Sorry to spam the thread but I don't see the big deal. If somebody plays a dwarf fighter because they want to wear heavy armor without a movement penalty and have less chance of being tripped, is that unacceptable min/maxing? If a wizard puts their highest score in Intelligence and their lowest one in Strength, is that unacceptable min/maxing? If I spend my starting gold on adventuring equipment instead of ale and whores (as would be more realistic), is that unacceptable min/maxing?
Pretend I'm dumb and explain it to me so I can understand.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you're making your char, you roll in front of the DM, they see your rolls and those rolls are what you get, you can assign them as you'd like.
If someone's rolls suck (lets say 4d6 drop the lowers) and the person gets 1s across the board for a grand total of 4, the DM can intervene to adjust it. Likewise, the lucky guy who gets an 18 roll can be asked to make some concessions. Plus it's natural that there be some spread of abilities in a group, and the wizard isn't as smart as the fighter is strong as the cleric is wise.
If you're DMing remotely with people you're unfamilliar with, sure go with point buy for accountability but if not, then rolling gets my vote every time.
What is the point of rolling stats if you're just going to change them?
If you roll bad, so the DM just handwaves you a good number... why did you roll?? If you roll good and are asked to lower the stat, why are you even rolling?
If you can't roll low, and you can't roll high... what is the point of it?
Just to make dice noises?
Sorry to spam the thread but I don't see the big deal. If somebody plays a dwarf fighter because they want to wear heavy armor without a movement penalty and have less chance of being tripped, is that unacceptable min/maxing? If a wizard puts their highest score in Intelligence and their lowest one in Strength, is that unacceptable min/maxing? If I spend my starting gold on adventuring equipment instead of ale and whores (as would be more realistic), is that unacceptable min/maxing?
Pretend I'm dumb and explain it to me so I can understand.
Making character generation choices based on purely mechanics and not story/theme.
It is the difference between starting at the stats, or starting at the character.
If you choose your race and class because it gives you good synergy... this is min/maxing. if you choose your race and class because that is the race and class that best fit your character idea, this is not min/maxing.
Min/maxing is the label people use to describe this fundamental difference in player styles, although it honestly isn't a perfect label. Min/maxing has some telltale signs, most notably that some scores are remarkably high, and others are remarkably low. Of course it is entirely possible to reach those same numbers by starting with character concept first, but much more often it occurs when someone builds the stats, and then tries to somehow turn those stats into a character.
After all, are there really people in the world that are above average in everything.
Hi, it is nice to meet you.
years ago i played a Half Nymph Bard with starting stats on a 25 point buy of
5 Strength
14 Dexterity
7 Constitution
19 intelligence
14 wisdom
18 charisma
she had 2 7s, but was she a filthy munchkin. especially when she couldn't wear armor? and couldn't take a hit?
i mean she was a scrawny and sickly little girl
+2 intelligence +2 charisma -2 Strength were the converted half nymph modifiers
she was maximum skills, but minimum survivability
by making herself seem harmless, she ignored a lot of enemy aggro
she gave requests politely whilst making dance like movements as part of her performance, like pointing at an orc's unarmed neck and saying "please slash him right there." she had cute nicknames for everyone and had an angelkin battle oracle cohort to fight for her.
other than being built as a support based noncombatant, would you personally considered her minmaxed? would you consider her optimized? not every 5 or 7 is a bad thing, characters can even have multiple and be challenged.
Making character generation choices based on purely mechanics and not story/theme.
It is the difference between starting at the stats, or starting at the character.
If you choose your race and class because it gives you good synergy... this is min/maxing. if you choose your race and class because that is the race and class that best fit your character idea, this is not min/maxing.
Min/maxing is the label people use to describe this fundamental difference in player styles, although it honestly isn't a perfect label. Min/maxing has some telltale signs, most notably that some scores are remarkably high, and others are remarkably low. Of course it is entirely possible to reach those same numbers by starting with character concept first, but much more often it occurs when someone builds the stats, and then tries to somehow turn those stats into a character.
Come on, now. "My character is a dwarf because it gives me good bonuses" vs "My character is a dwarf because that's the concept I have for this character, and oh hey they have good bonuses too, whaddya know." It's not a "fundamental difference in player styles," in fact to me it sounds like a lot of hot air. If there was a weird disconnect between the mechanical bonuses and the story (If dwarves are supposed to be good fighters, but mechanically they are sub optimal so nobody ever plays a dwarf fighter) I might buy it, but that's not what I see in practice.
EDIT: Plus what's to stop me from basing my character choices on purely mechanical considerations, but then lying and saying I had the concept all along? That's cheating and I should have to re-make the character?
EDIT2: Rynjin says it better than I did, below.
Sorry to spam the thread but I don't see the big deal. If somebody plays a dwarf fighter because they want to wear heavy armor without a movement penalty and have less chance of being tripped, is that unacceptable min/maxing? If a wizard puts their highest score in Intelligence and their lowest one in Strength, is that unacceptable min/maxing? If I spend my starting gold on adventuring equipment instead of ale and whores (as would be more realistic), is that unacceptable min/maxing?
