RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
No, those characters are well built, you don't have to be optimized to be acceptable... But a 13 Str monk is the epitimey of a character that will make the party feel they need to "protect" the guy and make the monk's player feel worthless.
Really? Assuming a 5 character party, the monk is likely using his movement (and maybe dodge feat) to get in flanking position for the fighter or the rogue. So that's +1 for strength, +2 for flanking. The Rogue likely has similar numbers, assuming the player was making a skill monkey (s:12 D:15 C:13 I:14 W:10(8+ racial) Ch:10) My monk's AC is 14-16 depending on feat and bonus skill point placement. The rogue is likely 15 (studded leather, dex 15) So 4 goblins vs a party of 5, the goblins need a 13-15 to hit our monk, Our monk needs a 15 to hit the goblin, or a 13 flanking. Seems like the 5 characters (cleric/rogue/wizard/fighter/monk) would burn through a quarter of their resources. Since they outnumber the goblins, the monk should be flanking.
And of course, the monk is considered 'suboptimal' by some. Of course the monk will have the best will save (+4) short of the cleric, so when the kobold sorcerer cuts loose with a sleep spell, he'll be standing, more likely than the fighter, or the rogue.
the realm of RPGs is a made-up world, so we can come-up with whatever we want. Nevertheless, I like to make observations from nature. In nature, there are animals with greater potential than others. These are the superior individuals: they have higher stats.
Bioenergy being a limited resource, every strength that one develops always happens at the expense of something else. It is thus normal that a character with a high stat have lower average in other stats.
However, every handicap must be compensated by a significant advantage in order for the individual to survive (or be successful, in a human context). If the handicap is too great compared to its peers, the individual isn't likely to be successful. Take the peacock for example. Developing a huge, colorful tail takes a lot of resources that could have gone somewhere else (strength, agility, intellect). Not only that, but the tail is a huge thing to carry when you have to run away/hide from predators. Therefore, only superior peacocks will be able to develop and sustain a particularly large and colorful tail; otherwise their 'dump stat' would have drag them down too low and they would not have been able to survive.
For that reason, I rarely allow stats below 8 or more than 1 stat below 10, for I consider that these individuals would not have succeeded at being PC-worthy heroes (or villains). Mechanically, theses character can survive and even shine; but their burden should be huge and as a DM, I don't want to have to insist on that burden all the time just for the sake of making it 'fair and square'.
All to say that it depends how 'superior' you want your PCs to be, but regardless what degree of pts buy system you use, there should be at the very least, a gentleman's rule of 'how low can you go' between the DM and the players.
'findel
Gimped unplayable characters are not fun...sorry.Only tried 15 point buy and it works fine (for ME and those that I play with).
I know that people are different, but saying that a 15 point buy character is gimped, seems a bit .... dramatic.
Saying that YOU don't like it and WHY, would be interesting and informative.
I'd like to hear about your experiences and what kind of troubles that you've had with 15 point buy.GRU
Reading my other posts might be helpful toward that end.
A barbarian with a charisma of 4 (yes, one of my players made one like that one time), had better play him like a disgusting social outcast (he did), and is going to run into problems in virtually every social situation.Was he role-playing or just being himself? ;P
A little of both. We've always said this particular guy must have taken a dozen ranks or so in create unpleasant mental image :) We occasionally have to send him for a timeout.
I find it interesting that there are 3 stat point levels...and 3 levels of play progression...
you could almost say...
15 pt buy = fast progression
20 pt buy = standard progression
25 pt buy = slow progression
|
|
My current Pathfinder game is the first one ever my group has agreed to use point buy instead of 4d6-lowest x7 drop lowest. We've been playing together for up to 20 years for some members. I let them use 25 point buy, partly because one guy could get those kind of stats just by rolling, partly because I wanted their characters finished before the first session of the new campaign, and partly because they wouldn't agree to point buy for less.
Now I may just be lucky to have the kind of players that I do, but no one has a stat over 18 except for the elven wizard. In fact, most don't even have a single 18. Instead of ramping up the power level of the party, all it did was flesh out the lesser stats. The druid has 3 14s and 2 16s. The cleric has a 16 wis and 16 chr, with enough points left over to have a decent str and con. The bard has two 16s and some change.
In short, it is keeping them from being one-trick ponies, not enabling overwhelming power-gaming.
