What is everyone's fascination with...


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 465 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

In the old 2nd edition class guides, they had a table array where you could roll for a random set of ability scores that would be appropriate for the class you were playing. Of course, 2e also had stat requirements to be a class. For example, a paladin had to have a minimum of 17 Charisma, so all the ability score sets you could roll for had a 17 or 18 charisma on the Paladin table.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

This thread is getting weird.

Am I the only one who generally wants to have at least one low score?

Nah, I usually like playing low-int characters. It would be low-wis characters except, y'know. Will saves.

Sovereign Court

Arachnofiend wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

This thread is getting weird.

Am I the only one who generally wants to have at least one low score?

Nah, I usually like playing low-int characters. It would be low-wis characters except, y'know. Will saves.

Eh, it's sometimes funny to play deliberately easy to mind-control characters, as long as your group is okay with it/has ways to deal with it. Particularly if you are playing a less combat optimised character with a low Wis, so you won't wreck the party after a failed save, it can make for some interesting roleplaying.


I usually play characters that do damage in combat (even when I build a hybrid class like the Bard I typically spec for melee) so me getting mind controlled is very bad for my team. Plus, I mean, I came to play, not to watch the GM play my character.


Xander (to Riley): "If you want to reach my Master, you go through me."
*PUNCH*
Riley (stepping over Xander): "Okey-dokey."

It can be kinda funny.


What is everyone's fascination with rolling stats? I don't know who "everyone" is. Not a single game I have been involved in (including one-offs, etc.) has rolled ability scores since 2008, and it had been a few years before that.

As for rolling for hit points at each level, I would love if we could just all agree to to take the average. Its one of the things I was completely on board with in 4e.

EDIT: I lied. We played about three sessions of Way of the Wicked, and I believe (not sure) that the adventure has specific character creation rules that call for group-generated, rolled abilitiy scores.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm OK with rolling for stats.
I despise rolling for hit points.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I play this game to give a temporary relief from my weekly stresses in life. This game is my stress reliever. It also allows me to spend some time with friends.

As a stress reliever, I like the following aspects of the game: laughs with friends over jokes, quips, and comedic instances in game; problem solving puzzles, traps, and story lines; flat out dominating in combat; running from scary opponents while trying to survive a la Indiana Jones; character creation; assuming a role of someone *not me*; character interaction with other players and the world; engaging in imagination and creativity; and there's probably more I can think of.

None of it is "playing the most powerful character I can figure out so I can win."

High stats, low stats, random, point buy, whatever. It doesn't matter. What matters is enjoying the game with the character I have, and figuring out how to engage in the game with what I've got.

Also, engaging with all you fine folk over things that don't really matter in the end - because I enjoy it. :)


Matthew Downie wrote:

I'm OK with rolling for stats.

I despise rolling for hit points.

+1


It's bizarre to me that anyone thought that there being a random chance for a barbarian to gain 1 HP upon leveling up was at all fair or fun.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

This thread is getting weird.

Am I the only one who generally wants to have at least one low score?

Nah, I usually like playing low-int characters. It would be low-wis characters except, y'know. Will saves.

Low-Wis arcanists, bards, investigators, magi, oracles, skalds, sorcerers, summoners, witches, and wizards can be viable, since they have "good" Will saves to compensate. From a mechanics perspective, Wis is often less important than Int and Cha for many characters of those classes (not to mention being very appropriate from a role-playing perspective, as well; "ivory tower" intellectuals/"absent-minded professor" types, extreme thrill-seekers, etc.).


Matthew Downie wrote:

(Rolls 3d6 for each stat in order):

Str 8
Dex 10
Con 12
Int 8
Wis 10
Cha 16
(Rolls for class): Please be a sorcerer, please be a sorcerer...
Monk.
Dammit.

LOL


I think the dichotomy is often between people who craft characters and people who want to be surprised. It's also between people who want parity at the table and people who don't care so much about balance.

On the other hand I've seen some odd variations on rolling that seem to add complexity just to have variation.

Quote:

1. Roll 5d6 for each stat, using the three best rolls of the five for the stat. Roll a 7th time to generate one extra stat.

2. Ditch the lowest stat keeping the best of six of the 7 stats.
3. Arrange the 6 remaining stats as desired.
4. Rearrange points on a 1:1 ratio.
5. Take 10 more points and add on a 1:1 ratio.
6. Before applying racial bonuses or penalties (or other mods such as RP purchased bonus mods – see race stuff below), no score can be over 18 or under 8. (If by some chance you roll so well that this would cause you to waste some of the 10 bonus points – well, too bad and grats you on being so awesome )
7. If your stat total is below 90, use 90 points

I've also seen gamemasters bend their rules for people who roll low, and bend them for people who rolled too high. (I once had to roll 24d6, keep the best 18. The GM wouldn't let me have the 18,18,18,16,15,14 I rolled. :P)

Point buy is just simpler.

