actually
entitled to.

Whoa. You aren`t "entitled" to play the game as you like it?
How exactly do you determine which level PCs are "entitled" to?
Are you simply applying a 1e/2e paradigm to 3e level advancement?
Almost sounds like it.

Sounds EXACTLY like it. Your comments prove my point exactly about
competition and balance. The attitude that bigger more powerful
characters are better and more fun or just plain more desirable proves
the point about competition. People have been doing it all along - 3e
just makes it `official`.

Understand that I`m writing from a role-playing game perspective -- not
a multi-level dungeon hack. Here`s a link that might explain the
difference between a role-playing game and 3e D&D (from one of the
consultants to 3e D&D!) http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg.html

How exactly you construe a system for building balanced encounters
(the CR system) into being a "monty haul engine" is quite beyond me;
the DMG explicitly handles several different campaign models for setting
up encounters - it recommends specifically that about 5% of all encounters
be overpowering ones, where the PCs will "probably lose" - the point
here is that, if the DM creates such an encounter, he should keep in mind
that PCs must either be able to escape somehow, avoide the encounter, or
be able to win - otherwise, there is no fun, is there? The DM might as
well say - "well, you die."

5% is `probably lose` ?? --- and that`s `balanced` ? Are you serious?
Did you read what you wrote? Not even 5% will lose? So the odds are 19
to 1 or better for the party? and even then they should be able to
escape? ... Now if I could just get those odds at the races - I get to
bet $100 at 19:1, and if I lose then I should get my money back - hmmm,
sounds fair - say are you a bookie?

Most of your points seem to have nothing to do with 3e as a game system
at all, but rather certain styles of playing, which can be applied to
any system.

This seems to be the standard fall back argument when there are no valid
points - that it`s a matter of style - well it`s not role-playing and
it`s not monopoly. You could play monopoly and make the winning
condition to be completing 10 laps of the board too - I doubt anyone
would believe you played a game of monopoly though.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

11-10-2002, 10:50 AM

On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 16:09, Mark_Aurel wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1068

Mark_Aurel wrote:
Ok, fair enough - you`re basically stating that you don`t like the way
statistical ranges for ability scores work in 3e; I`m not really clear on
what exactly is your purpose in this particular case, though...

I didn`t say I didn`t like it. What I said was:

(1) You can`t apply general math to it and have sensible results
(2) Third Edition hasn`t solved the original problem with a 3d6
human based range -- for creatures that are not `almost` human. For
creatures that are `almost human`, there is no problem - or at least
it`s somewhat solvable. In fact, 3e has it all wrong; by doing so
they invalidate what was right in the first place -- better to leave
it as it was (imperfect) than to fiddle and really screw it up as
they have done.

If you consider ability scores to be based on some absolute value (i.e.
10.5 = IQ 100, a certain lifting capacity, etc), then you can extend
them indefinitely in one direction (towards infinite - infinitely
strong, infinitely smart, etc), but only to 0 in the other. If the
value of 10.5 is the baseline average human value in any given
category, then you can generally extrapolate from that, and create
a scale that goes from 0 and up towards infinite, correct?

Wrong! - you really didn`t read the earlier post did you? All wrong.
100% incorrect. Not even close. Dead last. Completely lacking in
accuracy in any way shape or form. I don`t know what level of math you
are up to - so understanding it may not be your fault - this is
reasonably serious math, early graduate level stuff on average, beyond
most high school math. Does NOT use what is referred to as `general
math`. Commutability of operands does not apply - standard linear values
do not apply.

The ability score ranges of 3-18 - BY THEIR VERY DEFINITION - do NOT
measure a goddamn thing. Their relationship to an absolute linear value
cannot be determined with extra information.

e.g. 45% of all people in the world are men. Does this mean that 45
of the next 100 persons you see will be men? of course not. What`s
the probability that at least 43 of the next 100 will be men? - A. I
need more information to work that out!

To take your example; An IQ of 100 is defined to be the average human IQ
- however this does not tell us a lot. A value of 10.5 is the
statistical average (mean) of 3d6. Can we then equate them? (yes, but it
takes more information and quite a bit of work) Assume for the moment
that IQ is normally distributed (it`s not but we`re all good at make
believe), and the the standard deviation is 10 (the usual figure for
IQ). What would be the intelligence score of a character with an IQ of
120?

z = (120 - 100)/10 ; therefore z = 2
P(z <=2) = 0.9772

which equates to an intelligence score of 16.8 (16 covers ratings
from .95 to .98 approx), Note: the values between 10.5 and 16.8 are
NOT linearly distributed - this calculation does not allow the
assumption that 20/(16.8 - 10.5) is the scale of the intelligence
range.

Note: to perform the above calculations you`ll need access to
statistical tables, and you`ll need to calculate the distribution
of 3d6 (which isn`t too hard).

To sum up; IF (it`s a big IF) we had a scale, a measurement stand, a
distribution and all statistics of such a distribution for each ability
score, we could create measurement values for our ability statistics.
THEN we could use these in mathematical constructs using general math
(although I doubt anyone would really care or bother), BUT even then the
strength of a stone giant - or anything else beyond human ranges - would
be 19 because statistically they all fall into the tail.

To put this in a more specific perspective; you mentioned the example
of a human and an ogre. Let the human at 10.5 serve as the basepoint.
The ogre, at 21, is then roughly 8 times as strong, or would be only
4 times as strong if it were at the same size as the human. A human
with a strength of 5 is at half the strength of the one at 10;

Okay, I see where you are confused. You need a good book on statistical
analysis. It`s beyond me to teach you this quickly. But quickly, what`s
the max press of a STR 5 character? A.25 ... And of a STR 6 character?
A. 55 (These are 2nd Ed figures, I don`t have a 3e PH handy, but they`ll
have a similar if not identical value). SO, a human with a strength of 6
is more than twice as strong as one with a strength of 5. Once again,
--- you can`t use general maths to manipulate ability stats.

underneath this, the basic system of doubling in strength every 5
points breaks apart. I do not, however, see any inherent flaw in
extrapolating towards the infinite, an abstract value to measure
a creature`s strength, agility, or mental acuity, based on a
human norm.

Once you`ve read up on the maths involved you will. You don`t see any
flaw in doubling ever 5 points - once you know what an SD is you will.
You`ll need something on the moments of a distribution, including mean,
variance and skew; as well the basics of determining if two
distributions are different, and nonparametric or rank correlation.

What I mainly get from reading your latest post is that you`re assuming
that ability scores are supposed to be a statistical average measure,
rather than measure an absolute value of an ability; i.e. a given range

I wonder where I could have got that idea? (What I find amazing is that
you have the opposite idea - that they measure an absolute value - try
any players handbook, or DMG for an explanation of what strength,
intelligence and the other ability scores are)

for any race, and a different scale for each. Not necessarily a bad
assumption, as some types of intelligence can be as different as their
level (i.e. mind flayers to humans). In all cases, though, it`s a
tremendous, though very playable, simplification.

The second issue, the one of constitution; is a +1 modifier at 18
really worth more than one at 10?

I chose those values because (as I wrote) these are the points where the
difference is at its most extreme. It doesn`t matter though as to how
big the difference is, the fact that it exists at all is enough. The
fact is that a +1 to an 18 is actually worth more than a +1 to a 17, but
not as much more as a +1 to a 10 --- but still more. Yes, it is trickier
- and a simple buy-point system doesn`t cut it.

That is probably a trickier issue

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Ariadne

11-10-2002, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Peter Lubke

For a truly good adventure is never balanced - most of the time the heroes are dead heroes.
That might be right, but mostly it is unbalanced for the players. I have never seen the opposite: A horde of goblins first attacking, the heroes grinning and the goblins (who are still alive) running. In my opinion the DM should give the players this, if he likes the opposite.

Besides, the first thing of roleplaying is fun! To kill a group every time, they get to 5th level will end up slaughtering the DM ;)

kgauck

11-10-2002, 06:39 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 4:17 AM

> Assume for the moment that IQ is normally distributed (it`s not
> but we`re all good at make believe), and the standard
> deviation is 10 (the usual figure for IQ). What would be the
> intelligence score of a character with an IQ of 120?
>
> z = (120 - 100)/10 ; therefore z = 2
> P(z <=2) = 0.9772
>
> which equates to an intelligence score of 16.8 (16 covers ratings
> from .95 to .98 approx), Note: the values between 10.5 and 16.8 are
> NOT linearly distributed - this calculation does not allow the
> assumption that 20/(16.8 - 10.5) is the scale of the intelligence
> range.

This is the daffiest way to figure out what a guy with an IQ of 120 would
have as a Int score. The 3d6 method produces nearly the same bell curve
that the intelligence distribution (idealized) looks like. All one needs do
is line up the places on curve from two nearly identically shaped graphs. A
guy with a 120 IQ has a 14 Int score, and the formula that 5 IQ points is
worth a single point of Int holds up along the distribution curve.

Using IQ this way makes certain assumption (which every player will happily
make) about external factors like motivation, opportunity, education, and so
forth. We`re assuming that these factors haven`t limited the character in
any way.

As a side note, requiring that people have access to graduate math is a
silly requirement for playing D&D. People with advanced science training
(you know who you are), advanced social science training (hello), or
advanced math training will have rarified and obscure problems with the way
the game is designed or a setting is constructed. I`m willing to bet that
the math behind the game is better constructed than the social science that
lies behind the game. There is a point at which we of esoteric knowledge
have to acknowledge that this is a game for everyone and few are interested
in our specialized complaints with the game as a model for portraying
reality.

Take the assumption that "for creatures that are not `almost` human" must
have a different base range of scores, or be based on some other scale.
That`s an assumption (based on observation from our own world) that may have
no validity in the fantasy world created. Its one thing to argue with the
conclusions of the designers based on certain premises, but its futile to
*argue* with their premises. You either accept that or you decide you would
like the game to operate on different premises and tweak the game.

I don`t have graduate math backing me up. I can do statistical work common
in the social sciences. I`m generally interested in discussions of the math
behind the game. I`m not under the illusion that people who have no higher
math credentials have nothing useful to say on the game, especially when
issues like playability and design philosophy are part of the equasion.

If you`ve got higher math training make it useful to the list, rather than
creating an exclusionary obstacle to participation.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-10-2002, 06:39 PM

I can see no point in balancing a rules set that does not allow min/maxing.
In freeform systems, there is no need for balance, because the DM is the
sole arbiter of what goes down. If we play with a very short character
description, like "I`m a mage of the order of the star, and can chanel
starlight" (and that is all there is to it!), then the DM will have veto on
everyting I try to do. Such a game is balanced by DM whim.

Any other game has some form of balance. Some are rampantly unfair (like
RIFTS), but work if everybody stays in the spirit of the game. Some try to
acheive balance, like DD3 or Champions.

Of course,you have to have a bye-point system if a game is to be balanced.
If you don`t, then dice will establish balance just as surely as biased
rules can. In fact, you must eliminate all randomness during character
generation (like Champion does).

The question is how much balance do we want?

An example in point is character "Flaws", negative character traits that
give you a bonus to some other aspect of the game. Champions uses this a
lot. But in my experience, most flaws are really advantages - they make your
character more central to the story, giving you mor screen time. That, in my
bock, is the greatest merit of all.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

> 3e greatly encourages min/max`ing. It is inherent in the design
> philosophy and deeply ingrained into the rule sets (e.g. buy-points
> themselves). That such is so, makes a mockery of any attempt to
> `balance` out. The aim of the game (3e) or the focus of the players if
> you like, is to build a better character, to gain levels, to get a
> prestige class .. etc etc -- in other words it becomes a competition. My
> main objection to this is that it detracts from role-playing, but it
> also fosters imbalance.
>

__________________________________________________ ___
Följ VM på nära håll på Yahoo!s officielle VM-sajt www.yahoo.se/vm2002
Håll dig ajour med nyheter och resultat, med vinnare och förlorare...

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Keovar

11-11-2002, 11:58 AM

Thank you, Mark, you have stated most of the same arguements that I would have, had I the patience to answer those who plainly hate the game beyond reason and don't know anywhere near as much about said system as they claim.

Despite that, here goes:

Alot of people have a problem with the idea of Point-Buy stat systems. The great majority of those people, if they were absolutely honest about their reasons for disliking point-buy, would tell you that they feel they miss out on the chance to get a god-child type character. If the game were centered around semi-divine beings like Perseus and Heracles, then everyone would have multiple 18's, but it isn't. The game is about mortals that are just a cut above average. Since humans are the most prolific player-race, everything is measured using them as a baseline, so the standard for some abilities for other races may be above or below the human average.

Anyway, those that fell they are missing the chance to be supermen in a point-buy system are conveniently forgetting that they can also come up with a below average guy that's not likely to shine at anything. If everyone is given one AND ONLY ONE roll, then a rolling system is fair and will balance itself OVER TIME. However, since you generally only have 3-6 characters in a group, the balance over time effect won't really affect the balance of an individual campaign because the population of characters is so small. I don't believe a player should be rewarded with a supercharacter just for being lucky with the dice any more than I would want to punish someone for bad luck.

I prefer a point-buy system because it gives a baseline that is fair every time. Characters are made from CHOICES rather than dumb luck under such a system. For the same reasons, I use a standard hit-point progression rather than having the players roll it. (You take half the die they would have rolled +1, and then adjust it with their Con modifier, except at first level where they get the maximum of the hit die.)

A 4d6-drop-low-die rolling method produces a 12.25 average score, an actual mode of 13, and it skews the bell curve such that about 1 in 10 characters will get an 18, but only 1 in 200 will get a 3. This is the standard method for creating player heroes, as well as "above average" villains or other NPCs. For most common npcs, you still use the 3d6 ability generation method.

In the point-buy option for D&D3E, you have a number of points to spend towards buying abilities, but the upper ends of the scale do not have a 1-for-1 cost. Everything starts at 8, which gives you a -1 modifier to things associated with that stat. You can improve this on a 1-for-1 scale up to 14. It then costs, 2 more points to get from 14 to 15, and from 15 to 16. Getting up to 17 and 18 costs 3 more points each.

Here is the chart:
Score...(modifier)...Cost in stat-buy points
8..........(-1)...........0
9..........(-1)...........1
10........( 0)............2
11........( 0)............3
12........(+1)...........4
13........(+1)...........5
14........(+2)...........6
15........(+2)...........8
16........(+3)...........10
17........(+3)...........13
18........(+4)...........16

I have extended this downward IMC if someone really wants an ability below 8, but so far no one has elected to take advantage of this.

3..........(-4)..........-5
4..........(-3)..........-4
5..........(-3)..........-3
6..........(-2)..........-2
7..........(-2)..........-1

Note that the low end of the scale does remain at a 1-for-1 tradeoff, because I don't want to encourage people to completely minimize a stat just for points, but rather to give a little bit back to those that might want to roleplay a fatal flaw.

The amount of points to spend will vary from one campaign to the next, but 25 is considered the "standard" point-buy. It gives an average of 12.17 if all points are spent as evenly as possible. However, I have not seen anyone actually use 25 point-build, but rather 28 (avg. 12.67) in Greyhawk, 30 (avg. 13) in the computer game Neverwinter Nights, or 32 (avg. 13.33) in Forgotten Realms. I lean towards the 30-point NWN system myself, but it doesn't much matter which you use as long as all players get the same creation method and the key villains are treated as well (or better if needed).

In practice, I see very few people actually go for the 18. Most will take a 14-16 in their favorite stat, with most secondary ones ranging from 12-14, and ones they don't care about at 8-10. All in all, a very manageable yet capable group, and everyone gets to CHOOSE fairly what they want to play.

In the case of creatures that are far from human, I'll give you the following example. An average human has a 10.5 Str, and an average ogre has a 21 Str. If you want to generate a possibly non-average ogre, you would add 10 to your roll (you subtract 11 from odd avg. stats and 10 from even ones, and what is left is the racial adjustment). Thus a common adult ogre would have anywhere from a 13 to a 28 Str, and a "important" ogre would be rolled on a 4d6-drop-low-die method, thus skewing it to more often give a result better than 21.

The big difference here, as compared to 2nd Edition, is that you do not have a min/max stat range that you have to meet before you apply the racial adjustments. Every creature has a 3-18 roll and then tailors it to their race via the racial adjustments. The cretures appearing in the Monster Manual are examples of what you would get if you rolled three 10's and three 11's, then applied the appropriate adjustments.

"Max Press" in 3rd Edition D&D
The amount that a character can lift above their head is equal to the maximum value of a heavy load for them. This would be about the same as a "Max Press" as they described it in 2nd Ed. Here is the chart as it would appear for humans and other medium-sized bipeds in 3rd Edition D&D.

1.....10 lb. (+10 from Str 0, which can carry nothing)
2.....20 lb. (+10 from Str 1)
3.....30 lb. (+10)
4.....40 lb. (+10)
5.....50 lb. (+10)
6.....60 lb. (+10)
7.....70 lb. (+10)
8.....80 lb. (+10)
9.....90 lb. (+10)
10...100 lb. (+10)
11...115 lb. (+15)
12...130 lb. (+15)
13...150 lb. (+20)
14...175 lb. (+25)
15...200 lb. (+25)
16...230 lb. (+30)
17...260 lb. (+30)
18...300 lb. (+40)
19...350 lb. (+50)
20...400 lb. (+50)
21...460 lb. (+60)
22...520 lb. (+60)
23...600 lb. (+80)
24...700 lb. (+100)
25...800 lb. (+100)
26...920 lb. (+120)
27...1040 lb. (+120)
28...1200 lb. (+160)
29...1400 lb. (+200)

Then, you adjust it for the size of the creature by multiplying by the amount shown below. The second number is for quadrupedal creatures or for those on more than 4 legs.
Fine.............. x0.125 (quad.: x0.25)
Diminuative... x0.25 (quad.: x0.5)
Tiny.............. x0.5 (quad.: x0.75)
Small............ x0.75 (quad.: x1)
Medium......... x1 (quad.: x1.5)
Large............ x2 (quad.: x3)
Huge............. x4 (quad.: x6)
Gargantuan.... x8 (quad,: x12)
Colossal........ x16 (quad. x24)

Again, the above values are the maximum "lift overhead" (or Max Press), as well as the most that a creature can normally carry without extreme fatigue. A creature can lift twice this amount to about waist height, but it can only stagger around with it for a few steps. Five times the max press can be pushed or dragged alond the ground, but favorable conditions (smooth surface, wheels or other rollers, etc.) can increase this up to double while rough ground can lower it to one-half or less.

So, the average human can military press 100 lb. over their head, while the average ogre can heft 920 lb. over his. Ogres in myth have been described as being "as strong as ten men", and in D&D this is quite nearly the case.

Birthright-L

11-11-2002, 01:47 PM

As I outlined before,the progression of the encumbrance table is
exponential. Take a look at it:

Strength: Lifting limit

10: 100 lb
15: 200 lb
20: 400 lb

12: 130 lb
17: 260 lb
22: 520 lb

This does not apply at the extreme low end of the table (below Str 5), where
the table is actually linear.

From: "Keovar" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>

> "Max Press" in 3rd Edition D&D
> The amount that a character can lift above their head is equal to the
maximum value of a heavy load for them. This would be about the same as a
"Max Press" as they described it in 2nd Ed. Here is the chart as it would
appear for humans and other medium-sized bipeds in 3rd Edition D&D.
>
> 1.....10 lb. (+10 from Str 0, which can carry nothing)
> 2.....20 lb. (+10 from Str 1)
> 3.....30 lb. (+10)
> 4.....40 lb. (+10)
> 5.....50 lb. (+10)
> 6.....60 lb. (+10)
> 7.....70 lb. (+10)
> 8.....80 lb. (+10)
> 9.....90 lb. (+10)
> 10...100 lb. (+10)
> 11...115 lb. (+15)
> 12...130 lb. (+15)
> 13...150 lb. (+20)
> 14...175 lb. (+25)
> 15...200 lb. (+25)
> 16...230 lb. (+30)
> 17...260 lb. (+30)
> 18...300 lb. (+40)
> 19...350 lb. (+50)
> 20...400 lb. (+50)
> 21...460 lb. (+60)
> 22...520 lb. (+60)
> 23...600 lb. (+80)
> 24...700 lb. (+100)
> 25...800 lb. (+100)
> 26...920 lb. (+120)
> 27...1040 lb. (+120)
> 28...1200 lb. (+160)
> 29...1400 lb. (+200)
>
> Then, you adjust it for the size of the creature by multiplying by the
amount shown below. The second number is for quadrupedal creatures or for
those on more than 4 legs.
> Fine.............. x0.125 (quad.: x0.25)
> Diminuative... x0.25 (quad.: x0.5)
> Tiny.............. x0.5 (quad.: x0.75)
> Small............ x0.75 (quad.: x1)
> Medium......... x1 (quad.: x1.5)
> Large............ x2 (quad.: x3)
> Huge............. x4 (quad.: x6)
> Gargantuan.... x8 (quad,: x12)
> Colossal........ x16 (quad. x24)
>

__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

11-11-2002, 02:10 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keovar" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:58 AM

> Alot of people have a problem with the idea of Point-Buy stat
> systems. The great majority of those people, if they were absolutely
> honest about their reasons for disliking point-buy, would tell you
> that they feel they miss out on the chance to get a god-child type
> character.

Its even worse than that. Its the desire to have a god-child while everyone
else has a typical character. Point buy systems can just be scaled up for a
campaign to find the golden fleece, so we can put the Argonauts together,
including Jason, Herakles, Orpheus, Castor, and Pollux.

If the game were centered around semi-divine beings like Perseus and
Heracles, then everyone would have multiple 18`s, but it isn`t.

Though it could be if I only offered starting characters more generation
points.

> The amount of points to spend will vary from one campaign to the
> next, but 25 is considered the "standard" point-buy. It gives an
> average of 12.17 if all points are spent as evenly as possible.
> However, I have not seen anyone actually use 25 point-build, but
> rather 28 (avg. 12.67) in Greyhawk, 30 (avg. 13) in the computer
> game Neverwinter Nights, or 32 (avg. 13.33) in Forgotten Realms.
> I lean towards the 30-point NWN system myself, but it doesn`t much
> matter which you use as long as all players get the same creation method
> and the key villains are treated as well (or better if needed).

I could only give 12 points if I wanted a rigorously typical set of
characters, or I could give 50 points if I want the crew of the Argo. Point
buy systems are the best way to assure that characters begin with similar
ability power. The examples on table 2-2 of the DMG (p. 20) are more
typical.

Personally, I use 25 points, and even encourage use of the default array:
giving characters an 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15. My players are split on between
going with the default array and going with 10, 10, 12, 13, 14, 14. At
fourth level (which comes a bit sooner since IMC characters start off with a
backround level as Aristocrat, Expert, or Rogue), you see the difference
manifested as some players get to increase their primary skill to a 16, and
others are tempted to increase their 13 to a 14. Listening to their
thinking, spellcasters are more likely to go with the default array because
they don`t want to run up against spell level limits, and the bonus of a
higher Wis, Int, or Cha can grant bonus spells. Non-spellcasters are more
tempted to be well rounded. These are general observations and not fast
rules.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Krow

11-12-2002, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Peter Lubke

Keovar wrote:

Krow points out the inadequacy and flaws of the 2e system quite well,
but gets his example wrong. Most of the flaws are still present in some
form in 3e however, but are less severe in their effect.

Sorry, I know I was putting my examples at high extremes. I was just trying to make the point as crystal clear as possible.
I also apologize to everyone. I didn't mean to cause such an uprising, I was just throwing my two cents in.
You are right though, my post was not consistant with 3rd edition rules, as Birthright was not written for 3rd edition.

Krow

11-12-2002, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by Peter Lubke

As for why one would want balance there are two major reasons. First, many
people want a set of balanced characters so each member of the party
represents an equitable portion of the group. That way no one player has a
more significant role during play based on his PC`s stats. Second, having
a system of balanced characters allows the DM to rate numerically the
relative power of the party, which he can use to design adventures. 3e
came up with such a system in their CR/ECL/EL system. While there are
certainly flaws in that system it`s much more consistent than anything that
existed in previous editions.

I find that in practice, a PCs abilities are far less important than the
players abilities. Having said that, I agree that a balanced set of
classes allows for better role-playing, as the character class chosen by
a player is influenced by his/her style and approach rather than trying
to min/max the characters abilities. [Your reasons are good, I agree
with the principles, but the method ...]

3e greatly encourages min/max`ing. It is inherent in the design
philosophy and deeply ingrained into the rule sets (e.g. buy-points
themselves). That such is so, makes a mockery of any attempt to
`balance` out. The aim of the game (3e) or the focus of the players if
you like, is to build a better character, to gain levels, to get a
prestige class .. etc etc -- in other words it becomes a competition. My
main objection to this is that it detracts from role-playing, but it
also fosters imbalance.