Me, I sometimes think the right balance is to assign the size of the point-buy based on the class being chosen. So, pick a MAD class, you get more points to spend. Pick a powerful class, you get fewer points to spend. Might kinda balance things out a bit.
Mind you, I haven't tried it, but I've noodled it around in my head from time to time. Something like this:
Interesting idea but some of your choices really raise eyebrows. I suspect you would see a LOT more monks and bards. Personally, I would just break it into 2.5 tiers.
Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Summoner - 15
Everyone else - 20
Monk - 23This would include the playtest classes also.
Actually I would probably lump summoner with everyone else. That way it's...
full casters - 15
everyone else - 20
monks - 23This works better for MC as well since if you MC to get better stats, you'd lose out on CL...seems fair to me. If you take a level of monk for the extra stats as a melee, you lose out on BAB. I think I'll do that for my next game.
What do you do to stop everyone from taking 1 level in Monk, then multiclassing into something else?
Seriously, Monks are not that bad. They have great saves and AC. Most people want to build a monk as an offensive build, but the monk's strength is in its defense.
Wait are Monks getting a 23 point buy? A Cleric is just as MAD if you want to do more than be a heal-bot.
but then they have no weakness? you enjoy this more? well each to his own. you prefer the heroic type. my pc's enjoy a charicter with more depth.
Character depth is in role-playing. There is little character depth in a character with an IQ less than a garden snail's and about as much in the way of social skills. I'm sure some people pull it off, but they are the exceptions, not the rule. Weaknesses likewise do not have to be bad stats - they can be in orientation of skills, spells, combat style and a host of other things.
Being locked in a dark building with a madman leaping to attack you at random intervals?
Sounds like my ninjitsu instructor's training regimen ...
|
For that reason, I rarely allow stats below 8 or more than 1 stat below 10, for I consider that these individuals would not have succeeded at being PC-worthy heroes (or villains).
I personally think this is completely untrue. In the movie Unbreakable, Elijah Price (Mr. Glass) is and AMAZING villain with easily a 7 in all physical stats, if not lower. And for heroes, what about Prof. Xavier? He doesn't have a 10 strength or dexterity.
Back on topic, I think Xaaon is on the right track. It really depends on how many tools you offer the players. If you put them in a standard point buy low magic campaign, the players aren't going to feel heroic. They're going to feel like someone is playing a sick game of mouse trap with them. But on the other hand, If you put them in a 25 point buy high magic campaign, they will be gods.
It is also dependent on what surrounds the players as to how "heroic" they feel, which is the GM's job. If little Timmy down the ally just killed 46.5 orcs, the party will feel worthless for killing 5. But if a small village recently got slaughtered and pillaged by 5 orcs, and the party kills them. That's a bit more heroic.
No matter what point buy, array, or die roll you choose it's all up to the GM to adjust the campaign to make the players feel "heroic." What I think OP was getting at (that's been flown over multiple times in this thread) is not whether 15 or 20 or 25 is better. It's how much more work you have to put in to customize the campaign to make them feel "heroic." The reason I put heroic in quotations is because that word is different for every player. I have a player where if he doesn't one-shot 5 orcs in a round, he doesn't think he's heroic. Where as I think an epic battle to the near-death with those orcs is MUCH more heroic.
I mean, that monk is terrible, by any sttandards, and underlines the issue. 15 points is easy for a Wizard, they really only haave Int and Con (and Dex if Ray-focused).
For a Monk, 15 should be.
Str: 19 with racial mod
Int: 7 (Sorry skill points, we need too many attrib)
Wis: 14
Dex: 14
Con: 14
Chr: 7That's at least survivable, but you do need dump stats to make it work. I'd prefer to give them 25 and say "no dumping", this actually costs the wizard 3 points (he has 3 easy dump stats which only affect his will save by 2 and carrying), while granting the monk 2 points and letting him keep his skills.
That's silly. If you genuinely think you need that stat array to be useful, then I honestly don't get it. A fairly competent monk at 15 pt would be Str 14, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8; He's shy but well rounded physically. That's before racial modifiers which can go into Dex or Str. That monk wouldn't beat down the fighter at every oppurtunity, but he's never supposed to. He would conversely not be totally ineffective in combat, a 14 is pretty decent with a 20 pt point buy, and with 15 you can get 3 of them. 14,14,14,12,10,8 is fairly doable for most MAD characters and easy with 15 pts. The wizard might be
Str 8, Dex 14, Con 10, Wis 10, Int 16, Cha 10 and get a +2 int from racial and he's flying it. Both 15 points, neither ineffective. I personally prefer 20 pts, but your proposed minimum level for an effective monk is a total exagerration, and just, well, silly.