As for rolling HP, at one table we have the "Price is Right" method. You can accept what you rolled, or take your chances with what the GM rolled in secret. It's fun, but my next campaign is just going to go with 2/3 max, round up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I've rolled all 18's before. Made a paladin.
He was the most exemplary exemplar that ever exempted.


Would it help with the SAD/MAD discrepancy if the Point Buy didn't allow a PC to go above, say, 16? Or perhaps if, even after Racial Bonuses, you weren't allowed to go above a total of 16 in any one stat?

SADsters would still be at an advantage, I'm sure, but certainly not as much of one.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Lakesidefantasy wrote:


Actually Point Buy is a pretty convoluted method of generating ability scores. Its not intuitive and pretty confusing to the uninitiated. It's also one of the factors why it takes hours to make character since you spend so much time weighing the consequences of placing each point.

I can make a non-prepared spellcaster class in like 20 minutes at 10th level with point buy (although roll dice is just as fast, speed as really not a consequence of point buy).

My players though when i do have them roll usually spend a great deal of time trying to wiggle a reroll out of me.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Would it help with the SAD/MAD discrepancy if the Point Buy didn't allow a PC to go above, say, 16? Or perhaps if, even after Racial Bonuses, you weren't allowed to go above a total of 16 in any one stat?

SADsters would still be at an advantage, I'm sure, but certainly not as much of one.

the thing with SAD classes is even if you gave them an 18 in their stat and 10's in everything else, they'd still clean the floor with a MAD class with all 18s.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Philo Pharynx wrote:
I think the dichotomy is often between people who craft characters and people who want to be surprised. It's also between people who want parity at the table and people who don't care so much about balance.

pretty much this, I went to point buy to facilitate balance, as a few less rolls at the start of the game make everyone feel their character is competent and enjoyable for the whole of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Forgive me for being off-topic, but I'm disappointed that the post wasn't actually a question about people's fascination for clicking on threads whose titles are half-finished questions.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Marco Polaris wrote:
Forgive me for being off-topic, but I'm disappointed that the post wasn't actually a question about people's fascination for clicking on threads whose titles are half-finished questions.

jokes been made before.


Bandw2 wrote:
Lakesidefantasy wrote:


Actually Point Buy is a pretty convoluted method of generating ability scores. Its not intuitive and pretty confusing to the uninitiated. It's also one of the factors why it takes hours to make character since you spend so much time weighing the consequences of placing each point.
I can make a non-prepared spellcaster class in like 20 minutes at 10th level with point buy (although roll dice is just as fast, speed as really not a consequence of point buy).

Well bully for you. I take longer than that figuring out personality and thus what class I want to take. And I do often agonize over those last couple points in point buy - whether I should dump more to get another bump in a stat or something. Even though I know it won't make that much difference in the long run. Do I want another hp or another sp.

Bandw2 wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Would it help with the SAD/MAD discrepancy if the Point Buy didn't allow a PC to go above, say, 16? Or perhaps if, even after Racial Bonuses, you weren't allowed to go above a total of 16 in any one stat?

SADsters would still be at an advantage, I'm sure, but certainly not as much of one.

the thing with SAD classes is even if you gave them an 18 in their stat and 10's in everything else, they'd still clean the floor with a MAD class with all 18s.

That's not a SAD/MAD division. It's arguably a martial/caster problem if that's what you mean.

A free Dex to damage martial (maybe with special AC bonuses so he doesn't need to carry weight) with good saves would be as SAD as most casters. But a MAD martial with all 18s would clean his clock.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Would it help with the SAD/MAD discrepancy if the Point Buy didn't allow a PC to go above, say, 16? Or perhaps if, even after Racial Bonuses, you weren't allowed to go above a total of 16 in any one stat?

SADsters would still be at an advantage, I'm sure, but certainly not as much of one.

In my experience, yes. Pre-racial bonus limit of 15 in any one stat or similar makes it a lot harder to one-shot enemies - though other types of disparity still remain.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Lakesidefantasy wrote:


Actually Point Buy is a pretty convoluted method of generating ability scores. Its not intuitive and pretty confusing to the uninitiated. It's also one of the factors why it takes hours to make character since you spend so much time weighing the consequences of placing each point.
I can make a non-prepared spellcaster class in like 20 minutes at 10th level with point buy (although roll dice is just as fast, speed as really not a consequence of point buy).