Now it`s not possible to avoid this entirely. What can be done however,
is to make it not important!
While most people pay lip-service to "no monty-hauls", many people are
still playing characters at much higher levels than they are actually
entitled to. Now partly this is because everyone (including the DM)
likes a `happy and successful ending`. At the end of your `balanced`
CR/ECL/EL adventure, the players win (because it was designed for them
to win), everyone is happy and successful. They all gain experience and
levels - this is good right?

Wrong. (well not always wrong, but wrong in philosophy) The players
should not get to win every time, you have to have them experience and
role-play the whole gamut of adventuring - in fact one way to keep the
adventure alive is to beat them up all the time - keep them moving from
one disaster to the next (read your fantasy books - not the D&D ones).
Have them investigate a wizards tower, get beaten up - and have that
wizard (and/or his minions and agents) on their trail from one week to
the next. They players have to learn when to run, when to fight, and
when to beg and plead, when to cut their losses, and when .... to be
heroic .... not to be heroic all the time. For a truly good adventure is
never balanced - most of the time the heroes are dead heroes. But did
they have fun? because that is the real aim and goal of role-playing.

Well spoken. Balance is the key to a fun adventure, both for the DM and the players.
When min/max-ing occurs, and it ALWAYS occurs, balance is thrown out. If everyone is maxed out in a different way, that's ok. You can play upon the weaknesses of each character in different situations. This is what makes the game fun. However, even though the maxing happens, there has to be some soft of a balance with it. Is a +3/+5 damage added for strength on every hit equal to 1 additional spell per day? Is it equal to a -1 additional bonus to dex?

Your idea of keeping them going from one disaster to another, couldn't have been put into words better. It's wonderful to see the faces of the players when night falls, and camp must be made. No one knows if it's safe to sleep. It takes the monotony out of the game to have them actually fear for their lives at night. Sleep? or Stay awake all night?

Birthright, I have to admit, has taken my impression of role playing to a different universe entirely. With all noble, or mostly noble characters, treasure can be somewhat unimportant. It's the rare item, the "fun" magical items they seek. A wand of wonder, perhaps. Something completely out of the ordinary that might have unexpected outcomes.
Here, treasure hunting, and monster hunting can be cast a bit aside, for real role playing.

Birthright-L

11-12-2002, 04:56 PM

On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 4:17 AM
>
> > Assume for the moment that IQ is normally distributed (it`s not
> > but we`re all good at make believe),

It is extremely well approximated by a normal (Gaussian) distribution in
the range of about 70 to 130 (plus or minus two standard deviations, and
about 95% of the population); the tails, however, are distinctly
non-Gaussian (there are way more people with both very high and very low
IQs than can be predicted from a normal distribution).

> > and the standard deviation is 10 (the usual figure for IQ).

No, the usual SD for IQ is 15. 16 on a Stanford-Binet.

> > What would be the intelligence score of a character with an IQ of 120?
> >
> > z = (120 - 100)/10 ; therefore z = 2
> > P(z <=2) = 0.9772
> >
> > which equates to an intelligence score of 16.8 (16 covers ratings
> > from .95 to .98 approx),

Basically true, with the caveat that z = 2 is IQ = 130 (or 132).

> This is the daffiest way to figure out what a guy with an IQ of 120
> would have as a Int score.

It is technically the most "true", but you are correct that it is much
harder to use than other available methods of comparable accuracy.

> The 3d6 method produces nearly the same bell curve that the
> intelligence distribution (idealized) looks like. All one needs do is
> line up the places on curve from two nearly identically shaped graphs.

Essentially, yes. My preferred way to do this is through the standard
deviation of the two curves. The SD of 3d6 can be calculated exactly as
one-half of the square root of 35, or slightly less than three (2.958),
which is pretty much exactly your observation that 5 points of IQ equals
one point of Int. One can also fit a bell curve to the sixteen data
points, and determine that a standard deviation of about 3.14 gives the
"best fit" in a least-squares sense, but it is clear in the graphs that
this fit is quite poor in the tails of the distribution.

> Using IQ this way makes certain assumption (which every player will
> happily make) about external factors like motivation, opportunity,
> education, and so forth.

Quite true.

> We`re assuming that these factors haven`t limited the character in any way.

Or are themselves normally distributed. =)

> As a side note, requiring that people have access to graduate math is
> a silly requirement for playing D&D. People with advanced science
> training (you know who you are),

*grin* Hello.

> advanced social science training (hello), or advanced math training
> will have rarified and obscure problems with the way the game is
> designed or a setting is constructed.

One of mine is with precisely this IQ to Int comparison. I know a great
many people with IQs over 140 (once test ceiling effects are accounted
for), which is the equivalent of Int 18 in this system. I know enough
humans whose IQs would convert according to this rule to Int 25, 30 or
even more that I have gone to a different stat-rolling system for random
NPCs. 12d6 divided by 4 has a standard deviation exactly half that of
3d6, as well as precisely the same range (given rounding), so it makes
3-18 scores that are clustered twice as tightly around the mean as 3d6
scores. In the IQ example, it means that Int = IQ / 10, which is easy for
me to work with in roleplaying the character from its stats. I admit I
use a computer program to generate the numbers, rather than roll four
times as many dice, but it makes me feel better about population
demographics -- and I do it for all stats, not just Int.

> I`m willing to bet that the math behind the game is better constructed
> than the social science that lies behind the game.

As a mathematician who dabbles in social science, I concur.

> There is a point at which we of esoteric knowledge have to acknowledge
> that this is a game for everyone and few are interested in our
> specialized complaints with the game as a model for portraying
> reality.

Sadly, yes. Still, we can have fascinating arguments with each other.

> Take the assumption that "for creatures that are not `almost` human" must
> have a different base range of scores, or be based on some other scale.

And it`s one that makes it almost impossible to use, practically. If I
cannot express all strengths on the same scale, then it is as useless a
game abstraction as a notion of speed which did not in the end come down
to an easily comparable single scale: a fast human is faster than a slow
human, and a slow horse slower than a fast horse, tautologically -- but is
a fast human slower or faster than a slow horse? To answer that, I need a
single, unified scale on which every creature in the game can be
expressed. That`s what I need Strength, Dexterity, etc. to mean and to be
modeled as, if they are to be useful abstractions instead of things that
just get in the way.

> If you`ve got higher math training make it useful to the list, rather than
> creating an exclusionary obstacle to participation.

I try to do so, but I would be interested in hearing what, if anything,
other people would consider useful -- all the math I do, I consider useful
to myself, or I wouldn`t bother, but I recognize that others have their
own standards.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-12-2002, 07:57 PM

On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:

> In some cases I have heard of DM allowing players to set their stats
> from a given total point count (such a system is patently unfair and
> most good DMs avoid it like the plague but I have seen it happen ...).

You are correct that it is a bad idea when the ratio of points spent to
stat received is linear across the scale. The 3e DMG, however, gives a
system in which higher stat scores require progressively more build points
to acquire. It is not perfect, but it does take into account the
objection you note below, namely:

> In any event it is quite apparent to everyone that +1 to an ability
> score of 10 has a completely different value to +1 on an ability score
> of 18.

so it is not as unfair as the purely linear point systems you (and I)
oppose.

> As well, consider that you cannot trade apples for oranges here. A +1 to
> one ability does not equate to a -1 in another ability.

This is two separate arguments conflated. One is what you have said
above, that +1 means different things when added to a 10 or an 18. The 3e
stat system`s linearized bonus scale helps fix this: a +2 to a stat score
always means a +1 to the bonus. The other is a generalization of
"strength is just more useful than charisma," which is a function of
campaign style -- in hack`n`slash, it is self-evident, but in a campaign
focused on court intrigue, the opposite may be true.

> The scores may be similar but the scales are not. In fact it is almost
> impossible to even begin to set an exchange rate. The notion that all
> six abilities have the same scale is ridiculous.

On the contrary, I would argue that the scales are identical. In each
case, 10.5 is the human norm, and 3 the human standard deviation. A
person with 16 Charisma is exactly as much more charismatic (whatever that
means) than a person with 10 Charisma as a person with 16 Strength is
stronger (whatever that means) than a person with 10 Strength.

> Not only all that (as if it isn`t enough), but the scales being used are
> all human-relative. They can`t even begin to be applied once you move
> away from the human norm by very much at all

The first half is true, the second does not follow. The human-relative
part fixes a point and a length scale for the chart, but anything can be
put on it. Given a correspondence between Strength score and lifting
capacity, we can extrapolate it to any desired amount of weight.

> The constitution range for dwarves is 13 to 18 (pre-adjustment) in BR
> AD&D 2nd Ed. This is only 56 of the possible 216 values, and the
> distribution is not bell-curved.

This always bothered me greatly, in that any such characteristic should be
(and indeed must quickly become) close-to-normally distributed in any
breeding population. Therefore, when using the 2e ranges, I used
something that would be about as normally distributed as the usual 3d6:
the sum of three dice, with the number of sides per die as close to the
same as possible; for 13-18, I used 2d3+d2+10.

> Now the problem with that pesky strength table (all the abilities
> even) is that they are for humans. (actually they`re based on a 6 foot
> tall 175 pound human male - as all values came from the original D&D
> tables) You can`t make any deductions about a Stone Giant from them,

On the contrary -- the same way you got 1400 pounds (175 * 2 cubed), one
can say that the lifting power of the average 12` male stone giant (if
that giant is really proportioned just as a human times two) should be
four times the lifting power of the average 6` male human; this translates
readily into an effective Strength score.

> these values are for a 175 pound 6 foot human - adjust for changes in
> height and weight accordingly (although they don`t tell you "how" to
> adjust).

Which makes the comment, and the table, not very useful. There has to be
some explicit way to compare Strength scores between species or the whole
idea of a Strength score loses most of its power as a modeling tool.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

doom

11-12-2002, 09:59 PM

On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 09:17:47PM +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:
> (1) You can`t apply general math to it and have sensible results
> (2) Third Edition hasn`t solved the original problem with a 3d6
> human based range -- for creatures that are not `almost` human.

Peter,

I`ve re-read your post several times and am, unfortunately, having
some difficulty in getting to the crux of your concern. It may be
primarily based on communication issues, but you seem to have several
well-thoughout out ideas that I can`t seem to follow well enough
to know if I agree or not. ;)

My first point of confusion is simply definitional. What do you mean
by "general" math? I`m familiar with most basic "fields" of
mathematical study (elementary mathematics, geometry, trig., algebra,
linear algebra, abstract algebra, statistics/prob., discrete
mathematics, calculus, etc.), but I`m not certain what you mean by
"general math".

> The ability score ranges of 3-18 - BY THEIR VERY DEFINITION - do NOT
> measure a goddamn thing. Their relationship to an absolute linear value
> cannot be determined with extra information.

I`m not certain that I agree with this. 3e ability scores are be
mappable to an absolute linear scale (albeit, as a step function).

Granted, it is next to impossible to quantify _any_ complex
statistics such as intelligence or dexterity as a two-dimentional
linear scale, but this is convention that most gamers are willing to
accept in order in order to provide a basis for dice mechanics.
Under the assumption that we will except a numeric classicification,
the next issues is the classification scale. Under 3e it is
explictly understood that this is an exponential scale where the
quantified value doubles every 5 increments. (Certainly the scale
could easily be linear if we were were willing to accept large values
and a departure from the traditional "human range" of 3-18, but the
use of the exponential scale is convienent enough). are certainly
advantages to using an exponential scale). Mapping values from an
exponential scale to a linear step-function is trival.

Given that this is the case, the NEXT issues is the Std. Mean and
distribution of the quantified statistics for a population. Again,
lets assume that the distribution of the 3d6 mechanism adequately
represents the distribution amoung humans. (The 4d6 mechanism is
for elite characters - outside of the scope of the problem as I
understand it. Effectively, this system provides a norm/mean value
and a distribution of "relative" variance. A +5 to a stat means that
the creature in question is twice as strong as a "standard" creature.

How does this not abstract to non-"near humans"? The statistic bonus
provides an offset for the mean to reflect the norm of the species in
question. The 3d6 mechanic still provides a range of varience
ranging from 3 (~8 below mean or slightly less than half as strong as
the average member of the species) to 18 (~8 above mean, or slightly
more than twice as strong as the average member of the species).

Is it your contention that more dragon`s should "twice as strong" as
the average dragons that humans are likely to be "twice as strong" as
the average human? If so, this would require statistics for not only
mean, but all standard deviation for every species. I`m not certain
that it is worth the effort - the simplifing assumption apprears
fairly reasonable as a game mechanic. The 3e statistic system, while
it has its flaws, seems to be internally self consistent and more
than able to adequately represent a wide range of ability.

> underneath this, the basic system of doubling in strength every 5
> points breaks apart. I do not, however, see any inherent flaw in
> extrapolating towards the infinite, an abstract value to measure
> a creature`s strength, agility, or mental acuity, based on a
> human norm.
>
> Once you`ve read up on the maths involved you will. You don`t see any
> flaw in doubling ever 5 points - once you know what an SD is you will.

I`d like a more detailed explaination of this point. I consider
myself to be relatively well educated in mathematics, but your point
does not seem to be self-evident to me. I may just be slow today,
but I`d appreciate the clarification. It seems to me that the
exponential scale works fine... again, under the assumption that the
_important_ factor in the varience in the distribution can be
represented as a probabilistic likely-hood of being some multiple
greater/less than the expected mean value.

> What I mainly get from reading your latest post is that you`re assuming
> that ability scores are supposed to be a statistical average measure,
> rather than measure an absolute value of an ability; i.e. a given range
>
> I wonder where I could have got that idea? (What I find amazing is that
> you have the opposite idea - that they measure an absolute value - try
> any players handbook, or DMG for an explanation of what strength,
> intelligence and the other ability scores are)

This exchange confuses me. Although I enjoy the occasional sarcastic
comment as much as the next guy (probably more ;) it doesn`t seem to
clearly state your point. As I read it, you are agreeing that you
view ability scores as a statistical average measure and are
riducling Mark`s position that they represent an absolute value. I`m
not at all certain that I agree with the basis for your ridicule.

As I understand D&D, ability scores are quantification of a
physical/mental ability. As such, they are directly comperable (by
rank) and the difference between the values has a specific associated
difference in measured abilty (x2 per 5 ranks). To me, this seems to
satisify all of the critera of an absolute measure, so long as a base
point from which to measure the difference is defined. Thus, with an
appropriate understanding of what a value "10" (for example)
represents, all else is absolute. Any statistical measures are a
function of the generation function, not of the scale.

________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

irdeggman

11-12-2002, 10:35 PM

As far as not all abilities being equal (i.e., a +1 in one ability is more influential than a +1 in another) - this was addressed in the DMG in the section about creating new races. I, on the other hand don't agree with the DMG's philosophy, but that's just my personal opinion.

In 2nd edition it was very true that the physical abilities (Str, Dex, Con) were indeed much more important than the non physical ones, specifically Cha. The 3rd edition system did much to correct this inadequacy. A player who shooses to min/max with Cha and Str would be missing a whole lot. There are more skills that are Cha based than before. In addition there are several important class abilities that are linked to Cha; the sorcerers' and bards' spellcasting abilities. Almost all of the paladin's abilities are also no linked to Cha, except for spellcasting, so are most of the bard's class abilities. A cleric's ability to turn undead is also linked to Cha, so it would not be prudent for a player wishing to play a cleric to ignore Cha. If a druid maxes his Wisdom for better spellcasting without paying attention to his Con and Dex he will be in a potential batch of problems, since that is the only class that has armor and weapon restrictions.

I personally don't much like point buy systems, but they work and are easy to use. They don't require a lot of re-rolls and results that "force" a player to have his character be something that the player didn't have in mind at the start. Most of my players generally like the random ability generation method, and yes they really desire the chance to play a near god-like character - but generally this doesn't happen. If you factor in the ability increase at every 4 levels this makes things balance out in the end, IMO.

Basically if you take all of 3rd edition in to factor the system is very well balanced and much inproved over the previous editions. Wizards no longer have the no armor restriction, although they have the potential to have spell failure if they choose to wear armor (nothing for nothing).:)

Mark_Aurel

11-12-2002, 10:59 PM

Alright Peter - I have considered your posts for a few days before posting a response, especially as several of your comments were pure flamebait, and I am all too often tempted to respond to that in like fashion.

Now, I must say you could certainly have tried to make your points come across more clearly; the crux of the matter appears to be a flawed interpretation of how ability scores work, at least in 3e. I have done as you advised, opened my PHB, and found that the description of an ability score is exactly as I suspected - it "measures," alternately "describes" or "represents" a character's ability in a certain field. In most cases, the measurement is considered abstract - a game mechanic. In the case of strength, the anomaly here, we have a chart which determines exact carrying and lifting capacity, and from this chart, we can see that there's an exponential curve to how ability scores work, apart from for the lower values. Now, the chart, the scores, and the game mechanics, are all based on a human standard; 10.5 being the average. However, the fact that the system of measurement is based on a certain base value, should not be confused with the system being a statistic. You're obviously confusing the fact that each ability score is an absolute, exponential value, with the statistical distribution of those values. Much of what you seem to be hung up with is also based on the notion of using 3d6; 3d6 is simply one way to determine where an individual falls along the scale of an absolute, though abstract, measurement. Adventuring types use different systems, yielding different statistical distributions; i.e. the 4d6, drop lowest method yields a curve that has a very different shape from the traditional Gaussian distribution curve. I've personally always felt that an 18 should be an extremely rare value; far rarer than the 0.5% of the population that would have it under 3d6, though perhaps not so rare among heroic adventurerers. This problem of statistical distribution is solved simply by using a different method that has a far greater bias for average values; i.e. yielding an 18 in perhaps one of 10 000 cases or less.

I would kindly suggest that perhaps you should actually read the rules before trying to argue so forcefully about them. In this case, your math seems to pretty much work out; the problem is that the problem you're addressing is really a non-issue, since it's based on perceiving ability scores differently than they're presented in the books.

Understand that I`m writing from a role-playing game perspective -- not
a multi-level dungeon hack.

Oh darn. We aren't discussing multi-level dungeon hacks? I was so sure we were. Pardon my ignorance, I shall remove myself from your presence immediately, your grace. You are much too good for a low-life like me to be basking in the glory of *true* role-playing, as it was meant to be, carved in stone, and set forth by Moses himself, as the hidden 11th commandment. Forgive me for violating this sacred law. I shall go back to my multi-level dungeon hack.

5% is `probably lose` ?? --- and that`s `balanced` ? Are you serious?
Did you read what you wrote? Not even 5% will lose?

Yep. I know very well what I wrote. The 5% refers to TPK, a situation the party should very well escape from. There's also a 15% of all encounters that should be considered "deadly;" meaning a good chance of at least one PCC. Now, 5% *will* lose - that's a bit harsh, isn't it? In this context, *will* lose is the equivalent of the DM saying, "you die, no save, and you can't run away, either." Gee, that'd be a fun game to play in - especially if the DM did it more than every 20 encounters, too. How often is the DM supposed to off-handedly kill the PCs? Every 10 encounters? 15.673% of all encounters? 27.894%? (I'm sure all those extra decimals are of supreme importance, since we're into calculating the statistics of it all, I mean.)

Of course, it goes without saying that the game becomes very boring if all encounters are walk-overs. It also goes without saying that the game becomes frustrating if the party is killed every time. Some balance must be struck, and the 3e way of balancing it seems to work fine in most cases. If you want a deadlier game, simply increase the CRs, and have the PCs run more often. But always give the PCs a chance to run, or hints in advance to avoid the encounter. *Will* lose is no fair, and no fun. At least for most people. Again, this is simply an issue of game style, not game design.

This seems to be the standard fall back argument when there are no valid
points - that it`s a matter of style - well it`s not role-playing and
it`s not monopoly. You could play monopoly and make the winning
condition to be completing 10 laps of the board too - I doubt anyone
would believe you played a game of monopoly though.

Ok, oh great master. Relate to me the hidden truth of it all. What are the requirements for a role-playing game? I believe that articles like the one you pointed to explains the core of it - it is role-playing with game mechanics applied. In terms of role-playing and storytelling, a great many styles can be adapted, without regards to the game mechanics. The two aren't entirely separate, as different game mechanics support or emulate different things better, but, overall, a great many things you're talking about applies irregardless of the actual game system, and is thus a matter of style, not mechanics.

Sarcasm is perhaps the lowest form of wit, so I guess that leaves me a buffoon. I would also note that whenever I am presenting an opinion, I think it is an opinion, and when I'm presenting a fact (my computer is whitish gray), I think it is a fact, and I strive to not have the two meet too often, or it would look as if I thought my opinion was fact, and facts were my opinion, and what applies in the campaign I DM should apply everywhere else as well, since I know for an opinion I'm right, given that my fact is opinion. And maybe I should've taken a week to reply, but by then, there's a statistical chance that I'd be dead, perhaps by a meteor strike, or a sudden assault of a killer virus that is thrown against me with no warning and no save allowed. I hope that clarifies it all, and that we may now sleep peacefully and live happy lives. I will try very hard to fight fire with water, not fire, in the future. The again, being wet when it's cold can be a pretty bad experience. I rest my hyperbole, and leave my case for a later date.

irdeggman

11-12-2002, 11:17 PM

Ouch,
Mark, and here I thought I was your favorite target. I agree with just about everything you've said, but in a kindler gentler way. Let's all have a drink and go to our respective corners for brief intermission.([_]

Peter Lubke

11-13-2002, 07:23 AM

On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 06:40, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:

> The scores may be similar but the scales are not. In fact it is almost
> impossible to even begin to set an exchange rate. The notion that all
> six abilities have the same scale is ridiculous.

On the contrary, I would argue that the scales are identical. In each
case, 10.5 is the human norm, and 3 the human standard deviation. A
person with 16 Charisma is exactly as much more charismatic (whatever that
means) than a person with 10 Charisma as a person with 16 Strength is
stronger (whatever that means) than a person with 10 Strength.

Not really - the scores are normalized values. Instead of being
normalized around 0.5 though it`s done around 10.5 which confuses the
issue, because 10.5 looks like a real value. 10.5 isn`t the mean sample
value - it`s the modal distribution value.

If absolute charisma values for humans were between 23 and 38 with a
mean of 30.5 and the same SD as the 3d6 distribution, then they could be
generated with 3d6+20, (but need only be recorded as 3-18). How far a
score is above or below the mean doesn`t tell us anything. The modal
distribution value does represent the mean - but it isn`t the same
thing. Knowing that you have a charisma score of 13 (given a SD of 2.5)
does tell you how much higher than the mean you are in percentage terms
- but not in absolute units - nor does it tell you what the actual mean
is.

We don`t need to know what the mean is in D&D. What we need to know is:
given the statistic (a charisma score) what the probability of a certain
event? (that someone will react favorably)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

11-13-2002, 07:23 AM

On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 03:54, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 4:17 AM
>
> > Assume for the moment that IQ is normally distributed (it`s not
> > but we`re all good at make believe),

It is extremely well approximated by a normal (Gaussian) distribution in
the range of about 70 to 130 (plus or minus two standard deviations, and
about 95% of the population); the tails, however, are distinctly
non-Gaussian (there are way more people with both very high and very low
IQs than can be predicted from a normal distribution).

> > and the standard deviation is 10 (the usual figure for IQ).

No, the usual SD for IQ is 15. 16 on a Stanford-Binet.

I stand corrected. (I did think my result was a bit low)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Krow

11-13-2002, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Birthright-L

On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
One of mine is with precisely this IQ to Int comparison. I know a great
many people with IQs over 140 (once test ceiling effects are accounted
for), which is the equivalent of Int 18 in this system. I know enough
humans whose IQs would convert according to this rule to Int 25, 30 or
even more that I have gone to a different stat-rolling system for random
NPCs.

Actually, that's not really accurate, not that it's really that important. The IQ of humans in real society is 100, for an average. A 100 means that you are averagely intelligent to people of your own age. Your IQ changes every birthday, as you are in a group with a different age of people. Since 10.5 Int is the stat for an average human, I would estimate the IQ of 140 as being around 14-15. So, an Int score of 18 would be like Einstein (who incidently couldn't read until he was 8).
As I said, not really that important, but it helps a little to let you know roughly how intelligent a PC with 18 Int really is.

-- Krow

Eosin the Red

11-13-2002, 07:44 AM

Do you ever listen to yourself?

Just curious.

