Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Neshari

Malaclypse's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 693 posts (707 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 693 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Auxmaulous wrote:
thejeff wrote:
No, but it's not really carried over from 4E either, since it was carried from 3.x to 4E. It's not a new design philosophy. It's something like 14 years old at this point.

Actually no on this also.

3e = healing be UMD/Wand of CLW
4e = healing is triggered internally/tied to character
5e = healing is tied to character via HD

Eliminating the need for a dedicated healer was a side affect of the terri-bad, class ability stomping UMD. It could have been a deliberate design consideration - but considering how badly 3rd ed was designed without any long term considerations/repercussions of 2e-3e changes I seriously doubt this (hp outpacing damage, terrible save paradigms, DC abuse, skills being useless class features and easily gamed, meta/numerical spikes taking characters wildly out of CR for each encounter, etc).

Self-healing in 4e was a deliberate design consideration.

I don't really agree with this. In 4e games, having a healer that can give others the option to spend a healing surge without eating an action was kind of important.


Logan1138 wrote:
As an old-school devotee, it "ruffles my jimmies" to see a party with no cleric in it. I know that was an intentional design philosophy (carried over from 4E, I believe) so no one would be "forced to play the cleric" but it just feels so strange and "wrong" somehow.

It's not like you need one in 3e or Pathfinder.

Yes, it's a tier one class, so it is common to have parties with clerics, but far from every party has one.


Adjule wrote:
I can't really comment on much after just 1 game (and no real magic users), other than it being really fun. Combat went smoothly since you didn't have to keep track of so many little +1s. Overall, I like it.

They actually managed to make the difference between magic users and melee much smaller. Less higher spell slots, less prepared spells, and concentration mean that they don't dominate the game completely after the first few levels.

In addition, most melees have a spellcasting specialization(archetype) available, such as the Eldritch Knight for the fighter and Arcane Trickster for the rogue.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Now looking back at the linked post again, it seems possible you were trying to draw some sort of comparative point between what ShiningFool said and 'not being extreme' without referencing KSF's actual point about the article...but if so you did so extraordinarily poorly. To the point that what you actually said meant something very different from what you meant.

I am relieved that you can see my point now that you read the post we were talking about. And thanks for your critique of my posts. If only I were an amazing writer like you. Alas, I am not.

thejeff wrote:

"sexually charged ads exclude half of the audience" is a pretty extreme statement. In the context of the article under discussion, it's a pretty straightforward one: T&A are used to sell geek culture to men. This type of advertising excludes women.

Shining Fool was summarizing under the assumption that you'd actually read the article and get the point, not deal with his one sentence as a statement entirely on its own out of context.

The context was this very long thread about the ideal level of sexiness in Paizo art. In which those rather extreme opinions were voiced that I replied to.

While people did try to derail the discussion with that article, luckily I did not take that bait.


The Shining Fool wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:
KSF wrote:
No one is saying sex is bad. No one is saying sexy art is bad.

Actually, some people did. Not you, though.

Wait, so you are simultaneously arguing that you are only addressing the text you are quoting (post 436, above) and you are addressing vaguely defined things said by other people?

You are indeed correct that it was wrong of me to make that statement without linking to one of the examples in the thread. However, my post was already long and I did not feel like dumpster diving again.

I should have only said: You did not.

The Shining Fool wrote:
Do you not see how this can leave us no recourse but to assume you are not having a discussion in good faith?

Sure, insults again. This time against my motives. Ah well, do what you have to.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:
I don't. I was not talking about the article but answering statements uttered on this board. Namely, those that I quoted.

You responded to someone citing the article like so:

Malaclypse wrote:
You assume that most women follow an extremist feminist stance. I really doubt that.
The Shining Fool wrote:
There's also all of that really good stuff that KSF linked to above, which kind of points out that sexually charged advertising essentially lets half of your audience that "this is not for you."

Please don't leave out important bits. I bolded them for you.

I replied to his statement that sexually charged = excludes half of the audience. The view that sexually charged advertising excludes others is a sex-negative feminist view, and as such a minority feminist stance. In order for the exclusion statement to be true, half of the audience (in this context, all women) would have to follow that belief.

I don't believe that this is true. Which actually is what I wrote:

Malaclypse wrote:
You assume that most women follow an extremist feminist stance. I really doubt that.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
There's not a way to read that second bit where you don't call the article sex-negative. So...you are either exceedingly forgetful, to the point where I would seriously suggest professional help of some sort, are not aware of how English works (which seems unlikely given your posts), or are not participating in this discussion in good faith.

Or maybe, I only ever responded to his statements. Those that I quoted.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have an excellent explanation for your behavior. I'd be pleased to hear what it might be. In fact, please explain, I've agreed with you in other threads and would be pleased for this to all be some sort of misunderstanding where I don't lose respect for you.

I did not quote the article. I would have if I would have responded to it. I did quote the text that I responded to; Shining Fool seems to found his opinions nicely expressed in that article. That's nice. But I was responding to his statements on this thread.

I really don't see why I have to defend myself for answering what I quoted instead of answering other things.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
When you respond to someone saying "The article is mainstream" with "Sex-negative feminism isn't mainstream." In what manner are you not responding to the article? You are, in fact, engaging in a discussion of said article.

