What if PC's Had 20's in Every Stat?

...wow, and additional +16 in damage, that's pretty huge...I am surprised that the attack modifier only increased one.

Teramotos wrote:...wow, and additional +16 in damage, that's pretty huge...I am surprised that the attack modifier only increased one.

I tend to max out my "to hit" so I start with 18+2 in Charisma for a sorcerer. 20+2 is only a +1 increase.


The biggest reason the damage is lower for the "normal" PC is that they didn't have the ability scores to qualify for two feats. One feat added +2 damage, the other allowed the PC to add their ConMod to damage.


This may be an extreme case but I'm pretty sure it's not the only one.

Once again though, The really it means we kill the monsters faster. We'd still have to hit them. Guess this means increasing the monsters level really isn't the easy fix. Maybe the easy fix would be to make the monsters 150% of their hit points. Assuming you care about that. If we are supposed to be superheroes then maybe it's appropriate we take down some monsters in one round.

It's also balance between classes...

The character I used in my test got to add CharMod+DexMod+ConMod+DexMod to damage.

A normal PC can't add that much because the can't qualify for all of the feats.


Another "super PC" may not be able to match that damage output becuase their class only adds 2d6 or 3d6 for their striker class feature to add to damage.


So if one "super PC" is doing 1d10+41 and another is doing 1d10+10+2d6 (guessing at warlock numbers) and they are both strikers, is that ok?


I think a ranger may be able to match these numbers but they may need special equipment...

Thanks for breaking that down. That's even better than I thought... I just assumed the 'to-hit' would be increased too.

So it would be even closer if you didn't swap out feats?

I'm very okay with this for this next campaign I'm working on if you guys don't object...

bradly wrote:So it would be even closer if you didn't swap out feats?

Not sure what you mean by closer without the feats...


Yes, the "super PC" would do less damage if they didn't take the feats/paragon path that they did.

Their damage would probably be around 1d10+30 instead of the 1d10+41.

I guess I was just trying to illustrate that higher scores will lead to higher damage since the players will have access to more feats/classes which are usually limited by multiple attribute dependancies.

Dwarmaj wrote:I guess I was just trying to illustrate that higher scores will lead to higher damage since the players will have access to more feats/classes which are usually limited by multiple attribute dependancies.

Can lead, not necessarily will lead... My question* was, if you didn't switch around feats to maximize the advantage of higher stats, and kept true to the same build you liked with the feats available before, what would the boost in power over a normal PC be? Obviously, you're trading something for the extra damage when you exchange feats since the old feats did something too.

Also, qualifying for more feats allows for many, many other build possibilities that also don't maximize damage, but can fit any number of uniquely flavored PCs. This allows for a greater variety of possible roleplaying choices (a good thing imo).

*btw, thank you for answering it.

Oh, now you got me wanting to play a new PC...

Before this discussion I wanted the Dragonborn series to go into epic, now I have a new PC I'd like to try out.


Sticking with the Buffy/Angel theme you mentioned I created an Revenant (living undead) Monk. He's been sent back to the world to collect (kill) those who have cheated death. I've currently built him as a normal PC, now I can't wait to play him...

Dwarmaj wrote:
Yes, the "super PC" would do less damage if they didn't take the feats/paragon path that they did.

Their damage would probably be around 1d10+30 instead of the 1d10+41.

This is what I was curious about, since this is the spread between "Batman" & "Superman". (No one's playing a normal PC) 33% increased output and max PC variance, assuming one PC does everything to maximize every advantage, and another PC does absolutely nothing. (The latter probably unrealistic, so the spread is slightly overstated I'm guessing.) Is that a particular problem? I don't think it is...

Dwarmaj wrote:Oh, now you got me wanting to play a new PC...

...so, in summary, by having all stats be 20, the impact on "to hit" will be minimal. The real impact will be to damage. By selecting feats in conjunction with Paragon paths that would not have been possible before, an additional +16 in damage can be obtained. Without selecting the "optimal" new feats and combinations, then damage for an all 20's PC may be "only" +5 higher than a non-all 20's PC. This difference may be even less than +5 if magic item rarity is enforced in the new series.