Eosin the Red

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: anything on dwarves [2#1068]

> On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 03:54, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 4:17 AM
> >
> > > Assume for the moment that IQ is normally distributed (it`s not
> > > but we`re all good at make believe),
>
> It is extremely well approximated by a normal (Gaussian) distribution
in
> the range of about 70 to 130 (plus or minus two standard deviations,
and
> about 95% of the population); the tails, however, are distinctly
> non-Gaussian (there are way more people with both very high and very
low
> IQs than can be predicted from a normal distribution).
>
> > > and the standard deviation is 10 (the usual figure for IQ).
>
> No, the usual SD for IQ is 15. 16 on a Stanford-Binet.
>
> I stand corrected. (I did think my result was a bit low)
>
>
************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives:
http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Ariadne

11-13-2002, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Keovar

A 4d6-drop-low-die rolling method produces a 12.25 average score, an actual mode of 13, and it skews the bell curve such that about 1 in 10 characters will get an 18, but only 1 in 200 will get a 3. This is the standard method for creating player heroes, as well as "above average" villains or other NPCs.
I prefer your described rolling method, but NPC's get the same chance (of cause) to roll an 18 (they don't use the 3d6 method). I don't like the point-buy system. I don't know, if you made it simpler or harder to get an 18 (I never used the PHB method), but I don't like the "plan your character" method. I don't like it to plan him/ her at 1st level (I must buy her the ... feat, so she can become an ... at 8th level or I must wait until she is 10th).

As I said already, it is dangerous to build a three 8, one 15 and two 18 character in abilities (you don't have enough points to build what you want). So you plan further: I want a sorcerer/ rogue (or better a wizard, because I need intelligence) who will become an arcane trickster at 9th level, and I need: A high int and a high dex score, the rest I ignore..., those skills, 3 levels of rogue and 5 of wizard: This truly kills fun!!!

To restrict ability scores (in 3rd Edition) to a max. of 18 is the worst idea, you could have (as worse as those level-limits in 2nd edition). This would mean, that Elminster of FR is something like a demigod (because you will never reach him) and that can't be right. Do you mean, that the abilities of Awnsheglien should be reduced too? I don't think so. As a consequence you must become an Awnsheghlien/ Ersheglien to get some really "good" abilities? A little bit unfair... Oh, if you restrict abilities, many spellcasters will buy the "create wondrous items" feat and the belts of giant strength, headbands of intellect and so on (including the epic versions, if they are good enough) will become a major part of magical items...

irdeggman

11-13-2002, 11:44 AM

It seems that (and usually I hate to agree with Mark, just on principle) that people are still using 2nd edition terminology and mechanics in their arguements. For one there is no longer a "reaction check". This mechanic along with morale checks has gone by the wayside. IMO the developers chose to remove the mechanics so as to allow the DM more freedom to tell the story. By reducing dice rolls the story is easier to tell. Also note that there is a big shift in how to write and run an adventure. The "chosen" format is now scene-based. This is something that was used extensively in the West End version of Star Wars and directly carried into the WoT version. Think in terms of a movie and what the big scenes are supposed to be, use the dramatic and reduce the number of times dice rolls are used to determine the outcome. Once in Star Wars our group role-played ourselves out of a major fight.

The means to determine how a character (or NPC) reacts to a given situation is to use opposed dice rolls, depending on what is trying to be accomplished. Usually it is a sense motive versus bluff roll. Or using diplomacy to change others' attitudes, usually an opposed check. Under diplomacy it says that Charisma checks to influence NPCs are generally untrained diplomacy checks. If it is not an opposed diplomacy check then the DC is set by the DM to reflect how strong the individual's position is, always using a DC of 15 as the base (the norm for a base DC).:)

Birthright-L

11-13-2002, 11:44 AM

Strength has been shown to be an exponential value. If we assume that all
attributes are similarily exponential, it means that it does not really
matter where we put our point of reference.

A Charisma score of 5 is twice as "charismatic" as a Charisma score of 0. It
does not matter if we place the human average at 0 (like Arts Magica does)
or 5 (like Feng Shui does) or 10 (like DnD does).

But what a Charisma difference of 20 between different races does, is that
it establishes that one of the races is 16 times as charismatic as the other
(whatever that means). This gives us a RELATIVE reference for use with
Charisma. And that is much more interesting than an absolute reference.

For example, an average ghoul has a Cha score of 16 (if memory serves me
right). This means that ghouls are slightly more than twice as charismatic
as a humans (+6 Cha). An exceptional ghoul would have a Cha score eight
points over the ghoulish norm (24). To ghouls, such a person would be just
as much above-average as a human with a Cha of 18. But he would be better at
scaring people, because all ghouls are naturally better at scaring people
than humans are.

In TORG, which used exponential stats throughout and very openly, there was
something called a value table. It is similar to the Encumbrance table from
DnD - a table that shows the "value" of each attribute rating based on an
exponential development. Such a table can be used in several ways. Say two
people are trying to carry something. You would just add their encumberance
values together, and see if they are strong enough. A similar method can be
used with Charisma. Are the king`s advisors sufficiently persuasive to
influence the king? The advisors must "outweight" the king`s Charisma of 20
to do it. Looking up 20 on the encumbrance chart, we find that it equals a
heavy load value of 400. This is an abstract measure of the "weight of
personality" of the king. Each of the three advisors have a Cha of 12.
Looking up 12, we find that it has a "Heavy load" value of 130, for a total
of 390 - just short. But lo!, the hero arrives, and add`s his "weight" to
the argument (Cha 14 - "weight" 175), briging the total to 565, well over
the required limit.

I`m not saying this is a good game mechanic for resolving in-game
discussions, but I`m showing it as an excersise in using exponetial
attributes - something I feel is a great boon to role-playing. If all the
involved parties were ghouls, each would have had a Charisma six points
higher, and all the "weight" values go up - but the proportions stay the
same and the end result is exactly the same (check the table).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

> Not really - the scores are normalized values. Instead of being
> normalized around 0.5 though it`s done around 10.5 which confuses the
> issue, because 10.5 looks like a real value. 10.5 isn`t the mean sample
> value - it`s the modal distribution value.
>
> If absolute charisma values for humans were between 23 and 38 with a
> mean of 30.5 and the same SD as the 3d6 distribution, then they could be
> generated with 3d6+20, (but need only be recorded as 3-18). How far a
> score is above or below the mean doesn`t tell us anything. The modal
> distribution value does represent the mean - but it isn`t the same
> thing. Knowing that you have a charisma score of 13 (given a SD of 2.5)
> does tell you how much higher than the mean you are in percentage terms
> - but not in absolute units - nor does it tell you what the actual mean
> is.
>
> We don`t need to know what the mean is in D&D. What we need to know is:
> given the statistic (a charisma score) what the probability of a certain
> event? (that someone will react favorably)
>
>
************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives:
http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-13-2002, 03:42 PM

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Krow wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

Actually, no. That was me, replying to Kenneth.

> Actually, that`s not really accurate, not that it`s really that
> important. The IQ of humans in real society is 100, for an average.

The mean of the sample population used to norm the test is set to be 100.
Different groups are reliably observed to have different means, and the
mean of the whole population appears to change slowly over time. What
exactly these facts mean has caused huge and acrimonious debates which I
would prefer not to bring into this forum. What I will say is that the
D&D Int score represents the underlying truth which IQ testers want to
measure, rather than the measurements themselves, and as such should be
considered independently of the precise details of IQ *testing*.

> A 100 means that you are averagely intelligent to people of your own age.

Yes.

> Your IQ changes every birthday, as you are in a group with a
> different age of people.

But everyone else is getting older, too. You are in the same group
(psychometricians say "cohort") you were before, as everyone in it is now
the same amount older. Furthermore, after the age of seven or eight,
measured IQ is very stable year-to-year; and after age 16, in many cases
everyone is lumped together into one group, called "adult". In addition,
the thing the Int stat itself represents -- given that it is a true,
inherent, constant (ignoring for the moment the +1 per 4 levels thing)
characteristic of the character -- is what psychometricians call the "true
score", to which each test administration measures only an approximation.
True score variance with age does exist, but that is easily remedied by
extending the ability effects on aging downwards, giving penalties to most
(all?) stats for progressively younger children -- that is, if you bother
to consider six-year-old humans in your campaign at all.

> Since 9 is the stat for an average human,

An average human has a -1 Int check penalty due to low stat score?
Where does this number come from?

> I would estimate the IQ of 140 as being around 13.

You estimate. How, exactly? My calculation of 140 IQ = 18 Int is a
direct consequence of the proposition that 3d6 per stat accurately
reflects the real population distribution of stat scores. Since I want
humans much smarter than that to exist in my game world, this tells me
that 3d6 is not the real population distribution of Int, and probably not
of the other stat scores, either.

Absent anything else to tie the numbers to, it seems that we can define
the proportionality constant in (IQ - 100) = A * (Int - 10.5) however we
want, to achieve whatever purpose we desire. Therefore, I really would
like to know how you came up with your idea of 140 IQ = 13 Int (which is
a choice of A = 8, given that you earlier said you think the mean is 9,
not 10.5; it would be A = 16 with the 10.5 mean), because I`d like to have
some excuse for the number I pick other than "I just made it up".

> like Einstein (who incidentally couldn`t read until he was 8).

Yes, he was dyslexic, and on some tests he might have gotten some easy
questions wrong by being too creative, so the tests (and none existed
until he had already published the paper that won him the Nobel) might not
have given him a score as high as he deserved, but the fact that he was
smart enough to develop general relativity is plenty of justification for
giving him a really high Int if modeled as a D&D character.

> As I said, not really that important, but it helps a little to let you
> know roughly how intelligent a PC with 18 Int really is.

I would love to know that. Your assertions so far, however, give me
nothing to be confident about. The only thing I am confident of is that
3d6 is much too wide a distribution to represent the population at large.
It might still represent adventurers well, if they happen to be a much
more varied group (lots of weirdos on both ends, and relatively fewer
middle-of-the-road types) than the rest of the world, which seems very
reasonable.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-13-2002, 04:19 PM

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Ariadne wrote:

> but I don`t like the "plan your character" method.
> This truly kills fun!!!

For you. Not for me -- for me, the planning is an important part of the
fun, as well as the continual tweaking of the plan(s) to take advantage of
new opportunities that show up, or work around obstacles that do. Even
more fun than that is dreaming up what might happen, and planning for
those contingencies in advance. Just as a matter of my own personality, I
like planning *better* than execution, in most cases. Once I`ve planned
something, I`ve actually extracted most of the pleasure I can obtain from
the activity (well, most activities). Adding extra planning opportunities
greatly increases my fun.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-13-2002, 04:19 PM

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, irdeggman wrote:

> It seems that (and usually I hate to agree with Mark, just on
> principle) that people are still using 2nd edition terminology and
> mechanics in their arguements.

And there is nothing wrong with this. This list is about Birthright, the
campaign setting, not (A)D&D or any other game engine in general, though
it does sometimes seem that we tend to get more caught up in mechanics
discussions than anything else. I agree that since the different editions
of (A)D&D are so superficially similar, it might help for people to
preface their comments on game mechanics with the edition they`re talking
about, but the publication of 3e in no way requires anyone to stop using
or discussing any other edition.

This list, being about Birthright the setting, should have no preferred
game engine at all -- I suspect most people use 2e AD&D or 3e D&D, but
I know some use Ars Magica, Fudge or Feng Shui, and Hero Wars (from
Issaries) and the Hero System (aka Champions) have been the subject of
questions on the list. Other "official" TSR discussion lists are similar:
the moderator of the Greyhawk list uses RuneQuest as his game engine,
but that hasn`t stopped him from producing some of the best material seen
on the list for others to use. I, for one, would like to hear in as much
detail as possible from people who use other RPG systems for Birthright.

Anyone who has ever used a game engine for Birthright other than (A)D&D
editions 1-3, please speak up! Tell us about some of the issues that
arose in your conversion -- what was easy, what was particularly hard.
Which aspects of Cerilian life does your new system seem to model better
than D&D does, and which worse? Is there anyone who tried converting to
an alternate system, but gave it up as too difficult? Is there a system
anyone thinks might work really well, but they`ve never actually tried?

I`m tempted to include people who use a heavily modified version of some
edition of D&D, and ask about their house rules. Here as with the
alternate settings above, while I personally am interested in all aspects
of rule system construction, the ones germane to the list are those
inserted in order to improve, in their creator`s view, the way things
specific to Birthright as a setting ought to be handled. Things that fall
into this category include but are not limited to: bloodlines, warfare,
whether vanilla D&D is systemically capable of a low-magic setting as BR
advertises itself, awnshegh transformation, published NPCs (is another
kind of stat block more consistent with their color text), and strong
regional/cultural variations in adventurer and citizen type.

I really like Cerilia as a campaign setting, but I only use D&D to model
it due to inertia. I`m very interested to hear how other people have done
it differently, especially if they are willing to share the fruits of all
the hard work they`ve done to recast everything into a new set of numbers.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-13-2002, 04:27 PM

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:

> We don`t need to know what the mean is in D&D. What we need to know is:
> given the statistic (a charisma score) what the probability of a certain
> event? (that someone will react favorably)

Which means we do need to know the relative differences between the means
of different species, preferably on some absolute scale, since among the
things we need to calculate are the probablility that a group of dwarves
will react favorably to a halfling, or that a huge goblin can beat an orog
at arm-wrestling. As I`ve said before, claiming that each species is
measured on its own scale means members of each species can only be
compared with one another, which renders many of the comparisons we need
to make incalculable.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

marcum uth mather

11-13-2002, 08:49 PM

So ya, i was looking up things on Dwarves.....:)

well well well hear we go again geting house rules all caught up in discusions about BR. mabey Im oldfasion but untill a concret new book comes out with D20 as a template for BR i will use 2ed, because thaTS ALL THATS WRITTEN for BR. I do love all the work thats been done on this website for 3ed prestige classes. when all the work is put toghere i will defintly use it. but untill that time 2ed is what i will use because thats what all the most complete work is based on. o and peter and mark you guys are abviously very inteligent guys and your ideas are great. if you could both agree on something it would probvably rock the birthright world. exchange emails or something Me im not so smart. i play the game to have fun. The whole point is to be a little more then avarge, thats why we are hearos. we are not trying to be real world people, we are ROLEPLAYING a carector. I am a very phisical person in the realworld. I do like playing mages sometime. i am in noway as smart as my carector, but i do ok. if you overanilise every state and make everything mathmatical you kind of kill the need to ROLEPLAY. Carector interaction is the best part of gaming.

geeman

11-13-2002, 09:04 PM

At 09:45 AM 11/13/2002 -0500, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

> > Actually, that`s not really accurate, not that it`s really that
> > important. The IQ of humans in real society is 100, for an average.
>
>The mean of the sample population used to norm the test is set to be 100.
>Different groups are reliably observed to have different means, and the
>mean of the whole population appears to change slowly over time. What
>exactly these facts mean has caused huge and acrimonious debates which I
>would prefer not to bring into this forum.

I`ll go into it for a moment.... I`ve been biting my tongue through this
whole Intelligence = IQ debate because, to be blunt, IQ scores are a bunch
of bunk. At best what they rate a person`s test taking ability, but their
real value is in illustrating the biases of the test maker rather than the
intelligence of the testee. I usually do well on IQ tests, which is not to
say I`m any more intelligent than the next guy. [I am, but the IQ test
doesn`t prove that per se. ;)] What it proves is that I test well--which
is a learned skill, one that I`ve studied and practised for years, but it
doesn`t really reflect much about actual intelligence. I`m not
particularly good at memorizing facts, figures, dates and though I have
good spatial/analytical skills when it comes to practical applications of
those skills to things like mechanics I wouldn`t describe myself as
anything other than average.

If I were being charitable I`d admit that they do measure a particular form
of intelligence, though the particulars of any test I`ve seen have been
pretty questionable. I`ve taken dozens of IQ tests over the years because
I like those kinds of things. Trivia [I prefer to think if "trivia" as
"general knowledge" ;)], spatial memory, reading comprehension, algebraic
thinking, blah, blah, blah and the results of those tests have varied
pretty widely, sometimes as much as 60 points. (A whole moron`s worth of
IQ.) Those tests can be fun, but don`t take the results too seriously. At
least, that`s the only _intelligent_ response....

The ability scores of D&D have always been somewhat abstracted. While it
is a bit easier (and to a certain extent necessary) to assign values to the
more physical scores so that we can determine how much a character can
carry, or long he might remain running, the mental scores are harder to
rate and, I think, shouldn`t really be rated at all according to "real
world" standards.

The earliest reference I know of to the Intelligence = IQ standard comes
from a brief article in Dragon #8 entitled "So, You Want Realism in D&D?"
by Brian Blume which has the following entry:

<quote>Strength -- To determine strength, go to a gym and military press as
much weight as you possibly can. Divide the number of pounds you life by
ten; the result is your strength rating.

Intelligence -- To determine your intelligence, look up the results of the
most recent IQ test you have taken and divide the result by 10. This
number is your intelligence rating.</quote>

The problem is that the article was satirical. Check out the methods for
determining other ability scores.

<quote>Wisdom -- To determine your wisdom, calculate the average number of
hours you spend playing D&D or working on your D&D Campaign in an average
week. Subtract the resulting number from twenty and this is your wisdom.

Dexterity -- To determine your dexterity, go down to the track at the local
High School and run 440 yards. Subtract your time in seconds from eighty,
and the result is your dexterity rating.

Constitution -- To determine your constitution, figure out the number of
consecutive number months you have gone without missing a day of school or
work due to illness. The number of months is equal to you constitution rating.

Charisma -- To determine charisma, count up the number of times you have
appeared on TV or have had your picture printed in the newspaper. Multiply
this number by two, and the result is your charisma rating.</quote>

The rating for charisma there is my favorite because it means a person who
gets a good obituary in the paper gets +2 to charisma, explaining the
comments at so many funerals about how good the corpse looks....

Anyway, Gygax`s 1st edition AD&D PHB kept the methods for determining
strength and intelligence from that article, but without any of the irony
in which they were presented in the context of Brian Blume`s article.

It`s tempting to associate intelligence with IQ if for no other reason than
to have a numerical "real world" value to use as the basis for comparison,
but the assumption that intelligence score equates to real world IQ is
questionable for reasons having to do with the nature of the real world IQ
score itself, not to mention that intelligence as IQ score isn`t
necessarily a very good association.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-13-2002, 10:30 PM

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, marcum uth mather wrote:

> i play the game to have fun.

So do I! And everything I`ve advocated is because I`ve found it increases
my own fun, and hope some others may find the same.

> The whole point is to be a little more then avarge, thats why we are
> hearos.

All the more reason, then, to figure out what average would be, so that
you could be more than it.

> if you overanilise every state and make everything mathmatical you
> kind of kill the need to ROLEPLAY. Carector interaction is the best
> part of gaming.

On the contrary, mathematical analysis is an important part of my
roleplaying style. I`ve never encountered a situation I haven`t
overanalyzed, and I`m not going to stop now. It`s the way I am, and I
have quite a lot of fun with it. I do indeed roleplay, both live-action
and tabletop, and spend a fair amount of time acting onstage in amateur
theatrical productions. However, when I encounter a rule in an RPG system
that does not make mathematical, historical, or some other kind of sense
to me, it destroys my suspension of disbelief. It breaks the illusion of
the roleplay, and kills the atmosphere for me, because it nags at me and
gets in the way of my focusing on the interactions I would prefer to
develop. This is not to say that I elevate gritty realism above escapist
fantasy -- on the contrary, I loathe campaigns in any system set in the
modern era, and reserve an especially fond place in my heart for
intentionally ridiculous games such as Toon and Paranoia -- but rather
that internal logical consistency of a game system is crucial to my
enjoyment of it. Toon physics is distinctly at odds with real-world
physics, but as a system it hangs together moderately well, within the
conventions of the genre. D&D tries to represent itself as a sort of
minimal change to reality, a sort of "just add magic and monsters, but the
rest of the world doesn`t really change," which I think is one of the
sources of the inconsistencies that bug me so much.

But really, everything else aside, the same math that you think detracts
from the roleplaying experience, I think adds to it; and I do not think I
am the only one.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

11-13-2002, 10:50 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Travis Doom" <doom@CS.WRIGHT.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 3:41 PM

> Granted, it is next to impossible to quantify _any_ complex
> statistics such as intelligence or dexterity as a two-dimentional
> linear scale, but this is convention that most gamers are willing to
> accept in order in order to provide a basis for dice mechanics.

Howard Gardner has identified 8 kinds of intelligences, but as it turns out
Wisdom and Charisma model those as well as Intelligence. Frankly, so does
Dexterity (Kinesthetic Intelligence).

Take Mucical or Linguistic Intelligence. Both would be valued by a bard.
The skills represented by these (mostly Perform) are get a skill bonus, but
a bard with a high Int score also gets a bonus number of skill points per
level to spend on charisma based skills.

While this is not a perfect modeling of the interactions of multiple
intelligences, we are not neccesarily limiting the complexities of
intelligence to one scale.

If we take the Platonic notion that there exists a mind and body, we really
have three physical attributes, and three mental attributes at play, and
they do in fact interact with each other. We might prefer more attributes,
or just more interaction between them. But for gaming purposes, I`m
satisfied (or satisfied enough to go with an occasion tweak) that the system
works fine. In the LUG Star Trek RPG, where a similar set of skills exists,
I found that since Intelligence was so very important (indeed it was often
so dominant as an attribute that the other attributes were almost
superfluous) that I split it up between Logic and Perception. With the
edges that the game employed (easily replicated with feats) there were
effectivly 7 intelligences represented in the game.

Just to be explicit here, I`m not disagreeing with anything Travis said,
just taking a couple of lines and expounding on them.

Feats based on Gardner`s multiple intelligences might look something like
this:

Linguistic Insight
+3 to all checks that rely on an understanding of syntax, phonology,
semantics, pragmatics, or rhetoric. This might include (but is not limited
to) check to Perform, Diplomacy, Decipher Script, Forgery, Gather
Information, Innuendo, Knowledge (Law), or Sense Motive. Not every occasion
of the use of these skills will rely on significant use of this insight.
For example, if copying an existing text on another sheet, Forgery would not
benifit from Linguistic Insight. If attempting to immitate the style of
another persons speaking or writing, it would apply.

Musical Insight
Every time the chartacer adds a rank of Perform, they may select a new
instrument in which they are profecient. Bards have this feat as a virual
feat already. This feat can be take twice. The second time, it provides a
+4 bonus to any musical performance.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-13-2002, 11:11 PM

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Gary wrote:

> I`ll go into it for a moment....

Oh well. I had hoped to leave the discussion only to those who already
thought the concept of IQ could help them, with the opponents generously
ignoring it, but that seems not to have lasted quite long enough.

This message, and Gary`s really, I would consider off-topic, but from my
perspective, while IQ is a contentious issue in American (I`ll admit to
almost total ignorance as to how this topic is viewed in other countries)
public discourse, it is nevertheless the case that discussion by those who
believe in it of how (if at all) it relates to the D&D character statistic
called Intelligence is on-topic. With this message the remainder of the
non-game-mechanic discussion, if any, should probably be moved off-list.

> I`ve been biting my tongue through this whole Intelligence = IQ debate
> because, to be blunt, IQ scores are a bunch of bunk. At best what
> they rate a person`s test taking ability, but their real value is in
> illustrating the biases of the test maker rather than the intelligence
> of the testee.

*sigh* Bluntly, no. That is the opinion that counts as received wisdom
in American popular culture, but it is simply not borne out by the vast
and ever-growing reams of data amassed and analyzed on the topic by
professional psychologists, nearly none of whom agree with what you say.
There is substantial and increasing evidence of specific biological
substrates for general intellectual ability, as expressed in the very
clear correlations between physical variables such as average evoked
potential on an EEG, rate of glucose metabolism in the brain, nerve
conduction velocity and individual differences in reaction time with the
results of standard IQ tests. IQ is a fairly good measurement of
something real, and work continues to improve both the tests and their
theoretical and empirical underpinnings. One psychology professor friend
of mine is working on a way to extract reaction time data from video games
for use as a language-free IQ test.

> What it proves is that I test well--which is a learned skill, one that
> I`ve studied and practised for years, but it doesn`t really reflect
> much about actual intelligence.

The data show that the effect of practice is easily detectable in analysis
of the test scores, and cannot account for the observed differences.
Furthermore, it is very clear that the higher your measured IQ, the better
you learn whatever specific techniques are taught. =)

> I`m not particularly good at memorizing facts, figures, dates and
> though I have good spatial/analytical skills when it comes to
> practical applications of those skills to things like mechanics I
> wouldn`t describe myself as anything other than average.

Practical applications are a very different thing. In the 3e D&D system,
it`s the difference between the die roll resolution bonus or penalty due
to a stat score, and the die roll resolution bonus due to the number of
skill ranks developed in a particular area. The distinction is evident in
ordinary language, as well: in English one distinguishes between talent
(inherent property, aka stat score) and skill (learned experience, aka
skill ranks). Some amateurs are just naturally good -- that`s innate
talent. After many years of practice, almost anyone can get good at most
things -- that`s learned skill. The truly outstanding people in any field
are the ones who have both. What ideally is measured by Int and IQ is how
well a given person learns new things. The "trivia" component of the test
is due to the empirical observation that the amount of apparently random
stuff a given person knows turns out to be very strongly correlated with
every other test of mental processing anyone has ever managed to devise.