But I did not ever mention that article. I did not quote any sentence from that article. Really. If I did and forgot about it, please show me, quote me.

The sex-negative isn't mainstream was directed, again, at his assertion that sexually charged ads exclude half of the audience. It's right there in the actual post, above my sentence.


KSF wrote:
You're misunderstanding what people are saying.

I don't think I am.

KSF wrote:
No one is saying sex is bad. No one is saying sexy art is bad.

Actually, some people did. Not you, though.

KSF wrote:
Along with that, what we're saying is, if male characters are going to be dressed appropriately for their adventuring roles (wearing armor for a front-line fighter, or example), we'd like to see female characters in similar roles dressed appropriately as well.

But male characters are not dressed appropriately for their adventuring roles - none of the iconcs is. I really like WAR's style, but most of his characters have various things and whatnots sticking out everywhere, with way too many free-moving parts etc.

It's clearly some absurd but cool looking fantasy idea of how a character should look like, combined with the popular D&D trope of characters being walking christmas trees because of all the magic items.

KSF wrote:
Finally, we're saying that, a product that depicts women only as sexual objects for the pleasure of men, or as prizes for men to win, sends a message to potential female customers that the product is not made with them in mind.

I don't think Paizo ever sold products like that; if they did, I don't know of them. Could you pleae link the books you are referring to specifically?

KSF wrote:
Please explain how any of those statements represent a "puritan" view, or "hostility towards non-puritan imagery."

Those statements do not represent that.


The Shining Fool wrote:

Malaclypse, is English your first language? I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm being serious. Because if it's not, you are navigating a particularly difficult linguistic and cultural concept very well. If it is, you are failing, badly. Perhaps deadmanwalking is right and you are just currently chemically altered. Chemical altered states - fun for home, bad for debating.

You don't seem to know the meaning of the words assumption, hostility, sex-negative, puritan, exclusionary, or extremist. Like I said in my previous comment to you, I don't believe that fruitful communication with you will be possible. Toodles.

No more arguments, instead just a simple attack on me, my integrity, my language skills, and some insults implying I am drunk or drugged... well, at least you are being honest about your intent here.

Still, I fail to see how this advances the discussion at hand. Too bad.

The Shining Fool wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:

Again...really, come on. Did you ever think that I answered to the text that I quoted, not to some other text, written on some other website? I mean, that's how this web discussion forum thing works, right?

No. That's not how it works. That's how cherry-picking and dishonest communication works.

So in order not to be insulted by you I should not answer to the text I quote, but instead to something else, somewhere else? What?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Because I'm trying really hard not to be insulting (and have no problem with people getting high, or kidding around) but I'm literally flabbergasted at how you can seriously get 'sex negative' from that article without some form of mind-altering chemical being involved.

I don't. I was not talking about the article but answering statements uttered on this board. Namely, those that I quoted.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I mean, that article has about as much to do with sex as a study on underwear prices does...ie. it's tangentially sorta part of the discussion, but not what's actually being discussed at all. And while attitudes like sex-negativity can seep through into unrelated works...that's not happening there. Like, at all.

Again...really, come on. Did you ever think that I answered to the text that I quoted, not to some other text, written on some other website? I mean, that's how this web discussion forum thing works, right?


KSF wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:
Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.
No one in the thread is being sex-negative. And as TheJeff said, no one is being sex-negative in the article I linked to.

The hostility towards non-puritan imagery uttered in this thread makes me disagree with you.


KSF wrote:
ShiningFool wrote:
sexually charged advertising essentially lets half of your audience that "this is not for you."
That article, while feminist, is not an example of an "extremist feminist stance." It's pretty much mainstream feminism.

Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.

KSF wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:
The only thing I get from your post is that you seem to think all women are alike, and they are all like Alice Schwarzer. I disagree with that assessment.

Here are a couple of quotes from one of Shining Fool's earlier posts:

The Shining Fool wrote:
If the men default to being "competently" dressed, than their female counterparts should too. Sexy clothing is fine too, but it should make sense for the character.

I specifically quoted and answered this in a previous post on this thread. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with this now. Oh well, maybe you just didn't actually read this...

KSF wrote:
Does anyone in this thread sound "extremist" to you?

Yes, of course.


Terquem wrote:
I played a game where I let someone have all 18's in every ability score. She often rolled well, hit the monsters most of the time, made her saves, and sometimes didn't make her saves.

What did she do that she deserved this special treatment that your other player's didn't?

Terquem wrote:
Everyone had fun, and strangely enough no one argued statistical analysis of the first players ten or fifteen percent advantage.

I am not sure how you get from having all classes to choose vs. having only a small subset available to some percentage value.


thejeff wrote:

I've played plenty of games with rolled stats and it usually worked out fine. Still, I have had some bad experiences where one person had uber-stats and dominated the game.

Or with really low stats, but those usually got rerolled.

