Off The RNG

[TheWorid]

Given, if character abilities diverge too much, they get thrown off either the top or the bottom of the RNG. However, characters are expected to have different capabilities, with various areas of expertise that make them work together as a party.

How far apart in terms of numerical power can characters diverge before balance is broken? For example, using d20 numbers, how many +1s above someone else can you be in something before your game is screwed? The question assumes that the characters aren't necessarily supposed to have the same roles, but are supposed to function in the same situations.

[mean_liar]

It's relative to the system and expectations. At some point The Sage usually breaks the RNG for knowing stuff, for example. Is that good, and if so when it happens is a related question that only the genre answers.

[TarkisFlux]

That question... is very broad. And also hard to answer. It depends on where you set average success point, whether they're supposed to be good at it, if there's any variance in the target number, and so on.

In 3.x, for a check against a static DC that you're supposed to be good at (succeed 50-60% of the time), it's about +8 more than you're supposed to have. It's about +17ish more than you're supposed to have on an opposed check that you're supposed to be good at, because of the inherent variance in the DCs. Determining what modifier you're supposed to have is based on your level, play style (tome games assume larger modifiers than non-tome games), and other fidly bits, and is left as an excercise for the reader. It's worth saying explicitly though that a bonus in one game might be off the RNG and be totally fine in another because of context, even at the same level.

[TheWorid]

You're both right, I should have been more specific. I'm thinking 3.5 here; how large can the bonus for a certain task go above the bonus of other characters of a similar level before it becomes unbalanced, in the case of something that everyone is supposed to be participating in (such as combat). So for example, a Reflex save: something that can vary, but everyone has and needs.

[Josh_Kablack]

Even within the context of 3.x combat there are going to be things that can go off the RNG without ruining the game and then there are going to be other things that cannot.

Even if you have a warrior-type with an attack bonus of +21 and a wizard-type with an attack bonus of +0 in the same party - even though the divergence is greater than the entire RNG and you every critter will be either something that the warrior cannot possibly miss or something that the wizard cannot possibly hit - that does not necessarily break the game.

Against the AC 31 critter meant to challenge such a warrior, our sample wizard cannot hit the usual AC of the critter, but they wizard could potentiallly have the option of targeting Touch AC, Flat-Footed AC, Fort Save, Ref Save, Will Save or even using auto-hit spells like Magic Missile or Limited Wish. Potentially the wizard-type might have a number of viable indirect damage options such as buffing the warrior, debuffing the critter, summoning creatures or modifying terrain. Furthermore the wizard-type might have useful non-attack options, such as additional stealth and movement optons which can be used to bypass such a critter.

Conversely, for the AC 10 critter meant to challenge the wizard-type, our sample warrior's ability to auto-hit on every attack need not mean that the critter is not a challenge. Such a critter could possess a variety of non-AC defenses - such as DR, Hardness, Incorporeality, Regeneration / fast-healing, or it could have contingent "when hit" effects such as Remorhaz-type damage shield or Black Pudding's Split ability or it could just have minion, movement or stealth options that make the real challenge getting to make an attack on the creature in the first place.

The goal is to balance things out so that when PC capabilities diverge by an RNG-breaking amount, PCs on the low end still have tactical options and PCs on the high end still have challenges

[TarkisFlux]

You're both right, I should have been more specific. I'm thinking 3.5 here; how large can the bonus for a certain task go above the bonus of other characters of a similar level before it becomes unbalanced, in the case of something that everyone is supposed to be participating in (such as combat). So for example, a Reflex save: something that can vary, but everyone has and needs.

Still not specific enough, because you have two different types of things here. Combat is a big broad thing where different sets of numbers can diverge greatly without screwing anyone in particular because different people can have different sets of numbers. Reflex saves are a very specific subset of combat that will screw people if they diverge too greatly.

Josh hit it fairly well, there are things that can go off the rails relative to another character, and there are things that probably shouldn't. Attack bonuses probably can, because AC is such a small portion of the picture (like he expounded on). Saves in general probably can't, because there is no alternate route for them; there's nothing to fall back on besides blanket effect immunity, but that's not interesting or useful. If you have two sets of saves that diverge by 8 you have two extremes: 1) a character who makes them about 50% of the time and a character who makes them almost all of the time, or 2) a character who almost never makes them and a character who makes them about 50% of the time. There are of course in-betweens, but you can't make that difference any larger without making it auto fail for one group or auto-succeed for the other, or otherwise shrinking the range of DCs available for you to even use. Which is bad if you want characters to even care about saves, since they will stop caring if they never fail or can never succeed, and worse because you can't have difficult challenges for the guy with the big bonus because no one else even has a chance of succeeding at them.

[Murtak]

Strictly speaking, you leave the RNG when your bonus becomes so large you can not fail or the difficulty so high you can not succeed. For most practical purposes you are interested in when success becomes highly unlikely - say a difference of 18 for fixed DCs and about a +10 for opposed rolls.

P.S.: While attack bonuses can go off the RNG without destroying the game they probably should not. Being a measly 5 points behind the specialist already halves your chance of success in challenging situations. Being 10 points means you are better off using aid another in most circumstances. Being a whopping 20 points is just silly. Also it encourages dump stats. Once you get to a point where you fail anyway, whats another point or ten or twenty?

[TheWorid]

I was just looking for a rule of thumb; thanks for the elaboration, though. Your responses have been helpful.

[Josh_Kablack]

Attack bonuses probably can, because AC is such a small portion of the picture (like he expounded on). Saves in general probably can't,

I have a gut feeling that more generally, it tends to be more okay for PC attacks to diverge by more than the RNG, yet important to keep PC defenses within the limits of the RNG.