Pretend I'm dumb and explain it to me so I can understand.
Making character generation choices based on purely mechanics and not story/theme.
It is the difference between starting at the stats, or starting at the character.
If you choose your race and class because it gives you good synergy... this is min/maxing. if you choose your race and class because that is the race and class that best fit your character idea, this is not min/maxing.
Min/maxing is the label people use to describe this fundamental difference in player styles, although it honestly isn't a perfect label. Min/maxing has some telltale signs, most notably that some scores are remarkably high, and others are remarkably low. Of course it is entirely possible to reach those same numbers by starting with character concept first, but much more often it occurs when someone builds the stats, and then tries to somehow turn those stats into a character.
...You still haven't explained the problem.
By your (decidedly ODD) definition of min-maxing, (a term almost universally taken to mean "minimizing weaknesses, maximizing strengths"), what's the issue?
You end up at the same place eventually, with a complete character.
I'll throw out my current characters for you, see if you can guess which came first, mechanics or concept:
-Sun Xiao, A Lawful Evil Human Monk. His family was killed by Red Mantis Assassins, and he was a bit twisted by the experience. He now worships Irori and Achaekek equally, and strives for power, of body and mind, over anything else. Real team player overall, but woe betide anyone who gets in his way. Originally for a Serpent's Skull game (which fell apart at level 8), adapted for a homebrew game (which started and fell apart at level 13), and shifted to a Reign of Winter game (starting at level 1, where HOPEFULLY the character will have some kind of real ending, dammit).
-Marcus Greer, A Chaotic Neutral Human Dark Tapestry Oracle, made for a post-apocalyptic (modern day) game where the Great Old Ones took over the earth. He was a college psychology professor from Orlando. He went nuts during the take-over and killed (and ate...) his wife Marie, and now is Haunted by her (still loving) ghost (Haunted curse), who he talks to constantly, and she answers back. He's slightly more sane these days, but only a bit (constant mood swings and occasional periods of lucidity). He's dedicated himself to wiping out the monstrosities that drove him mad and caused him to kill his wife, ironically using their own powers to do so.
Sidebar: Hell of a lot of fun to RP the back and forth between him and his wife, who only he can see (everyone else thinks he's absolutely bonkers for having an "imaginary friend", and except for in his most lucid times he's oblivious to the fact that nobody else believes she's real. Well, barring recent events involving Spiritual Ally and a cool GM, of course. =))
Melchior Rungan, Neutral Evil Human JuJu Oracle/Agent of the Grave for a Way of the Wicked campaign. Former shaman for a Barbarian tribe, ran out for practicing Necromancy. Joined up with Thorn and converted to Asmodeus worship, where he was punished for his "sloppy demeanor" by having his arms horribly burned by hellfire (Blackened curse). Spends his days making undead, siccing undead on his enemies, making corpses to turn INTO undead, and finding a way to make himself an Undead.
...That's about it, really.
Crokus, Chaotic Good orc Barbarian (Invulnerable Rager). Your standard Superstitious/Beast Totem/Spell Sunder line guy, with a twist: He's also the party Linguist, and trap guy! For a Rise of the Runelords game, one started at level 1 (which fell apart), and another started at level 10 (ongoing, level 14 now)
Did you guess them all?
In my experience, table balance is the biggest issue in table top roleplaying.
That is to say the balance between the players themselves rather than the balance between players and opposition.
This, absolutely this.
And is the best quality about the point buy system. It will, on the whole, build the best balanced parties from one character to the next. Maybe not absolutely perfectly balanced in every way, but pretty darn close.
I was 'that guy' who rolled too well in a game, when I was younger... and that was the last campaign I ever wanted to use dice rolling.
It was legit, th dm had us roll in front of the whole group one at a time, so it was a fun moment when the first roll was an 18 and everyone cheered. Then another 18... and some congratulations were shared. Then a 17, and a 17, and another 18, and finally... a 15.
Statistical anomaly? Yup. Most broken character I've ever seen. And I had the distinct honor to play that abomination.
Any happy times quickly disappeared. Anything that could challenge the group, my guy could steam roll through. He had skills for days. Spells. Hit like a truck. All of his saves were off the chart. He had no weaknesses, and outshone specialists in even their specialty role.
I ended up making it even worse, by becoming the group's crafter. Everyone thought I should make some GP off crafting for them, because it cost xp back then. Didn't take long for his WBL to skyrocket beyond reason and it just upped the ante even further.
Soon the DM was handing out artifacts to people to try and help them keep up. And the whole game got silly. I think if memory serves he killed a demigod on a surprise round once. That was like level 14…
I know that is an extreme example. But the truth of the matter is that character power imbalances hurt the party, force the dm to try to juggle it, and end up causing more problems than it is worth.
Because honestly, what is the upside of rolling for stats? One short moment of feeling like you’re gambling? But what does it cost? The entire campaign.
First of all, I appreciate all the replies, I saw some good ideas, and a few more points to consider.
I don't really have a problem with people dumping stats, some character concepts don't really require a whole lot of, say, Strength. Some of my players don't like to dump stats, and others don't want to be useless if, say, a non-combat encounter comes up.