And what, exactly is a 14, 14, 14 Monk going to be good at? Besides being mediocre and ineffective in combat?
|
It's just the nature of the game that specialists are better than generalists. This is where the split classes tend to fail (the "dream Fighter/Mages"), and is the reason why the 18 is so much better than 14. This is particularly true for DC-based casters (where that high stat gets you better DCs), but it also covers strength a great deal (in this case, +2 to hit is going to increase your damage a good bit, and the difference between d6+2 and d6+4 is nearly 50% more efficient damage output).
One can reverse the question and ask what one hopes to get out of the reverse, the 7 charisma, over a 10. You're not going to make diplomacy checks either way, and even if you wanted to skill focus feat and your 7 cha guy is better than the 10 cha guy (can't say that for strengh). So dumping it is fine; you go from socially incompetent to really socially incompetent.
Regardless, I want PCs to stay above that, so I give the high point buy and stipulate not to have these dump stats. Monks love it, become more viable. Wizards hate it, their stats would work better if I lowered the point buy and let them dump Str/Wis/Chr. So by having high points/no dump, the weak get stronger and the strong get weaker. By having low point buys the reverse is true.
|
My current 3.5 game is under 42 point buy. Some of my previous games have been 5d6 drop 2, reroll 1's and 2's. Mostly I do this to increase low level survivability, with the ability scores balancing out as levels increase.
Are you running pre-built adventures or home grown stuff?
We have been running with high ability scores and survivability isn't a problem, the players steamrolling everything is. We are running Rise of the Runelords and unless I seriously modify the encounters the party just walks through everything, even the boss encounters.
In some ways it's kind of cool because I do enjoy bumping up the challenge but if I'm short time it really shows.
And what, exactly is a 14, 14, 14 Monk going to be good at? Besides being mediocre and ineffective in combat?Not that I really think those stats were great, but what is "mediocre" or "ineffective" about +2 (14) vs, say, +3 (16)? This is numerically a 5% difference in the roll.
And if 16's in those stats are also "mediocre and ineffective", what is the COMPARITIVE difference between those 16's and 18's?
The question is, what is the difference between a FOURTEEN and an 18?
The answer in either case is a +1 to +2 increase to to-hit AND damage.
My current 3.5 game is under 42 point buy. Some of my previous games have been 5d6 drop 2, reroll 1's and 2's. Mostly I do this to increase low level survivability, with the ability scores balancing out as levels increase.Are you running pre-built adventures or home grown stuff?
We have been running with high ability scores and survivability isn't a problem, the players steamrolling everything is. We are running Rise of the Runelords and unless I seriously modify the encounters the party just walks through everything, even the boss encounters.
In some ways it's kind of cool because I do enjoy bumping up the challenge but if I'm short time it really shows.
Are we accounting for RotR being 3.5 and you seeming to be implying they are running Pathfinder characters?
My current 3.5 game is under 42 point buy. Some of my previous games have been 5d6 drop 2, reroll 1's and 2's. Mostly I do this to increase low level survivability, with the ability scores balancing out as levels increase.Are you running pre-built adventures or home grown stuff?
We have been running with high ability scores and survivability isn't a problem, the players steamrolling everything is. We are running Rise of the Runelords and unless I seriously modify the encounters the party just walks through everything, even the boss encounters.
In some ways it's kind of cool because I do enjoy bumping up the challenge but if I'm short time it really shows.
This is mostly because Rise of the Runelords is pre-PRPG... and thus would need to be updated anyway. However, the fights against the goblins are MEANT to be easy and make the PC's feel heroic.
|
|
My current Pathfinder game is the first one ever my group has agreed to use point buy instead of 4d6-lowest x7 drop lowest. We've been playing together for up to 20 years for some members. I let them use 25 point buy, partly because one guy could get those kind of stats just by rolling, partly because I wanted their characters finished before the first session of the new campaign, and partly because they wouldn't agree to point buy for less.
