|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's certainly strange how often experienced gamers prefer to play the game on "easy" mode (higher point buy) rather than test their skills and try for the challenge of "hard" mode (lower point buy).
You say that like the GM doesn't up the challenge of higher point buy games.
It's also certainly strange that you use disparaging language about such games.
It's certainly strange how often experienced gamers prefer to play the game on "easy" mode (higher point buy) rather than test their skills and try for the challenge of "hard" mode (lower point buy).You say that like the GM doesn't up the challenge of higher point buy games.
It's also certainly strange that you use disparaging language about such games.
I don't understand this. What is the purpose of granting the PCs extra points if you're going to compensate?
At least in my mind, you're not really granting the players anything and it seems a bit dishonest, unless you're upfront about it. On top of that it just creates more work when there isn't a need for it, assuming the balance you're striving for is the balance achieved with a 15-point buy.
I get that we're talking about very marginal differences here, which just makes it a bit more baffling to me that there is such a strong discussion about the topic.
Anyways, the point of my reply is that I feel like I'm missing some perspective, and I was hoping you could enlighten. Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The purpose is flexibility in character design. Whether unbalancing or not, it's a lot easier to build a character with more points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As taks says, it makes more character options possible, particularly if the player wants feats with ability score prereqs. For example, with a 15-point-buy it's hard for a fighter to get a 13 Int for Combat Expertise and the Improved line of combat maneuver feats and still have fighter-like melee damage (Str) and front-liner hit points (Con).
As taks says, it makes more character options possible, particularly if the player wants feats with ability score prereqs. For example, with a 15-point-buy it's hard for a fighter to get a 13 Int for Combat Expertise and the Improved line of combat maneuver feats and still have fighter-like melee damage (Str) and front-liner hit points (Con).
Right, so if you're trying to retain balance and characters in addition to having higher stats can also qualify for more feats, it becomes a more complicated than compensating with higher stats for the monsters. I feel like in that case the experience simply won't be the same as a 15-point build versus a 20-point, because those new options are possible.
Also, why does more options equate to more fun? I feel like Chipotle is a good example of this, where there aren't many options on the menu but you can mix and match and end up with a number of very satisfying options. Probably more than any one person could ever try. In the same way, you can already do a lot with a 15-point buy, more than probably anyone will ever exhaust. So how does expanding an already impossibly large set of characters to an even more impossibly large set of characters objectively help?
I feel like I could easily make an opposite point that 15-point buy is more fun because those fighters with Combat Expertise are more rare, therefore playing one is more satisfying.
I think my attitude on this comes from experience with, admittedly, my one group. I feel like the more options they have, the more likely it is they become paralyzed by those decisions. Anyways, this is clearly a topic that'll vary from person to person, but I appreciate everyone's input! I'll certainly continue reading this thread!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't equate to more fun unless that's what you enjoy. For that matter, all PCS could be commoners, or deities, it's just personal preference.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't play RPGs to be challenged, though I understand that lots of people do. (And, fwiw, I never go to Chipotle precisely because they don't have as many options as Freebirds.)
You know, I half-suspect a large part of the problem with Wrath of the Righteous was that a number of the games were done with higher-than-15-point builds. When you factor in that by level 12, the Mythic groups had gained another +5 to +7 to the starting stats, if they were running with a 25-point build or higher, they were quite a bit overpowered compared to their enemies.
Let me explain it another way. A 25-point build is the equivalence to adding +1 level to the characters. If you were running Rise of the Runelords starting at 2nd level and didn't change the goblins, do you think they'd be a threat at all to the group, even assuming the GM didn't play them as jokes? You would be running the group on "easy" mode, one level higher, with greater power, hit points, to-hit chance, and on down the line.
If you have a 37-point build it's like adding +2 to the character level. And this is what a number of roll 4d6, reroll 1s, and drop the lowest d6 is like.
But hey. It's your game. If you want, here is a suggestion on another way to compensate for higher stats: run the game on the Slow Track for XPs. Your group will reach maybe level 15 or 16 at the very end of the campaign. They will be going into encounters one level below (or more) for every encounter. It will compensate for those higher stats.
It doesn't equate to more fun unless that's what you enjoy. For that matter, all PCS could be commoners, or deities, it's just personal preference.
Exactly, I just like to learn about other people's preferences, especially when they're different from my own.
For me personally, I don't like that point buy produces nearly similar stat arrays, but at the same time I don't like that rolled stats produce wildly different stat arrays.