I feel giving out more build points would reward the people who want to build better rounded characters...but my concern was what would happen if a player just took the extra points to be even more specialized.
An array seems like the simplest way to go.
Last year I started a campaign using Pathfinder. I'd both played in and run games with the 3.5 rules set extensively, so I thought I could treat Pathfinder as the same game.
I was in for a rude awakening.
Pathfinder, I realized, is a lot less forgiving to a generous GM, who doesn't mind giving characters higher bonuses and extra feats (as I had been, during my 3.5 days).
I was surprised by more powerful feats, and easier access to "use stat X for Y" traits. I conceded defeat when a Monk (a Martial Artist, no less) ran roughshod over what I'd thought was a very dangerous encounter.
I then joined another Pathfinder game a friend was running, to see how he handled the problems I'd encountered. Right off the bat, he insisted on point-buy. I discovered that characters in Pathfinder can be very effective with a 20 point-buy, but are also very specialized.
A character could be incredibly effective in an encounter, only to be marginalized in another, and rendered completely useless in a third.
Part of this, I feel, had to do with the inability to have good tertiary attributes. Our Fighter, for example, had 16 Str, 16 Dex, 12 Con, 13 Int, 10 Wis, and 10 Cha. A worthy stat spread for combat, but not much else.
The game is predicated on a group of specialists, each contributing uniquely, but in actual play, it's hard when all your eggs are in one basket, as it were.
I'm about to start a new game, and I'm wrestling with how to generate characters. Die-rolling is heavily favored by my old gaming groups, and it does have the potential for more well-rounded characters...but by the same token, it can create lackluster characters, as well as imbalance among the party.
Point-buy is an elegant solution, but it leads to very specialized characters with nearly ludicrous weak points. My desire for more diversity originally led me to think "well, I could just use higher point-buy, like 25 or 30", but then I reflected on what my fellow players had done with their 20 points.
Wizards with 7...
I think about the virtues of rolling versus buying ability scores a lot. I favor rolling scores, but I also like the ability to create the character you want with point buy. I think this can be done well enough buy simply arranging rolled scores freely, but sometimes you can roll pretty badly so that even then you can't really get the character you wanted.
A couple years ago there was a thread on combining the two systems. Which inspired me to come up with my own ways of combining rolling and point-buy.
One simple way is to roll the ability scores using 3d6, then "top off" the array with 5 or 10 points as if you were using the point buy system with the caveat that you cannot decrease any of the rolled scores.
If somebody rolls really badly, you could even give them a few extra points to even things out.
I have also been developing a hybrid system I call Dice Points. In the Dice Point system you get 5 points to spend on your scores before you roll them. You can spend up to 3 points on any one score. If you are a fighter you will probably want to put 2 or 3 points in Strength, maybe a point in Dexterity or Intelligence, and a couple of points in Constitution. After allocating your Dice Points you roll your scores straight down the line with no rearranging afterwards. For every allocated Dice Point in a score you treat one die as an automatic 6 and roll the remaining dice, so spending 1 Dice Point on a score would mean you basically roll 2d6+6. If you spend 3 Dice Points on a score you automatically get an 18!
You can adjust the power level of PCs by allowing more or less Dice Points, however less Dice Points does not decrease the power level much as you are still at the mercy of lucky rolls.
I have recently developed an Advanced Dice Point system that is a bit more complex. With the Advanced Dice Point system you roll a d8, d6, and d4 to generate ability scores between 3 and 18. You then allocate 4 Dice Points with the caveat that you can only spend up to 2 dice points in any one score. If you spend 1 Dice Point in a score you set the d8 as an automatic 8 and roll the d6 and d4, whereas spending 2 Dice Points sets the d8 and the d6 to an automatic 8 and 6 and you roll the d4.
I like this better than the basic Dice Point system because of where the score breaks fall. Spending 1 Dice Point means you are guaranteed to get at least a 10 in that score and not suck, while 2 Dice Points means you will get at least a 15 and be awesome.
First of all, I appreciate all the replies, I saw some good ideas, and a few more points to consider.
I don't really have a problem with people dumping stats, some character concepts don't really require a whole lot of, say, Strength. Some of my players don't like to dump stats, and others don't want to be useless if, say, a non-combat encounter comes up.
I feel giving out more build points would reward the people who want to build better rounded characters...but my concern was what would happen if a player just took the extra points to be even more specialized.
An array seems like the simplest way to go.
It is really hard to spend the extra points to further specialize, and even if they do, they get very little from it.
Some classes benefit from specializing, and some benefit from being balanced moreso. Neither is wrong.
You get more +s from rounding out your character... It is really hard (though doable) to really avoid rounding our characters with extra points.
But... the easiest way to make players keep a more rounded stat array is to simply chance the stat window.
Make 10 the minimum, and/or 16 the maximum. Then they have almost no choice but to round their character a bit.
I mean, sure, with 20 points you could get two 16 and four 10s. But, you could get one 16, two 14s and three 10s instead, or even get four 14s and two 10s.
Or you could spread the points out, two 14, two 13s, two 12s.
A 20 point buy just lends itself to making a character with strengths, but also weaknesses.