This is IMO probably the biggest reason it's tough to get 15 point buy. Statistically I think an honest 4d6 drop 1 comes out somewhere between a 15 and 20 point buy and the players would rather gamble on getting good rolls rather than have a guaranteed 'average' character.
|
|
Are we accounting for RotR being 3.5 and you seeming to be implying they are running Pathfinder characters?
See below
This is mostly because Rise of the Runelords is pre-PRPG... and thus would need to be updated anyway. However, the fights against the goblins are MEANT to be easy and make the PC's feel heroic.
We're past the goblins right now. We are in skinsaw and the players are still only 3rd level and hewing through (converted) ghouls like cordwood. They are on medium progression and I'd considered switching them to fast progression as skinsaw is written for 4th+ but seeing as they are having an easy time I'm leaving them where they are (and still upgrading monsters on top of the conversion).
And what, exactly is a 14, 14, 14 Monk going to be good at? Besides being mediocre and ineffective in combat?Not that I really think those stats were great, but what is "mediocre" or "ineffective" about +2 (14) vs, say, +3 (16)? This is numerically a 5% difference in the roll.
And if 16's in those stats are also "mediocre and ineffective", what is the COMPARITIVE difference between those 16's and 18's?
At first level those points represent 2 AC, +1 to two all three saves, 1hp, +1 to many combat skills and perception based ones, as well as a bonus to CMD.
I've run enough mediocre characters to know 14 in a game where people are rolling with 18s is not effective.
Read:
In any case, I think accusing the 14's of being unplayable is short-sighted. If everyone else min-maxes to the 9's, maybe, but if not, the monk will be all right.
If everyone else is also balanced towards mediocrity, the Monk will only slightly be overshadowed.
|
|
And what, exactly is a 14, 14, 14 Monk going to be good at? Besides being mediocre and ineffective in combat?
I find it amusing that people consider this unplayable. Consider Sajan in the most recent AP has 15 STR, 16 DEX, and a 14 CON at 7th level. The pregens aren't optimized well at ALL but they are a good indication of the sort of character the designers expect to be running through the AP.
+1 to all saves is a 5% greater chance to make it
+1 to attack is a 5% greater chance to hit
+2 AC is a 10% decrease in the opponent's ability to hit you.
And what, exactly is a 14, 14, 14 Monk going to be good at? Besides being mediocre and ineffective in combat?I find it amusing that people consider this unplayable. Consider Sajan in the most recent AP has 15 STR, 16 DEX, and a 14 CON at 7th level. The pregens aren't optimized well at ALL but they are a good indication of the sort of character the designers expect to be running through the AP.
Which explains why our DM is always complaining about Paizo AP characters getting steam-rolled by ACTUALLY optimized characters.
If a player had those stats at 7th level, he would be ineffectual. I would know.
Evil Lincoln, from what I gather your main point is trying to get PCs to conform more to the CRs of opponents.
In fact, I wanted to start a spirited but civil discussion, and I am pleased to see that has worked!
Thank you everyone for your thoughts, even those of you who directly disagree with my (facetious) original post have had very interesting things to say.
The take home message from this thread is that this: Use 15 point buy if you want a game where you have to make sacrifices in other attributes to be the best at something. I do prefer that style of PC myself, but I find min-maxing distasteful. If your party is more like Set — going out of their way to eliminate negative ability bonuses, then you're probably good with 20.
Full disclosure, my own campaign ended up at 23 or so, whittled down from 32 (a "rolled" character).
I do think that deference to the GM is important for players. I think the GM should endeavor to make the fairest choice. I think threads like this one are really good tools for making that choice, so long as they don't degenerate into squabbling. *cross fingers*
What I DO think might be leading my esteemed DM to this perception is the fact that we have both a paladin and fighter (now barbarian) who were doing intense damage. (if you guys are reading, I am just sayin' ...)
@Anburaid: Allow me to pull back the curtain, for you!
|
|
Make a 15 point buy Monk...tell me you arent a vitual cripple compared to the wizard that only needs INT.How are they unplayable? How so gimped?
If the PCs make a 20 point party, all it means is I increase the strength of the opposition. The game ends up almost exactly the same experience for all involved, except the GM can't run the monsters off the page.