I'm only just now surprised that there is no method for rolling stats that produced random stat arrays at a given point buy.
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's certainly strange how often experienced gamers prefer to play the game on "easy" mode (higher point buy) rather than test their skills and try for the challenge of "hard" mode (lower point buy).You say that like the GM doesn't up the challenge of higher point buy games.
It's also certainly strange that you use disparaging language about such games.
Upping the challenge of a game when upping a point buy doesn't create a "hard mode." It preserves the status quo.
And what's strange about me having passionate opinions about gaming? That's like 50% of what gaming is, it seems! :-P
What's MORE frustrating is that I can't post things in jest, apparently, without folks taking them as personal attacks. So, if anyone did take that as a personal attack, I apologize. I just get frustrated seeing so many complaints that "Pathfinder is broken!" followed immediately by something I interpret as "I build overpowered characters!"
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I half-suspect a large part of the problem with Wrath of the Righteous was that a number of the games were done with higher-than-15-point builds. When you factor in that by level 12, the Mythic groups had gained another +5 to +7 to the starting stats, if they were running with a 25-point build or higher, they were quite a bit overpowered compared to their enemies.
Let me explain it another way. A 25-point build is the equivalence to adding +1 level to the characters. If you were running Rise of the Runelords starting at 2nd level and didn't change the goblins, do you think they'd be a threat at all to the group, even assuming the GM didn't play them as jokes? You would be running the group on "easy" mode, one level higher, with greater power, hit points, to-hit chance, and on down the line.
One flaw with your idea:
The bigger the numbers get, the smaller the impact of a given gap size will be.
That is, the difference between 14 and 16 STR and the difference between 32 and 34 STR are the same gap in an absolute sense, but the gap is proportionally smaller in the second case than in the first. There's less impact.
This difference is even more clear in your "+1 level" analogy. The difference between 1st and 2nd level is waaaaay bigger than the difference between, say, 18th and 19th level. The character advancing from 1st to 2nd will very nearly double their HP (which is a HUGE boost to survivability at that level), whereas the HP increase from 18th to 19th will be a mere drop in the bucket. Same goes for BAB, saves, skills, etc. Moving a bonus from +4 to +5 is a 25% increase, while moving from +32 to +33 is only a 3% increase.
Generous stats are a huge boon at low levels, but their significance wanes rapidly as you advance in level (at least, in Pathfinder). Thus, many GMs overestimate the ability of high starting stats to wreck entire campaigns.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From where I'm sitting, the largest part of the problem with Wrath of the Righteous is that I as the developer of the AP didn't have enough experience with Mythic when it combines with high level play to do a great job developing the encounters, in part because we didn't really have solid playtest data for how a high level campaign worked with mythic in play. I learned a LOT from that and from looking at the feedback. If I were to do Wrath of the Righteous today, I'd probably not change much about the actual adventure other than perhaps cutting in half the rate at which folks gained mythic tiers... perhaps more. Having the AP end with 20th level tier 4 or tier 5 PCs would probably work better. Maybe even lower tier.
Of course, player skill and GM skill are a HUGE element for all of this. For all the hullabaloo about Wrath, there were plenty of folks who had a fine time with the AP. But with Mythic in particular, adding all the new rules on to high level play makes for a lot of places where players and GMs alike can misinterpret the rules. It was sort of a perfect storm in that regard, from the design and development through to the actual game play at tables itself.
It doesn't equate to more fun unless that's what you enjoy. For that matter, all PCS could be commoners, or deities, it's just personal preference.Exactly, I just like to learn about other people's preferences, especially when they're different from my own.
For me personally, I don't like that point buy produces nearly similar stat arrays, but at the same time I don't like that rolled stats produce wildly different stat arrays.
I'm only just now surprised that there is no method for rolling stats that produced random stat arrays at a given point buy.
Although the 'common' is 4d6, you could tinker or use some online programs to find something closer with lower point buys.
IE:
2d6+6or a combination.
3 stats by: 4d6
2 stats by: 3d6
1 x 16 for freeI personally enjoy rolling, even if I get worse stats that I would using point buy. Rolling dice is part of the allure of this hobby at some subconscious level. So if you're going to roll, no matter what version you use, the group as a whole just has to be prepared for the random outcomes of a small sample size. If you created several sets of stats and took the best, you'd see less variation, but its possible with 4 players rolling 4d6 to see a pretty big swing in the 6 scores produced. A few hot rolls and one player can have multiple 15+, while another has 1 x 15 and the rest 13 and below.