Yes, DM pity can alleviate the worst effects. I don't see how this makes it more fun. It actually promotes the idea that it would be good if the playing field was even for all players.

thejeff wrote:
My favorite is to roll a bunch of sets of stats, usually one each, and have everyone use whichever of those they prefer. Balance between characters, the fun of adding a bit of randomness to it and none of the irritation of point buy.

Yes, that's a great approach.


The Shining Fool wrote:
This was also discussed earlier in the thread. "Sex sells" is not a very good defense. The fact that advertising can be "sexy" does not in any way imply that advertising must be "sexy."

I agree fully.

The Shining Fool wrote:
There's also all of that really good stuff that KSF linked to above, which kind of points out that sexually charged advertising essentially lets half of your audience that "this is not for you."

You assume that most women follow an extremist feminist stance. I really doubt that.

The Shining Fool wrote:
Or 51% of the population?

Seriously, the same mistake again. 51% of the population are not extremist feminists. Those are a minority.

The only thing I get from your post is that you seem to think all women are alike, and they are all like Alice Schwarzer. I disagree with that assessment.


verdigris wrote:
...

I am assuming you did not see that this was a lower bound, not an upper bound.

Actually, I originally wrote 50-100$, but I updated it because one of the guys that use to spend the most on rpg stuff has an OSR phase and now buys all these indie games instead).

But it doesn't even matter so much; only Paizo could release numbers but I doubt they will because it most likely would probably just infuriate a vocal minority and lead to bad publicity.

verdigris wrote:
I don't think we can assume that male spending dominates so much as to make taking female consumers into consideration unnecessary.

Of course it does not; what a horrible idea. You seem to imply that targeting can only be on either males or females, that those are in direct opposition - because otherwise your statement does not really make sense (to me).


verdigris wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:

You mix up two things: people who play rpgs and people who regularly buy rpg-related products.

I guess about 1/4th of my male friends who play RPGs spend more than 30-40$ / month for rpg materials. None of the females in my groups spend that much for rgps in a year (and that's not because they wouldn't have the money).

Small sample size, I know, but still..

A very small sample size. I spend more money on RPGs,and on Paizo products in particular, than my husband, than either of my sons, and at least as much, if not more than most of my male friends. Further more, my female friends tend to buy their own stuff as well.

So, now that we've each listed our own small sample size, where does that leave us? Zeroed out?

Not really.

Do you really spend more than both your husband and your sons combined? But even if you do: You mention that you spend 'at least as much' as 'most' of your male friends, while your female friends 'tend to buy their own stuff as well'. This implies that male spending is higher:

First, the market is not evenly split; males are the majority. This means that (lets assume) you have 10 friends that are into RPGs, chances are at least six of them are males.

Second, in the group that spends less than you are both males and females (husband, sons, female friends, some male friends).

In the group that spends about the same amount as you are males and you, the single woman.

Finally, the group that spends more than you only consists of males.

Either your were very unclear in how you phrased your post, or our now already larger sample gives us the following results:

My sample: Male spending dominates clearly.
Your sample: Male spending dominates clearly.

So..how does this zero out?


Scarletrose wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:
Paizo has the exact numbers, but I would be very surprised if spending for Paizo products from males accounts for less than 80% of their sales (probably even a lot more) .

I wouldn't considering that I never had less than 2 girls at my table.

This when playing D&D/Pathfinder. Playing Vampire females almost always squarely outweighed the males.

You mix up two things: people who play rpgs and people who regularly buy rpg-related products.

I guess about 1/4th of my male friends who play RPGs spend more than 30-40$ / month for rpg materials. None of the females in my groups spend that much for rgps in a year (and that's not because they wouldn't have the money).

Small sample size, I know, but still..

Also, I was specifically talking about Paizo products; D&D fantasy rpgs. It might very well be different for Vampire...

Scarletrose wrote:
But I have to say, the fact that you don't believe those numbers doesn't surprise me a lot. If that's the attitude around your table, I can imagine a distinctive lack of girls around it.

Your assumptions are wrong - not that it matters, though.


JoeJ wrote:
Just as an experiment, why not try creating a character just using dice? Don't just roll for attributes, also roll for race, class, background, and personality traits. Then see if you can put the die results together and come up with a backstory for a character that you'd find fun to play.

Didn't we have this already? With an expected 16 points of attribute difference between 5 players rolling for attributes, which might be +8 in total modifiers, rolling for stats is a strictly inferior method for character generation than point buy.

Yes, you as a DM might enjoy it when a player needs DM pity to survive or to be able to contribute to the game properly, but it is very unlikely that the unlucky player feels the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Baldur's Gate and early 3E is definitely one of the bigger entry periods; therefore, it's reasonable to expect a great many people will use that as a baseline of sorts. And it's a perspective that WotC has consistently ignored in important ways when developing both 4E and 5E. While appealing to pre 3rd edition players is fine, they can't really afford to act as if 3rd edition never happened, or pick and choose what parts of 3rd edition happened and which ones can easily be ignored.

Yes, they can.

Also, you seem to be unaware of it, but Baldur's Gate uses AD&D 2 rules; pre-3e by definition.

Therefore, you could actually make the argument that 5e appeals more to players of BG2 than 3e or Pf does...