I've done it twice and have no complaints
|
|
I can not recall ever making a pc with any stat below 10
Funny. I almost ALWAYS build my PCs with one sub-10 score. Not 5s or 6s, but an 8 or a 9. All 10+ makes me feel like I'm in Lake Woebegone and everyone is above average at everything. I like my characters to have a weakness, a flaw. Helps them feel more well-rounded, like real people. No one is good at everything, not even heroes. It gives me something to compensate for as he/she grows and allows him/her to be better-than-average in another area.
That said, 20 points seems about right to me (PFS). I've never tried 15. Might be right for gritty or commoners-turned-heroes.
Really? +2 to hit and damage was the difference between "suck" and "star"? Or was it the +2 to skill checks? The extra 1st level spell?High stats matter, but not at low levels. They matter more and more as you gain levels,
And how the devil are you discounting starting ability scores from that argument?
My great example? A sorcerer with 14's in the physical stats, 12's in INT and WIS, and a 16 CHA (after racial bonuses). Those stats should have made me suck balls next to the 20 INT Wiz and 20 WIS Clr. It didn't. I held my own, fought in meele, cast spells, and was generally considered the most versatile character in the game. Now, at about 9th level I felt the pain that comes with a lack of synergy,
Yes, I thank you for giving me that great example for my argument.
but the campaign didn't last long after that.
:facepalm:
I discount your argument because it is based on the assumption that a campaign will ONLY exists at low levels.|
|
We use 4d6, re-roll 1's, and drop the lowest. With the option of calling a mulligan on the stat block if you don't get an single 18.+1
Randomness gives a bit of edge and challenge to the PC creation IMO
Personally I think re-rolling ones is silly. I wish people would make rules like that in other games. "Okay guys we're playing Yatzee, remember re-roll your ones because nobody likes having to deal with low scores because they rolled ones"
"hey, I rolled a 3, can I be some one's animal companion?"
The only valid way to roll is 6d20 straight, in order.
See ?
Are we accounting for RotR being 3.5 and you seeming to be implying they are running Pathfinder characters?See below
This is mostly because Rise of the Runelords is pre-PRPG... and thus would need to be updated anyway. However, the fights against the goblins are MEANT to be easy and make the PC's feel heroic.We're past the goblins right now. We are in skinsaw and the players are still only 3rd level and hewing through (converted) ghouls like cordwood. They are on medium progression and I'd considered switching them to fast progression as skinsaw is written for 4th+ but seeing as they are having an easy time I'm leaving them where they are (and still upgrading monsters on top of the conversion).
If they're anything like my group, expect an easy time on the cultists as well, but Xanesha will give them trouble. Then again, my group had an unhittable Paladin who dumped Wisdom, so Xanesha was understandably scary. For the Skinsaw Man, its going to be way too easy--I added in a Dread Ghast version of a fallen PC (the target of the obsession who had died to Nualia) and the pos-energy Cleric spent almost the entire fight nom-nomming on Vorel's Phage due to the haunt and the PCs still won (barely).
On the main topic, a friend did Monte Carlo analysis (rolling millions of times and averaging) to find that the average roll on 4d6 drop lowest (discarding hopeless characters) is about 32 in 3.5, making 30 a fair point buy to correspond to an average roll (since you get to pick exactly where everything goes).
However, Pathfinder essentially gives you two extra points and then charges one more for the 13 to 14 bump, the 15 to 16 bump, and the 17 to 18 bump. So if you have three stats at least 14 or a 16 and a 14, 20 PB is not quite enough to be equal to 30 in 3.5. PF actually charges such a premium on 18s that I wouldn't be surprised if the average PB of 4d6 drop lowest has gone up substantially if you use the +10 heuristic for conversion between the two systems, just because 18s do happen about once in 6 characters and they're worth so many points now.
I've run enough mediocre characters to know 14 in a game where people are rolling with 18s is not effective.
If everyone else is also balanced towards mediocrity, the Monk will only slightly be overshadowed.
Really? +2 to hit and damage was the difference between "suck" and "star"? Or was it the +2 to skill checks? The extra 1st level spell?
High stats matter, but not at low levels. They matter more and more as you gain levels, but right off the advantages are poor compared to the cost.