> I`ve taken dozens of IQ tests over the years because
> I like those kinds of things.

Do you mean carefully designed, nationally normed and psychometrically
validated tests such as the Wechsler, Stanford-Binet and Raven, or do you
mean random things thrown together in ten minutes by some joker with a web
page?

> Those tests can be fun, but don`t take the results too seriously. At
> least, that`s the only _intelligent_ response....

=) The intelligent response is to do more research. What the research
shows is that some tests should be taken fairly seriously, others not. It
is important to know the difference.

> the mental scores are harder to rate and, I think, shouldn`t really be
> rated at all according to "real world" standards.

I agree they`re difficult to quantify, but I disagree that no attempt
should be made.

> The problem is that the article was satirical.

Sure. But it still might have been accidentally correct.

> It`s tempting to associate intelligence with IQ if for no other reason than
> to have a numerical "real world" value to use as the basis for comparison,

Precisely. And most of the list should be completely unsurprised that I
am one of the people who could not resist the temptation.

> but the assumption that intelligence score equates to real world IQ is
> questionable for reasons having to do with the nature of the real
> world IQ score itself,

That is empirically false.

> not to mention that intelligence as IQ score isn`t
> necessarily a very good association.

That is a different point, but it is my opinion that since each is an
attempt to assign a single number to the same extremely complex
phenomenon, it is the only reasonable association.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-13-2002, 11:37 PM

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Howard Gardner has identified 8 kinds of intelligences,

Some of which are strongly correlated with each other, largely it seems
through whatever it is that is well-measured by IQ tests.

> but as it turns out Wisdom and Charisma model those as well as
> Intelligence. Frankly, so does Dexterity (Kinesthetic Intelligence).

Precisely. This is one of the objections made by some psychologists (with
whom I agree on this) to Gardner`s use of the term "intelligence" to
describe these things.

> Feats based on Gardner`s multiple intelligences might look something
> like this:

Well done, Kenneth. As much as Gardner`s early work, and his inability to
change his public mind to reflect his new scholarly research lest it hurt
his book sales, irritates me, I actually rather like these feats.

> Linguistic Insight
> +3 to all checks that rely on an understanding of syntax, phonology,
> semantics, pragmatics, or rhetoric. This might include (but is not
> limited to) check to Perform, Diplomacy, Decipher Script, Forgery,
> Gather Information, Innuendo, Knowledge (Law), or Sense Motive.

This is very nice indeed. I don`t remember the 3e rules on language
acquisition offhand -- if there is a way to make it easier or more
efficient for the possessor of this feat, might you add it?

> Not every occasion of the use of these skills will rely on significant
> use of this insight. For example, if copying an existing text on
> another sheet, Forgery would not benifit from Linguistic Insight.

I agree with the general premise, but I am not sure the example is
consonant with it. The ability to grasp sentence structure at a
fundamental level I suspect reduces silly "typographical" mistakes in
copying a document of the sort not caught by computer spellcheckers, such
as malapropisms, spoonerisms and word order reversal. Of course, it might
cause problems if the forger ends up unconsciously correcting grammatical
errors present in the original!

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-13-2002, 11:47 PM

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> > Linguistic Insight
> > +3 to all checks that rely on an understanding of syntax, phonology,
> > semantics, pragmatics, or rhetoric. This might include (but is not
> > limited to) check to Perform, Diplomacy, Decipher Script, Forgery,
> > Gather Information, Innuendo, Knowledge (Law), or Sense Motive.
>
> This is very nice indeed. I don`t remember the 3e rules on language
> acquisition offhand -- if there is a way to make it easier or more
> efficient for the possessor of this feat, might you add it?

Edit:
Speak Language is a class skill for the character.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

11-14-2002, 12:43 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:44 AM

> It seems that that people are still using 2nd edition terminology
> and mechanics in their arguements. For one there is no longer
> a "reaction check".

Initial NPC Attitude are darn close to a reaction check, at least the way I
always used reaction checks. See DMG page 149. Again for certain uses, the
Willpower save has taken over the role of a morale check. Fear effects are
resisted by using Will saves. If a DM ever thought of imposing a fear
effect for being abandond by friends, being surprised by a powerful enemy,
the death or desertion of a leader, or being surrounded, then what we have
is a differentl mechanic, differently named for an old familiar effect. The
2e DMG said, "The first (and best) way to handle morale is to determine it
without rolling any dice or consulting any tables. [...] To decide what a
creature does, think about its goals and [motivations]." That stands for
3e, obviously. But just as 2e allowed for dice when you hadn`t time to
invent a particular NPC (an unplanned encounter in-game) or there are too
many NPC`s to track everyone`s motivatuions seperately, 3e is wise to
include NPC Attitudes for those occasions when the DM doesn`t have a clear
idea what an NPC would do. Sometimes even people with similar motivations
and alignments just rub each other the wrong way. Dice are a nice way of
forcing the DM to get out of those favorite mental pathways that are all to
familiar to the players.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

11-14-2002, 12:43 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:09 PM

> I agree with the general premise, but I am not sure the example is
> consonant with it. The ability to grasp sentence structure at a
> fundamental level I suspect reduces silly "typographical" mistakes in
> copying a document of the sort not caught by computer spellcheckers, such
> as malapropisms, spoonerisms and word order reversal. Of course, it might
> cause problems if the forger ends up unconsciously correcting grammatical
> errors present in the original!

I was more thinking along the lines of a simple document, like basic
directions, "These men are your relief." As opposed to trying to write a
post on this list in my voice so that long time list members would be fooled
into thinking I sent the post. I`m assuming that any successful Forgery
check already accounts for grasping fundamental sentence structure,
misspellings or typographical mistakes. The bonus would apply when specific
word choice mattered. There is the old story of a bank teller who foiled a
fradulent withdrawl when the con man claiming to be an English professor
said that he was taking his two daughters to Spain, and his oldest daughter
was really looking forward to it. (He should have said older daughter).
Stuff at this level of sophistication is what I had in mind.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

11-14-2002, 12:45 AM

On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 10:09, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

> Not every occasion of the use of these skills will rely on significant
> use of this insight. For example, if copying an existing text on
> another sheet, Forgery would not benifit from Linguistic Insight.

I agree with the general premise, but I am not sure the example is
consonant with it. The ability to grasp sentence structure at a
fundamental level I suspect reduces silly "typographical" mistakes in
copying a document of the sort not caught by computer spellcheckers, such
as malapropisms, spoonerisms and word order reversal. Of course, it might
cause problems if the forger ends up unconsciously correcting grammatical
errors present in the original!

(sort of off topic)
Apparently one of the possible origins of the word "okay" is that a
former president of the US was not good a spelling and that O.K.
scrawled on papers sent to him for approval was the abbreviation for
"Orl Korekt" -- "all correct"

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

irdeggman

11-14-2002, 02:52 AM

3rd edition mechanic for speak language - it is a class skill only for bards. The speak language skill doesn't work like a normal skill. There are no ranks, either a character knows a language or he doesn't and except for barbarians, if a character can speak a language then he can read and write it as well. I don't necessarily like this simplification, but it is an "official" rule and if applied consistently works.

Again there are no reaction checks. The info on pg 149 of the DMG all pertains to altering an NPCs attitude. The tables and such all assume that the initial attitude is set by the DM based on prior motivations. This is a consistent theme throughout 3rd edition - that the DM is required to put much more before time effort into determining what the general situation is. This, IMO, is to influence DMs into not relying as much on random rolls as the previous version did. Again, back the the scene based scenarios. I have a DM that relies on random encounters to create his story. He also uses them to populate his terrain, both of these styles are very contrary to the way 3rd ed is designed and tied together.

I'm sorry to be so vocal in my disagreement of the use of dice to determine things, but IMO that was one of the strongest advantages of 3rd over the previous systems - the fact of less reliance on dice rolls and more on things that aid in role-playing vice roll-playing. Yes, I still love the feel of a 10 hit dice fireball and wouldn't trade that for much of anything, but it is ridiculous (and very counter productive) to make dice rolls for everything that is going on. "Make a charisma check (to see if the NPC initially wants to help the PC) vice make a Charisma check (or bluff, diplomacy or intimidation check) to see if the PC's attempts at persuasion were successful.":)

geeman

11-14-2002, 04:12 AM

At 03:52 AM 11/14/2002 +0100, irdeggman wrote:

>I`m sorry to be so vocal in my disagreement of the use of dice to
>determine things, but IMO that was one of the strongest advantages of
>3rd over the previous systems - the fact of less reliance on dice rolls
>and more on things that aid in role-playing vice roll-playing.

I prefer role-playing to roll-playing too, but as a DM I often haven`t
provided for every possible contingency of reaction possible for every NPC
that players might interact with. Fairly often in my experience players
will go in a direction that is perfectly logical, reasonable and should be
allowed as the DM, but that I didn`t see coming at all. (Nothing mucks up
a perfectly good adventure plot like bunch of experience players....) For
those occasions I would like a table or some set of standards to fall back
on. I generally decide what treasure is carried by the various encounters
in the adventures I run too, but having tables to determine that kind of
thing randomly is a good DM aid. The DM could (and should) always come up
with those things on his own when practical, and no DM should feel so tied
to a table that it overrides a more reasonable reaction or one that
otherwise aids an adventure, but it`s definitely nice to have them around.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

11-14-2002, 05:24 AM

marcum uth mather:
> if you overanilise every state and make everything mathmatical
> you kind of kill the need to ROLEPLAY. Carector interaction
> is the best part of gaming.

I`ll agree with Ryan, though often my analysis other than mathematical.
Often the problem is that one senses a problem without analysis. Its the
analysis that either validates or invalidates the sense that there is a
problem. Sometime you run the numbers and decide that things actually work
pretty well as they are. Sometimes you run the numbers and decide that its
in need of work. Without the analysis all you have is that sense that
something seems wrong. That`s not gonna help role play. What does help is
knowing that the game works as it is, or being satisfied with your tweaks.

Character interaction is the key to role play, sure. But, what if I wonder
how bloodlines effect families? [Much discussion has gone under the bridge
on this topic, see the first week of September 2002 for the last go-round.]
Answering how bloodlines effect families will certainly effect role play.
Do I care who my kin are? Does the DM need to keep track of geneologies?
Personally, I think it all matters and I do have a huge geneology database
for the Taelshore. Other answers to this question will create different
implications for role play, but almost any answer will have some effect on
how role play happens in BR.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Ariadne

11-14-2002, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by geeman

I prefer role-playing to roll-playing too, but as a DM I often haven`t provided for every possible contingency of reaction possible for every NPC that players might interact with. Fairly often in my experience players will go in a direction that is perfectly logical, reasonable and should be allowed as the DM, but that I didn`t see coming at all.
You are right. Nothing I hate more than those simple hack and slay adventures. Riddles and logic are the best kind of adventure, you can have. Naturally a DM can confuse some NPC names or actions sometimes, but a good DM is sensed by a great overcoming of visible differences. Illogical plots are most often simply boycotted…

irdeggman

11-14-2002, 11:56 AM

Making a table with possible reactions to certain situations is very much in the 3rd ed system. But it really isn't a reaction check as it is a situation with certain outcomes. A DM who has prepared this type of thing is doing his players a great service by planning what the general attitude of NPCs are and applying this to situations. When things are specifically being done, back to skill checks, again I bring up the bluff/intimidate/diplomacy checks. If my memory serves me correctly (memory is the second thing to go, I've forgotten what the first is) there were articles in Dragon about interacting with NPCs that could be useful, but the overiding principle is to predetermine an NPC's starting attitude (using the list from Table 5-3 of the DMG) as the initial baseline.

My personnal preference to rely on the Players' role-playing to dictate the outcome and not make it a dice roll result. IMO good role-playing can overcome most dice rolls as far as diplomacy and interaction is concerned.:)

kgauck

11-14-2002, 04:17 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 5:56 AM

> Making a table with possible reactions to certain situations is very
> much in the 3rd ed system. But it really isn`t a reaction check as it
> is a situation with certain outcomes.

If what you mean here is that tables 5-3 and 5-4 are not the same thing as
using one table that runs from absolute loathing to absolute devotion with
all degrees in between on one table used for ever encounter, well sure, but
using such a table as-is will generate too much randomness. With one
glaring exception, all of the people I knew who used 2e interpreted the
tables to make logical sense in the context of an encounter.

> A DM who has prepared this type of thing is doing his players a
> great service by planning what the general attitude of NPCs are
> and applying this to situations. When things are specifically being
> done, back to skill checks, again I bring up the bluff/intimidate/
> diplomacy checks. If my memory serves me correctly there were
> articles in Dragon about interacting with NPCs that could be useful,
> but the overiding principle is to predetermine an NPC`s starting
> attitude (using the list from Table 5-3 of the DMG) as the initial
> baseline.

We`re not disagreeing about the fact that a DM should start with general
attitudes and then modify it by player actions. What I am saying in
addition is that there ought to be some random element to keep every
encounter from being predictable.

> My personnal preference to rely on the Players` role-playing to
> dictate the outcome and not make it a dice roll result. IMO good
> role-playing can overcome most dice rolls as far as diplomacy and
> interaction is concerned.:)

When you say "dictate" I am reading a deterministic approach to NPC
encounters. Good PC role play will always dictate frienly NPC relations.
As I said last time, even characters with similar motivations (we are both
here to recover Haelyn`s Pennant for the OIT) and similar alignments can and
do sometimes not get along (I just hate the way he interupts me!) A little
dice to skew NPC attitudes up or down a little bit from the expected
reaction makes sense to me. I have too many encounters between PC`s and
NPC`s to react the same way to the PC`s charm offensives every time. But
its not just that I want to mix it up, I also don`t want to accidently go
too easy or too hard on players because I`m having fun or I think have
gotten away with too much.

If used wisely, dice prevent the DM from being arbitrary because if the DM
has a system set up that is reasonable and he follows it, its actually less
arbitrary than a DM`s whims are. Of course unwise dice, and totally random
possibilities (polar bears in the desert, &c) are almost certainly worse,
but no one has advocated that.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

doom

11-14-2002, 04:53 PM

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 04:27:47PM -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> Feats based on Gardner`s multiple intelligences might look something like
> this:
>
> Linguistic Insight [snip]
> Musical Insight [snip]

This is an excellent example of the utility of applying contemporary
theoretical/social science to gaming related topics. Very nice.

It is unfortunate that 3e feats are too "rare" to really encourage
players to take them to more accurately model intelligence; such a
system _would_ allow for far more accurate representations. The
addition of feats to 3e was a good move, IMHO, but I`m not certain that
they left enough room for flexibility. Still, its probably better than
the other extreme (HERO/GURPS) where the extreme flexibility comes at
the cost of have a complexity that frightens off most newbies and temps
otherwise excellent gamers into extreme min/maxing.

________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

doom

11-14-2002, 05:33 PM

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:52:56AM +0100, irdeggman wrote:
> I`m sorry to be so vocal in my disagreement of the use of dice to
> determine things, but IMO that was one of the strongest advantages of
> 3rd over the previous systems - the fact of less reliance on dice
> rolls and more on things that aid in role-playing vice roll-playing.
> Yes, I still love the feel of a 10 hit dice fireball and wouldn`t
> trade that for much of anything, but it is ridiculous (and very counter
> productive) to make dice rolls for everything that is going on. "Make
> a charisma check (to see if the NPC initially wants to help the PC)
> vice make a Charisma check (or bluff, diplomacy or intimidation check)
> to see if the PC`s attempts at persuasion were successful.":)

I recognize that discussing mathematics/statistics of dice issues in
D&D 3e is only tangentially related to the purpose of this list, but
since we are on the topic... I have a question/comment. Note that this
is coming from someone who, on the whole, thinks that 3e is a far
better system than 2e... but that not every change was a step in the
right direction.

How does everyone view the relative change in the probabilities to
perform a wholly attribute based task in 2e AD&D visa D&D 3e/d20?

Lets assume that these are combat tests (no taking of 10s allowed), for
instance an arm-wrestling contest between Weasel (STR 11) and Rocko
(STR 16). Under 3e mechanics, Rocko is thus roughly twice as strong as
Weasel, and one would expect that Rocko will win in most trials.

2e: When two character were involved in an attribute-based conflict,
then the test is a roll off between scores. Weasel and Rock both roll
d20s and (if the rolls is beneath their stat) compare the _difference_
between their roll and their stat to generate their relative success.
If Weasel rolls an medium number (10 or 11) then Rocko will beat
Weasel if he rolls a 15 or below (roughly a 75% chance).

3e: Characters both roll a d20 and add their ability modifier.
If Weasel (+0 STR mod) rolls a medium number (10 or 11) then Rocko`s DC
will be at most 11. Rocko (+3 STR mod) thus needs to roll a 8 or better
(roughly a 65% chance). I don`t know that the 15% chance over 50/50 is
really representative of Rocko being _twice_ as strong as Weasel.

This seems to be a mighty significant difference to me. Lets look at an
extreme case - a STR 1 (mod -5) character against a STR 20 (mod +5)
character. In 2e, there was NO WAY for the STR 1 character to win. In
3e, there is a fair chance! All STR 1 guy has to do is roll 10 better
than STR 20 guy. While this isn`t likely, it isn`t exceptionally rare
either.

My concern? In the matter of ability checks, 3e seems to promote more
randomness (in comparison to 2e), and IMHO extensively so. Ability
modifiers are at a 2:1 ratio to the underling statistics. Thus, the
character`s ability score becomes a less important factor in any
contest... Is this a good thing? Do I have it wrong? It it
unreasonable to think that a STR 20 character that is 2^4 = 16 times as
strong as a STR 1 character might loose an arm wrestling match?

It appears to me that attribute checks became significantly more about
what the result is on the dice than on whether or not one character is
inherently better at something than another. I would appreciate it if
anyone can explain this to me in a way that can disabuse be of this
concern.

________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

irdeggman

11-14-2002, 05:43 PM

Re the weasel versus the human.

The human also gets a size difference modifier in 3rd ed, which should increase the % to above the 2nd ed one. I think this would be 2 sizes, a weasel being tiny and a human being Medium.

I generally don't like using attribute checks and prefer to use opposed skill checks whenever possible. This benefits those who take the effort to get better at something (i.e., increased ranks) and still gain the benefits of a higher ability score.

The grappling rules in 3rd ed are some of its weakest links IMHO. I really liked the system under the Player's Option series - Combat and Tactics and wish that the developers at WotC had used more things from that book in their combat system.:)

kgauck

11-14-2002, 05:52 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Travis Doom" <doom@CS.WRIGHT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 10:34 AM

> It is unfortunate that 3e feats are too "rare" to really encourage
> players to take them to more accurately model intelligence; such a
> system _would_ allow for far more accurate representations.

I`ve been looking for ways to create "neutral" feats which could be taken as
begining bonus feats to reflect specific character concepts without actually
increasing the power of the character. Its easier to come up with bonuses
like Linguistic Insight than it is to come up with penalties that players
won`t find cripling, especially at early levels when characters are more
fragile anyway.

Some indeas include being prone to hesitate
* -1 to Reflex saves, and -2 to Initiative

or you lose your edge quickly, getting bored by the prospect of inactivity
* -2 Spot and Listen to detect traps or ambushes. There is no effect to
active Seatch or Listen attempts. This is an attention deficit.

or you have a tendency to panic
* When ever your opponants get a surprise round on you, you suffer a -2
morale penalty to attack rolls, saves, and checks until you drop an
opponant. You are considered Shaken.

So I might take one of this disadvantages, match it up with one of these
other benifits and record it on the record sheet as a bonus feat (because it
works mechanically like one) even though its benifits and penalties ought to
be approximatly balanced. I`m not interested in seeing characters with a
dozen disadvantages which are min-maxed for the sake of the bonuses rather
than more accurate representations of a character concept. But, I also like
to see complete character concepts realized without having to get to 9th
level, too.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

11-14-2002, 06:41 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Travis Doom" <doom@CS.WRIGHT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:18 AM

> How does everyone view the relative change in the probabilities to
> perform a wholly attribute based task in 2e AD&D visa D&D 3e/d20?

I tend to break success into two steps. You only need to win by one test,
but you can`t win on the first test. So typically, Rocko wins on the second
or third test. Weasel`s chances of winning are in the teen percentages.

Part of the key to dice heavy combat is to describe what every roll means.
Make the to and frow between them dramatic and the dice will be exiting
rather than tedious.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

doom

11-14-2002, 07:46 PM

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:43:53PM +0100, irdeggman wrote:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1068
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> Re the weasel versus the human.
>
> The human also gets a size difference modifier in 3rd ed, which
> should increase the % to above the 2nd ed one. I think this would be 2
> sizes, a weasel being tiny and a human being Medium.

Sorry... perhaps a bad name. I meant a human character with STR 10
whose name just happened to be the "Weasel". I didn`t mean to imply
that Rocko was actually going to armwrestle an actual weasel (but it
is a damn funny thought).

________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Mark_Aurel

11-14-2002, 08:06 PM

My concern? In the matter of ability checks, 3e seems to promote more
randomness (in comparison to 2e), and IMHO extensively so. Ability
modifiers are at a 2:1 ratio to the underling statistics. Thus, the
character`s ability score becomes a less important factor in any
contest... Is this a good thing? Do I have it wrong? It it
unreasonable to think that a STR 20 character that is 2^4 = 16 times as
strong as a STR 1 character might loose an arm wrestling match?

Actually, this is wrong - 3e went the other way, by far. A character with a strength of 11 has NO chance whatsoever of beating a character with a strength of 16 in an armwrestling contest. PHB, page 62. "Just as you wouldn't make a height check to see who is taller, you don't make a Strength check to see who is stronger. When two characters arm wrestle, for example, the stronger character simply wins." You do get to flip a coin if the characters are of equal strength, though.

This rule applies to any "raw" ability contest, with no randomness involved. In random situations, though, I do agree that the way the rolls work are a tad too randomized; however, the situation where a pure, random, and opposed ability check arises, apart from initiative, arises, is pretty rare, I think. In this case, I think Kenneth's suggestion of rolling multiple checks should work well; over a series, the chance of the more talented character for winning increases quite a bit, especially if the difference is significant (i.e. +4 vs +0); of course, given the size of the modifier, and the range of rolls possible, the number of checks taken must be significant in order to achieve the desired result. If you take a tug of war (given the above rule, you should really combine the lifting capacity of all people on each side, find the equivalent strength score, then let the stronger side win, but this is for the sake of example) - you might apply the rule that each side makes a strength check, perhaps determined by the highest strength contender, with a bonus for each additional person, or by summing up lifting capacities; in any case, make a check each round; each point by which one team wins indicates one foot of pull; once one team has exceeded the other by a total of say 10 or 20 points, the tug is won; this wouldn't determine the result in a single check, and could go on for quite a while. A similar rule could be applied to arm wrestling, perhaps with the additional rule that an extraordinary success means instant win.

Birthright-L

11-14-2002, 09:21 PM

On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

> How does everyone view the relative change in the probabilities to
> perform a wholly attribute based task in 2e AD&D visa D&D 3e/d20?

I hadn`t really thought about it until you pointed it out, but now that
you have I agree with you that it is a change for the worse. Now that
Mark has pointed out arm-wrestling is not really supposed to be resolved
this way, I am less worried, but having done the math I`ll comment anyway.

> 2e: When two character were involved in an attribute-based conflict,
> then the test is a roll off between scores. Weasel and Rock both roll
> d20s and (if the rolls is beneath their stat) compare the _difference_
> between their roll and their stat to generate their relative success.
> If Weasel rolls an medium number (10 or 11) then Rocko will beat
> Weasel if he rolls a 15 or below (roughly a 75% chance).

Counting all the things each of them could possibly roll, Rocko wins 72%
of the time, and 12% of the contests require at least two sets of rolls to
resolve, given the chances of equal differences or of both failing.

> 3e: Characters both roll a d20 and add their ability modifier.
> If Weasel (+0 STR mod) rolls a medium number (10 or 11) then Rocko`s DC
> will be at most 11. Rocko (+3 STR mod) thus needs to roll a 8 or better
> (roughly a 65% chance). I don`t know that the 15% chance over 50/50 is
> really representative of Rocko being _twice_ as strong as Weasel.

Rocko wins 64% of the time overall, where 4.25% of the contests require at
least one reroll due to equal results. Your estimates are very good.

> This seems to be a mighty significant difference to me. Lets look at an
> extreme case - a STR 1 (mod -5) character against a STR 20 (mod +5)
> character. In 2e, there was NO WAY for the STR 1 character to win. In
> 3e, there is a fair chance! All STR 1 guy has to do is roll 10 better
> than STR 20 guy. While this isn`t likely, it isn`t exceptionally rare
> either.