////
Let’s look at a 25 point buy.
We can do five 14s and a ten. Or four 14s a 13 and a 12. Those are fairly rounded.
Alternatively we could specialize. That'd be two 16s a 14 and three 10s.
Still fairly reasonable and manageable.
////
Or a 15 point buy.
three 14s and three 10s. A 16 a 14 and four 10s. Two 14s, a 13, a 12 and two 10s. etc
////
My advice? Figure out what power level you want to DM for, pick the corresponding point buy total, and run with it. They all make playable characters. You can adjust the starting purchasable stat window, if you feel it is necessary.
Rolling just makes the power problem worse. Because then your party itself won’t have a fixed balance of power, making encounters for that can be trickier than parties with even stats arrays.
Rolling rules!
Point Buy is great!
Both are flawed... if you want perfect equality then you need to assign an array. You give up something regardless of the method you choose.
My favorite is Organic Rolling. But I also enjoy No Buy Down Point Buy. There have also been a number of other methods that look interesting over the years like a couple fusion methods that combine rolling and point buy that I haven't tried yet.
14 14 14 12 10 8 ,for everyone, assign as you please.
If you buy down to an 8, or even leave something at 10, you're not making the roll with that skill anyway. You may as well dump it all the way.
I have a lot more fun role playing a 7 than a 10: it could be a completely honest dwarf, or an old man doddering about the dungeon with a cane.
Ok, I read the first 2 dozen posts and then skipped to the end, so forgive me if this has already been offered. If you like the randomness of rolling but want to avoid really high or really low sets of stats:
Roll whatever format you like; 4d6-lowest or whatnot.
Review the rolls. Are they lower than what can be reached with a 20*-pt buy? Then bump them up as if you had 20*pts. Are they higher than what can be reached with a 25*-pt buy? Then drop them down as if you only had 25*pts.
This rewards the honest players who roll low and keeps those 'questionable' rolls in check.
*Plug any number you want in here
Actually I'm going to offer players the following for the next game.
They'll have a choice to either roll for stats or use the point-build system.
Using my dice (not their own, especially not their lucky dice), they can roll 4d6, drop the lowest. No rerolls, even for cocked dice or those dice that slide on the table instead of roll.
Or they can go with a 20-point build.
If they choose to roll for stats and do horribly, they then have the option of doing a 15-point build instead of accepting the rolls.
Most pathfinder adventures are build around 15 point buy, so we tend to stick to that. If I have people on the table that argue that 20 or 25 wouldn't makes much differences, I give them 10 or 5 point buys respectively. Its the same difference, so it shouldn't matter much right?
in the end it doesn't matter at all. make the pc's more powerfull, and you need to toss stronger npc's at them. downscale the enemies, downscale the pc's. so point buy matters not. you'll have to balance it afterwards anyway. and if it in the end doesn't matter, why not stick to the level that the adventures are build around. saves you the rebalancing.
Point Buy is unfair to the MAD guys (and the people who don't like any low stats).
Rolling is unfair to the SAD guys (and the unlucky ones).
Array is unfair to the people who want some bizarre stat load... although is is by definition the only truly fair stat method.
There are a LOT of fusion methods though. Rolling and Array or Rolling and Point Buy are available.
Although Rolling/Array methods tend to generate higher stat values than straight rolling would. They do however get that array fairness.
The last game I ran I offered the players a choice:
1- 4d6 drop low placed in the order rolled.
2- 15 point buy (no buy downs).
3- elite array.
Yes this was rough but since I was aiming at a softer approach to monsters it worked out just fine. Gamblers chose 1, SAD guys chose 2, and MAD guys chose 3, if I judge correctly.
|
years ago i played a Half Nymph Bard with starting stats on a 25 point buy of
5 Strength
14 Dexterity
7 Constitution
19 intelligence
14 wisdom
18 charismashe had 2 7s, but was she a filthy munchkin. especially when she couldn't wear armor? and couldn't take a hit?
i mean she was a scrawny and sickly little girl
+2 intelligence +2 charisma -2 Strength were the converted half nymph modifiersshe was maximum skills, but minimum survivability
by making herself seem harmless, she ignored a lot of enemy aggro
she gave requests politely whilst making dance like movements as part of her performance, like pointing at an orc's unarmed neck and saying "please slash him right there." she had cute nicknames for everyone and had an angelkin battle oracle cohort to fight for her.
other than being built as a support based noncombatant, would you personally considered her minmaxed? would you consider her optimized? not every 5 or 7 is a bad thing, characters can even have multiple and be challenged.
I would consider this character min/maxed but not optimized. Not optimized because a bards governing stat is cha and you chose to have int maxed instead of cha.
What type of 'adventures' was this character designed for?
My opinion, this character would a liability in most 'outdoor' adventures.
What type setting did you get to play her in? What level has she survived to so far?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read some, but not all of the thread.
To the OP:
I don't think it is very much of a difference between 3.5 and PF. I think it is much more likely to be difference in how different groups of players approach the system.
I know players that always want well rounded PC's and players that uber specialize until they can really only do one thing better than an average commoner. And at that one thing they are nearly unstoppable.