Brad, I think it's reasonably safe for you to push ahead in your planning w regard to any worries about dramatically upsetting "balance".

But why would you want to select non optimal feats? If your choice is something that gives you +2 to damage such as weapon specialization or +CON to damage which one would you take? The cost is the same at 1 feat but you were going to get a damage feat anyways so the choice for me is really simple.

I still prefer sticking to normal point buy since PCs are already "super" compared to NPCs.

Sticking to the rules as written makes it easier on the DM (can use most "monsters out of the box" with little to no tweaking) and there are already a ton of possibilities for character paths (feats, race, and class combinations).


Having all 20's does open up more possibilities, but I don't think it's a good thing. Plus when I look at my character in the character builder I like when it says it's "legal" as apposed to "houseruled".

Krystoff wrote:But why would you want to select non optimal feats? If your choice is something that gives you +2 to damage such as weapon specialization or +CON to damage which one would you take? The cost is the same at 1 feat but you were going to get a damage feat anyways so the choice for me is really simple.

But what if you didn't qualify for +Con for a big bonus +5 damage, so instead of Weapon Specialization's smaller +2 damage, you went with 'Darkvision'? ...A very useful feat in a Vampire campaign for obvious reasons. You won't have min/maxed damage output, but arguably can be a more useful and/or fun build to play.

...thinking about it, if the sole purpose of your feat selection is to maximize damage, then you would select the "optimal" feats. What I was thinking in my last post, is that under a "normal" build w/o all 20's, there would be many feats that are not related to a PC doing increased damage but they are powerful enough to certainly be worth taking. (e.g. should I take a feat that gives + 2 damage for MBA, or should I consider other feats; like + 2 to Will defense, + 4 on saves vs. stun or daze, + 1 to speed, use of better armor (or shield) to increase AC, etc). So, because a PC has all 20's, some feats suddenly become more favorable than the ones the PC would have selected and the new high damage PC must forego all those other feats that they would have taken in order to take advantage of the feats that suddenly became more attractive. Thus, it is possible, that a high damage PC may use five feats to achieve +14 additional damage than before but at the cost of; 1 less speed, 2 less Will defense, 2 less AC vs Opportunity Attacks, 10 less hit points, and 4 less to initiative.

So we've seen how "to hit" and "damage" are affected by all 20's, how would defenses be affected? Without building up any straw characters, I'd say that AC would be hardly affected, the PC's primary defense would only be one higher, the PC's second best defense might be two higher, but the PC's weakest defense could be up to 5 higher...discuss...

Dwarmaj wrote:Plus when I look at my character in the character builder I like when it says it's "legal" as apposed to "houseruled".

Ooh! Here's a possible campaign twist... What do we think of a campaign where some players can play the 'Prophesied Ones' with special stats, and others can play 'normal' champions dedicated to the cause of the Prophesied Ones, using a 32-pt buy? One benefit to playing the regular hero v superhero is that I was also going to allow 2 background choices instead of 1, but one has to be "prophesied birth". A 'normal' PC can pick any 2...

Brad wrote: Ooh! Here's a possible campaign twist... What do we think of a campaign where some players can play the 'Prophesied Ones' with special stats, and others can play 'normal' champions dedicated to the cause of the Prophesied Ones, using a 32-pt buy?

So, like Mickey plays "Buffy" and Ken, Stuart and Ross play "Kennedy, Oz, and Zander"? Hmmm...would Buffy be expected to take more of the load? Does Buffy die at the end (or die like three or four times)? Is the fate of the prophesied one already set?

Teramotos wrote:
So we've seen how "to hit" and "damage" are affected by all 20's, how would defenses be affected? Without building up any straw characters, I'd say that AC would be hardly affected, the PC's primary defense would only be one higher, the PC's second best defense might be two higher, but the PC's weakest defense could be up to 5 higher...discuss...

All of the non-AC defenses will be higher by 2-3 points.

