| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you rolled 3d6 straight down the line, the way the stat system was originally envisioned, there was no correlation between strength and intelligence. You might be strong and dumb, or weak and smart, or smart and strong and so on. Obviously, it was better to be strong and smart than just smart.
That was a different system. 1st edition D&D IIRC.
Now that we almost all do point-buy, including me, we encourage players to pick the statistically best option. It is just elementary school math. The right answer is obvious. That's why all the wizards dump strength, even if it doesn't make sense. They will do a back story acrobatic to get the low strength, just because it seems necessary. I think it stinks.
Define dumping strength. If you mean make it the last priority then yeah I can agree, and unless the GM is going to help you for making less optimal choices you should make the best choices to an extent. If dumping means dropping it as low as possible then the "all wizards" is not true. I know people do it, but I have never seen a wizard or sorcerer drop below a 10 strength
PS:If the racial penalty drops the stat below 10 then that is different to me than buying down below 10.
|
While no single ruling was particularly memorable, a GM I know of has a contentious style of ruling, where he cherry-picks between 3.5 rules and Pathfinder rules, at his discretion, usually in his favor, and then proceeds to chide the 'offending' player, "You should read the rules more carefully."
For example, he loves creatures that can trip well, and abuses trip-locking often (a prone target that provokes an attack of opportunity by standing gets tripped), when it's already been pointed out you can't trip an already-prone target (you make an attack of opportunity when they attempt to stand, not when they're already standing). He will respond that it isn't that way in 3.5 without batting an eye.
My current group seems kinda odd to me.
They don't seem to want any house rules until it comes to character creation then they 'just want to be able to do this one thing...'
It seems the only house rule that is acceptable is one that is obviously almost totally in the PC's favor.
It doesn't even have to be powerful. It just has to be something that will allow a PC to do something extra and isn't something that is likely to occur on a monster. Then it is ok. wierd
My current group seems kinda odd to me.
They don't seem to want any house rules until it comes to character creation then they 'just want to be able to do this one thing...'
It seems the only house rule that is acceptable is one that is obviously almost totally in the PC's favor.
It doesn't even have to be powerful. It just has to be something that will allow a PC to do something extra and isn't something that is likely to occur on a monster. Then it is ok. wierd
You can already have characters that can only do couple of things if you pick fighters with the eldritch heritage feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the games I have played, I have most disliked fumble rules (bad things happening on a natural 1). These house rules tend to punish characters who make lots of attacks and reward those who make single attacks for lots of damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My current group seems kinda odd to me.
They don't seem to want any house rules until it comes to character creation then they 'just want to be able to do this one thing...'
It seems the only house rule that is acceptable is one that is obviously almost totally in the PC's favor.
It doesn't even have to be powerful. It just has to be something that will allow a PC to do something extra and isn't something that is likely to occur on a monster. Then it is ok. wierd
I've never understood why some players are so preoccupied with preserving the RAW. Luckily I've never encountered a whole group of them.
Didn't have a father.You're gonna have to explain this one.Most fathers in ancient societies wouldn't sit by while their sons eat cake, read books, and get shamefully weak. The fact that he has a knack for magic that puts him in a wizard school later doesn't mean he would be able to grow up without working or trying.
Again, you can write a backstory where you justify a weakling living in an ancient society so that you can game the system and have the stats you want, but it doesn't change my opinion of it if the motivation is to get the stats.
Still, vetting players' dump stats in this way seems...micromanagerial. I mean weak wizards are a staple of just about every D&D book I've ever read. And it doesn't seem very realistic to believe that every social class of every culture in the D&D universe demands any more physical fitness than a modern college environment does. I mean given that wizards are all about the book learning, it seems like a wizard academy would have a similar luxury level. What else are all those peasants for, if not to make it possible for rich kids to eat well and while away their time at study? But it's your game, so I'll just agree to disagree.
I am curious though: do you vet other dump stats? For example would you smell cheese if I showed up with a low-Int fighter? (Obviously he wouldn't have ever learned all those advanced fighting techniques if he's so dumb.) Or a low-Cha cleric? (How can he tend his flock, with such a tactless attitude?) Or any number of other character ideas that involve dump stats...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I give a 25 point buy
Gah. I can see why dumping stats would be less acceptable to you -- to my mind, you've set things up so that the PCs are demigods, not mortals, so there's no excuse for mortal weaknesses!
|
I wasn't GMing, but I had an issue where during a PvP fight, a rogue I was pitted against brought out some barely usable pet of some kind, like perhaps a 1st lvl summoned monster. We were level 14 at the time, he was wanting an easy flank.