To an extent I think PF has more odd abilities that work together really well which allows a player to specialize more. Since that is possible, you also get some GM's that make encounters so difficult that it is practically necessary to specialize to that extent to have a chance of surviving let alone succeeding. But neither is necessarily the case.
If the GM puts in a large variety of reasonable challenges, it does more to discourage such 1 dimensional characters. Sometimes you have to guard someone, humiliate an enemy, capture a fire elemental, make peace between nations, find out who the killer is, recover the widget, climb a mountain, fight under water, make someone else look good, frame someone else for a crime, etc...
If the only thing you can do is 'I full attack for a bajillion damage' you might not be very helpful for a lot of those tasks.
But really the best is talk to the players. "Look if you uber optimize, I just increase the difficulty level of the encounters to compensate so no one gets bored. So you really don't gain anything. And you all seem to be very impatient while watching JJ does all the scouting and searching. Remember how much difficulty you had when DB couldn't do the talking for your group? What about the absolute halt when you couldn't tell who was lying?
For this next time, let's try to make characters that can do a few things reasonably well instead of trying to be the best in the universe at only one thing.
I will try to give you varied and appropriate encounters/tasks for that level of optimization."
Then again, some groups don't want that variety. "I want to be an undead killer in a campaign that is full of undead to be killed!" If everyone enjoys it, there is nothing wrong with that.
Most pathfinder adventures are build around 15 point buy, so we tend to stick to that. If I have people on the table that argue that 20 or 25 wouldn't makes much differences, I give them 10 or 5 point buys respectively. Its the same difference, so it shouldn't matter much right?
And then they play a wizard and still win at everything! For example, I got S 7 D 10 C 12 I 19 W 10 C 5 with 5 point buy for a tiefling wizard. Her base initiative isn't great, but being a diviner and a compsognathus familiar make up for that. Hope they didn't want to play something like a monk, though...
in the end it doesn't matter at all. make the pc's more powerfull, and you need to toss stronger npc's at them. downscale the enemies, downscale the pc's. so point buy matters not. you'll have to balance it afterwards anyway. and if it in the end doesn't matter, why not stick to the level that the adventures are build around. saves you the rebalancing.
The false premise in this argument is the assumption that changes in point buy affect all classes roughly equally. That's simply not true. SAD classes like the wizard don't benefit a lot from higher point buys while MAD classes get more out of it.
If I were to house rule anything with point buy, it would be limiting dumping. I would say only 1 stat may be dumped, and only to 8 or 9, with no 7s before racial modifiers.
No 7s, again.
I prefer point buy, but several local games offer 'choices of Array', usually totaling 20, though one runs 26 by my count.
None of the local GMs I play with really want me rolling, as my last few toons ran over 40 points worth each. All with the GM (and often several hating witnesses) watching. I'm currently playing a 50+ point Wizard with a starting Int of 20 and a Con of 17! My low is 14. I really feel bad for the guy who insisted that 'we all gotta see the rolls!' His high is a 15 and he has a pair of 6s. I'm crusading to have everyone's minimum be 10.
In my Jade Regent campaign, I decided to let the players roll, which I'll call Mistake #1.
One of them roll exceptionally well, the equivalent of a 51 point buy. Others rolled very poorly (three stats below 10?!). So in the spirit of equality, I boosted every other PCs so that all of them had about equivalent stat bonuses (about +12 equivalent). Mistake #2.
After surviving the first book, the characters were progressively having an easier and easier time with the adventure as written. With the characters getting more and more optimized, I had to boost the challenges by adding more baddies or upping their level. The downside of it is that they were getting more XPs and getting more levels, so I had to readjust the adventure (time consuming) and make it more challenging, which gives more XPs... AAUGH!
By now they're two levels higher than expected, and with two extra players they're at least CR4 higher than it should. And we still have two books to go through.
Every NPC in the book is 20 point buy and feels very squishy in comparison.
If I ever DM Pathfinder again (two other APs to play through first), I'll be going with 20 or 25 point buy. I'll also forgo any XPs and go with the recommended levels in the APs, but that's another matter.
If I were to house rule anything with point buy, it would be limiting dumping. I would say only 1 stat may be dumped, and only to 8 or 9, with no 7s before racial modifiers.No 7s, again.
-2 mod vs -1 mod
A good stat to have in the non-main attribute is 14. A 7 is the opposite of that. It's more than just minor weakness to your character. Where many people have the issue is when that 7 is thrown into an irrelevant stat. Like fighter with 7 int and 7 cha. That player decides to cripple their character for everything non-combat related in exchange for maybe another +1 to the mod of one of their main stats.
