Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 125
  1. #31
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  2. #32
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  4. #34
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  5. #35
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- 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.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  7. #37
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  10. #40
    Site Moderator Ariadne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    near Frankfurt/ Germany
    Posts
    801
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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 ;)
    May Khirdai always bless your sword and his lightning struck your enemies!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.