Well bully for you. I take longer than that figuring out personality and thus what class I want to take. And I do often agonize over those last couple points in point buy - whether I should dump more to get another bump in a stat or something. Even though I know it won't make that much difference in the long run. Do I want another hp or another sp.

you missed the point of my statement. (to explain: it's your issue not point buy's)

thejeff wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Would it help with the SAD/MAD discrepancy if the Point Buy didn't allow a PC to go above, say, 16? Or perhaps if, even after Racial Bonuses, you weren't allowed to go above a total of 16 in any one stat?

SADsters would still be at an advantage, I'm sure, but certainly not as much of one.

the thing with SAD classes is even if you gave them an 18 in their stat and 10's in everything else, they'd still clean the floor with a MAD class with all 18s.

That's not a SAD/MAD division. It's arguably a martial/caster problem if that's what you mean.

A free Dex to damage martial (maybe with special AC bonuses so he doesn't need to carry weight) with good saves would be as SAD as most casters. But a MAD martial with all 18s would clean his clock.

you means like monk with an agile amulet and weapon finesse? (don't need to spend any feats on TWF, I mean they even have double slice that works with dex to damage)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Lakesidefantasy wrote:


Actually Point Buy is a pretty convoluted method of generating ability scores. Its not intuitive and pretty confusing to the uninitiated. It's also one of the factors why it takes hours to make character since you spend so much time weighing the consequences of placing each point.
I can make a non-prepared spellcaster class in like 20 minutes at 10th level with point buy (although roll dice is just as fast, speed as really not a consequence of point buy).

Well bully for you. I take longer than that figuring out personality and thus what class I want to take. And I do often agonize over those last couple points in point buy - whether I should dump more to get another bump in a stat or something. Even though I know it won't make that much difference in the long run. Do I want another hp or another sp.

Sorry, Jeff, this is the rules discussions forums. We try to assume everyone playing the game is a math whiz who can do DPR calculations in his head.


Bandw2 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Lakesidefantasy wrote:


Actually Point Buy is a pretty convoluted method of generating ability scores. Its not intuitive and pretty confusing to the uninitiated. It's also one of the factors why it takes hours to make character since you spend so much time weighing the consequences of placing each point.
I can make a non-prepared spellcaster class in like 20 minutes at 10th level with point buy (although roll dice is just as fast, speed as really not a consequence of point buy).

Well bully for you. I take longer than that figuring out personality and thus what class I want to take. And I do often agonize over those last couple points in point buy - whether I should dump more to get another bump in a stat or something. Even though I know it won't make that much difference in the long run. Do I want another hp or another sp.

you missed the point of my statement.

Not really. It may be true for you, but I find rolling faster (as long as it's not some annoyingly complex method). Less moving parts. Less decisions. Quicker to slap the existing numbers into place than to tweak them around.

Edit: Since you did - Sure it's my issue, if you will, but it's worse for me with point buy.
I could also say that your ability to slap together midlevel characters quickly is your special talent and doesn't say anything about how the system works for others, but that's going far outside the point buy vs roll argument.

Bandw2 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Would it help with the SAD/MAD discrepancy if the Point Buy didn't allow a PC to go above, say, 16? Or perhaps if, even after Racial Bonuses, you weren't allowed to go above a total of 16 in any one stat?

SADsters would still be at an advantage, I'm sure, but certainly not as much of one.

the thing with SAD classes is even if you gave them an 18 in their stat and 10's in everything else, they'd still clean the floor with a MAD class with all 18s.

That's not a SAD/MAD division. It's arguably a martial/caster problem if that's what you mean.

A free Dex to damage martial (maybe with special AC bonuses so he doesn't need to carry weight) with good saves would be as SAD as most casters. But a MAD martial with all 18s would clean his clock.

you means like monk with an agile amulet and weapon finesse(don't need to spend any feats on TWF)?