Now as to why 7 is awful but 8 is OK: Let's look at the point cost of their respective positive counterparts 14 and 12. A 12 cost 2 points to have, while a 14 cost 5 points to have. A 14 is considered to be 150% more valuable than a 12. This thinking is easily applied to 8 and 7 even though their point buy difference is only 100%, but that is merely because 7 is an odd number and is effectively a 6 for most attributes and situations.
years ago i played a Half Nymph Bard with starting stats on a 25 point buy of
5 Strength
14 Dexterity
7 Constitution
19 intelligence
14 wisdom
18 charismashe had 2 7s, but was she a filthy munchkin. especially when she couldn't wear armor? and couldn't take a hit?
i mean she was a scrawny and sickly little girl
+2 intelligence +2 charisma -2 Strength were the converted half nymph modifiersshe was maximum skills, but minimum survivability
by making herself seem harmless, she ignored a lot of enemy aggro
she gave requests politely whilst making dance like movements as part of her performance, like pointing at an orc's unarmed neck and saying "please slash him right there." she had cute nicknames for everyone and had an angelkin battle oracle cohort to fight for her.
other than being built as a support based noncombatant, would you personally considered her minmaxed? would you consider her optimized? not every 5 or 7 is a bad thing, characters can even have multiple and be challenged.
I would consider this character min/maxed but not optimized. Not optimized because a bards governing stat is cha and you chose to have int maxed instead of cha.
What type of 'adventures' was this character designed for?
My opinion, this character would a liability in most 'outdoor' adventures.
What type setting did you get to play her in? What level has she survived to so far?
she was played in an Urban political intrigue Campaign and survived to 16th level when the DM retired the campaign. she started 5th level and had a 3rd level cohort.
Exactly, only ONE seven? You can fit at least two in there.To prevent min maxing just don't allow people to buy down to 7.This is what I don't understand. What's so unseemly about buying down to 7 as opposed to 8, like in your sample array?7 is the point that you are minmaxing and is inexcusable with a point buy of 20 or greater.
7s are also used for poor race/class combos to shore up the essential stats. It's still minmaxing though.
Look at it this way. 8s are to 12s what 7s are to 14s as in ability mod.
Umberto still makes your head hurt, doesn't he, BNW?
Also useful is Rolled Point-buy, so you don't get to custom design your stats (similar to rolling), but everyone comes out even.
** spoiler omitted **
Can't find the original post to credit I'm afraid.
That was one of my crazier ideas from about 2009 or so. It turned out to be about as popular as a fart in a phone booth! I'm amazed that anyone remembered it...
Umberto still makes your head hurt, doesn't he, BNW?Exactly, only ONE seven? You can fit at least two in there.To prevent min maxing just don't allow people to buy down to 7.This is what I don't understand. What's so unseemly about buying down to 7 as opposed to 8, like in your sample array?7 is the point that you are minmaxing and is inexcusable with a point buy of 20 or greater.
7s are also used for poor race/class combos to shore up the essential stats. It's still minmaxing though.
Look at it this way. 8s are to 12s what 7s are to 14s as in ability mod.
Fabrizio is going to enjoy using telekenetic charge on such a well rounded bowling ball....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most pathfinder adventures are build around 15 point buy, so we tend to stick to that. If I have people on the table that argue that 20 or 25 wouldn't makes much differences, I give them 10 or 5 point buys respectively. Its the same difference, so it shouldn't matter much right?
Your logic is flawed, in that there are diminished returns for higher point totals.
Going from 5 to 10 points makes a much larger impact than going from 25 to 30 points.
Most pathfinder adventures are build around 15 point buy, so we tend to stick to that. If I have people on the table that argue that 20 or 25 wouldn't makes much differences, I give them 10 or 5 point buys respectively. Its the same difference, so it shouldn't matter much right?Your logic is flawed, in that there are diminished returns for higher point totals.
Going from 5 to 10 points makes a much larger impact than going from 25 to 30 points.
changes in point buy, DO have diminishing returns
the change from 5 to 10, is a thousand times more drastic than the change from 15 to 25.
the reason for this, is the extra points do little when there are caps on how high you can buy a stat combined with the fact that higher stats have inflated costs
the extra points in a 25 point buy, aren't going into your primaries, they are going into your secondaries and teritaries. and also, to roleplaying stats
the difference is not the same whatsoever. the higher attributes have higher attached costs, and the impact on your stat pool from going from a 15 point buy to a 25 point buy, is a lot less on the actual stats than the impact of going from a 5 point buy to a 10 point buy. in fact, going from a 25 point buy to a 40 point buy has even less impact.
Most pathfinder adventures are build around 15 point buy, so we tend to stick to that. If I have people on the table that argue that 20 or 25 wouldn't makes much differences, I give them 10 or 5 point buys respectively. Its the same difference, so it shouldn't matter much right?Your logic is flawed, in that there are diminished returns for higher point totals.
Going from 5 to 10 points makes a much larger impact than going from 25 to 30 points.
changes in point buy, DO have diminishing returns
the change from 5 to 10, is a thousand times more drastic than the change from 15 to 25.
the reason for this, is the extra points do little when there are caps on how high you can buy a stat combined with the fact that higher stats have inflated costs
the extra points in a 25 point buy, aren't going into your primaries, they are going into your secondaries and teritaries. and also, to roleplaying stats
the difference is not the same whatsoever. the higher attributes have higher attached costs, and the impact on your stat pool from going from a 15 point buy to a 25 point buy, is a lot less on the actual stats than the impact of going from a 5 point buy to a 10 point buy. in fact, going from a 25 point buy to a 40 point buy has even less impact.
the irony being that some call my logic flawed. Considering this game makes a +1 advantage over any roll a significant advantage. so the added bonus isn't decreased in value.