AC for heavy armor users won't change, but anyone in light armor will get an AC boost as their Int/Dex will be higher.



Having all 20's for stats will also affect initiative and skills.

In a balanced party some PCs will be good at one skill while another will be good at something else. The difference between someone good and not good could be as much as 10 points (abilityMod and trained).

With all 20's everyone is pretty good at all skills, the difference between good and not so good will start at 5 (whether they trained it) and go up a little as ability increases get dispersed.


The mage in the back (remember Espirit trying to climb up a wall) can now climb just as well as the party rogue.

Teramotos wrote:So, like Mickey plays "Buffy" and Ken, Stuart and Ross play "Kennedy, Oz, and Zander"? Hmmm...would Buffy be expected to take more of the load? Does Buffy die at the end (or die like three or four times)? Is the fate of the prophesied one already set?

Yes, I'd assume so, depends on what happens I guess, some things are and I'm fleshing out the rest.

I have to say, I didn't expect all this 20-stat debate since we did this before already, but all this debate is been making me think of this campaign quite a bit and I'm itching to run it now! The 1st, 6th, & 11th level adventures, I already have story lines for...

Teramotos wrote:
Without building up any straw characters, I'd say that AC would be hardly affected, the PC's primary defense would only be one higher, the PC's second best defense might be two higher, but the PC's weakest defense could be up to 5 higher...discuss...

For a quick test I started with my level 6 sorcerer|paladin in the WAR adventure.

Plate/Heavy Shield
normal: AC24, Fort17, Ref16, Will20

Plate/Heavy Shield
20's: AC24, Fort20, Ref21, Will21

Hide/Heavy Shield
20's: AC24, Fort20, Ref21, Will21

Note:
1. There is no difference in AC from normal to all 20's since Heavy armor users don't get to add Int/Dex to AC.

2. There is no difference in AC when wearing Hide armor or Plate armor.

Dwarmaj wrote:AC for heavy armor users won't change, but anyone in light armor will get an AC boost as their Int/Dex will be higher.

On this note, one thing to keep in mind: heavy armor builds will definitely stand out if we use modern setting (and be harder to come by), and almost definitely stand out if we use a future/space setting.

bradly wrote:
I have to say, I didn't expect all this 20-stat debate since we did this before already...

3.5 had quite a few balance issues to start with so adding a few more on top didn't change things much.

4.0 is suppose to be about balance.

Increasing the scores upsets that balance. Some of the effects will be small, but others may not fully be realized until later.

Brad want the PC to stand out from normal PCs or NPCs. Which is fine.
Ken point is game balance. Which is good too.
I think something in the middle would work.
Instead of 32 pts to play with make it 45.
That should get two stats close to 20 with the rest only average.
it should be enough to throw balance totally out of wack.

I was speaking purely from a choice perspective. IE I need to get a +damage feat which one should I choose. In a normal PC I would get weapon spec or equivalent. In the high stats PC because I qualify for it I would get the +CON. As far as the other feats go I am assuming you still pick the good ones for your character concept/theme with taking campaign into effect.

I don't care either way we go. I like the idea of more powerful PC's, I like the idea of a higher than normal point buy, and I like the idea of a normal PC as well.

Dwarmaj wrote:4.0 is suppose to be about balance...

D&D at it's core is about fun, and all printed rules are flexible to this end.

Mick wrote:I think something in the middle would work.
Instead of 32 pts to play with make it 45.

So just max out the primary & 2ndary stats, but only leave the tertiary stats 'normal'? I don't like that because those 2 are the primary ones that min/max a PC, and the others are the lesser used stats where it'd be stand-out unusual to have high. In other words, there's nothing 'superhero-y' about that like Buffy's strength & reflexes. Every build will have those 2 stats (close to) as high as possible, so there's nothing to make them freakishly stand out.

Another thought...

How high will the Dragon campaign go?

If it stops at 20, can you have the new campaign go 1, 11, 21 instead of 1, 6, 11?

Starting at epic will create some pretty "super" characters even with normal stats. Especially if most civilians are heroic or at most paragon.