The Shining Fool wrote:
The argument has largely been that there is something wrong with defaulting to the male knight bedecked in heavy steel while the female knight is wearing plate pasties and a chain mail thong.

There's an obvious economic reason for that. Paizo as a company has to be profitable first; which might explain the above situation.

Paizo has the exact numbers, but I would be very surprised if spending for Paizo products from males accounts for less than 80% of their sales (probably even a lot more) .

The Shining Fool wrote:
Where are our ripped male iconics wearing six square inches of strategically draped leather? /hyperbole

Probably on the cover of romance novels where the target audience consists of mainly females.

The Shining Fool wrote:
If the men default to being "competently" dressed, than their female counterparts should too. Sexy clothing is fine too, but it should make sense for the character.

I am not sure why you feel this is anything else but an economic issue. Paizo obviously has to create artwork that appeals to their customer base. This thread shows that they did not succeeded with it as well as with previous releases.

Additionally, I don't see why illustrations for fantasy characters that fight fantasy monsters should make sense for the character, irrespective of gender. Just look at all the great artwork by WAR - how would anyone ever fight with all that stuff sticking out everywhere...it's totally unrealistic and pointless, but it looks great and makes for evocative and inspiring images.


Jessica Price wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:


I don't read that at all.

Yes, this thread focuses on the sex appeal, but no one says that there aren't many other, equally valuable distinctions.

I can understand that this issue is important to you, but maybe you are projecting a bit?

Nope. And the attempt at pop psychoanalysis isn't helping your argument.

Yeah, probably not.

I just found it unlikely that you actually subscribe to such a ...well... simplified view of the matter. But having read up on your other posts in this thread, it seems I was wrong, so.... nevermind.


Jessica Price wrote:

So, look: it's fair to like or dislike the new iconics for any number of reasons.

But.

To have variety, the spectrum that female characters fall on doesn't have to be "stripperific" to "conservative." There are all sorts of other spectrums they could be on.

But this thread is called "New Iconics Desexed". It seems natural that the spectrum mentioned in the thread title is discussed while others are not.

Jessica Price wrote:
Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that the only way to have variety of appearances for women is to differ in the amount of sex appeal they display. It's like saying the only way for a bunch of women to look different is through different hair color, and implies that the only important thing about the way any of the female characters look is how sexy they are.

I don't read that at all.

Yes, this thread focuses on the sex appeal, but no one says that there aren't many other, equally valuable distinctions.

I can understand that this issue is important to you, but maybe you are projecting a bit?


Olondir wrote:

Advantage/Disadvantage system is how 5e handles the numerous bonuses and subjectivity that is in every situation.

3.?/Pathfinder: You get +2 to your roll for such and such
5e: You get Advantage on your roll for such and such.

Advantage means you roll 2d20 and take the best result. (Disadvantage is the opposite.)

This is intentionally supposed to reduce the math/calculation load.

Most spells provide advantage/disadvantage instead of numerical pluses or minuses, things like rogue sneak attacks only occur on attacks with advantage (unless you're "flanking"), for example.

The main thing is that it doesn't stack - two times advantage (e.g. flanking, charging) doesn't give the bonuses twice. It does succeed in reducing the amount of fiddly modifiers (something that is a major weakness of Pathfinder).

However, this reduction in complexity will most likely primarily welcomed by groups that want to focus on roleplaying and storytelling (because it makes for shorter fights with less rule discussions), while min-max optimiser groups might not like it as much as it removes the bonus stacking inherent in Pathfinder combat.


According to these statistics, the expected maximum difference between two players when using 4d6 drop lowest for rolling stats is 16 points.

That could be +8 modifier points, and more than the expected unluckiest player has in total.


Bandw2 wrote:
also, the disparity isn't as great as you think it is.

It is. According to these statistics, the expected largest difference betweeen two players is more than 16 points.

That could be a whole +8 in modifiers, or the difference between two 18s and two 10s.

Bandw2 wrote:
so from 6 characters the largest disparity is between 8, 11, 16, 17, 6, 14, and 11, 12, 17, 14, 16, 14. both of which have a 17, 16, 14 and an 11. the difference being a 6 and 8 vs a 12 and 14. this is actually very oddly symmetrical. but yeah, you could easily have both of these rolls end up on a character that didn't need to use the 6 or 8, aka could be wisdom and int on a paladin, could be strength and charisma on a wizard. the characters don't lose much to their effectiveness by having those stats lowered from 12 or 14(or 11 as the case may be).

Even in your example, you have a disparity of 12 points or 6 modifier points.

That's more than the worst player has modifiers in total (5).

That's just really horrible for the worst player, and it clearly shows why rolling for stats naively is such a bad idea.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
If it turns out that your posts are not about the OP's situation, but are about your dislike of 'rolling for stats', then just say so!

I did exactly that, in my previous response to you:

Malaclypse wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Here is the original post:-

But I was not responding to the original post.

I get the feeling you are just trying to evoke some kind of emotional response, and are not interested in discussion the topics that were raised and discussed in the last two pages of this thread. Not very paladin-like, that behavior.