12% of the time! Almost one time in eight. Not that rare at all.

> My concern? In the matter of ability checks, 3e seems to promote more
> randomness (in comparison to 2e), and IMHO extensively so.

I quite agree. Thus there appears to be a distinct need to follow
Kenneth`s suggestion to resolve contests with multiple rolls.

> Ability modifiers are at a 2:1 ratio to the underling statistics.
> Thus, the character`s ability score becomes a less important factor in
> any contest... Is this a good thing? Do I have it wrong?

You have it right. I am inclined to think it is bad overall.

One additional consequence it has, which I am inclined to think is good,
is that in the 3e method the only thing that matters in the resolution is
the difference between the two characters` stat bonuses, not their
specific values, as is the case with the 2e method. That is, in 3e, 16
vs. 11 is identical to 6 vs. 1 and 32 vs. 27; in 2e 6 beats 1 more often
than 32 beats 27, which is itself more often than 16 beats 11. 2e shows
the 3e behavior (only the difference matters) once one character can no
longer fail (by having a score above 19). The prettiness of this is
slightly marred by 3e`s discretization error: for contests, bonus is what
matters, so 16 and 17 are the same, as are 11 and 10, so 17 vs. 10 is
identical to 16 vs. 11 (different score gap of 7 points vs. 5, but same
bonus gap of 3) but 15 vs 10 (same score gap of 5, but different bonus gap
of 3 vs. 2) is not.

> It it unreasonable to think that a STR 20 character that is 2^4 = 16
> times as strong as a STR 1 character might loose an arm wrestling
> match?

Yes! Hence the additional "don`t bother with a check" rule Mark mentions,
as well as Kenneth`s plan to use multiple rolls per resolution.

> It appears to me that attribute checks became significantly more about
> what the result is on the dice than on whether or not one character is
> inherently better at something than another.

You are quite correct. Therefore you must find some way to work around
this bug.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-14-2002, 09:54 PM

On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> I tend to break success into two steps. You only need to win by one
> test, but you can`t win on the first test.

Which means your method is the same thing as "best two of three".

> So typically, Rocko wins on the second or third test. Weasel`s
> chances of winning are in the teen percentages.

Weasel`s chances in this method are actually 29%, only a small reduction
from his 36% on one roll. With best 3 of 5 (which is not the same as "win
by 2", which could go on forever with no victor) he`s still only down to 24%.

> Part of the key to dice heavy combat is to describe what every roll means.
> Make the to and frow between them dramatic and the dice will be exiting
> rather than tedious.

Or dice-heavy bargaining or any other encounter, yes indeed.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

blitzmacher

11-15-2002, 12:05 AM

[3e: Characters both roll a d20 and add their ability modifier.
If Weasel (+0 STR mod) rolls a medium number (10 or 11) then Rocko`s DC
will be at most 11. Rocko (+3 STR mod) thus needs to roll a 8 or better
(roughly a 65% chance). I don`t know that the 15% chance over 50/50 is
really representative of Rocko being _twice_ as strong as Weasel]

What part of the percentage covers the weasel having a good day and rocko a bad day. Just like melee is done in D&D, where each round may be a dice roll, the PC is actually doing a series of cuts thrusts and parries. One roll should be significant enough for an arm wrestling match between Rocko and Weasel. Rolling 3 times for the same thing sounds like another one of those, but I'm stronger and bigger than him things. What if Weasel was able to lock his wrist out and therefore had the advantage of leverage, either by luck or by intellingence or experience. IMO the smaller chance of success represents all the little things that are overlooked.

Krow

11-15-2002, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by irdeggman

For one there is no longer a "reaction check". This mechanic along with morale checks has gone by the wayside. IMO the developers chose to remove the mechanics so as to allow the DM more freedom to tell the story.

I can't say as this is a good idea. It may offer the DM more of a chance to tell the story as he wants to, but it reduces radomized effects. It puts the player entirely at the disposal of the DM, instead of the DM allowing the game to take its course. Also, this makes Charisma, a seldom used stat, less useful.

Krow

11-15-2002, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Birthright-L

> Your IQ changes every birthday, as you are in a group with a
> different age of people.

But everyone else is getting older, too. You are in the same group
(psychometricians say "cohort") you were before, as everyone in it is now
the same amount older. Furthermore, after the age of seven or eight,
measured IQ is very stable year-to-year; and after age 16, in many cases
everyone is lumped together into one group, called "adult".

Yeah, and some adults go into further schooling, some adults work at McDonalds. Just because you've gotten older, doesn't mean you become more "averagely" intelligent.

> Since 9 is the stat for an average human,

An average human has a -1 Int check penalty due to low stat score?
Where does this number come from?

You were too quick on the draw, I edited this to 10.5 within 15 minutes of the original post. I haven't played in a few years, and I didn't have my players handbook with me. Nor did I take the time to contemplate the half-side of a die.

> I would estimate the IQ of 140 as being around 13.

You estimate. How, exactly? My calculation of 140 IQ = 18 Int is a
direct consequence of the proposition that 3d6 per stat accurately
reflects the real population distribution of stat scores. Since I want
humans much smarter than that to exist in my game world, this tells me
that 3d6 is not the real population distribution of Int, and probably not
of the other stat scores, either.

Well, here's how I ESTIMATE this. 100 is average, 10.5 is the average. so, 1 INT point is rougly 10 IQ points. I do not see a person with an IQ of 140, which I have known several, as being "the most intelligent person the world knows". 140 is a little better than average.

Absent anything else to tie the numbers to, it seems that we can define
the proportionality constant in (IQ - 100) = A * (Int - 10.5) however we
want, to achieve whatever purpose we desire. Therefore, I really would
like to know how you came up with your idea of 140 IQ = 13 Int (which is
a choice of A = 8, given that you earlier said you think the mean is 9,
not 10.5; it would be A = 16 with the 10.5 mean), because I`d like to have
some excuse for the number I pick other than "I just made it up".

> like Einstein (who incidentally couldn`t read until he was 8).

Yes, he was dyslexic, and on some tests he might have gotten some easy
questions wrong by being too creative, so the tests (and none existed
until he had already published the paper that won him the Nobel) might not
have given him a score as high as he deserved, but the fact that he was
smart enough to develop general relativity is plenty of justification for
giving him a really high Int if modeled as a D&D character.

Pardon the trivia. But regardless, a test is a test. A test, as I learned in psychology is not a study of how much you know, necessarily. It is a test of how much you know and how you can perform on a given day.

> As I said, not really that important, but it helps a little to let you
> know roughly how intelligent a PC with 18 Int really is.

I would love to know that. Your assertions so far, however, give me
nothing to be confident about. The only thing I am confident of is that
3d6 is much too wide a distribution to represent the population at large.
It might still represent adventurers well, if they happen to be a much
more varied group (lots of weirdos on both ends, and relatively fewer
middle-of-the-road types) than the rest of the world, which seems very
reasonable.

Krow

11-15-2002, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by geeman

At best what they rate a person`s test taking ability, but their
real value is in illustrating the biases of the test maker rather than the
intelligence of the testee.

exactly.

Peter Lubke

11-15-2002, 09:04 AM

On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 04:18, Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

How does everyone view the relative change in the probabilities to
perform a wholly attribute based task in 2e AD&D visa D&D 3e/d20?

Actually 2e is wrong in not using a relative approach. It`s also wrong
in using a d20.
So 3e is actually more correct.

Lets assume that these are combat tests (no taking of 10s allowed), for
instance an arm-wrestling contest between Weasel (STR 11) and Rocko
(STR 16). Under 3e mechanics, Rocko is thus roughly twice as strong as
Weasel, and one would expect that Rocko will win in most trials.

For a 2e contest, a test of strength that tests against a 50% chance
that an average human would succeed at a strength based task is to roll
3d6 with any number equal to or less than his strength score indicating
success. That is a direct comparison with the mean.

For a test against values other than the mean e.g. another strength
statistic, the test should be relative to generate a correct result.
Rocko`s chance is worsened by the extra strength of Weasel (Weasel`s
strength is higher than the mean - so it`s a harder task), so the test
should be 3d6 +5.5 (the difference between the mean and Weasel`s actual
strength 16 - 10.5) under or equal to an 11 (rolls of 3, 4, or 5 - which
is about a 1 in 20 chance).

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Ariadne

11-15-2002, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by kgauck

I`ve been looking for ways to create "neutral" feats which could be taken as beginning bonus feats to reflect specific character concepts without actually increasing the power of the character. Its easier to come up with bonuses like Linguistic Insight than it is to come up with penalties that players won`t find crippling, especially at early levels when characters are more fragile anyway.
Your problem will be, that most players will take those feats for their characters, who make them more powerful or at least reflect their character in something. The choice for a "normal" player (who plays no wizard) between the linguistic feat and power attack is given in a second (the wizard is linguistic, I think). I like many new feats to choose, but as doom said already, they are too few to take lesser ones...

IMO useless feats are something like increased money at 1st level, even those feats what give you +1 to two specific skills I don’t think good of. If those described feats where bonus feats, what means that you may choose them additionally to normal feats (perhaps at every 5 levels), I may think about them…

kgauck

11-15-2002, 12:58 PM

I am thinking about such feats as additional starting feats. I haven`t come up
with mixed bonus-penalty feats that I would see for characters into their
adventuring careers. Normally my non-experience point award hasn`t been
additional feats, but skills in the catagory of Lore. Lore is a knowledge
based skill that stacks with other skills and can only be gained by direct
experience, not by spending points upon completion of a level which implies
training.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
> Ariadne wrote:
> If those described feats where bonus feats, what means that you may
> choose them *additionally* to normal feats (perhaps at every 5
> levels), I may think about them…

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

doom

11-15-2002, 03:51 PM

On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 12:44:33PM +0000, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> I am thinking about such feats as additional starting feats.

Another potential avenue of attach would be consider such specfic
feats to have an assocated XP cost (al la permenancy, magical items,
or other character modifications). If you want to allow characters
to take them at first level, perhaps they can prespent XP (or use
ECLs to cover to costs).

________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

irdeggman

11-15-2002, 05:13 PM

An ECL modifier for a single feat - ouch.

An exp cost might be useful, something along the range for making a magic item - but you'd have to balance them out. Not all feats are equal in value. Compare the toughness or endurance feats to point blank shot or alertness.

All in all though I think that this system would just muck up the process. You'd then have to figure out new CR because characters are now different then they were, i.e., they have more abilities (i.e., feats) then normally allowed. The same thing would happen if you increased the number of skill points allowed. The game being run is out of balance with the core rules and the encounter tables and experience tables no longer apply as written. IMO bad marginal rate of return, too much effort for too little benefit. But these are interesting concepts none the less.

Birthright-L

11-15-2002, 05:59 PM

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:

> For a 2e contest, a test of strength that tests against a 50% chance
> that an average human would succeed at a strength based task is to
> roll 3d6 with any number equal to or less than his strength score
> indicating success. That is a direct comparison with the mean.

I agree, I like this better than rolling a d20, because it makes even
small differences quite significant. There is one little wrinkle, though:
the .5 of the 10.5 mean disappears when you express it this way. This
procedure gives people with Str 10 an exactly 50% chance to succeed, but
those with Str 11 have a 62.5% chance, and Str 9 have a 100 - 62.5 = 37.5%
chance. Similarly, those with Str 18 never fail, but those with Str 3
still succeed 1 time in 216; only a Str 2 or below would never succeed.
It`s not symmetric about 10.5, it`s symmetric about 10.0.

> For a test against values other than the mean e.g. another strength
> statistic, the test should be relative to generate a correct result.

Agreed.

> Rocko`s chance is worsened by the extra strength of Weasel (Weasel`s
> strength is higher than the mean - so it`s a harder task), so the test

You reversed the names from the original, but that`s not important.

> should be 3d6 +5.5 (the difference between the mean and Weasel`s actual
> strength 16 - 10.5) under or equal to an 11 (rolls of 3, 4, or 5 - which
> is about a 1 in 20 chance).

Another way to get the same result without trying to add and subtract
fractions all the time is to slightly reformulate the way you defined the
test. That is, every ability contest is against a particular score, e.g.
this door resists at Str 16, that puzzle resists at Int 12, a person with
Wis 8 uses that to resist your Cha. When rolling a contest against your
own ability score (e.g., in the examples above, you have Str 16, Int 12 or
Cha 8), roll 3d6 and succeed if you roll 10 or less -- exactly 50% of the
time. If your score is higher than theirs (S 18, I 14, Ch 10), add the
difference to the number you need to roll at or under -- 12 in these
examples, which happens 74% of the time. Similarly, if lower (S 14, I 10,
Ch 6), subtract the difference from what you need to roll at or under --
here, 8, which succeeds 100 - 74 = 26% of the time. Nicely symmetric, and
no fractions used, or even any knowledge of the population mean: it works
just as well for strange score ranges like 97 vs. 82 or -14 vs. -9.

The quick formula for the number the "attacker" must roll at or below in
this method is 10 + attacker score - defender score; if one side has a
score 8 or more higher than its opponent`s, it cannot lose. If we compare
this to the 3e admission of exponential scaling (double every 5), that
means a person three times stronger/smarter/hardier/etc. than another
can`t lose, which seems quite reasonable to me. I am in fact inclined to
use some variant of this rule to replace *all* other contest mechanics, if
I can just figure out how to make skills, equipment, situational
modifiers, etc. work appropriately with it. =)

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-15-2002, 07:35 PM

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Krow wrote:

> Well, here`s how I ESTIMATE this. 100 is average, 10.5 is the
> average. so, 1 INT point is rougly 10 IQ points.

Ah, so you`re saying that not only it is clear that 100 IQ = 10.5 Int, but
we can also assume with some justification that 0 IQ = 0 Int. That`s as
good a reason as any, I suppose. When expressed in the modern sense as a
deviation, rather than as a ratio, it is not actually true that IQ can
never go negative; indeed, if we could put dogs, birds, fish, etc. on the
same scale as currently used, we should expect some negative numbers.
Then again, especially given the explicit acceptance in 3e of exponential
scaling, I see no reason why we can`t use negative stat scores.

> I do not see a person with an IQ of 140, which I have known several,
> as being "the most intelligent person the world knows".

Most definitely. Hence my conclusion that 3d6 can`t describe the true
population distribution very well at all.

> 140 is a little better than average.

It`s better than about 96-99% of the population, and on some common tests
the ceiling is so low that it might be practically impossible to get much
more than that, but yes there are a fair number of people who are as much
smarter than a 140 than a 140 is smarter than a 60; on this planet, even
the people who are one-in-a-million still have six thousand people as
smart or smarter than they are, though that far out on the curve it
becomes really hard to make a decent test.

> A test, as I learned in psychology is not a study of how much you
> know, necessarily. It is a test of how much you know and how you can
> perform on a given day.

Agreed. Hence the need to take multiple measurements over time to reduce
the error with which the true score is measured. But if we believe the IQ
to Int association, then it should be clear that Int is the *true score*,
not merely the average of some number of measurement approximations to it.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

doom

11-15-2002, 11:52 PM

On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 06:13:06PM +0100, irdeggman wrote:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1068
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> An ECL modifier for a single feat - ouch.

Not an ECL modifer fora single feat, but rather an ECL modifer to buy, say 1000 XP
worth of "start-up" abilities; each valued as per permanency, wish, or some other
internally consistent metric. There need not be a one-to-one feat to ECL basis.

Calculate the "value as magic items" for the stats of all of the +1,
+2, and +3 ECL classes in the FRCS might provide a nice basis for their balance.

________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

11-16-2002, 01:38 AM

On Sat, 2002-11-16 at 03:41, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:

> For a 2e contest, a test of strength that tests against a 50% chance
> that an average human would succeed at a strength based task is to
> roll 3d6 with any number equal to or less than his strength score
> indicating success. That is a direct comparison with the mean.

I agree, I like this better than rolling a d20, because it makes even
small differences quite significant. There is one little wrinkle, though:
the .5 of the 10.5 mean disappears when you express it this way. This
procedure gives people with Str 10 an exactly 50% chance to succeed, but
those with Str 11 have a 62.5% chance, and Str 9 have a 100 - 62.5 = 37.5%
chance. Similarly, those with Str 18 never fail, but those with Str 3
still succeed 1 time in 216; only a Str 2 or below would never succeed.
It`s not symmetric about 10.5, it`s symmetric about 10.0.

Yeah, I have an idea though. You seem to have more grounding in stats
than I do - so I`ll run it up a flagpole. The 10.5 is not really the raw
score mean - instead 10 AND 11 combined are the equal modal values of a
ranked set of categories. (3 being the lowest rank, 18 the highest etc).
Could we then not consider combining 10 and 11 into one category as
equal? (for the purpose of tests at least)

Such that:
9 has 25/216 values
10-11 has 54/216 values
11 has 25/216 values

What that would mean is that a player that rolls a 10, in effect has
rolled an 11. But does that help with realistic testing? - getting rid
of the pesky .5 ?

The quick formula for the number the "attacker" must roll at or below in
this method is 10 + attacker score - defender score; if one side has a
score 8 or more higher than its opponent`s, it cannot lose.

Is this still --- 10.5 + actor - resistance ? (or genuinely 10 ? -
curious)

If we compare
this to the 3e admission of exponential scaling (double every 5),

Double every 5 isn`t normally distributed, even for the range 3 to 18
the average is close to 12.5, as the values in the range become larger
the average moves closer and closer to the high end of the range
creating a mirror-image chi-square almost.

That`s because as a non-discrete function (unnormalized) the multiplier
of whatever value is chosen as the base is determined by:

f(x) = 1.5157 x 2^(x / 5) or f(x) = 2^( (x-3)/5 ) when using 3
as the identity value
so that:
3 1.0000C x 1
4 1.1487C x 3
5 1.3195C x 6
6 1.5157C x 10
7 1.7411C x 15
8 2.0000C x 21
9 2.2974C x 25
10 2.6390C x 27
11 3.0314C x 27
12 3.4822C x 25
13 4.0000C x 21
14 4.5948C x 15
15 5.2780C x 10
16 6.0629C x 6
17 6.9644C x 3
18 8.0000C x 1

10.5 2.8284

that
means a person three times stronger/smarter/hardier/etc. than another
can`t lose, which seems quite reasonable to me. I am in fact inclined to
use some variant of this rule to replace *all* other contest mechanics, if
I can just figure out how to make skills, equipment, situational
modifiers, etc. work appropriately with it. =)

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Krow

11-16-2002, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Birthright-L

we can also assume with some justification that 0 IQ = 0 Int. That`s as
good a reason as any, I suppose. When expressed in the modern sense as a
deviation, rather than as a ratio, it is not actually true that IQ can
never go negative; indeed, if we could put dogs, birds, fish, etc. on the
same scale as currently used, we should expect some negative numbers.

I have to disagree again here. As you'll learn in any sociology course, you cannot judge the culture or intelligence of someone on the basis of your own. Sure, even the smartest puppies have a long-term memory of about 45 seconds, but some can be trained as seeing-eye dogs. This doesn't even mention their instinctive behaviors which blow human instincts out of the water. They can be intelligent, but can not be measured on the same chart. (Cat's are the smart ones anyways. A dog comes when you call it, a cat looks at you as if to say, "No way! You come here.")

If you were to read up on studies done with planeria, even they can be trained to curl into a defensive balled position when a light is turned on - and these are just worms.

Agreed. Hence the need to take multiple measurements over time to reduce
the error with which the true score is measured. But if we believe the IQ
to Int association, then it should be clear that Int is the *true score*,
not merely the average of some number of measurement approximations to it.

Unfortunately, it is not printed in any D&D manual that says a 15 INT score is equal to ### human intelligence. Nor can we associate a human intelligence in today's world with the overall intelligence of a given person. A person may be very intelligent as far as a single course goes, but may be excessively niave in the every day world. How do you judge his intelligence then? By his ability to function with the world around him or his ability to calculate atmoic mass?

So, I do not believe INT to be a *true score*. You can only estimate it in D&D, as you can only estimate the intelligence of a person in our world.

-- Krow

geeman

11-16-2002, 06:09 AM

At 05:54 PM 11/13/2002 -0500, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

> > I`ve been biting my tongue through this whole Intelligence = IQ debate
> > because, to be blunt, IQ scores are a bunch of bunk. At best what
> > they rate a person`s test taking ability, but their real value is in
> > illustrating the biases of the test maker rather than the intelligence
> > of the testee.
>
>*sigh* Bluntly, no. That is the opinion that counts as received wisdom
>in American popular culture, but it is simply not borne out by the vast
>and ever-growing reams of data amassed and analyzed on the topic by
>professional psychologists, nearly none of whom agree with what you say.

I`m sure in many respects I`m a pop culture casualty, but I don`t think so
in this case. My opinion is based on the work I`ve done with standardized
testing in the Education field and my own practical experiences with those
tests. I haven`t really put much thought into America`s popular culture
attitude towards IQ tests, but if anything I`d think the opposite was true
regarding the popular acceptance of IQ testing since people bandy the
numbers about in a way that seems to indicate they think they are very
meaningful, accepting them without question as to the veracity of the
method used to derive them. Many schools avoid giving IQ tests if possible
nowadays, but quite a few parents literally demand their children be given
them. I`m not sure if they do so because they believe in the results or
just so they`ll have something to talk about over cocktails, but either
case would seem to support that IQ testing is accepted in the popular culture.

Anyway, I don`t find it very surprising that professional psychologists who
are amassing data based on IQ tests would disagree with my statement that
such testing is largely inaccurate or, rather, that their testing isn`t
really a very good reflection of intelligence as a whole. Most Freudian
psychologists would probably disagree with most of my opinions on the value
of their work too....

>There is substantial and increasing evidence of specific biological
>substrates for general intellectual ability, as expressed in the very
>clear correlations between physical variables such as average evoked
>potential on an EEG, rate of glucose metabolism in the brain, nerve
>conduction velocity and individual differences in reaction time with the
>results of standard IQ tests.

Eventually (I think it`ll take a generation or two) we`ll have a way of
measuring intelligence that is substantive, and these kinds of methods are
the direction such testing will take. I don`t know if that method will
come directly from the psychology field--at least not without some very
important contributions from a few other fields--but my overall point here
is that the present level of IQ testing isn`t particularly reflective of
actual intelligence, even when the definition for intelligence is
determined by the test makers. (Usually academic and social success
figures somewhere in that definition.)

>IQ is a fairly good measurement of something real, and work continues to
>improve both the tests and their theoretical and empirical
>underpinnings. One psychology professor friend of mine is working on a
>way to extract reaction time data from video games for use as a
>language-free IQ test.

Oh, they measure something real. I just don`t think what they measure is a
very good reflection of what people think of as being intelligence in
either the real world (or in the D&D gaming sense.) Your friend testing
reaction time from video games to make up a language free IQ test will get
a good measurement of reaction times, hand-eye coordination, etc. but it`s
pretty debatable whether that`s an actual rating of intelligence in any
meaningful way.

> > I`m not particularly good at memorizing facts, figures, dates and
> > though I have good spatial/analytical skills when it comes to
> > practical applications of those skills to things like mechanics I
> > wouldn`t describe myself as anything other than average.
>
>Practical applications are a very different thing.

Exactly. Practical applications (ie. actual intelligence) and what is
measured by IQ tests are very different things.

>In the 3e D&D system, it`s the difference between the die roll resolution
>bonus or penalty due to a stat score, and the die roll resolution bonus
>due to the number of skill ranks developed in a particular area. The
>distinction is evident in ordinary language, as well: in English one
>distinguishes between talent (inherent property, aka stat score) and skill
>(learned experience, aka skill ranks). Some amateurs are just naturally
>good -- that`s innate talent. After many years of practice, almost anyone
>can get good at most things -- that`s learned skill. The truly
>outstanding people in any field are the ones who have both. What ideally
>is measured by Int and IQ is how well a given person learns new
>things. The "trivia" component of the test is due to the empirical
>observation that the amount of apparently random stuff a given person
>knows turns out to be very strongly correlated with every other test of
>mental processing anyone has ever managed to devise.
>
> > I`ve taken dozens of IQ tests over the years because
> > I like those kinds of things.
>
>Do you mean carefully designed, nationally normed and psychometrically
>validated tests such as the Wechsler, Stanford-Binet and Raven, or do you
>mean random things thrown together in ten minutes by some joker with a web
>page?

I`ve taken those while in school and after. Stanford-Binet was the
standard when I went through the public school system (when schools were
much less squeamish about putting such numbers into a student`s permanent
record) and I took it several times from around age 8 (IIRC) until about 17
or so when I decided I`d had about enough of that stuff. (Public school,
that is, not IQ tests.) Since then I`ve done some work designing
curriculum and standardized placement tests, so I`ve researched the topic a
bit. Enough to form my opinion that all these tests are skewed pretty
dramatically, that is. I do like taking those tests as a kind of
diversion--but I don`t much care for web page IQ tests since they usually
don`t show how they`re scored and tallying up the results is half the fun
of taking the test.