Other than needing to spend a ton of cash on getting the agile amulet and burn a feat of TWF, which conflicts with "free Dex to damage" and leaves you really sucking until you can afford the amulet. So no, not really.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
you means like monk with an agile amulet and weapon finesse? (don't need to spend any feats on TWF, I mean they even have double slice that works with dex to damage)

My, what a generous starting wealth! What is that, 3d6x1000?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Not really. It may be true for you, but I find rolling faster (as long as it's not some annoyingly complex method). Less moving parts. Less decisions. Quicker to slap the existing numbers into place than to tweak them around.

once again your problem not point buy's, for instance there have been mentioned at least several dice rolling methods that open up choice. do I want the roll set that has 2 16s or the one that has an 18?

thejeff wrote:
Other than needing to spend a ton of cash on getting the agile amulet and burn a feat of TWF, which conflicts with "free Dex to damage" and leaves you really sucking until you can afford the amulet. So no, not really.

you don't need to burn a feat on TWFing, you gain the effects of all TWFing feats, and double slice for free(no off-hand fist attacks). I'm just saying only being reliant on dex isn't SAD like a Wizard is. Swashbuckler has s+&~ saves, Rogue as well. but a Monk can easily do 18 dex and have 10s in all mental stats and strength and come out as competent.

Weapon finesse is a single, feat sure it's a while before you have an agile amulet, but when you do, you're still SAD under your description, as all your saves are great, and you get a bonus to AC, and all the free TWFing feats (the best way to get dex to damage besides two-handing finesse weapons as a rogue) make it pretty damn dex oriented.

what are we saying this isn't true because it doesn't work for a few levels? I mean a wizard ALSO sucks at these levels so I dare say the point on starting wealth is mute.


Bandw2 wrote:
you don't need to burn a feat on TWFing, you gain the effects of all TWFing feats, and double slice for free(no off-hand fist attacks). I'm just saying only being reliant on dex isn't SAD like a Wizard is. Swashbuckler has s%!~ saves, Rogue as well. but a Monk can easily do 18 dex and have 10s in all mental stats and strength and come out as competent.

Really! Have fun with your 16-ish AC. Also have fun being utter s$&# until 8th level—assuming you survive that long.

Why are these forums always so determined to ignore the very levels within which everyone agrees a PC is most likely to die and stay dead?

Oh, and on a sidenote—what if you don't want to be a monk with an Agile amulet? What if you want to be a normal monk? Or a Zen Archer? Or a normal archer fighter? Or a skald, or a trapfinding rogue, or a ranger, or a paladin?

The monk isn't the only MAD class, just the most well-known. And your "fix" commits the dual sins of being both impractical and narrow.


So just for a comment from the past:

Gygax back in 1E wrote:
While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy -- which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with.

Looks like even back in the day rolling up a bunch of numbers until you got one you liked was pretty common. As was wanting to play specific classes or races and not lousy characters with short lifespans.

But I'm mostly amused by the implicit assumption that making a bunch of attempts at rolling a good character was common. Suggests that the actual characters played weren't as low stat as the 3d6 method implies.


Sorry about the Monk derail. The details obscure the point - it's theoretically possible to design a SAD martial class, whether or not the monk qualifies. Even if you do so, that SAD martial class with 1 18 & the rest 10s will be outclassed by either the SAD caster classes or (most likely) by MAD classes with all 18s. The SAD caster with those stats will still trump the high stat MAD martial.

The problem isn't so much MAD vs SAD, though that doesn't help, but martial vs caster.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
you don't need to burn a feat on TWFing, you gain the effects of all TWFing feats, and double slice for free(no off-hand fist attacks). I'm just saying only being reliant on dex isn't SAD like a Wizard is. Swashbuckler has s%!~ saves, Rogue as well. but a Monk can easily do 18 dex and have 10s in all mental stats and strength and come out as competent.

Really! Have fun with your 16-ish AC. Also have fun being utter s#&! until 8th level—assuming you survive that long.

Why are these forums always so determined to ignore the very levels within which everyone agrees a PC is most likely to die and stay dead?

Oh, and on a sidenote—what if you don't want to be a monk with an Agile amulet? What if you want to be a normal monk? Or a Zen Archer? Or a normal archer fighter? Or a skald, or a trapfinding rogue, or a ranger, or a paladin?

The monk isn't the only MAD class, just the most well-known. And your "fix" commits the dual sins of being both impractical and narrow.

I'll have you know i ended up with 17 AC at level 1. :P

anyway, it's funny my current character is a 1 level dip monk, rest unchained rogue. haven't seen combat yet but is level 7, has 23 AC, has saves of 6-14-7. rogues finesse going into unarmed strikes. she's a Kobold.


What does that mean for Point Buy, though? The MAD classes with all 18s are certainly not from Point Buy. Martial vs. caster is entirely irrelevant to this discussion except in that caster classes tend to have the additional advantage of being SAD.