Like Jiggy points out - this difference can affect encounter design and balance more at the beginning levels, but once you're hitting mid-levels the bonus's from progression and gear start balancing those things out, and at 15th plus are nearly negligible. It'll also show up more or less depending on the play style, level of optimization.
Yeah, I agree. I do feel like something was lost when our group moved over to point buy. But the benefits far out weigh the downsides for us. I might poke around and see if anyone has looked into what you said.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm only just now surprised that there is no method for rolling stats that produced random stat arrays at a given point buy.
Actually, I've seen one, though there can be a bit of up-front legwork. I saw this in a PbP recruitment thread for a 5E game: someone made a list of every possible array you could buy with that game's point buy system. That's (apparently) 55 possible arrays. So you roll 1d55 (weird, but doable electronically) to see which array you get. Then, you number the stats in the array and roll 1d6 to pick a stat. That score goes into STR. Adjust the labels, roll 1d5, put that score in DEX. Rinse and repeat.
Boom. Randomized stats on a point-buy. You just have to have a table of all possible arrays first. Or you could just make a handful of arrays instead of ALL of them, if you prefer.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand this. What is the purpose of granting the PCs extra points if you're going to compensate?
Raising the floor for the PC's allows you to raise the floor for the enemies. Meaning more enemies or stronger enemies when you want them, as well as less risk when you don't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The crazy thing is, this is a simple question thread. Someone asked why people say APs are meant to be played with a 15-point build. The response is that this has been stated by Paizo on multiple occasions.
It degenerated into a "rolled stats are better than point builds" and "15-points is insufficient and creates cookie-cutter characters!" debate. And even when alternatives are presented? People keep on stating X is superior and most importantly that 15-points is far too inadequate while also dismissing the thought of improving monster stats to compensate.
James Jacobs made a simple observation. High point builds is Easy Mode. And that is this strange deathly insult. Primarily because it's dead on. People don't want to have high stats and run on the Slow Advancement, or allow monsters and NPCs to have higher stats to compensate. Or at least this is the very strong impression I've been given.
This isn't everyone. There are people who like the idea of allowing higher stats and then rectifying with more powerful monsters to compensate. No doubt other GMs have taken a look at the Slow Advancement suggestion and thought it might be worth going with that.
The irony is that I'm not a diehard Rules Lawyer insisting my games run on 15-point builds and that the dice fall where they fall. I fudge rolls. I consider my players' fun to be quite important and even when I look at encounters where the players didn't get hurt once, if the players felt it was a tough fight or the like? Or that they had fun? That's what counts!
--------
There's two things to take away from this discussion.
#1: 15-point builds are what Paizo intends for its Adventure Paths and for monsters in its Bestiaries.
#2: As long as you and your group are having fun, it doesn't matter if you use point-builds, die-rolls, or whatever.
As a corollary to #2? If the players start getting bored and believe the monsters are too weak? Maybe, just maybe, those high stats are a problem... and you can compensate by increasing the number of enemies your players face... or even upping the stats of your monsters to compensate for a greater-than-15-point-build.
Are the APs still being written and developed along those 15pt lines? If the developers say so, then shoot, I'll start building more 15pt characters to get a better feel. The lower the PB, the more difficult it will be for MAD builds to get their concept rolling up to their desired performance.
I understand when DMs allow higher PBs and compensate to counter those PBs. Some campaigns the DM and the Players may both want to see more effects on the table (the more points, the faster and more varied the unlocks), never-mind the poor efficiency that they are essentially getting the same type of experience but with more dice and math involved. I like both high and low campaigns equally. I'll take the highest the DM will allow me and hit the board running with it gleefully.
To keep everyone on a fair board, and being honest: avoiding butthurt and jealousy among Players, I employ PB in PF myself, typically 20 (High Fantasy "hey look, you guys ARE special"), and enjoyed it when in 3.5, DMs would grant 25. I've met Players that were happy with low rolls so long as they got to adventure, and I've also seen some beg and wheedle for more rolls even with three 16s showing, but not a single 18. PB fixes that gap, where I get to bump those up I think are too low versus their peers, and smite the reroll shenanigans where someone whines if they don't have two 18s before their character is built.
I run the gamut from meatheads (we're grunts) stopping by and discovering they like roleplaying, closet nerds who've wanted to get in, and hardcore munchkins and veteran casuals alike. That is a broad range of players for me to manage, and I try to stick to conventions like Point Buy to simplify character creation and campaign management.
Dang, I digressed!