Just so everyone knows what we`re talking about here. Wechsler was a child
psychologist who came up with tests for intelligence based on his
work. Both Wechsler and Stanford-Binet (probably the most common IQ test)
are based on mostly linguistic methods. "A is to B as X is to...." or "If
a train leaves San Onofre travelling at 60 miles an hour..." Stuff like
that. Raven is mostly spatial/matrix stuff that is non-linguistic. That
is, a bunch of shapes on a page in various patterns and the testee must
complete the set or decide what would be the next logical shape given the
pattern presented. The idea is that one of the biggest biases in IQ tests
is that they are written in a particular language, which is OK as far as it
goes, but then you need another test to determine one`s linguistic
intelligence--since only a few people think there is no linguistic
component to intelligence. I admit I`ve only fiddled around with
Raven-esque tests... I find those kinds of questions dull. Comparing the
lay out of squares on a piece of paper will sooner test my ability to throw
pencils at the ceiling than it will my IQ. (Though I guess you could argue
that that disinterest is a sign of a low IQ on those tests.)

I`ve taken a few based on Cattell. Those are pretty cool. In general,
though, I agree more with guys like Steinberg who posit "one intelligence"
as the only meaningful standard rather than the dissected intelligence upon
which most other researchers base their work.

> > the mental scores are harder to rate and, I think, shouldn`t really be
> > rated at all according to "real world" standards.
>
>I agree they`re difficult to quantify, but I disagree that no attempt
>should be made.

I wouldn`t say that no attempt should be made to quantify D&D
intelligence--and using IQ scores is one of the things that could be
used--but using IQ scores as some sort of straight mathematical function as
has been suggested in previous editions of D&D and in this thread isn`t IMO
the way to go.

> > The problem is that the article was satirical.
>
>Sure. But it still might have been accidentally correct.

Well, yeah... but it`s not real likely. The military press as the basis
for determining strength could be apt. Especially when adventures focus on
stabbing at spiders and other creatures on the dungeon ceiling. Using
modern IQ scores (particularly those derived from tests like those based on
Raven`s methodology) would be an accurate reflection of a character`s
ability to discern visual media, but it`s not a very good reflection of an
overall intellectual capacity, and probably not a very good reflection of
the way mind that existed in a pre-19th century culture would work.

> > but the assumption that intelligence score equates to real world IQ is
> > questionable for reasons having to do with the nature of the real
> > world IQ score itself,
>
>That is empirically false.

How so? There`s far more contention regarding the value of IQ testing than
I think you`re willing to admit here, and I`ve never seen any results that
would indicate a legitimate correlation between such paper and pencil
testing and the aforementioned biological indicators that would invalidate
that statement. (If you have references that would prove me wrong, though,
I`d be happy to check them out.)

> > not to mention that intelligence as IQ score isn`t
> > necessarily a very good association.
>
>That is a different point, but it is my opinion that since each is an
>attempt to assign a single number to the same extremely complex
>phenomenon, it is the only reasonable association.

It`s more reasonable, I think, to just mention it as being one possible
aspect of that overall complex and abstract score rather than to associate
it too closely. There are too many vagaries of the IQ testing for one to
make an assumption that it bears a direct link.

At 04:27 PM 11/13/2002 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>Howard Gardner has identified 8 kinds of intelligences, but as it turns out
>Wisdom and Charisma model those as well as Intelligence. Frankly, so does
>Dexterity (Kinesthetic Intelligence).

Well, Gardner didn`t _identify_ eight kinds of intelligence. He
_theorized_ eight kinds of intelligence, and based testing methods on those
standards. Thurston posits seven kinds of intelligences. Wichsler has
something like a dozen subscales of intelligence on his WAIS. Even
Steinberg, who doesn`t think intelligence really can be compartmentalized,
breaks his testing methods down into three broad categories. My point here
is that the categories often describe the biases and opinions of the
researcher, rather than a reflection of actual cognition.

Another issue with the use of IQ as the basis of intelligence score is that
IQ scores have been going steadily up through the 20th century in
industrialized nations. Scoring methods have, therefore, been adjusted to
make "average" score lower than it was in previous years. The same person
who scored 100 using the normalized scale on a modern test would have
scored 120-130 on the same test given in the 1930`s. (If you score 110-120
on a modern test you are a genius in the 1930`s.) Some psychologists
attribute this to general factors involving the improvement of education in
the industrialized nations, or to better nutrition. They believe,
essentially, that we are getting smarter. Many others argue, however, that
the rate of increase is too rapid to reflect an actual increase in brain
power. What they think is really happening is that we are simply learning
test taking methods better because we are tested more often. Others argue
that it is the tests themselves that have changed, and they make a good
case. Spatial tests (like those presented by Raven) are more popular on
standardized tests because they avoid political repercussions involved
dominant language/cultural bias, but in the increasingly visual media
oriented culture of the West people are increasingly acclimated to those
tests and, therefore, test better. Their position is supported by the fact
that the increase in IQ scores on linguistic tests has risen about 3-4
points per decade, while scores on tests based on Raven have risen 6-7
points per decade.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

11-16-2002, 08:29 AM

There is mo reason that specially devised feats couldn`t be worth an ECL
modifier. In this regard, the "feat" is more of a place on the PC record sheet
to record a series of bonues (and penalties). Its much easier to create a feat
called "Arthur`s Backround" that provides bonuses and an ECL modifier than it
is to record such bonuses almost any other way.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
> irdeggman wrote:
> An ECL modifier for a single feat - ouch.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

11-16-2002, 08:29 AM

For a test to be valid it has to test what you want tested. Many of the
problems in testing revolve around the fact that they are tests of cultural
affinity, language skills, or reading ability in addition to general
intelligence. Barbarians as a class don`t have an INT penalty, they have
skills limitations. Tests for a barbarian have to be different than tests for
a wizard. Likewise a test for a hispanic 12 year old boy with poor English
skills and little formal education living in Texas needs a different test from
a girl at a Connecticut finishing school. Both will have a different array of
skills, either one could be more intelligent. Because of the way tests have
been used, we are much better at testing the preppy than we are the migrant
farm worker. That`s not an implication of the test, just a recognition that
tests as they exist are limited to their intended function. Likewise, my test
on the difference between Classicism and Romanticism would be invalid if used
in a 3rd grade math class. Tests measure what they were designed to measure.

I have no problem assuming that if IQ tests were prefectly designed by Plato
who could devise tests based on universal forms ;-) the association of IQ
with Int would be as useful as certain military fitness tests that measure
strength.

Our real consideration is making estimations about whether characters can solve
certain problems. Any model that gives uf food for thought (even totally bogus
ones that just give a model to use consistantly) is good for gaming. I don`t
care of Gardner is right or wrong (as far as gaming goes) but I totally see
that his model dove-tails really nicely with the way RPG`s are constructed.
Truth is for the real world (not the subject of this list), any consistant
model is as good as any others AFAIC. Which is why I`m currently working on
developing a horoscope system for BR.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Lord Rahvin

11-16-2002, 06:13 PM

> There is mo reason that specially devised feats couldn`t be worth an ECL
> modifier. In this regard, the "feat" is more of a place on the PC record sheet
> to record a series of bonues (and penalties). Its much easier to create a feat
> called "Arthur`s Backround" that provides bonuses and an ECL modifier than it
> is to record such bonuses almost any other way.

I agree with this, and have experimented with different forms of this exact
thing. Basically, instead of ECL templates, I tend to think of them as
single-class classes; that is, classes that you can only take one level in
rather than ten or twenty.

It`s a rather nice tool for granting special abilities that can`t be
recieved any other way. I don`t use them to reflect backgrounds so much as
organizations since the whole "prestige class" idea hasn`t really been
working out for me. Generally, belonging to this organization will grant
some skill points (usually 4+Int), two skills that will always be class
skills for you, a hit die (usually a d6 or a d8), and +1 to all saving
throws. Your essentially getting all of the elements you would otherwise
recieve when you level up in any other class, but your not recieving a base
attack bonus increase, a class ability from one of the standard classes, or
a level in one of the standard classes that would eventually get you one of
the later really powerful abilities. In return, you recieve a really cool
ability (that`s usually unrelated to the standard classes` abilities, but
not always). Sometimes you won`t get the saving throw increase or the skill
selection, but you will always get at least a d6 hit die. In my experience,
no ECL effect is worth sacrificing a hit die for.

The problem your having is worth terminology. What you`re suggesting isn`t
really a "feat" per se, and what I`m suggesting isn`t really a "template",
though those are the most accurate "official" descriptors we have available.

Shadow Dancers of Eleole, ECL 1.
Skills: 4, Hide, Move Silently. +1 to Reflex,Will. +1d6 hit die.
Special Ability: (2 AP cost) Hide in Plain Sight (Hide skill can be used
under any circumstance just as if you had adequate cover or concealment.
Must be activated when not percieved by others. A successful Spot check
will negate the effect. Attacking someone or interacting witht them in any
significant [non-stealthy] way will negate the effect.)

-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

irdeggman

11-16-2002, 08:22 PM

The "problem" with ECL modifiers is that they are not a one time exp penalty. 2nd ed had the 0-level character that need 1000 xp to get to 1st level, unfortunately that mechanic no longer exists in 3rd - there are no 0-level characters, there are NPC classes (warrior, expert, commoner) which are used instead.

If a 1st level character takes a +1 ECl he needs 3,000 xp to attain 2nd level, 6,000 to attain 3rd level, 10,000 to attain 4th level, etc. It quickly becomes pretty obvious that this is a steep penalty for something that has "minimal" long term benefits.

Birthright-L

11-19-2002, 06:39 PM

On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:

> What that would mean is that a player that rolls a 10, in effect has
> rolled an 11. But does that help with realistic testing? - getting rid
> of the pesky .5 ?

No, it doesn`t help. You`ve made 10 and 11 symmetric, but not 9 and
12 or any other pair that ought to be if 10.5 is really the middle.
You`ve also made it so 10 succeeds nearly 2/3 of the time, rather than
the (slightly less than) half you wanted. More below.

> Is this still --- 10.5 + actor - resistance ? (or genuinely 10 ? -

Yes, it`s genuinely just ten, because of the fact that the test has been
defined as "roll equal to or less than some target number."

When you look at the 3d6 probability density for the two cases, you get
the same kind of histogram (1 3 6 10 15 21 25 27 27 25 21 15 10 6 3 1),
but you *label* it differently. In the "roll equal to" model of stat
generation at character creation, the integer labels go in the middle of
the bars, because if we were using a continuous distribution (say, an
actual Gaussian) "roll equal to 10" would really mean "roll a number that
rounds to 10", namely less than 10.5 but greater than or equal to 9.5.
"Roll equal to or less than," however, is expressed identically in both
discrete and continuous cases, so the integer labels go at the extreme
right of the bars: this puts the label "10" where the label "10.5" went at
character creation. Note also that for this discrete distribution, "<=10"
means the same thing as "<=10.5" and "<10.5"; therefore 10 really is the
middle of this distribution, and things are symmetric about it: for
example, as I said in my previous message, P(<=10)=0.5, P(<=9)= 1-P(<=11),
P(<=18) = 1 = 1-P(<=2). If on the other hand we considered "roll strictly
less than," we would find that there the labels go on the extreme left end
of the bars of the histogram, so the distribution is really centered
around 11: P(<11)=P(<10.5)=P(<=10)=0.5, P(<10)=P(<=9)=1-P(<12), etc.
"Roll greater than or equal to" and "roll strictly greater than" have the
same behavior: P(<11)=P(<=10)=P(<10.5)=P(>10.5)=P(>=11)=P(>10)=0.5.

If you wanted a way to roll (<=X) that really was centered on 10.5, you`d
have to make it more complicated. Since we want the labels (which are the
endpoints of the test ranges, rather than the midpoints of the character
generation ranges) to lie in the middle of the histogram bars, you need to
add up the number of all of the times you roll less than the target
number, but only *half* of the times you roll equal to it. One procedure
that accomplishes this is to flip a coin as you roll 3d6: if the dice
total is not equal to the target, you ignore the coin and say as usual
that the test succeeds if you rolled under and fails if over; but if the
dice total is equal to the target, the effort counts as a success if the
coin lands tails, and fails if it lands heads.

This makes the probability of success symmetric about 10.5:

target times %(<=X) %(<X) %(<~X) by
on 3d6 rolled coin-flip
of 216 method

2 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

3 1 0.463 0.000 0.231
4 3 1.852 0.463 1.157
5 6 4.630 1.852 3.241
6 10 9.259 4.630 6.945
7 15 16.204 9.259 12.731
8 21 25.926 16.204 21.065
9 25 37.500 25.926 31.713
10 27 50.000 37.500 43.750
11 27 62.500 50.000 56.250
12 25 74.074 62.500 68.287
13 21 83.796 74.074 78.935
14 15 90.741 83.796 87.268
15 10 95.370 90.741 93.056
16 6 98.148 95.370 96.759
17 3 99.537 98.148 98.842
18 1 100.00 99.537 99.768

19 0 100.00 100.00 100.00

Note the columns 3 and 4 are the same, just shifted one row up (down)
from the other, and the last column is the average of the first two.
Also, columns 3 and 4 are centered around a number actually on the table,
but columns 2 and 5 are not. IMO, this makes #5 less useful.

Since I want people of equal strength (int, dex, etc.) to have equal
chances against each other, I prefer a table on which 50.000% actually
appears. Since I happen to prefer rolling <= to <, and like adding 10
better than I like adding 11, TGT = 10 + ATT - DEF appeals to me.

> Double every 5 isn`t normally distributed, even for the range 3 to 18

Yes, if max bench press = K * 2 ^ (Str/5), and Str is normally
distributed, then max bench press is not. But that doesn`t mean Str isn`t
Gaussian. For a RW example, height is very close to normally distributed,
though weight is not -- but the cube root of weight is! This happens for
the same reason that height is most strongly correlated not with weight
but with the cube root of weight, and the same reason you calculated the
weight of a stone giant (twice human height) to be eight times human. One
could still easily roll up a Size stat on 3d6, (as RuneQuest and some
other games do), but to convert it to absolute numbers (feet, pounds; or
meters, kilograms) you`d use H = a * Siz + b and W = c * Siz^3 + d.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-19-2002, 08:29 PM

On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> For a test to be valid it has to test what you want tested.

Indeed! And there are methods to analyze the data to tell you whether or
not it does.

> Tests for a barbarian have to be different than tests for a wizard.

Except that once you allow *magic*, that is no longer the case: if one can
Detect Evil and Detect Bloodline, surely one can Detect Int! It might not
give the precise number (it ought to if it were researched as a spell of
high-enough level), but even a low-level version should at least give a
general range.

> Tests measure what they were designed to measure.

Ideally, yes, but in practice it`s more complicated. Nearly all tests
measure some number of other things in addition to what they`re supposed
to. In some situations, the noise swamps the signal, and you end up with
a test that measures other things better than what it was supposed to.
This is what critics claim has happened to IQ tests -- however, and this
is the crucial point, in a moderately well-designed test, a modicum of
mathematical analysis can tell you precisely which fraction of the answer
variance is due to which input variable.

> I have no problem assuming that if IQ tests were prefectly designed by
> Plato who could devise tests based on universal forms ;-)

Ah, but in D&D, is this not pretty much what magic can do? Surely mages
have an interest in developing such a thing, given that max level of spell
castable = Int - 10. When interviewing possible candidates for
apprenticeship, some mages might consider it a waste of time to train
anyone with an Int of less than 14; some might be frightened of possible
apprentices who were smarter and therefore potentially much more powerful
than they, and so lie about or even arrange "accidents" for the youths.
Measuring the potential power of a spellcaster is a very important goal
for many people, whether good rulers who have embraced the idea of looking
for diamonds in the rough (yes, your parents are sewer cleaners, but I`ve
decided to offer you the chance to be raised as my future court wizard) or
tyrants who realize their continued rule is based on preventing the
creation of rebels (the Gorgon gives IQ tests to all his subjects, and
executes any eight-year-old who the tests show is likely to grow up to be
a problem). The same goes for magical tests of Charisma and Wisdom to
evaluate potential bards, sorcerers, druids and priests.

> Our real consideration is making estimations about whether characters
> can solve certain problems.

Exactly. Hence my desire to tie as many game constructs to real-world
data as possible, so as to maximize the utility of my RW experience in
helping me make in-game estimates.

> Any model that gives uf food for thought (even totally bogus ones that
> just give a model to use consistantly) is good for gaming.

It should also be remarked that since BR includes dragons and spells and
such, this is *fantasy* gaming. Feel free to pick *anything* you want as
a natural law in your game world, so long as you then explore its logical
consequences, particularly how it interacts with the rest of your fantasy
physics, biology, etc.

> Which is why I`m currently working on developing a horoscope system for BR.

A perfectly fine thing, even as a counterfactual thought-experiment in
real life: how might life be different if the following rules were changed?

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-27-2002, 10:55 PM

Gary, continued:

> I agree more with guys like Steinberg who posit "one intelligence" as
> the only meaningful standard rather than the dissected intelligence upon
> which most other researchers base their work.

Do you mean Robert Sternberg of Yale? I agree that intelligence is
largely unitary operationally, but I disagree that "most other
researchers" don`t base their work on *that*. See a recent sort of
follow-up to Snyderman-Rothman, as reported in (Gottfredson,
L.S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52
signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13-23.)

> Using modern IQ scores (particularly those derived from tests like those
> based on Raven`s methodology) would be an accurate reflection of a
> character`s ability to discern visual media, but it`s not a very good
> reflection of an overall intellectual capacity,

Except that we know that`s not true. The Raven`s correlation with the
general factor common to all tests of mental abilities ever devised is the
highest of any known test, usually .8 or above (Spearman, C. and Jones,
L.L.W. Human Ability. London: Macmillan, 1950. More recent works don`t
even bother to footnote this data, since it is so well proven and so
widely known among psychometricians.) The Raven is an excellent
reflection of overall intellectual capacity.

> How so? There`s far more contention regarding the value of IQ testing
> than I think you`re willing to admit here, and I`ve never seen any
> results that would indicate a legitimate correlation between such paper
> and pencil testing and the aforementioned biological indicators that
> would invalidate that statement. (If you have references that would
> prove me wrong, though, I`d be happy to check them out.)

I`ve given several of them above, and here are a bunch more.

Brain pH correlates +.52 with IQ (smarter is less acidic): Rae, C., Scott,
R.B., Thompson, C.H., Kemp, G.J., Dumughn, I., Styles, P., Tracey, I. and
Radda, G.K. (1996). Is pH a biochemical marker of IQ? Proceedings of the
Royal Society (London), 263, 1061-1064.

Response time for an eight-light button box, when three go on at once and
you must pick the one farthest away from the others correlates -.6
(smarter is faster) or more with IQ: Diascro, M.N., & Brody, N. (1994).
Odd-man-out and intelligence. Intelligence, 19, 79-92.

Individual variability in reaction time on scanning tests (show you a
digit, then show you a set of 1 to 7 digits, answer yes or no was the
first one included in the second set) correlates -.5 with IQ (smarter is
more consistent): Jensen, A.R. (1987). Process differences and individual
differences in some cognitive tasks. Intelligence, 11, 107-136.

MRI measurements of brain size, even after controlling for body size,
correlate about +.65 with the composite score from a dozen or more IQ-type
tests (smarter is bigger): Wickett, J.C., Vernon, P.A. and Lee, D.H.
(1994). In vivo brain size, head perimeter and intelligence in a sample
of healthy adult females. Personality and Individual Differences, 16,
831-838. and by the same authors, (1996). General intelligence and brain
volume in a sample of healthy adult male siblings. International Journal
of Psychology, 31, 238-239 (abstract).

Ratio of amplitude of neural response to clicking sounds played while you
listen to ones you make by pushing a button yourself correlates +.5 to +.8
with IQ (smarter brains are less surprised by their own bodies` actions):
Schafer, E.W.P. and Marcus, M.M. (1973). Self-stimulation alters human
sensory brain responses. Science, 181, 175-177.

Neural conduction velocity from retina to visual cortex correlates +.37
with IQ (smarter is faster): Reed, T.E. and Jensen, A.R. (1992).
Conduction velocity in a brain nerve pathway of normal adults correlates
with intelligence level. Intelligence, 16, 259-272.

Glucose metabolism in the brain (i.e., fuel usage) as measured by PET
scans given while taking an IQ test correlates -.7 to -.8 (depending on
location within the brain) with score obtained on that test (smarter is
more efficient): Haier, R.J., Siegel, B., Tang, C., Abel, L. and
Buchsbaum, M.S. (1992). Intelligence and changes in regional cerebral
glucose metabolic rate following learning. Intelligence, 16, 415-426.

A book-length introduction to the subject, which references most of the
older papers published in the field, is Vernon, P.A. (ed.). Biological
approaches to the study of intelligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1993. For
more recent works, try searching the National Library of Medicine at
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/gw/Cmd -- searching on "IQ MRI" turned up 273
hits and "IQ reaction time" 239, which only scratches the surface, as it
does not index some of the journals in which the above articles were
published.

> Well, Gardner didn`t _identify_ eight kinds of intelligence. He
> _theorized_ eight kinds of intelligence, and based testing methods on
> those standards. Thurston posits seven kinds of intelligences.
> Wechsler has something like a dozen subscales of intelligence on his
> WAIS. Even Steinberg, who doesn`t think intelligence really can be
> compartmentalized, breaks his testing methods down into three broad
> categories. My point here is that the categories often describe the
> biases and opinions of the researcher, rather than a reflection of
> actual cognition.

Yes and no. The technical part of what you`re talking about is known as
factor analysis, which is the process of looking at a matrix of
correlations between a large number of tests, and trying to figure out
whether there are any relationships between them that would tend to sort
them into groups. The number of groups you pick is somewhat arbitrary,
and some that usually show up won`t if you don`t include tests that look
for them, but the most important point is that every test of any mental
ability every devised is correlated with every other one, and the general
factor of intelligence, or "g", is the name given to the `direction in
test score correlation space` (to be only slightly mathematically
imprecise) along which all these tests are aligned. As part of this,
whenever people do split scores into three, or seven, or whatever number
of individual pieces, these pieces are not independent, but rather
correlated strongly to each other -- and that correlation (roughly) is
called g. IQ measures g pretty well indeed, and the Raven best of all.

> Another issue with the use of IQ as the basis of intelligence score is
> that IQ scores have been going steadily up through the 20th century in
> industrialized nations.

This is frequently called "the Flynn effect" in the literature.

> The same person who scored 100 using the normalized scale on a modern
> test would have scored 120-130 on the same test given in the 1930`s.

But this can`t be extrapolated too far back, lest you predict that, say,
Socrates (and all his contemporaries) would have an IQ of -1000 in today`s
terms, which is patently ridiculous given the complexity of his writings.

> Some psychologists attribute this to general factors involving the
> improvement of education in the industrialized nations, or to better
> nutrition.

Also to health care in general -- IQ is known to be correlated with
general health, and a variety of forms of disease and injury which cause
brain damage and consequent loss of intelligence are declining as well.
Health correlates +.4 with IQ, but only +.2 with socioeconomic status
(furthermore, health-SES with IQ partialled out is less than .1, but
health-IQ with SES partialled out is more than .3): Lubinski, D. and
Humphreys, L.G. (1992). Some bodily and medical correlates of mathematical
giftedness and commensurate levels of socioeconomic status. Intelligence,
16, 99-115. Furthermore, almost exactly the same change has occurred in
average height over the same period.

In fact, it is known that when analyzing the variance of adult IQ into
genetic and environmental components, if you also differentiate between
environmental effects shared between siblings and those unique to just one
of them, there is ZERO variance due to shared environmental effects -- ALL
the environmental effect is due to *nonshared* factors, which therefore do
not include family wealth, did parents read books to their kids, etc., but
entirely to a combination of what environment people create for themselves
(people who like to read will read more than people who don`t), and what
biological accidents occur to them. See, for example, "Genetics and
Experience" by Robert Plomin (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994).

> They believe, essentially, that we are getting smarter.

One of the interesting things is to note just *who* is getting smarter.
The evidence is very good that the Flynn effect is not due to an
across-the-board increase in IQ, but rather to increases only in the lower
tail of the distribution -- that is, some of the low-IQ people are coming
up rapidly, but essentially none of the high-IQ people have moved at all:
Teasdale, T.W. and Owen, D.R. (1987). National secular trends in
intelligence and education: a twenty-year cross-sectional study. Nature,
325, 119-121. In 1989, the same authors wrote: Continuing secular
increase in intelligence and a stable proportion of high intelligence
levels. Intelligence, 13, 255-262.