Bandw2 wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
you don't need to burn a feat on TWFing, you gain the effects of all TWFing feats, and double slice for free(no off-hand fist attacks). I'm just saying only being reliant on dex isn't SAD like a Wizard is. Swashbuckler has s%!~ saves, Rogue as well. but a Monk can easily do 18 dex and have 10s in all mental stats and strength and come out as competent.

Really! Have fun with your 16-ish AC. Also have fun being utter s#&! until 8th level—assuming you survive that long.

Why are these forums always so determined to ignore the very levels within which everyone agrees a PC is most likely to die and stay dead?

Oh, and on a sidenote—what if you don't want to be a monk with an Agile amulet? What if you want to be a normal monk? Or a Zen Archer? Or a normal archer fighter? Or a skald, or a trapfinding rogue, or a ranger, or a paladin?

The monk isn't the only MAD class, just the most well-known. And your "fix" commits the dual sins of being both impractical and narrow.

I'll have you know i ended up with 17 AC at level 1. :P

Half of the way monks make up for lacking armor is with the Wisdom bonus. A 10 Wisdom on a monk is total madness.


thejeff wrote:

Sorry about the Monk derail. The details obscure the point - it's theoretically possible to design a SAD martial class, whether or not the monk qualifies. Even if you do so, that SAD martial class with 1 18 & the rest 10s will be outclassed by either the SAD caster classes or (most likely) by MAD classes with all 18s. The SAD caster with those stats will still trump the high stat MAD martial.

The problem isn't so much MAD vs SAD, though that doesn't help, but martial vs caster.

I think the Kineticist is the closest we're ever going to get (full dependency on DEX/CON only) but even then the Kineticist has a poor will save and needs wisdom.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Sorry about the Monk derail. The details obscure the point - it's theoretically possible to design a SAD martial class, whether or not the monk qualifies. Even if you do so, that SAD martial class with 1 18 & the rest 10s will be outclassed by either the SAD caster classes or (most likely) by MAD classes with all 18s. The SAD caster with those stats will still trump the high stat MAD martial.

The problem isn't so much MAD vs SAD, though that doesn't help, but martial vs caster.

I think the Kineticist is the closest we're ever going to get (full dependency on DEX/CON only) but even then the Kineticist has a poor will save and needs wisdom.

ironwill would probably get you a higher bonus than putting some points into wisdom(or about the same anyway).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just roll 12+1d6 6 times...


I have a feeling that the Kineticist will be feat starved in the same way the Barbarian is feat starved (so much Extra Class Feature) so investing in wisdom is cheaper.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
Just roll 12+1d6 6 times...

but then 18s aren't special[/joke]


Bandw2 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Sorry about the Monk derail. The details obscure the point - it's theoretically possible to design a SAD martial class, whether or not the monk qualifies. Even if you do so, that SAD martial class with 1 18 & the rest 10s will be outclassed by either the SAD caster classes or (most likely) by MAD classes with all 18s. The SAD caster with those stats will still trump the high stat MAD martial.

The problem isn't so much MAD vs SAD, though that doesn't help, but martial vs caster.

I think the Kineticist is the closest we're ever going to get (full dependency on DEX/CON only) but even then the Kineticist has a poor will save and needs wisdom.
ironwill would probably get you a higher bonus than putting some points into wisdom(or about the same anyway).

And the usual answer is you probably want both.

Another advantage of casters is that, in addition to usually being SAD, is that they usually get a good Will save.

But still, specific existing implementations don't really matter to the point.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
I have a feeling that the Kineticist will be feat starved in the same way the Barbarian is feat starved (so much Extra Class Feature) so investing in wisdom is cheaper.

but with 20 point buy i can have 20 dex and 18 con, and 7s in everything but an 8 in wisdom.[/joke]


Kryzbyn wrote:
Just roll 12+1d6 6 times...

That sounds dreadfully dull, but I can't even tell if people are kidding anymore.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Just roll 12+1d6 6 times...

Sucks for the people who actually like the occasional low stat.

You'll also probably see even greater skew between the highest and the lowest, since there's less normalization. No really low rolls of course, but you'll still get the guy with 13s & 14s and the guy with 17s & 18s.