Dannorn wrote:
All the time, as I said I don't enjoy point-buy games but sadly it's all I've got to work with at the moment, so when I do I'm the one suggesting lower point totals and/or intentionally running a non-optimized character. I've even proposed running a quick one off using 2d6+3; a kind of Call of Cthulu, Tomb of Horrors, you are in all ways outclassed and have to be smart, kind of adventure.

No. Everyone playing with lower point totals is not the same. I was asking explicitly for an example where your character is strictly worse, i.e. has a lower point total. So everyone would get 25 points and you would build your character with 15. Or something like that.

The problem is not the total stats, but the disparity between players.

Also, I do not believe that you run non-optimized characters. Probably, you just optimize your characters for something else than the Pathfinder rules, such as optimized for adherence to a concept, optimized to copy a specific literary character or optimized to force the rest of the party to carry you.


Dannorn wrote:
Every player had the same chance to roll good or bad stats, that one player was unluckier than others is unfortunate but not unfair.

Is it unfair because this one roll has a disproportionate influence. Two minutes of random luck should not have strong effects for the year or more that the campaign lasts.

Dannorn wrote:
I could have loads of fun playing around a -3 modifier, working out ways to turn challenges to my stronger stats, or outside bonuses to negate it. That's fun to me, that's puzzle solving and creative roleplay.

If it's so much fun, did you ever ask your DM if you could play with lower stats? Or if you could roll 4d6 drop highest? Or anything else that helps your goal to maximize your fun by playing characters with bad stats?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Take two otherwise identical wizards with 17 Int and average other stats, except one has 4 Cha and the other has 10 Cha. It's true that the first will have a lower modifier to his charisma-based skills, but since neither he nor his Cha 10 brother will be the party face then neither will be making these checks for the party anyway! Both are equally effective in their chosen role, and that role is not 'party face'.

I thought we were talking about 4d6 drop lowest. You seem to be talking about an ability score generation method that guarantees only one bad stat?

With 4d6 drop lowest it is very well possible that the highest stat of player A is better or equal to the worst stat of player B.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
anyone who tries to tell me it's not fair is being lazy.

Wait, what? Your houserule is broken because it's unfair and easily abusable. It doesn't even solve the problem of the disparity in player stats. But if I tell you this I am lazy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
...

Wait, so you have this elaborate and opaque system where players are treated differently by you because of how they rolled in the first few minutes before the game began, and players who rolled well get (seemingly) arbitrary punishments because of 'fame' and players who rolled badly get DM pity and can just like that achieve stuff without rolling because their stats suck.

That's certainly one way to do it.

Yet I fail to see the advantage of your approach.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:
And that's unfair, and no fun.
That, honestly, is the part I strongly disagree with, at least in general terms, as it is highly dependent on the specific group in question. For a bunch of old school gamers or those that like the challenge that comes with rolling and finding a way to be useful regardless of what you roll, not only is it not unfair, but the alternatives, either point buy or even other rolling methods that remove that aspect, are both boring and harmful to the game they want to play. I understand that the typical rolling method creates potential challenges that many, including yourself obviously, don't like, either as a player or a DM, but that doesn't make it unfair or no fun.

But it does. It's not even a question that it's unfair, it's just that some group might accept this unfairness. You miss the point.

sunshadow21 wrote:
While I keep experimenting, 4d6, drop the lowest, is still the best overall scheme for balancing ease of use and power level.

Wait, what? 4d6 drop one is for balancing? There is no balancing. There simply are random distributions that are skewed upwards because of the drop lowest, but that is not balancing.

sunshadow21 wrote:
Lower numbers may mean less effectiveness math wise, but it also means an easier times being sneaky or secretive

So you don't use the pathfinder stealth rules? Because according to the rules, a higher Dex actually does make it easier for people to be sneaky.

sunshadow21 wrote:
how others will react in many circumstances.

Oh, so you don't use the Pathfinder Diplomacy and attitude rules? Because according to the rules, a higher Cha...etc.

sunshadow21 wrote:
So for me at least, the numbers are only part of the equation

Oh, sure. If you don't play according to the Pathfinder Core Rules, the stats don't matter. That's what I stated in one of my first posts.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The goalpost moving is being done by you. Here is the original post:-

But I was not responding to the original post, but to JoeJ's answer.

I thought that was clear, given that I quoted the relevant parts in my posts.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The conversation then turned into a succession of posts suggesting that a PC with a 4 is unplayable. The person you are arguing against said that you can easily create a PC with a 4 who can contribute in the same way as a PC without that one low stat.

And that's just wrong. He can contribute, but he cannot contribute as well, because all player choices could be like the player with better stats and still would be objectively worse.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
He's right! Whatever class you choose is up to you, not the vagaries of the dice, and you can choose a SAD class and place that 4 where it will have minimal (if any) impact, leaving you with a 17 for your main stat.

Even what you call 'minimal impact' is not 'no impact'. Therefore, I can only assume you agree with me that this player cannot contribute as well because of the non-zero impact of his lower stats compared to the rest of the players.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Point being, that 4 does not prevent you creating a PC who will effectively contribute to the party, excelling in the role you choose.