This is also good evidence to support the claim that the big change is
improved medical practices that make it easier to avoid the many
biological hazards that act to reduce phenotypic IQ below the genotypic
potential, but not in fact changing the inherent genetic maxima.

> Their position is supported by the fact that the increase in IQ scores
> on linguistic tests has risen about 3-4 points per decade, while scores
> on tests based on Raven have risen 6-7 points per decade.

This data is also consistent with the observation that "linguistic tests",
as you call them, are not as perfect a measure of IQ as is the Raven.
Other IQ tests measure IQ in part by measuring what you have learned
already, but the Raven measures only what you are able to figure out on
the spot.

> On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Krow wrote:
>
> [Dogs] can be intelligent, but can not be measured on the same chart.

True, to a certain extent. But there are a variety of cross-species tests
of intelligence, which go by names like "habit reversal", "the oddity
problem", "cross-modal transfer" and "detour problems": see, for example,
Bitterman, M.E. (1975). The comparative analysis of learning. Science,
188, 699-709., Harlow, H.F. Learning set and error factor theory. In Koch,
S. (ed.) Psychology: Study of a Science, Vol. 2, pp. 492-537. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1959. and Stenhouse, D. The Evolution of Intelligence.
London: Allen & Unwin, 1973.

Furthermore, we now have evidence of tests that can reliably discriminate
between rats for learning speed, etc., that constitute a general factor of
differences in intelligence (aka IQ): Anderson, B. (1993). Evidence from
the rat for a general factor that underlies cognitive performance and that
relates to brain size: intelligence? Neuroscience Letters, 153, 98-102.
and Crinella, F.M. and Yu, J. (1995). Brain mechanisms in problem solving
and intelligence: a replication and extension. Intelligence, 21, 225-246.

While it is true that since the IQ scale as it presently exists measures
only the things that constitute differences in intelligence between
humans, not similarities, if we use the oddity problem or eventually
reaction times as a scale, it is in principle possible to create tests
of intelligence that will rank-order all the way from earthworms to humans.

> If you were to read up on studies done with planeria, even they can be
> trained to curl into a defensive balled position when a light is turned
> on - and these are just worms.

Sure! I never said they had zero intelligence -- just measurably less
than us, in a predictable and theoretically comprehensible sort of way.

> Unfortunately, it is not printed in any D&D manual that says a 15 INT
> score is equal to ### human intelligence.

I think it ought to be, but I`m not holding my breath. Hence my desire to
do my own calculations, and support the efforts of other people to perform
their own.

> Nor can we associate a human intelligence in today`s world with the
> overall intelligence of a given person.

Except that we can, as I`ve said and referenced above.

One other thing that is usually brought up at this point by people who
take your position is the idea that intelligence differs from culture to
culture. The response, which I`d like to make anyway at this point, is
that such an argument measures the wrong thing: whether a modern
city-dweller can survive better in the rain forest than someone who grew
up there tests mostly past experience and skill, because the variation in
skill is greater than the variation in talent. However, if you were to
take a bunch of city dwellers and drop them in the rain forest, or a bunch
of rain-forest natives in the big city, differences within those groups of
who adapts better to the change will test primarily intelligence; and
furthermore, on measures of nonverbal IQ (or IQ in the proper languages)
and biological correlates of IQ, the city-dwellers who do relatively well
in the jungle and the jungle-dwellers who do relatively well in the city
will perform very similarly. IQ is cross-cultural, as both comparisons of
self-developed tests between cultures and biological correlates of IQ show.

> A person may be very intelligent as far as a single course goes, but may
> be excessively niave in the every day world.

There are, of course, lots of funny anecdotes about really smart people
doing really dumb things, like Bertrand Russell claiming he never learned
to make tea or Norbert Weiner asking people whether he`d eaten lunch yet.
However, the intelligence measured by IQ tests is experimentally the same
as the intelligence used to do theoretical mathematics and the
intelligence used to learn to tie your shoes: Gottfredson, L.S. (2002). g:
Highly general and highly practical. Pages 331-380 in R. J. Sternberg &
E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general
is it? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

> How do you judge his intelligence then? By his ability to function with
> the world around him or his ability to calculate atmoic mass?

His ability to solve any problem he *cares* to solve.

> So, I do not believe INT to be a *true score*. You can only estimate it
> in D&D, as you can only estimate the intelligence of a person in our
> world.

You can only estimate it in our world, but in D&D everybody is
characterized by a single number called "Intelligence", which I have
argued is essentially the thing that our IQ tests are trying to estimate.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-27-2002, 10:55 PM

Gary, continued:

> but my overall point here is that the present level of IQ testing isn`t
> particularly reflective of actual intelligence, even when the definition
> for intelligence is determined by the test makers.

What do you mean by "actual intelligence"? Speed of learning new things
is the same as what IQ tests test. (Gettinger, M. (1984). Individual
differences in time needed for learning: a review of literature.
Educational Psychologist, 19, 15-29.) Job performance is predicted best
-- in fact, in studies of the US Air Force, almost solely -- by IQ. (Ree
M.J., Earles J.A., and Teachout M.S. (1994). Predicting job performance:
not much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 518-524.)
Specific items on IQ tests examine memory, logical reasoning (both
inductive and deductive, and the complexity thereof), and knowledge of
your language and the world around you. What else are you looking for?
"What you use when you don`t know what to do" is pretty well covered. The
crucial point is even those things that aren`t explicitly on the tests are
correlated with them to almost the same quite high level as different IQ
tests are correlated with one another. Purely verbal tests and purely
visual pattern-matching tests have been very reliably measured as testing
essentially the same thing. We don`t really know why or how yet, but we
do know that it is true.

> Your friend testing reaction time from video games to make up a language
> free IQ test will get a good measurement of reaction times, hand-eye
> coordination, etc. but it`s pretty debatable whether that`s an actual
> rating of intelligence in any meaningful way.

Ah, but this is the remarkable thing. Tests of many apparently purely
physical abilities, such as two-hand coordination and pursuit rotor
tracking, actually test intelligence more than they test dexterity! (Ree,
M.J. and Carretta, T.R. (1994). The correlation of general cognitive
ability and psychomotor tracking tests. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 2, 209-216.)

A test of how quickly your brain filters out repeated stimuli as
uninteresting (for example, by measuring the change over time of the
amplitude of the EEG response to just sitting in a chair in the dark
listening to a click every two seconds, over the course of less than two
minutes) is correlated +.73 with the Wechsler Full-Scale IQ, (Schafer,
E.W.P. (1985). Neural adaptability: a biological determinant of of g
factor intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 240-241.) which
makes it a better predictor of the overall WAIS score than some of the
WAIS`s own subtests!

Reaction time on extremely simple tests (e.g., when the button in front of
you lights up, press it) increases linearly with task complexity, as
measured by the logarithm of the number of choices you could make (e.g.,
how many buttons are there which might light up) -- that is, in computer
science lingo, the number of bits of information needed to make a
decision. (Hick, W.E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11-26.) When the
reaction time is measured on an eight-button box and compared with the
composite measurement of a variety of diverse IQ tests, the degree to
which each test is correlated with the composite predicts that test`s
correlation to reaction time at _.97_. (Smith, G.A. and Stanley,G.
(1987). Comparing subtest profiles of g loadings with RT measures.
Intelligence, 11, 161-167.)

I realize this sounds like saying "your favorite flavor of ice cream tells
me your height as well as a ruler does", but in the case of IQ and
reaction time the data show it happens to be true -- so we ought to
believe it, and do more experiments to try to figure out how and why.

> Exactly. Practical applications (ie. actual intelligence) and what is
> measured by IQ tests are very different things.

Arrrgh! That`s not what I meant at all. The distinction I was trying to
draw is that I think of intelligence as capacity to figure things out (a
talent), rather than the specific list of things you have already figured
out (a bunch of skills). It turns out that these things are very strongly
correlated, in that if a group of people all try to learn the same thing,
their intelligence is the primary determinant of how well they do so. In
fact, for this reason, no one has ever managed to construct a definition
of "practical intelligence" that is both consistent with observed data and
essentially identical with the abstract reasoning already measured by
standard IQ tests. (Gottfredson, L.S. (2001). Review of Practical
Intelligence in Everyday Life by R.J. Sternberg et al. Intelligence, 29,
363-365.)

My original statement of

> > In the 3e D&D system, it`s the difference between the die roll
> > resolution bonus or penalty due to a stat score, and the die roll
> > resolution bonus due to the number of skill ranks developed in a
> > particular area.

is what I meant by what you quoted.

> Since then I`ve done some work designing
> curriculum and standardized placement tests,

So does my wife -- we should talk about this off-line. =)

> Enough to form my opinion that all these tests are skewed pretty
> dramatically, that is.

I recommend Arthur Jensen`s 1980 book "Bias in Mental Testing" (New York:
The Free Press), an almost 800-page tome spelling out in great detail what
mental testing is, the various ways bias in it could appear, and whether
there is any. The answer, basically, is no, unless you`re particularly
careless in how you give them, which is almost never the case in the
reported literature. As the Snyderman-Rothman survey I mentioned above
points out, though Jensen has been portrayed in the press as a radical,
among psychologists his opinions are strictly middle-of-the-road, and he
reviews just about everything in his somewhat encyclopedic books.

> Both Wechsler and Stanford-Binet (probably the most common IQ test) are
> based on mostly linguistic methods. "A is to B as X is to...." or "If a
> train leaves San Onofre travelling at 60 miles an hour..."

There`s a bunch of picture (arrange these pictures to make a story, encode
a bunch of familiar symbols using a translation table of strange symbols,
use colored blocks to make composite pictures, like tangrams) and memory
stuff, too.

> Raven is mostly spatial/matrix stuff that is non-linguistic.

And the Ravens, Wechslers, Stanford-Binets and many others of the world of
IQ testing are correlated with each other at about .7 to .8, almost as
high as their internal reliabilities of about .9 permit.

> The idea is that one of the biggest biases in IQ tests is that they are
> written in a particular language, which is OK as far as it goes,

The Japanese version of the Wechsler tests, developed in Japan by Japanese
psychometricians, shows the identical factor structure as the American one,
and bilinguals do about the same on both. The same is true of the many
other languages in which IQ tests exist.

> I admit I`ve only fiddled around with Raven-esque tests... I find those
> kinds of questions dull. Comparing the lay out of squares on a piece of
> paper will sooner test my ability to throw pencils at the ceiling than
> it will my IQ. (Though I guess you could argue that that disinterest is
> a sign of a low IQ on those tests.)

Yes, problems in testing conditions can cause aberrations. But competent
examiners will know to try something else, when data are aggregated
individual idiosyncracies will average out, and the data show that
motivation is not actually responsible for any significant group
differences; for example, the study that saw no overall effect of offering
$20 to do better when the test was given again at a later time. (Larson,
G.E., Saccuzzo, D.P. and Brown, J. (1994). Motivation: cause or confound
in information processing / intelligence correlations? Acta Psychologica,
85, 25-37.)

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-27-2002, 10:55 PM

(well, it was 1 and 2, but then the listserver told me part 1 was six
lines too long because it counts the message headers, too...)

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Gary <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET> wrote:

It took me a while to reply to this, so it may not seem very appropriate
to post anymore, but I had to check a whole pile of references. This is
not about Birthright at all, really, but I don`t feel I can let scientific
evidence be pooh-poohed in a discussion of "the real world".

> > > I`ve been biting my tongue through this whole Intelligence = IQ debate
> > > because, to be blunt, IQ scores are a bunch of bunk.
> >
> > *sigh* Bluntly, no. That is the opinion that counts as received wisdom
> > in American popular culture, but it is simply not borne out by the vast
>
> I`m sure in many respects I`m a pop culture casualty, but I don`t
> think so in this case. My opinion is based on the work I`ve done
> with standardized testing in the Education field and my own
> practical experiences with those tests.

And mine is based on reading textbooks and journal articles in psychology,
attending conferences on the education of highly gifted children. Meet
enough 12 year olds who are getting the highest grades in their classes as
*university* students, and you too will believe that an IQ of 200+ does
correctly indicate a prodigious intellect.

> I haven`t really put much thought into America`s popular culture
> attitude towards IQ tests, but if anything I`d think the opposite was
> true regarding the popular acceptance of IQ testing

I was making reference to the survey conducted in 1988 by Snyderman and
Rothman and published as "The IQ Controversy: The Media and Public Policy"
(New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books) which pointed out the immense
differences between the opinions about IQ held by journalists (who,
statistically, agreed with you) as opposed to psychologists (who,
statistically, agreed with me). I don`t know of an opinion poll of "just
plain folks" on the issue.

> since people bandy the numbers about in a way that seems to indicate
> they think they are very meaningful,

Luckily, they happen to be. IQ is correlated with nearly everything in
sight. Even if you don`t believe any of the theories explaining it, it
should still be clear that it has a great deal of predictive power.

A partial list of things with which IQ correlates positively: achievement
motivation, altruism, analytic style, artistic preferences and abilities,
craftwork, creativity, dietary preferences (low-sugar, low-fat),
educational attainment, eminence, emotional sensitivity, extra-curricular
attainments, height, health, fitness, longevity, sense of humor, income,
leadership, media preferences, memory, voluntary migration, military rank,
moral reasoning and development, motor skills, musical preferences and
abilities, myopia (nearsightedness), occupational status, occupational
success, perceptual abilities, practical knowledge, response to
psychotherapy, reading ability, social skills, sports participation in
college, supermarket shopping ability and talking speed.

A partial list of things with which IQ correlates negatively: accident
proneness, acquiescence, aging, alcoholism, authoritarianism, conservatism
of social views, crime, delinquency, dogmatism, lying, hysteria,
impulsivity, infant morality, psychoticism, racial prejudice, smoking,
truancy and obesity.

(from Brand, C. (1987). The importance of general intelligence. In Mogdil,
S. and Mogdil, C. (eds.) Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy
(pp. 278-283). New York: Falmer.)

Even if you think that all IQ does is tell you about the social class
people came from (it doesn`t, but even if you do), it still should be
apparent that it is a very useful thing to know about someone. As
evidence for "it`s not just social class", consider that even looking at
the differences between siblings within the same family, childhood IQ is a
very powerful (and the single best) predictor of eventual educational
attainment and adult income and occupational prestige. (Nagoshi, C.T.,
Johnson, R.C. and Honbo, K.M. (1993). Family background, cognitive
abilities, and personality as predictors of educational and occupational
attainment across two generations. Journal of Biosocial Science, 25,
259-276.) The data show that if you want to be rich when you grow up, it
is better (in industrialized Western countries, at least) to be born poor
and smart than rich and dumb.

> accepting them without question as to the veracity of the
> method used to derive them.

And I would posit that a similar proportion of those who reject IQ tests
similarly do so without questioning. This is a failing of people in
general, not of a particular idea. I question the methods, and the answer
I have found is that they work pretty well, and are getting even better.
A large number of professional psychologists spend their entire careers
questioning whether the tests work -- because what they most want is to
have something that works, so they can build their theories on a solid
foundation of data -- and most of them have concluded they do.

> Many schools avoid giving IQ tests if possible nowadays, but quite a few
> parents literally demand their children be given them.

Good for the parents. I wish we gave them to everybody, if for no other
reason than as a way to see just how far from normal the children are, to
predict how unhappy they would be in a regular classroom, for example. We
also then wouldn`t have to ask whether the standardization sample was big
enough and representative enough. ;)

> I`m not sure if they do so because they believe in the results or
> just so they`ll have something to talk about over cocktails,

From the summer I worked as a secretary for a child psychologist and my
mother`s career as a teacher and evaluator of learning-disabled students,
my sense is that most of them do it because they see their children are
not fitting in with what the schools are trying to do, and want to figure
out what might be wrong and obtain special services if necessary.

> Anyway, I don`t find it very surprising that professional psychologists
> who are amassing data based on IQ tests would disagree with my statement
> that such testing is largely inaccurate or, rather, that their testing
> isn`t really a very good reflection of intelligence as a whole.

Now that`s really unfair. That`s like saying "Quantum mechanics is just
too weird to be true. Sure, professional physicists who are amassing the
data based on particle accelerator experiments disagree, but you can`t
trust them because they`re be out of a job if they told the truth." Read
the original papers and the literature reviews -- these people are serious
scientists who want to be able to learn things about how people`s minds
work, so they are extremely interesting in testing whether their
instruments actually work. They`re all looking for ways the tests don`t
work, so they can fix the problems and improve the data gathering methods.
One of the most (in)famous figures in modern IQ research, Arthur Jensen of
UC Berkeley, used to believe the tests were biased, until he took a long,
hard look at the data and discovered they weren`t in any way that could be
quantified, which meant another explanation of the observed quantitative
differences was needed. When he said that in 1969, he got death threats.

> Most Freudian psychologists would probably disagree with most of my
> opinions on the value of their work too....

There is a big difference between a therapist and a psychometrician.
People who collect data in controlled (insofar as possible), repeatable
experiments and analyze data with sophisticated tests of statistical
significance and publish papers in peer-reviewed journals are scientists.
This generally describes researchers in intelligence. If Freudians could
say, "this data shows our method produces positive effects significantly
different from zero at the p<0.01 confidence level," I`d believe them,
too -- but they haven`t, so I don`t.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

11-27-2002, 11:40 PM

Ryan, and other interested parties, what do you think about capping skill
ranks to the current key ability score? Should a character with a 10 Dex
have 11 or 19 ranks of Tumble? Or does a limit of 10 best reflect the
probable attainment? Remembering that beyond that number are still synergy
bonuses which can be purchased for 40% effeciency.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

irdeggman

11-28-2002, 12:17 AM

Somehow putting a cap on ranks based on the applicable ability score doesn't seem right. The point of ranks was to reflect that skills can be learned and improved over time. While in 2nd ed there pretty much was a limit for proficiencies that was based on the correlating ability, the 3rd ed rules attempt to reflect the ability to learn. By basing the number of skill points per level on Intelligence this reflects (all be it abstract) ability to learn vice strict class or level advancement. While using the key ability modifier to reflect the "raw" talent portion vice the "training" this seems to be a pretty well balanced system of having natural talent and applying ones self to a specific skill.

Peter Lubke

11-28-2002, 04:22 AM

On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 10:30, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

Ryan, and other interested parties, what do you think about capping skill
ranks to the current key ability score? Should a character with a 10 Dex
have 11 or 19 ranks of Tumble? Or does a limit of 10 best reflect the
probable attainment? Remembering that beyond that number are still synergy
bonuses which can be purchased for 40% effeciency.

Hmmm, be it potential or starting point - an interesting question.

The easy answer is potential -- i.e. yes to cap it.
But it`s not a `good` answer in some ways.
Two persons of equal skill at a particular function may have differed in
the ease of their training or learning - one may have been born with a
greater predisposition for the skill than the other and thus had to work
much harder to achieve the same level.

Choosing the ability as the starting point still leaves the question of
an absolute limit open however.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-28-2002, 10:15 AM

On Thu, 2002-11-28, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> what do you think about capping skill ranks to the current key ability
> score?

There is certainly justification for it in terms of real-world athletic
performance, for example. Once an athlete reaches the level of Olympic
competition, it generally happens that no amount of practice can increase
jumps more than a few millimeters or decrease times more than a few tenths
of a second. It does seem in practice to be a case of having some level
of inherent performance potential, and diminishing returns / increasing
difficulty as you get closer to actualizing all of it.

In terms of game play, I think the fairest way to do something like this
is to have every skill rank cost progressively more than the previous one,
so as not to expressly prohibit excessive investment in just one skill,
but rather to just strongly discourage it. And yes, it makes sense for
the point at which the costs start to get really steep to be related to
the key ability score.

OTOH, there may be some skills where this doesn`t happen -- professional
musicians just seem to me to continually get technically better, although
this may be an erroneous perception due to the fact that we measure
athletes much more carefully than we measure musicians. One RPG that
thinks this way is RoleMaster, in which different classes of skills
exhibit different degrees of diminishing skill bonus returns per skill
ranks invested, and some do not diminish at all.

> Should a character with a 10 Dex have 11 or 19 ranks of Tumble?

Another (though similar) way to do it would be to scale the bonus instead
of the number of ranks -- for example, perhaps anyone can have 19 ranks in
Tumble, but you need to have a Dex 19 to get a +19 bonus out of them:
perhaps, using the double every 5 system, a Dex 14 only gets a +9 and a
Dex 9 only gets +4. You could even extend this in the other direction,
and rule that with a Dex 24, 19 ranks give a +38 bonus! Of course
something needs to be done to scale these numbers better, but the idea may
be of interest to someone. One thing I like about this extend it up idea
is that it means even a little training makes someone with great natural
talent much better. Also, in the rough draft system I`ve outlined, there
is a danger of creating a paradoxical situation in which increasing your
skill ranks would reduce your bonus -- this is clearly a bug, but I don`t
yet see how to fix it while keeping properly diminishing returns.

On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:

> Two persons of equal skill at a particular function may have differed in
> the ease of their training or learning - one may have been born with a
> greater predisposition for the skill than the other and thus had to work
> much harder to achieve the same level.

Isn`t this precisely what having different ability scores vice skill
ranks, and number of skill points per level as a function of class and
Intelligence are supposed to represent? The level of performance (how far
can you jump, how fast can you pcik the lock, etc.) is determined by the
total die roll bonus, which is the sum of the (independent, in the
standard rules) bonus from talent (ability score) and bonus from training
(skill ranks). I think the phenomenon you identify is already fairly well
represented in the existing rules, and would only be enhanced in Kenneth`s
kind of model.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

11-28-2002, 11:36 AM

Ability caps may have several things going for them, but they break a
central idea of DnD. In DnD, characters are supposed to progress in a
certain way from level to level. A nineteenth level character is supposed to
be "just so" much better than a eighteenth level character. If you
introduce these ability caps, you wreak havoc with how the skill system
works. This in turn affects class balance, challenge ratings, how hight DCs
should be and so on.

To some, these might be superfical arguments in the neverending quest for
the perfect simulation. Well, I`m certainly not out for the perfect
simulation - that quest ended ten years ago. I`m out for a playable game,
and if that is the same game that thousands of other players across the
globe are playing, so much better for all!

I have said this before, and I say it again. I am strongly opposed to all
changes to the base rule mechanisms - I feel they put us on our own isolated
little island with no connection to the rest of the gaming world.

/Carl

__________________________________________________ ___
Följ VM på nära håll på Yahoo!s officielle VM-sajt www.yahoo.se/vm2002
Håll dig ajour med nyheter och resultat, med vinnare och förlorare...

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

12-01-2002, 09:01 AM

At 05:15 PM 11/27/2002 -0500, Ryan Caveney wrote:

>Do you mean Robert Sternberg of Yale?

Right. SteRnberg, not SteInberg. Name retention is not my strong suit
(something that has never been adequately noted in any IQ test I`ve seen....)

In any case, thanks for the references. I`ll check them out as time and
resources permit--what with the holidays coming up and all.... I very much
doubt that I`ll find the methodology and conclusions reached by those
researchers to be nearly as convincing as you clearly have, but I`ll try to
keep an open mind.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

12-02-2002, 12:50 AM

At 11:59 AM 11/28/2002 +0100, Carl wrote:

>Ability caps may have several things going for them, but they break a
>central idea of DnD. In DnD, characters are supposed to progress in a
>certain way from level to level. A nineteenth level character is supposed to
>be "just so" much better than a eighteenth level character. If you
>introduce these ability caps, you wreak havoc with how the skill system
>works. This in turn affects class balance, challenge ratings, how hight DCs
>should be and so on.

If I saw the current rules as particularly well balanced regarding class
balance, challenge ratings, etc. I suppose I`d be more worried about such
tweaks, but since I don`t see them as particularly balanced to begin with
I`m less concerned about such problems. I wouldn`t personally adopt an
ability score cap on skill ranks. I`ve seen that kind of things in other
games and it works fairly well, but D&D is essentially a level-based system
so I`d prefer to keep it that way.

>[SNIP]
>I have said this before, and I say it again. I am strongly opposed to all
>changes to the base rule mechanisms - I feel they put us on our own isolated
>little island with no connection to the rest of the gaming world.

While I agree with the basic argument (that D&D is a level-based system and
ability score caps on skill ranks would interfere with that basic mechanic)
I feel obligated to note (as I always do when I see such comments) that
applying such a tweak really won`t be so isolating a house rule as to
somehow divorce the one group of gamers from the rest of the people in the
RPG hobby. It would, in fact, be a relatively simple tweak. The proposed
tweak isn`t particularly more significant than those that come out
regularly in supplementary D20 products or even the average issue of
Polyhedron.

Anyway, my own take on such ability score caps to skills is this:

1. If you`re going to use the standard, 3e skills there are several ability
scores that have only a few skills that use them as key abilities. An
ability score cap might create a sort of weird situation in which a
character had capped ALL the skills of his primary ability score, forcing
him to spend skill points on other skills. While that may be the intention
behind such a house rule, it`s not very difficult to interpret as a rather
artificial and arbitrary method of promoting diverse skill sets among PCs
and certain folks may balk at it. (I know I would.)