At that point you might as well just use the system someone proposed earlier where you just let your players pick their stats. A game where everyone is super would be fun as long as the encounters are geared towards supers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The biggest danger with that system would be imbalanced levels of power. One guy might just go with two 14s and a couple 12s, while the other might want two 18s and a couple 16s. Obviously, stats don't matter as much as everyone thinks they do, but you'd want to collaborate between players. I'm not even talking about "powergamers" or "system abusers", just about two players with different expectations for the baseline.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The biggest danger with that system would be imbalanced levels of power. One guy might just go with two 14s and a couple 12s, while the other might want two 18s and a couple 16s. Obviously, stats don't matter as much as everyone thinks they do, but you'd want to collaborate between players. I'm not even talking about "powergamers" or "system abusers", just about two players with different expectations for the baseline.

would play with all 7s just to how that would go. what class though...

Silver Crusade

Could you just give everyone 16s in everything before racials? Basically fade the attributes into the background compared to race/class.


Personally, I hate "dump stats" and so used to prefer rolling my attributes and distributing them as I wanted to build my character. If I had a low score, I'd try to rp it.

Then there are those who are so aware/focused on the mechanics that they min/max. It's a totally different mind set, and not one I enjoy, but the game does support it in that those players with a more mechanically-minded build tend to survive better.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Otherwhere wrote:

Personally, I hate "dump stats" and so used to prefer rolling my attributes and distributing them as I wanted to build my character. If I had a low score, I'd try to rp it.

Then there are those who are so aware/focused on the mechanics that they min/max. It's a totally different mind set, and not one I enjoy, but the game does support it in that those players with a more mechanically-minded build tend to survive better.

meh I separate mechanics and fluff and rely on what my character can actually DO to determine their personality and what not.

played a character with REALLY low dexterity, but i was a lore oracle so my AC was fine and i still got a bonus on init, so i didn't need to play my character as clumbsy or slow, no one knew my stats and it was fine that way.

*NOTE: we play with hidden PC sheets, only the GM knows what's on them. so my character wasn't a oracle, my character was a mercenary with a knack for healing and was going into dragon disciple to facilitate this and her dragon heritage.


MrConradTheDuck wrote:
Rolling stats and hit die? It's not fun or interesting. You either have a godlike character that dumps on everything, or one so weak you might as well do better things with your life. I seriously left my last 3 games because of it then the GMs wasted my time asking why. *sigh* I just want to play the game without being completely crippled by stupid, arbitrary rules from a bi-gone era that force me to either waste my time completely or leave, still having wasted time on it in the first place. The worst part is when the game isn't advertised as such so I show up with no idea it's going to be bad.

Look we all know that people just cheat when rolling for stats or construct systems so that they average a 42 point buy or higher.

People like rolling for stats because they want super high stat arrays.

Shadow Lodge

Bandw2 wrote:
would play with all 7s just to how that would go. what class though...

Barbarian? Rage boosts Str and Con to 11 (slightly less terrible), Superstition helps cover your saves, and you don't need Int or Cha at all. If that's all 7s pre-racial then it might be a fun time to play an orc. A slayer or spell-less ranger might also work OK. Casters would be impossible, and I think paladin has more stat-dependent abilities (Cha).

thorin001 wrote:
The justification of 'rolling prevents min-maxing' is hogwash unless you keep the stats in the order you rolled them. Putting your low roll in Cha is no less min-maxing than buying a low Cha.

It's not that it prevents min-maxing, exactly, just that it changes the way you look at it. Lower stats are part of the game - characters with straight 7s, 14s, or 18s are thought exercises or wacky experiments, not the norm. The standard heroic array includes an 8. But for some reason a player's ability to get a direct benefit from these low scores (in the form of extra points for their higher scores) makes some people feel that these low scores are somehow abusing the system. Conversely, when you don't have control over your ranger's two 7s, putting them in Int and Cha is seen as making the best of a bad situation.

thorin001 wrote:
If you like to roll everything, great, enjoy the game the way that is the most fun for you. If you like high stats (and who doesn't) then be honest about it.

Why not both? I like high stats, and I like rolling stats, so I roll with a generous method (luckily my group shares my preference). If I liked high stats but didn't like rolling, I'd use a 30-40 point buy.

Arachnofiend wrote:
It's bizarre to me that anyone thought that there being a random chance for a barbarian to gain 1 HP upon leveling up was at all fair or fun.

Yeah, I don't like rolling HP for that reason. We did "roll HP twice, take higher" once and that was OK. I've also seen people roll a D6 and then add 2, 4, or 6 to that depending on whether you have a d8, d10, or d12 HD.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Look we all know that people just cheat when rolling for stats

If by "we all" you actually mean "people who play with 6-year-olds," then I might agree. But overall experience has shown me any number of examples in which this didn't happen.

151 to 200 of 465 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What is everyone's fascination with... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.