But you just stated that it limits his selection from to a subset (namely SAD). How is this fun? Why does this player deserve to have a smaller selection than the guy or girl who sits next to him if he wants to contribute equally and excel at his role?


Bandw2 wrote:
while a good point DMW, the other guy is saying that someone with lower stats can't contribute or contributes less to a party if someone else has higher stats, regardless of the class/race choice or anything else.

No, that's exactly NOT what I am saying, but what JoeJ repeatedly tried to change the goal posts to.

When talking about stats, class and race choice does not matter. Because class and race are a player choice.

The rolled stats are not.

If we have player A, and player B.

Player A has rolled: Best stat 17, worst stat 10.
Player B has rolled: Best stat 12, worst stat 7.

For choices (class, race, feats, etc), A and B might decide the same; assume both build an Elven Wizard with best stat in Int, second best stat in Dex and worst stat in Cha, and the same feats, spell selection etc.

Clearly, player A can contribute better to the party than B, because he has better stats.

And that's unfair, and no fun.

And any difference because of class and race is based on the player's choice, on a trade off he or she was willing to make.

That is my point, no matter how many times JoeJ tries to twist it into something else.

And from that point follows that rolling naively is bad. Not rolling in general, but rolling in a way that creates unfairness. As already mentioned multiple times above, there are many ways to allow rolling for stats without creating an unwanted disparity between different players, such as: All players get to choose from all the rolled stat arrays.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
while a good point DMW, the other guy is saying that someone with lower stats can't contribute or contributes less to a party if someone else has higher stats, regardless of the class/race choice or anything else. basically, the other guy is making very strong claims which are pretty much just wrong.
Where'd Malaclypse say that? I get the impression he's trying to say more or less what I just did...only in a more confrontational way.

Yes. Thank you, DMW.


Bandw2 wrote:
so dying as consequence of a roll is not a very important and consequential thing rolled from RNG? that was my point, there are other very critical rolls that can arise through gameplay.

Sure, but there are multiple factors that soften the problem when it's an attack. First off, one hit kills are rare, so it's generally multiple failures that lead to death. Secondly, even after a one-hit kill you can resurrect the player, and because of XP / level disparity he will close up quickly. There are rules for that.

There are no rules for "player A is inherently worse that player B for the whole campaign because he rolled bad stats". RAI is maybe DM pity, but that should not be the solution.


JoeJ wrote:
Of course class is a choice. As are race, feats, skills, and spells. Choices so powerful that together they basically negate the effect of stats on relative PC effectiveness. Which means that there's nothing unfair about using the default system and rolling for basic stats.

No, they don't negate the effect. Yes, it is unfair. I am not sure how you can even discuss this, given the aforementioned table 1-3: Ability scores and bonus spells. The core rules themselves contradict your statement.

Malaclypse wrote:


A campaign might last a year or more. The player will have negative consequences of his first two minutes during the whole campaign. Those first few rolls have an disproportional influence.

JoeJ wrote:
Completely untrue. The choices the player makes have the overwhelmingly dominant influence.

What exact choice (except for character suicide or whining to the DM to allow rerolls) can the player make so his stats aren't worse than those of the other players? Please elaborate. And don't switch the goalposts again.

JoeJ wrote:
It's not a bad system. It's a system you don't like. The two are not the same thing.

Ok, again: It is a bad system because it promotes unfairness and randomly disadvantages some players.

JoeJ wrote:
Keep your personal attacks to yourself. I'm not going to be baited by silliness.

Don't generalize from yourself to others.

There was no personal attack in my statement, I merely asked you because I am confused: You advocate a system that promotes unfairness and randomly disadvantages some players, and I don't understand why.

JoeJ wrote:
Be my guest. Show all the statistics you want. You're the one claiming that the standard system in the rules is unfair; a claim that you have so far completely failed to support.

I cannot teach you statistics in order to show you that the system you promote is unfair. Wikipedia and the wider internet have enough resources that will help you understand the problem, should you want to. I merely tried to point you into the right direction.


Bandw2 wrote:

the choice as mentioned is how to deal with your cards, many of which can easily be overcome or otherwise ignored, if you hate randomness, then you might as well get rid of the whole rolling for things mechanic.

The enemy attacks a player, rolls to hit, hit's and does enough damage to knock him unconscious. He stays dead down long enough that he died. woo, a punishment that is not directly tied to any player choice, but still part of the game, and was caused by randomness....

I actually answered this exact point in the post you were replying to, but here it is again:

A campaign might last a year or more. The player will have negative consequences of his first two minutes during the whole campaign. Those first few rolls have an disproportional influence.

That's the problem. Using dice as RNGs is not.

Also, your statistics example is broken too. I am too tired now for a statistics course, but really...

Bandw2 wrote:


worst case is 6 3s vs 6 18s, a difference of 7 points in mod value. which is a 35% change is chances. The average roll is 13, with something like a 10-13% chance according to a test I did a while ago.

No, 6x3s vs 6x18s is actually 42 mod points difference. You have 6 stats.

But even assuming the difference is 7 mod points, that is, 5 equal stats and one 3 for player A and an 18 for player B. This 7 mod points of difference are already about as many mod points as most characters get. Iconic Wizard and Iconic Fighter get 8, for example.