2. In several places in the core materials they go to some lengths to blur
the significance of the key ability on skills and skill checks. You can
use another ability score`s modifier based on particular situations. Using
an ability score as the basis for max ranks will strengthen that
relationship between score and skill, which might make it more difficult to
justify using other ability scores in particular situations. In the long
run you might find this decreases the overall versatility of the skill
system. It`s not very difficult to come up with a situation in which one
would use dexterity rather than strength as the basis for a swim check, for
example. Using a rule that made strength modifier not just a contributor
to the overall skill check modifier, but also the determinate the max ranks
of Swim a DM who switched those modifiers for the purpose of a single skill
check might then have to better justify why a character couldn`t use his
dexterity as the ability score that determines max ranks for the Swim skill.

3. Also bear in mind that because key ability already provide a modifier to
skill checks, using them as the cap for skill ranks may create a situation
in which those modifiers are effectively doubled, depending on what method
one wants to use to determine max ranks. Let`s just say for the sake of
exemplifying the point that max ranks was going to be 10 + key ability
score modifier, so a character with 18 in a particular key ability would
have a max rank of 14. Because that character will also get his ability
score modifier on skill checks he`ll have an overall modifier (without
other bonuses) of +18 while another character with a 10 in that same score
would have only +10. Sure, the first character had to spend an additional
4 skill points, for all intents and purposes the cap doubles the ability
score modifier`s influence. Other methods of using ability scores to cap
the skill ranks could be less or more influential, but essentially they all
have the same result with different math; making the actual skill
points/ranks spent simply a modifier on the ability score.

4. Access to the skill system is not balanced across the character
classes. I haven`t sat down and made up a bunch of level progressions for
characters of various classes using the standard array and this particular
ability score cap, but I`d suggest trying that before implementing the rule
lest the access to various skills and skill points for those classes that
have more access to them create a few weird situations. A level by level
progression of each of the character classes per the DMG would help point
out where any such balance issues might occur.

5. I`m assuming that the distinction between class skills and cross class
skills would also use an ability score to determine max ranks. That is, a
cross class skill for a character would be half that of the max ranks of
the same character using whatever method you`re using to determine the
ability score cap, and that the number of skill points spent on cross class
skills will still be 2:1 for points to ranks. There already is a lot of
incentive to min/max skill points into a particular skill when
multi-classing, and using ability scores rather than character levels might
exacerbate that issue by making it much more apparent at low levels (1st
level, in fact) than using character level.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

12-05-2002, 04:02 PM

Ryan mentions that actual learning becomes progressivly more difficult, but
I am satisfied that the progressivly higher cost to advance in character
levels sufficiently reflects that situation. IMC, most CR are between 2 and
4 regardless of PC level. A few are crafted with the party`s level clearly
in mind, but these are generally significant to the story, rather than
reflections of the wider world.

Gary asks for a progression of each character class to see how this works
out. That seems like a lot of space, but I will oblige with three of them.
I`ll pick a wide variety of character types to demonstrate the range of
skill capacity: Fighter, Expert/Druid, and Rogue.

p. 52 of the DMG gives us the following fighter: Str 15, Dex 13, Con 14, Int
10, Wis 12, Cha 8. He adds all of his ability score improvements to Str.
I have suggested that this fighter`s skill caps would be Climb (20), Craft
(10), Handle Animal (8), Jump (20), Ride (13), and Swim (20).
Level
1: Craft (Weaponsmith) 4, Swim 2+2, Jump 2+2
2: Craft (Weaponsmith) 5, Swim 3+2, Jump 2+2
3: Craft (Weaponsmith) 5, Swim 3+2, Jump 2+2, Ride 2+1
4: Craft (Weaponsmith) 5, Swim 4+3, Jump 3+3, Ride 2+1
5: Craft (Weaponsmith) 6, Swim 4+3, Jump 3+3, Ride 3+1
6: Craft (W) 6, Handle Animal 1-1, Swim 5+3, Jump 3+3, Ride 3+1
7: Craft (W) 7, Handle Animal 1-1, Swim 5+3, Jump 3+3, Ride 4+1
8: Craft (W) 8, Handle Animal 1-1, Swim 6+3, Jump 3+3, Ride 4+1
9: Craft (W) 9, Handle Animal 1-1, Swim 6+3, Jump 3+3, Ride 5+1
10: Craft (W) 10, Handle Animal 2-1, Swim 6+3, Jump 3+3, Ride 5+1
11: Craft (W) 10, Handle Animal 2-1, Swim 7+3, Jump 3+3, Ride 6+1
12: Craft (W) 10, Handle Animal 3-1, Swim 8+4, Jump 4+4, Ride 6+1
13: Craft (W) 10, Handle Animal 3-1, Swim 9+4, Jump 4+4, Ride 7+1
14: Craft (W) 10, Handle Animal 4-1, Swim 9+4, Jump 4+4, Ride 8+1
15: Craft (W) 10, Handle Animal 4-1, Swim 10+4, Jump 4+4, Ride 9+1
16: Craft (W) 10, Handle Animal 5-1, Swim 11+4, Jump 4+4, Ride 9+1
17: Craft (W) 10, Handle Animal 5-1, Swim 12+4, Jump 4+4, Ride 10+1
18: Craft (W) 10, Handle Animal 6-1, Swim 13+4, Jump 4+4, Ride 10+1
19: Craft (W) 10, Handle Animal 7-1, Swim 13+4, Jump 4+4, Ride 11+1
20: Craft (W) 10, Handle Animal 8-1, Swim 13+4, Jump 4+4, Ride 12+1

So our fighter maxed his ranks in Weaponsmith at 10th level, after a heavy
initial investment at 10 ranks. Latecommers Handle Animal was maxed at 20th
level at 8 ranks and Ride nearly maxed at 20th level with 12 ranks, although
in practice a character with a more noble backround might have gone with a
Str 14 and a Cha 10, and spent one of his ability score increases in Dex to
boost his horsemanship. This character was no where near his max ranks in
any Str based skill, and he could have started Armorsmithing, Bowry, or any
other craft. If the player really wanted more Craft (Weaponsmith) potency
(say he`s a dwarf), I`d suggest he take Knowledge (Metallurgy), for a
synergy bonus of +2 at 5 ranks. That would give him a +12 (or +14) on
checks somewhere in his last several levels. Certainly capable of repairing
his martial, and even masterwork weapons.

Our Expert Expert/Druid will take 3 levels of druid as her 1st, 6th, and
15th levels. this will juice her skill ranks a bit, which is why I recomend
it to spellcasters, esp those who normally get 2 ranks per level. The druid
on p. 51 has Str 10, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 15, and Cha 8. All
increases go into Wis. Skill rank caps for this druid would be Animal
Empathy (8), Concentration (13), Craft (12), Diplomacy (8), Handle Animal
(8), Heal (20), Intuit Direction (20), Knowledge (Nature) (12), Profession
(20), Scry (12), Spellcraft (12), Swim (10), and Wilderness Lore (20). Lets
specify that this druid is a human and provide the racial +1 skill rank that
goes with that. Skill orders is based on the recommendations in the PHB.
Level
1: Spellcraft 4+1, Animal Empathy 4-1, Concentration 4+1, Heal 4+2,
Wilderness Lore 4+2, Handle Animal 4-1, Knowledge (Nature) 4+1,
Listen 2+2, Spot 2+2
2: Spellcraft 5+1, Animal Empathy 4-1, Concentration 5+1, Heal 5+2,
Wilderness Lore 5+2, Handle Animal 4-1, Knowledge (Nature) 4+1,
Listen 2+2, Spot 2+2, Diplomacy 1-1, Intuit Direction 1+2
3: Spellcraft 6+1, Animal Empathy 5-1, Concentration 6+1, Heal 6+2,
Wilderness Lore 6+2, Handle Animal 4-1, Knowledge (Nature) 4+1,
Listen 2+2, Spot 2+2, Diplomacy 1-1, Intuit Direction 2+2
4: Spellcraft 7+1, Animal Empathy 5-1, Concentration 7+1, Heal 7+3,
Wilderness Lore 7+3, Handle Animal 5-1, Knowledge (Nature) 5+1,
Listen 2+3, Spot 2+3, Diplomacy 1-1, Intuit Direction 2+3
5: Spellcraft 7+1, Animal Empathy 5-1, Concentration 8+1, Heal 8+3,
Wilderness Lore 8+3, Handle Animal 5-1, Knowledge (Nature) 5+1,
Listen 2+3, Spot 2+3, Diplomacy 3-1, Intuit Direction 3+3
6: Spellcraft 8+1, Animal Empathy 5-1, Concentration 9+1, Heal 9+3,
Wilderness Lore 9+3, Handle Animal 5-1, Knowledge (Nature) 5+1,
Listen 4+3, Spot 4+3, Diplomacy 3-1, Intuit Direction 3+3
7: Spellcraft 9+1, Animal Empathy 6-1, Concentration 9+1, Heal 9+3,
Wilderness Lore 9+3, Handle Animal 5-1, Knowledge (Nature) 6+1,
Listen 4+3, Sport 4+3, Diplomacy 3-1, Intuit Direction 3+3
8: Spellcraft 9+1, Animal Empathy 6-1, Concentration 10+1, Heal 10+3
Wilderness Lore 10+3, Handle Animal 6-1, Knowledge (Nature) 6+1,
Listen 4+3, Spot 4+3, Diplomacy 4-1, Intuit Direction 4+3
9: Spellcraft 10+1, Animal Empathy 7-1, Concentration 11+1, Heal 11+3,
Wilderness Lore 11+3, Handle Animal 6-1, Knowledge (Nature) 6+1,
Listen 4+3, Spot 4+3, Diplomacy 5-1, Intuit Direction 4+3
10: Spellcraft 11+1, Animal Empathy 7-1, Concentration 12+1, Heal 12+3,
Wilderness Lore 12+3, Handle Animal 7-1, Knowledge (Nature) 6+1,
Listen 4+3, Spot 4+3, Diplomacy 6-1, Intuit Direction 4+3
11: Spellcraft 12+1, Animal Emapthy 8-1, Concentration 13+1, Heal 13+3,
Wilderness Lore 13+3, Handle Animal 8-1, Knowledge (Nature) 6+1,
Listen 4+3, Spot 4+3, Diplomacy 6-1, Intuit Direction 4+3
12: Spellcraft 12+1, Animal Empathy 8-1, Concentration 13+1, Heal 15+4,
Wilderness Lore 14+4, Handle Animal 8-1, Knowledge (Nature) 7+1,
Listen 4+4, Spot 4+4, Diplomacy 7-1, Intuit Direction 5+4
13: Spellcraft 12+1, Animal Empathy 8-1, Concentration 13+1, Heal 16+4,
Wilderness Lore 16+4, Handle Animal 8-1, Knowledge (Nature) 4+1,
Listen 4+4, Spot 4+4, Diplomacy 8-1, Intuit Direction 6+4
14: Spellcraft 12+1, Animal Empathy 8-1, Concentration 13+1, Heal 17+4,
Wilderness Lore 17+4, Handle Animal 8-1, Knowledge (Nature) 5+1,
Listen 4+4, Spot 4+4, Diplomacy 8-1, Intuit Direction 7+4, Profession
(Herbalist) 2+4
15: Spellcraft 12+1, Animal Empathy 8-1, Concentration 13+1, Heal 18+4,
Wilderness Lore 18+4, Handle Animal 8-1, Knowledge (Nature) 6+1,
Listen 4+4, Spot 4+4, Diplomacy 8-1, Intuit Direction 7+4, Profession
(Herbalist) 5+4
16: Spellcraft 12+1, Animal Empathy 8-1, Concentration 13+1, Heal 19+4,
Wilderness Lore 19+4, Handle Animal 8-1, Knowledge (Nature) 6+1,
Listen 7+4, Spot 7+4, Diplomacy 8-1, Intuit Direction 7+4, Profession
(Herbalist) 5+4
17: Spellcraft 12+1, Animal Empathy 8-1, Concentration 13+1, Heal 19+4,
Wilderness Lore 19+4, Handle Animal 8-1, Knowledge (Nature) 7+1,
Listen 8+4, Spot 7+4, Diplomacy 8-1, Intuit Direction 10+4, Profession
(Herbalist) 5+4
18: Spellcraft 12+1, Animal Empathy 8-1, Concentration 13+1, Heal 19+4,
Wilderness Lore 19+4, Handle Animal 8-1, Knowledge (Nature) 9+1,
Listen 8+4, Spot 8+4, Diplomacy 8-1, Intuit Direction 12+4, Profession
(Herbalist) 5+4
18: Spellcraft 12+1, Animal Empathy 8-1, Concentration 13+1, Heal 19+4,
Wilderness Lore 19+4, Handle Animal 8-1, Knowledge (Nature) 12+1,
Listen 8+4, Spot 8+4, Diplomacy 8-1, Intuit Direction 15+4, Profession
(Herbalist) 5+4
19: Spellcraft 12+1, Animal Empathy 8-1, Concentration 13+1, Heal 19+4,
Wilderness Lore 19+4, Handle Animal 8-1, Knowledge (Nature) 12+1,
Listen 8+4, Spot 8+4, Diplomacy 8-1, Intuit Direction 17+4, Profession
(Herbalist) 7+4, Swim 2
20: Spellcraft 12+1, Animal Empathy 8-1, Concentration 13+1, Heal 20+4,
Wilderness Lore 20+4, Handle Animal 8-1, Knowledge (Nature) 12+1,
Listen 8+4, Spot 8+4, Diplomacy 8-1, Intuit Direction 20+4, Profession
(Herbalist) 7+4, Swim 3

Our druid had maxed out Spellcraft, Animal Emapthy, Concentration, and
Handle Animal by 11th level, but at ranks which were not to shabby. I only
added two additional skills: Profession (Herbalist) for the synergy bonus
for Heal, and Swim because water can kill you without it. Myself, I`d take
a few ranks of Swim before 19th level, but the exercise is on skill maxing,
so I didn`t hurry. I spent 4 ranks total on cross class skills, bumping
Listen and Spot up one apiece. Frankly, if you want better raport with
animals, I don`t think its too much to ask for something better than an 8 in
Charisma. Likewise in Diplomacy.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

12-05-2002, 07:09 PM

Having examined how skill caps would effect a fighter and an expert/druid,
we`ll now move on to rogue. P. 55 of the DMG tells us that our rogue has a
Str 12, Dex, 15, Con 13, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 8. I really must say that I
never slight Charisma as much as these guys do. It certainly has something
to do with the BR setting, but I tend to put Cha right behind the obvious
prerequisite in scores. With skill caps our rogue can look forward to
Appraise (14), Balance (20), Bluff (8), Climb (12), Craft (14), Decipher
Script (14), Diplomacy (8), Disable Device (14), Disguise (8), Escape Artist
(20), Forgery (14), Gather Information (8), Hide (20), Innuendo (10),
Intimidate (8), Intuit Direction (10), Jump (12), Listen (10), Move Silently
(20). Open Lock (20), Perform (8), Pick Pocket (20), Profession (10), Read
Lips (14), Search (14), Sense Motive (10), Spot (10), Swim (12), Tumble
(20), Use Magic Device (8), and Use Rope 20. With an Int 14, we`re already
up to 10 skill ranks per level, but we`ll consider a human rogue, just to
juice our skills up to 11/level.
Level
1: Move Silently 4+2, Hide 4+2, Climb 4+1, Disable Device 4+2, Listen 4,
Open Lock 4+2, Search 4+2, Spot 4, Pick Pocket 4+2, Bluff 4-1,
Decipher Script 2+2, Profession (Merchant) 2
2: Move Silently 5+2, Hide 5+2, Climb 5+1, Disable Device 5+2, Listen 4,
Open Lock 5+2, Search 5+2, Spot 4, Pick Pocket 5+2, Decipher Script 2+2,
Bluff 5-1, Profession (Merchant) 3, Appraise 1+2, Craft (Gemcutter) 1+2,
Craft (Silversmith) 1+2
3: Move Silently 6+2, Hide 6+2, Climb 5+1, Disable Device 6+2, Listen 4,
Open Lock 6+2, Search 6+2, Spot 4, Pick Pocket 6+2, Decipher Script 2+2,
Bluff 6-1, Profession (Merchant) 4, Appraise 3+2, Craft (Gemcutter) 2+2,
Craft (Silversmith) 2+2
4: Move Silently 7+3, Hide 7+3, Climb 6+1, Disable Device 7+2, Listen 5,
Open Lock 7+3, Search 7+2, Spot 5, Pick Pocket 7+3, Decipher Script 3+2,
Bluff 6-1, Profession (Merchant) 5, Appraise 3+2, Craft (Gemcutter) 2+2,
Craft (Silversmith) 2+2
5: Move Silently 8+3, Hide 8+3, Climb 6+1, Disable Device 8+2, Listen 5,
Open Lock 8+3, Search 8+2, Spot 6, Pick Pocket 8+3, Decipher Script 4+2,
Bluff 7-1, Profession (Merchant) 5, Appraise 4+2, Craft (Gemcutter) 2+2,
Craft (Silversmith) 3+2
6: Move Silently 9+3, Hide 9+3, Climb 7+1, Disable Device 9+2, Listen 5,
Open Lock 9+3, Search 9+2, Spot 7, Pick Pocket 9+3, Decipher Script 4+2,
Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 5, Appraise 5+2, Craft (Gemcutter) 2+2,
Craft (Silversmith) 4+2
7: Move Silently 10+3, Hide 10+3, Climb 7+1, Disable Device 10+2, Listen 6,
Open Lock 10+3, Search 10+2, Spot 8, Pick Pocket 10+3, Decipher Script 5+2,
Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 5, Appraise 5+2, Craft (Gemcutter) 4+2,
Craft (Silversmith) 5+2
8: Move Silently 11+3, Hide 11+3, Climb 8+1, Disable Device 11+2, Listen 6,
Open Lock 11+3, Search 11+2, Spot 8, Pick Pocket 11+3, Decipher Script 5+2,
Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 5, Appraise 5+2, Craft (Gemcutter) 5+2,
Craft (Silversmith) 5+2, Balance 1+3, Escape Artist 1+3, Forgery 1+2
9: Move Silently 11+3, Hide 12+3, Climb 8+1, Disable Device 12+2, Listen 6,
Open Lock 13+3, Search 11+2, Spot 8, Pick Pocket 12+3, Decipher Script 6+2,
Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 5, Appraise 5+2, Craft (Gemcutter) 5+2,
Craft (Silversmith) 5+2, Balance 3+3, Escape Artist 3+3, Forgery 3+2
10: Move Silently 12+3, Hide 12+3, Climb 9+1, Disable Device 12+2, Listen 7,
Open Lock 14+3, Search 12+2, Spot 8, Pick Pocket 13+3, Decipher Script 8+2,
Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 6, Appraise 6+2, Craft (Gemcutter) 5+2,
Craft (Silversmith) 5+2, Balance 3+3, Escape Artist 3+3, Forgery 4+2
11: Move Silently 13+3, Hide 13+3, Climb 9+1, Disable Device 13+2, Listen 8,
Open Lock 14+3, Search 13+2, Spot 9, Pick Pocket 13+3, Decipher Script 9+2,
Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 7, Appraise 7+2, Craft (Gemcutter) 5+2,
Craft (Silversmith) 5+2, Balance 4+3, Escape Artist 4+3, Forgery 4+2
12: Move Silently 14+4, Hide 14+4, Climb 10+1, Disable Device 14+2, Listen
9,
Open Lock 14+4, Search 14+2, Spot 10, Pick Pocket 14+4, Decipher Script
10+2, Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 8, Appraise 7+2, Craft (Gemcutter)
5+2,
Craft (Silversmith) 5+2, Balance 4+4, Escape Artist 4+4, Forgery 5+2
13: Move Silently 15+4, Hide 15+4, Climb 10+1, Disable Device 14+2, Listen
10, Open Lock 15+4, Search 15+2, Spot 10, Pick Pocket 15+4, Decipher Script
10+2, Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 9, Appraise 8+2, Craft (Gemcutter)
6+2,
Craft (Silversmith) 6+2, Balance 5+4, Escape Artist 5+4, Forgery 5+2
14: Move Silently 16+4, Hide 16+4, Climb 11+1, Disable Device 14+2,
Listen 10, Open Lock 16+4, Search 14+2, Spot 10, Pick Pocket 16+4,
Decipher Script 11+2, Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 10, Appraise 9+2,
Craft (Gemcutter) 7+2, Craft (Silversmith) 7+2, Balance 5+4, Escape
Artist 5+4, Forgery 5+2, Tumble 1+4
15: Move Silently 17+4, Hide 16+4, Climb 12+1, Disable Device 14+2,
Listen 10, Open Lock 17+4, Search 14+2, Spot 10, Pick Pocket 16+4,
Decipher Script 12+2, Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 10, Appraise 10+2,
Craft (Gemcutter) 8+2, Craft (Silversmith) 8+2, Balance 5+4, Escape
Artist 7+4, Forgery 5+2, Tumble 3+4
16: Move Silently 17+4, Hide 17+4, Climb 10+1, Disable Device 14+2,
Listen 10, Open Lock 17+4, Search 14+2, Spot 10, Pick Pocket 17+4,
Decipher Script 13+2, Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 10, Appraise 11+2,
Craft (Gemcutter) 9+2, Craft (Silversmith) 9+2, Balance 6+4, Escape
Artist 8+4, Forgery 6+2, Tumble 6+4
17: Move Silently 18+4, Hide 17+4, Climb 10+1, Disable Device 14+2,
Listen 10, Open Lock 18+4, Search 14+2, Spot 10, Pick Pocket 17+4,
Decipher Script 14+2, Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 10, Appraise 12+2,
Craft (Gemcutter) 10+2, Craft (Silversmith) 10+2, Balance 7+4, Escape
Artist 9+4, Forgery 7+2, Tumble 8+4
18: Move Silently 18+4, Hide 18+4, Climb 10+1, Disable Device 14+2,
Listen 10, Open Lock 18+4, Search 14+2, Spot 10, Pick Pocket 18+4,
Decipher Script 14+2, Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 10, Appraise 13+2,
Craft (Gemcutter) 11+2, Craft (Silversmith) 11+2, Balance 7+4, Escape
Artist 10+4, Forgery 8+2, Tumble 10+4, Use Rope 2+4
19: Move Silently 19+4, Hide 19+4, Climb 10+1, Disable Device 14+2,
Listen 10, Open Lock 19+4, Search 14+2, Spot 10, Pick Pocket 19+4,
Decipher Script 14+2, Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 10, Appraise 14+2,
Craft (Gemcutter) 12+2, Craft (Silversmith) 12+2, Balance 8+4, Escape
Artist 10+4, Forgery 9+2, Tumble 10+4, Use Rope 4+4
20: Move Silently 20+4, Hide 20+4, Climb 10+1, Disable Device 14+2,
Listen 10, Open Lock 20+4, Search 14+2, Spot 10, Pick Pocket 20+4,
Decipher Script 14+2, Bluff 8-1, Profession (Merchant) 10, Appraise 14+2,
Craft (Gemcutter) 14+2, Craft (Silversmith) 14+2, Balance 8+4, Escape
Artist 11+4, Forgery 10+2, Tumble 10+4, Use Rope 5+4

A very reasonable theif specializing in precious metals and gems, with
sufficient craft ability in his own right to make his sales of stolen goods
both plausible, and to facilitate the re-setting of stones and so forth. At
6th level we maxed Bluff, our rogue`s only Cha based skill. One of the
reasons we needed so good a cover was out inability to lie our way out of
situations. At 12th level we maxed out on Search and Spot, but with ranks
sufficient to keep finding the hidden jewels. Listen topped out at 13th
level. Merchant maxed at 14th level, Climb at 15th and, Decipher Script at
17th. Appraise maxed at 19th level, while Forgery, Gemcutter and
Silversmith maxed at 20th.

These caps don`t seem arbitrary or unduly limiting. their based on the idea
that our capacity for excellence is limited by our natural aptitude. It
also puts a little more meaning into our arrangement of ability scores.
But, like our rogue with a Cha of 8, it also lends itself to natural
work-arounds which actually ask us to create a character which reflects our
abilities, rather than just slathering on the skill ranks deeper and higher
to conceal our weaker ability scores. So artificial and arbitrary? I don`t
think so. Unlimited progression on a foundation of a weak skills seems more
artificial and arbitrary from where I sit.

I don`t see why ability caps would have any effect on the flexibility to use
an alternate ability score. Swiming is mostly a strength activity, and
while some dexterity doesn`t hurt, the ability to get better is mostly
limited by strength.

Likewise, cross class skills is based on class opportunities, so there is no
reason to cap it lower than the ability score.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.