My great example? A sorcerer with 14's in the physical stats, 12's in INT and WIS, and a 16 CHA (after racial bonuses). Those stats should have made me suck balls next to the 20 INT Wiz and 20 WIS Clr. It didn't. I held my own, fought in meele, cast spells, and was generally considered the most versatile character in the game. Now, at about 9th level I felt the pain that comes with a lack of synergy, but the campaign didn't last long after that. If you can go through most of the low levels doing well, and your group mostly plays low levels, then you don't need uber stats to succeed.
But.. but... THAT CAN'T BE! 'cuz we all know if you only have "average" above-average stats you're all the suck...
On a serious note, thank you. This thread has been eye-opening; just not in a good way. I seriously hope this thread just has a disproportionate # of min-MAX-ers, 'cause if most people HAVE to have god-stats to be "viable" then future versions of Pathfinder RPG will be Pathfinder: The Fantasy Super-Hero RPG (capes-n-tights included).
I also find it humorous that amongst all the cries for "PC's must have X", no one's complained that PF NPCs in the APs and modules are too low. (Unless I missed it...) Some have said they're not optimized, but that's not the same thing.
Different playstyles for different folks and all that but it certainly seems that we have difference definitions of "challenge" going here as well. Based upon this thread, my idea of a challenge would probably be deemed un-fun in favor of "We're the PCs. Give us our cakewalk."
YMMV.
"hey, I rolled a 3, can I be some one's animal companion?"
That would be fun! Can I be a tressym? :D
Personally I think re-rolling ones is silly. I wish people would make rules like that in other games. "Okay guys we're playing Yatzee, remember re-roll your ones because nobody likes having to deal with low scores because they rolled ones"
We use 4d6, re-roll 1's, and drop the lowest. With the option of calling a mulligan on the stat block if you don't get an single 18.+1
Randomness gives a bit of edge and challenge to the PC creation IMO
Except yatzee rolls dont follow you for years of gaming. One bad roll is ONE bad roll. Bad stats impact your gaming for the life of the character, which can be a couple hours or multiple years of actual time.
I've run enough mediocre characters to know 14 in a game where people are rolling with 18s is not effective.
If everyone else is also balanced towards mediocrity, the Monk will only slightly be overshadowed.
Really? +2 to hit and damage was the difference between "suck" and "star"? Or was it the +2 to skill checks? The extra 1st level spell?
High stats matter, but not at low levels. They matter more and more as you gain levels, but right off the advantages are poor compared to the cost.
My great example? A sorcerer with 14's in the physical stats, 12's in INT and WIS, and a 16 CHA (after racial bonuses). Those stats should have made me suck balls next to the 20 INT Wiz and 20 WIS Clr. It didn't. I held my own, fought in meele, cast spells, and was generally considered the most versatile character in the game. Now, at about 9th level I felt the pain that comes with a lack of synergy, but the campaign didn't last long after that. If you can go through most of the low levels doing well, and your group mostly plays low levels, then you don't need uber stats to succeed.
But.. but... THAT CAN'T BE! 'cuz we all know if you only have "average" above-average stats you're all the suck...
On a serious note, thank you. This thread has been eye-opening; just not in a good way. I seriously hope this thread just has a disproportionate # of min-MAX-ers, 'cause if most people HAVE to have god-stats to be "viable" then future versions of Pathfinder RPG will be Pathfinder: The Fantasy Super-Hero RPG (capes-n-tights included).
I also find it humorous that amongst all the cries for "PC's must have X", no one's complained that PF NPCs in the APs and modules are too low. (Unless I missed it...) Some have said they're not optimized, but that's not the same thing.
Different playstyles for different folks and all that but it certainly seems that we have difference definitions of "challenge" going here as well. Based upon this...
Our group rolls 4d6 drop lowest, and we take what we get. That said, what we get is much more than 15 PB on average, so at least two of our three GMs (including me), have definitely altered up the stats on important NPCs. Actually, since the NPCs tend to be built with the so-called elite array, knocking their 15 to a 16 and their 13 to a 14 gives them 5 extra points using Pathfinder PB, so it's really easy too. In Runelords I've boosted Shalelu and Jakardros's stats, and our GM for Council of Thieves boosted Janiven's and Arael's.
I've run enough mediocre characters to know 14 in a game where people are rolling with 18s is not effective.
Isn't this *entirely* the OP's point?
Should you choose to give everyone 15-point-buy, those "14's" will be effective.