Also, this: http://anydice.com/program/429c.


Flawed wrote:
So until fighters can fly, go invisible, plane shift, teleport they'll be a sub par class.

Yes.

Flawed wrote:
Got it.

I am afraid your self-assessment is overly optimistic at this point, since

Flawed wrote:
Fighters will never be good because they have to be casters first.

No, they don't. They should be able to do those things as fighters because their opposition, the monsters they are expected to fight at level 20, can do those things and more.


JoeJ wrote:
IOW, your point is only valid when the two players with different stats both try to create the same character. But in actual non-theory gaming, that doesn't happen too terribly often.

It doesn't matter. Class choice is a choice, a player decision. Bad stats are not.

A campaign might last a year or more. The player will have negative consequences of his first two minutes during the whole campaign. Those first few rolls have an disproportional influence.

That's why it is a bad system.

I know that there's a certain old-school perspective that feel it's a DMs job to make sure that players are punished. If you adhere to that, please just state it clearly. Because as you noticed, my point only makes sense if the goal is for players to have fun, to allow players to start off equally and to build a campaign where the consequences they have to endure follow from their actions and decisions, and not from some early rolls with way too much weight.

JoeJ wrote:
So lets try again with dice I just rolled: Player 1 rolls 13-8-10-15-15-16. Player 2 rolls 12-7-13-11-15-16. Player 1 has a higher average (12.8 vs. 12.3) and a higher minimum score. Both have the same maximum. Both players are free to create any character they want using only the CRB. If you claim that, regardless of what they choose, player 1 will be able to contribute more to a party, then show how that's necessarily the case. Otherwise, my point is supported: lower rolled stats do not prevent a PC from contributing just as much to the party.

What a nice example. Unfortunately it does not support your argument at all. Even if it should be properly randomly generated, it is simply a single data point; if you want to make an argument, you should (for example) investigate the expected difference in total points when 5 players roll 4d6 drop lowest as well as the expected highest and lowest boundaries for such their arrays. Also of interest might be the probability that given 5 players, one has a highest stat that is lower than the lowest stat of another player. And so on...

So while I appreciate your display of excellency when it comes to knowledge and application of statistical methods, I am not sure it is a sound basis to continue this discussion.


JoeJ wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
There's nothing about having lower stats that makes a PC inherently less able to contribute to the adventure.

Yes, there is. Please refer to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook for more details. Or I can also explain it to you, if you would like me to.

Please do. You can use my example of a wizard with 14 as his highest stat vs. a fighter lucky enough to have rolled a 16. Show me how stats trump race, class, feats, skills, spells, and player choices during the game to force the wizard to contribute less.

You are shifting the goal posts. Don't do that, please.

The discussion is about players having a different amount of points, or different stat arrays - not about different classes.

A player can choose their class, they cannot choose their stats when rolling.

Therefore, instead of your strawman, a fair comparison might be:

Wizard with Int 14 vs. Wizard with Int 16.
Fighter with Str 14 vs. Fighter with Str 16.

Assuming such a non-misleading comparison, do you still need my explanation or is Table 1-3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells enough?

And yes, even if using point-buy, one player might choose to max the main stat, while others might have a more balanced array. And that's perfectly fine, because it's their choice. They are not disadvantaged compared to other players, who might make the same choice, or a different one. But they CAN make the same one if they want to. And that's a very good thing for the game - and in general.


Bandw2 wrote:
and what never dumped CON? cmon, you need to put hard mode on more.

Haha, not to a point where the hp delta was negative, no.. Also, because of the same reason as for rolling stats, I also allow players to use the average hp when leveling.


Blazej wrote:
Getting Started Section of Core Rulebook wrote:

You apply your character's Constitution modifier to:

  • Each roll of a Hit Die (though a penalty can never drop a result below 1—that is, a character always gains at least 1 hit point each time he advances in level).

Which is what I said.

As for the rest, there is a reasonable point in there, but from the general tone of the post I don't feel like discussing it when I there is no chance I won't get snark back for little to no reason.

Thanks for the clarification - I wasn't aware of that rule (never came up, as I play with point buy).


JoeJ wrote:
There's nothing about having lower stats that makes a PC inherently less able to contribute to the adventure.

Yes, there is. Please refer to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook for more details. Or I can also explain it to you, if you would like me to.

JoeJ wrote:

There's nothing wrong with using point buy or other variant character creation methods if that's what you prefer. But there's also nothing wrong with using the Standard Method of rolling 4d6.

It's not okay to tell people that they're having BadWrongFun if they use a different method to create characters than you do. Especially if the method they use is straight RAW.

The problem is that it's bad and wrong but not fun. It's a legacy method and has been shown to have many problems, in this thread and in many others.

Really, if someone wants to play a character with less ability scores than every other char, they can just not use up their point budget in point buy...ooh, I wonder why there are no threads on this though.

Even that people suggested to suicide the character here shows that - people rather waste a session, everyone's time and then rebuild a new character, just because they know in advance that playing a character that's inherently and out of their control worse than every other is not fun for them.