The increase in cost is in place for all point buy value's, and does not hamper high point buy more simply because of the nature of the advantage you're getting. the only thing that mitigates the point buy advantage is increases in levels|
|
Dice rolling is incompatible with this iteration of the game and has been since version 3.0
Why?
Because the bonuses associated with the scores in previous editions were not linear, and did not unduly stress table balance even when some chacters had two or more 18's, and for the most part very high scores in some abilities did not benefit all character classes
In this iteration, with linear bonuses and a net equal benefit to every class of character from above average ability scores, point buy is the better balance and ultimately, linear bonus progression applied to Gaussian distribution probability of ability score generation is counter intuitive
I agree with this if you playing a published adventure.
|
|
she was played in an Urban political intrigue Campaign and survived to 16th level when the DM retired the campaign. she started 5th level and had a 3rd level cohort.years ago i played a Half Nymph Bard with starting stats on a 25 point buy of
5 Strength
14 Dexterity
7 Constitution
19 intelligence
14 wisdom
18 charismashe had 2 7s, but was she a filthy munchkin. especially when she couldn't wear armor? and couldn't take a hit?
i mean she was a scrawny and sickly little girl
+2 intelligence +2 charisma -2 Strength were the converted half nymph modifiersshe was maximum skills, but minimum survivability
by making herself seem harmless, she ignored a lot of enemy aggro
she gave requests politely whilst making dance like movements as part of her performance, like pointing at an orc's unarmed neck and saying "please slash him right there." she had cute nicknames for everyone and had an angelkin battle oracle cohort to fight for her.
other than being built as a support based noncombatant, would you personally considered her minmaxed? would you consider her optimized? not every 5 or 7 is a bad thing, characters can even have multiple and be challenged.
I would consider this character min/maxed but not optimized. Not optimized because a bards governing stat is cha and you chose to have int maxed instead of cha.
What type of 'adventures' was this character designed for?
My opinion, this character would a liability in most 'outdoor' adventures.
What type setting did you get to play her in? What level has she survived to so far?
Just a little disconnect here. Leadership fear require a minimum lv 7 character to get....how could you have a cohort at 5th lv?
Last year I started a campaign using Pathfinder. I'd both played in and run games with the 3.5 rules set extensively, so I thought I could treat Pathfinder as the same game.
Welcome. 3.5 and pathfinder are very similar, but all of the Pathfinder classes are around the power level of the Complete Series. A Player's Handbook Fighter would be stomped on by a Core Rules Book Fighter with no contest.
Most notably is that the Martial classes were made more powerful, the Casters were toned down, and there are a lot more Gish classes. The traditional Gish is still as powerful in Pathfinder as it is in 3.5, but there are classes built to be Gishes that have other powers that are very important.I was surprised by more powerful feats, and easier access to "use stat X for Y" traits. I conceded defeat when a Monk (a Martial Artist, no less) ran roughshod over what I'd thought was a very dangerous encounter.
Monks can be powerful. Your martial artist could have actually been FAR more dangerous as a Zen Archer, or to go even further a Zen Archer3/Empreal Sorcerer 1/EK10/Hellknight Enforcer6.
There are a lot of more powerful martial feats, as aforementioned, and the amount of sheer power for casters, in the form of Save or Suck, has been drastically reduced--it is still there, mind you, but isn't as ridiculous.
A character could be incredibly effective in an encounter, only to be marginalized in another, and rendered completely useless in a third.
I reverse engineered the CR system to be effective for scaling it to individual characters. Basically there is this wonderful thing called Action Economy, and the more actions a side has the harder it is for the opposing side to win. Sending a single big monster at a party in Pathfinder is foolish to the extreme. However, sending as many monsters at the party as there are PCs can make the encounter very interesting. I prefer to send more monsters than there are PCs. They die in one or two hits, but if they have effects on them that come into play when they die then the party has to be tactical about how they defeat these enemies. Gold is handled about the same, some people go by Wealth By Level, others go by Treasure Per Enemy, and in the case of the latter the PCs will have a gold advantage.
The game is predicated on a group of specialists, each contributing uniquely, but in actual play, it's hard when all your eggs are in one basket, as it were.
The game is built around the following idea: A group will have 1 fighter, 1 cleric, 1 rogue, and 1 wizard. Almost all of the content is build around that idea, a single dangerous character that can absorb damage and dish it out, a specialist who can deal high damage to a single target under the right circumstances, a character that can heal (or attack) in many ways but is overall marginalized beyond that and debuffing/buffing, and an offensive caster who deals AoE damage.
These characters being specialized isn't a problem, as if you include at least one enemy per PC then things balance out.The biggest problem new DMs run into is they think that single big enemy is a challenge, and are then devastated when it dies in 1 round from Hold Person/Slumber and Coup de grace.
I'm about to start a new game, and I'm wrestling with how to generate characters. Die-rolling is heavily favored by my old gaming groups, and it does have the potential for more well-rounded characters...but by the same token, it can create lackluster characters, as well as imbalance among the party.