But examining the reasons behind that feeling would take more time than I have for at least the next few days.

[hogarth]

Strictly speaking, you leave the RNG when your bonus becomes so large you can not fail or the difficulty so high you can not succeed. For most practical purposes you are interested in when success becomes highly unlikely - say a difference of 18 for fixed DCs and about a +10 for opposed rolls.

I think Frank suggested that, for activities where you would reasonably expect the whole party to be able to participate (e.g. Diplomacy DCs or save DCs in d20), a spread in probabilities between party members of 50% or more is "bad" because an average challenge (50% chance of success) for one member is a foregone conclusion for the other member (0% or 100% chance of failure). That equates to a +10 difference in bonuses in d20.

[Username17]

I have a gut feeling that more generally, it tends to be more okay for PC attacks to diverge by more than the RNG, yet important to keep PC defenses within the limits of the RNG.

But examining the reasons behind that feeling would take more time than I have for at least the next few days.

There's a good reason for that. Players can have fun as long as they feel like they are contributing "over all" which means that they do not have to contribute equally in any particular battle or even "in battle" so long as they have something vital to do in some context. On the other hand, players whose characters are eliminated are going to be distressed (to put it mildly).

So a character can have an attack that blasts past the RNG and the absolute biggest thing that could possibly happen is that combat would come around and that player would be the super star for the duration of that combat. However, if characters have their defenses vary by the whole RNG, than the worst result is that some of the characters get killed, and then the game is effectively over from a cooperative storytelling standpoint.

-Username17

[ggroy]

[Kaelik]

In my experience as a munchkin of game ruining, it's always been about becoming practically invulnerable and slapping around really good status conditions with relatively high but not anywhere near guaranteed levels of success.

[ggroy]

[Gelare]

To get around munchkin powergamers from getting too powerful, sometimes I sent monsters after them which can permanently drain ability stats and/or levels. They obviously don't like it, but I give them fair warning at the beginning of the game of that possibility.

Other ways is to do things which cause the munchkins powergamers to make save vs. death rolls.

So....you're a douche?

[Mask_De_H]

To get around munchkin powergamers from getting too powerful, sometimes I sent monsters after them which can permanently drain ability stats and/or levels. They obviously don't like it, but I give them fair warning at the beginning of the game of that possibility.

Other ways is to do things which cause the munchkins powergamers to make save vs. death rolls.

...Do you realize where you are? Like, right now, are you aware of the message board you are posting on? Do you realize how dickish that is, especially if Joe McAverageGamer ends up taking a munchkinbuster?

That idea is bad and you should feel bad.

[Kaelik]

To get around munchkin powergamers from getting too powerful, sometimes I sent monsters after them which can permanently drain ability stats and/or levels. They obviously don't like it, but I give them fair warning at the beginning of the game of that possibility.

Other ways is to do things which cause the munchkins powergamers to make save vs. death rolls.

Um...

1) See how ability damage and immunity to death effects are something I aim for, along with good saves.

2) You dickface.

3) There are no permanent stat or level drains without you fiatting bullshit to punish your players for being good. Everything is healable, and negative levels while complete bullshit require you to: a) Not be immune, b) not be able to cure them at any point during 24 hours after, c) fail a fort save. d) Just force you to go back and fight lower level challenges so you feel like you are grinding in a videogame and you hate your DM more, but suffer no permanent loss of power.

I mean, I will strangle you in your sleep if right after I get a cool ability you slap me with 4 negative levels and arbitrarily declare that no one will cast a Greater Restoration spell, and I fail a couple saves and end up being two levels lower. But if that actually happened to my character the only response is to go beat up on some caravans or shit instead of doing cool things.

[ggroy]

[Kaelik]

If they don't like it, they can play another game. It's not my problem anymore.

And if we don't like it, the other thing we can do is mock you for your incredible stupidity, and your Gygaxian retardation, and your "I fucking hate those damn players, always trying to succeed" attitude and otherwise call you the idiot you are.

And if you don't like that, you can hide your shameful stupidity by not posting about it, or you can leave the forum.

[ggroy]

[ggroy]

[Kaelik]

That's your problem. It's not my problem.

Yeah, it's totally the Jews fault that Hitler was an asshole. And it's totally your players fault that you personally are a giant asshat who derives pleasure from making other people miserable.

[ggroy]

[Kaelik]

That's your problem. It's not my problem.

Yeah, it's totally the Jews fault that Hitler was an asshole. And it's totally your players fault that you personally are a giant asshat.

Nice try at Godwin-izing a thread.

I notice that you have steadfastly refused to defend your stupidity, or your stupid practice at all. Now obviously, because you are incredibly stupid, this isn't because you have accepted that you are in fact wrong to torture others for your own enjoyment.

So I take from this that you are clearly some kind of assface who when presented with concrete proof of their own wrongness, doublethink their way out of it by ignoring every possible thing said.

Which is of course why you have to keep trying to talk about anything besides the actual argument, because you are ignoring them, as you have nothing to respond with.

But just for the sake of this one last time: It's called an analogy. You are like Hitler, in that you have power of your players, and you are a dick to them. If Hitler is in the wrong, you are also in the wrong. What you do is not even close to the degree of bad that Hitler was, but it is still of identical form to Hitlers actions.

This is called an argument from analogy. It is not automatically wrong just because it uses the word Hitler. Whether it is wrong is primarily determined by how accurately the analogy parallels the situation at hand in the important particulars.

Your stupid is not less stupid because it is of the same form of stupid as Hitler. It is still stupid.

[ggroy]