I maintained that "I don't consider the monster to be a credible threat, therefore I ignore it, and focus on the rogue."
Yes there were issues with that...
Hmmm, one that caused a lot of argument at table and beyond. The 5 foot step.
If you move away you take an attack of opportunity, if you run, same deal, if you withdraw, none. But, if you take a 5, no attack of opportunity, by the rules. I disagreed so heavily, as did another dm. For us it is still there, but it provokes. If you want to back out of a threatened square without an AOO take withdraw.
Other dms I've known allow it to not provoke, following the rules as they are.
I remember a DM who slightly varied CR of encounters if the situational bonuses were too greatly in the opponent's favor. It went something like this: If characters are at half hp, sitting on fatigue penalties and spellcasters have used up approximately half their spells (the more powerful half), the CR increased by 1. If hp and spells were down to one quarter or less and exhausted, CR increases by 2.
I asked him the reason for the ruling. According to him, he felt what determined the difficulty of the CR was the overall condition of the party when an encounter occured. "It doesn't matter if your barb has 100 hp and lots of rage. If the character is down to 40 hp, fatigued and is out of rage, it doesn't matter how kickass he is at full throttle. The reason being the character can't go at full throttle when the encounter begins, given his current condition."
He said something like that. I found it an interesting rule.
I have had a house rule that's lasted since the early eighties.... Only the high priest of a god (or high Druid of a land mass) can raise the dead. Made the players more careful about rushing into combat. Then again, I have mostly played with groups that enjoy interaction in the world, investigation, and planning the attack as much or more than the actual combat, so there really wasn't much of an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the games I have played, I have most disliked fumble rules (bad things happening on a natural 1). These house rules tend to punish characters who make lots of attacks and reward those who make single attacks for lots of damage.
A member of our group who often GM's, doesn't seem to understand the correlation as to why TWF's have essentially disappeared from our group. TWF can already be difficult to pull off, without any significant gain. For a while, 1's meant:
- You lose the rest of your attacks
- DC 15 Dex check or you drop your weapon
I successfully got the first part removed and the DC lowered to 10. It's not as bad, but I'm still never going TWF until it goes away.
Oh yeah... I played with a GM who had the same rules about fumbles, except if you did drop your weapon, you had to rolla to hit to see if you hit one of your fellow party members by accident. Saw a player roll a 1 for his fighter to hit with his 2-handed sword, fail his dex check to keep ahold of his sword and critted when rolling the accidental to-hit. Killed our wizard...who was invisible, at the time. Honestly thought there would be a revolt that night.
I am curious though: do you vet other dump stats? For example would you smell cheese if I showed up with a low-Int fighter? (Obviously he wouldn't have ever learned all those advanced fighting techniques if he's so dumb.) Or a low-Cha cleric? (How can he tend his flock, with such a tactless attitude?) Or any number of other character ideas that involve dump stats...Well, like I said, I don't really have them in my game anymore. I give a 25 point buy and I award extra starting wealth for stats under 10 instead of extra attribute points. Sense I came up with this, I've only had one person make a stat under 10, this is out of maybe 25+ PCs, and that was a Paladin with an 8 INT that wanted to start with masterwork armor.
I can see why your problem is solved -- the little power gamer in the back of my brain is crying at the paladin's tragic choice. ;)
Just curious, how low can one dump a stat using PF point buy? You mentioned 7s, so I'm guessing 6 is the min if racial penalties are taken into account?
Before that, I had redefined the meaning of the stats so that low attributes don't mean stupid or uncouth characters.
I agree. Personally I feel that gamers tend to over-inflate the difference between ability scores. I mean if I don't see the character sheet, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between an 8 and a 10. Or even a 6 and a 10, because the d20 makes a much bigger matter than the 2-bonus difference. I'd have to see a lot of opposed checks -- without skill ranks and other misleading modifiers -- to make an educated guess about who has the higher score.
So I can't imagine that low stats are all that crippling or obvious in the context of the game world. :)