20 point buy, standard rules (cannot go below 7 point buy, but racial can take it down to 5, cannot go above 18, but racial can take it to 20 or higher), and any races.
Avoid dice rolling in Pathfinder. You WANT your PCs to have to make conscious decisions about what they are going to be weak and strong at.Point-buy is an elegant solution, but it leads to very specialized characters with nearly ludicrous weak points. My desire for more diversity originally led me to think "well, I could just use higher point-buy, like 25 or 30", but then I reflected on what my fellow players had done with their 20 points.
The entire point of Drama in a party is that everyone complements everyone else, and everyone counters everyone else's weaknesses.
The 20str power attacking two-handed fighter can deal stupidly high amounts of damage while having lower AC, as compared to the (Sword/mace/spear)/Board fighter who shield slams like crazy who has higher AC but much lower damage per round.Similarly the Wizard or other primary offensive caster really wants to have their casting attribute as high as possible so that spell DCs are as high as possible.
Wizards with 7 Strength and 20 Int, Clerics with 20 Wis and 7 Int...I don't mind people having strong suits, but obviously no one was concerned about over-specialization. And if I give people more points, they'd probably just have higher secondary stats. Instead of a 16 Dex on a Wizard, maybe they'd have an 18? Instead of a 12 Con, maybe a 14?
You actually don't need to do this. Getting an 18 in an attribute costs 17 points, which means everything else can be at 10, and one other attribute can be 13.
Maximized split (The Caster/HULK SMASH of DOOM!)18
13
10
10
10
10
The Idiot Savant (2 max, at expensive of all others, used by people who have a very specific idea of what they want the character to do. Sometimes used by Mystic Thurges, more often by Monks/Magi/Masters of War. Can grant exceptional AC when done correctly, but at massive penalties. That -2 will might not seem too bad, but exacerbate it with Crossblooded (-2 will) and you will most likely never make a will save to save your life. Occasionally used by Soopah Casters to have insane spellcasting power while also having insane HP, and is a favored build of min-maxed Summoners who like gaining crazy HP per level to make the Eidolon neigh on unkillable.)
18
18
8
7
7
7
Two-high split is (The Archer, because +4 to hit and +4 damage with a composite longbow never felt so good.)
16
16
10
10
10
10
4-high split (The generic Monk, mediocre statistics in 4 areas.)
14
14
14
14
10
10
Typically speaking a balanced character is boring unless there is a specific reason.
Just a little disconnect here. Leadership fear require a minimum lv 7 character to get....how could you have a cohort at 5th lv?
|
|
Voila.Just a little disconnect here. Leadership fear require a minimum lv 7 character to get....how could you have a cohort at 5th lv?
Except her character was a bard, no all martial weapons prof.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if, at 4th/8th/12th/16th level, you got 4 "point buy" points instead of +1 to a single stat?
Like every rule change, I am sure that it would create as many problems as it solves. (Can you bank them? Do upper level adventures break if you don't have a 20 in your primary stat?) But it seems worth considering.
I tried that back in my 3.5 days. I loved it.
I even spread it out a bit. Every odd level you get a feat (A house rule I used in 3.5 before Paizo did it offically) and every even level you got two points to spend on the point buy system, and I bumped that up to three points when you hit double digit levels (10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20). 26 extra points to spend on the point-buy chart.
I allowed players to bank them, and required players to track how they spent them (I gave them a sheet that had all levels listed from 1-20 and had spots for HP Rolls, SP gained, feat taken, and ability score increases).
This makes it very easy to fix your character's poor ability scores as you level up and very hard to improve the good ones. So the fighter who starts with a 20 STR will not have a 25 STR when he reaches level 20, but his crappy dumped CHA and INT might not be quite so crappy at level 20.
I even used this with rolling the initial ability scores - it helped the unlucky and/or honest players catch up to the lucky and/or cheating players (who found they rarely got to improve any ability score they cared about).
I loved it and so did some of my players. But some of my players didn't like it because they WANTED to maximize their primary ability score and this system makes that nearly impossible.
I'll tell you what we use in my group, and you could easily modify it to suit your tastes. This isn't MY idea, but I can no longer remember where I first read about it or who came up with it.
We call it "27/25/23"
Stats are generated in pairs. The first number in the pair is generated by rolling 3d6, and the second is generated by subtracting the value of the first number from 27 (or 25 for the second pair, or 23 for the third).
Thus, if a player rolls an 11, their first two stats are 11 and 16 (because 27-11=16).
If they next roll a 15, their second two stats are 15 and 10 (because 25-15=10).
In the event that a stat would be higher than 18, it is an 18 and the amount subtracted to lower it to 18 is added to the other stat in the pair. Therefore, if the player in the above examples were to roll a 3 on their final roll, their final two stats would be 5 and 18 (because 23-3=20, and 20-18=2, and 3+2=5).
After all stats are rolled, the player can arrange as desired and add +1 to any one stat.
A nice DM might allow players to generate two sets of stats.
I find that this lets players play whatever they want, but adds an element of randomness and doesn't always result in COMPLETE optimization (ie boring and predictable stat arrays).
Works for us!