Some players want to optimize - others don't care. But that's a choice the player can make. A few seconds of bad luck and being stuck with bad stats is not a choice they can make, it's just a DM punishing their players. Doesn't even need to be malice on the DMs part - maybe it's simply a lack of understanding, or unwillingness to question bad rules they are used to. Still, the effect is the same.


Blazej wrote:
A character rolling hit dice can't get a result less than one, so expected hp gain per level with just that would be 1.5 per level if rolling for hit points. It cannot be below 1.

But the CON malus is 3. It's d6 - 3. You have a 50% of not getting any HP.

Blazej wrote:
That is still low, but the character would also still be able to use their favored class bonus and the Toughness feat to bring hit points per level up to at least 3 per level. In addition Constitution bonuses would still give you more hit points on top of that. This is still not great, but it is a way to play a character with a low Constitution.

Oh wait, so not only does this player have sucky stats, but he has to waste his other resources to make up for them. So he will be even less able to help the party, who were able to use their feats etc for cool stuff.


sunshadow21 wrote:
The sure fire way to lose is to immediately treat it as a problem that can only be solved with better stats. Just because you clearly don't like rolling for stats doesn't mean that other people at the table are going to going to view it as an automatic deficiency.

Again you miss the point. Rolling in itself is not the problem; but using a system to roll that leads to different point totals for the different players. Feel free to read the messages above yours for some suggestions on how you can keep rolling stats but still get to a fair result for every player.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Flawed wrote:
The difference is in the power of the tools of each class. The problem is spells being too powerful or versatile and not the class that uses them. If a fighters weapon scaled like a monk's unarmed strike the fighter wouldn't have to max out his damage stat and could opt for other stats. They already gain enough bonuses to hit despite a +10 from strength. Or the ability to move and full attack even if it was just an extra 5 foot step as part of a full attack that didn't count towards movement or the ability to use a swift action to move up to 15 feet as part of a full attack and the fighters potential would exponentially increase.

No, it would not.

Their thing would still be "attack and do damage'. They would still miss out on flying, being invisible, plane-shifting, teleportation and other things are level-appropriate in higher levels.

Since that's exactly the problem. The wizard's thing is: Do everything (since there is a spell for everything).

The average fighter's thing is: Attack a non-flying, visible, non-etheral (etc) creature from a dangerously close distance.


EvilPaladin wrote:
While I did not play 3.5, its my understanding that Pathfinder did reduce the Martial/Caster Disparity, but not to the point of balance, instead to the point of 'This is no longer a Vertical Line, but instead is now tipped to a ~45 degree angle'.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. Pathfinder actually buffed the casters; examples are maybe the increase of hit dice of wizards, or the human racial for sorcerers. There are many more examples. There's a reason why Pathfinder is generally called "Caster Edition" D&D.


sunshadow21 wrote:
If I were the DM in this case, I would most certainly expect the player to give an honest attempt to play that character well. To be fair, though, I would also allow, and indeed encourage, all players to make up a second character to have waiting in the wings so that when if a character died or an opportunity arose to naturally swap out characters that for whatever reason just weren't working, they would have another character at their fingertips.

Sure, it's fine if you play with throwaway characters that players aren' t expected to be invested in. On the other hand, if you play such a pure dungeon slayer campaign without story, the bad stats will hurt the player even more.

But some of my players really like to work on their characters backstory, make him or her fit into the campaign world etc. Doesn't seem to be much fun in forcing the player to do this twice, just because his or her first character was deficient.


Dannorn wrote:
No but it also doesn't sound realistic. I can't think of a single class that becomes completely useless because of a single -3. It's a hurdle, no question, but it in no way cripples any character. Between feats, traits, and clever game play you can overcome it. Heck considering your result is dependent on a roll of 1-20, and and all other modifiers increase as you go up in level while the -3 remains static it becomes increasingly irrelevant.

Given that people in this thread advised to take a wizard with 4 Con... with an expected 0.5 hp gain per level.

Well...

Dannorn wrote:

No the "grown-up" response to rolling a 4 is finding a way to make it work as best as possible. Throwing up your hands and saying, "This sucks why can't we do it this way?" is remarkably childish.

For whatever reason the player agreed to roll stats, the time to suggest point-buy has come and gone. Going back after rolling your stats and saying, "Yeah I don't like these can we do Point-Buy?" is not appropriate behaviour.

Obviously, this should have been noticed before, and fixed before it even got to this point. But it wasn't.

Given this situation, it is still better to try to solve it so that no one is unfairly disadvantaged. It's not childish to try to solve a problem once it's identified. And it wasn't before, as this thread shows.


JoeJ wrote:

What somebody else rolled does not in any way impair your ability to contribute and have fun in the game.

[Citation needed]

In games where people follow the Core Rulebook, stats do have an effect on gameplay. Sure, if you play a game where stats and the mechanics and their underlying math is ignored, then this is not the case.

But not all games are like this.

And anyway, I am sure you can find a DM that will allow you to play with lower stats than everybody else. That is fine.

I am only worried about the case where the player would prefer to have the same stats but cannot because of an inherently unfair system such as naively rolling stats.

1 to 50 of 693 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.