TLDR; Repeated instances of Developers stating that they designed with 15 Point Buy in mind.
I asked Mr. Jacobs a related question to the 15-point build for APs. I asked if the monsters in the Bestiaries are designed with their CRs in mind for 15-point builds.
He said they are. I hope he's still in the thread so he can verify this or go into more detail. But basically the impression I got is that every monster, from a lowly goblin to Cthulhu, is designed assuming 15-point builds (and stat increases at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's certainly strange how often experienced gamers prefer to play the game on "easy" mode (higher point buy) rather than test their skills and try for the challenge of "hard" mode (lower point buy).
It's almost like many people playing a fantasy Role Playing Game regularly want to play a game where they role play a great hero like the ones they read about in fantasy novels and want to use rules that best facilitate that ... :)
I play video games on Extreme difficulty when I'm playing through it a 2nd or 3rd time for the challenge because I already know the story of the game so it's a way to get something new out of it. The first time I play through a game, I want to have fun and engage in the story and put myself in the role of the character.
In Pathfinder/D&D/M&M/Whatever there's never a 2nd play through for me because once I finish a particular adventure we just move on to another adventure with new characters. So every time I play a game of Pathfinder I'm still in "discovering the story/character" mode and not in "I've seen this story/character stuff before, might as well test my skills against the system" mode.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James Jacobs made a simple observation. High point builds is Easy Mode. And that is this strange deathly insult. Primarily because it's dead on.
I'm not sure how you got 'deathly insult' out of the discussion. I mean, I guess you're right that 'this is the internet where hyperbole is the standard' but you certainly aren't helping James with his 'make it better'.
You think 15 point builds are hard, try 10 point builds.
10 point builds for a Tier 1, 12 Point build for a Tier 2, 15 point build for a Tier 3, and 20 point build for a Tier 4.
Unfortunately, many here would still consider that unfair...
Ironically, you can still get a Wizard casting 9th level spells by level 20 with that buy in...or if they want to spend MORE than half their points...even level 18, with another +1 in any stat they wish!
You think 15 point builds are hard, try 10 point builds.
10 point builds for a Tier 1, 12 Point build for a Tier 2, 15 point build for a Tier 3, and 20 point build for a Tier 4.
Unfortunately, many here would still consider that unfair...
Ironically, you can still get a Wizard casting 9th level spells by level 20 with that buy in...or if they want to spend MORE than half their points...even level 18, with another +1 in any stat they wish!
Depends on your access to items that raise stats.
Playing DDO (dungeons and dragons online) with unlimited wealth and loot (and the 3.5 rules) you see the evolution of this type of character building - some of the popular caster builds start with a 12 in the prime casting stat - because they don't rely on DC's so getting a +6 item and a tome for +1 is enough to hit 9th level casting.
If you play a character with all 10's - but the world rewards them with items and boosts to make them heroic - the original stats didn't matter much at all. My experience with real table top play however would show that the stat increasing items aren't all that easy to get. The big 'empty' seems to be in the mid levels - as +2 hats and belts drop aplenty - but getting the +4's are super rare - and +6's might as well be bought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like my last post was collateral damage in the most recent post removal. I wasn't trying to insult anyone, and the post I was replying to WASN'T removed, so here goes again:
{. . .}
I don't understand this. What is the purpose of granting the PCs extra points if you're going to compensate?At least in my mind, you're not really granting the players anything and it seems a bit dishonest, unless you're upfront about it. On top of that it just creates more work when there isn't a need for it, assuming the balance you're striving for is the balance achieved with a 15-point buy.
{. . .}
The purpose is to grant more options. For instance, for all that I hate when people say that Wizards are overpowered, I found that it is surprisingly easy to build an almost normal Wizard on 15 point buy without dumping anything, and 5 more points could either be used to eke out another couple of points of Intelligence or for something more interesting like actually having a decent Charisma; the Wizard could even be done effectively on 10 point buy, although some dumping would be required. On the other hand, building a switch-hitter Magus requires hard dumping on 15 point buy and some dumping even on 20 point buy. The Two-Weapon Fighter and Eldritch Heritage builds have been mentioned before (as previously noted, the feat prerequisites are fixed, unless you restrict yourself to classes that specifically bypass them), and Monk (either type) just really hurts.
So even if you compensate on the opponents' side, even if the compensation is slightly more than what the PCs get by going with 20 point buy instead of 15 point buy, it's still a win-win. If future APs were designed for 20 point buy (as is tried-and-true in PFS, even though I'm not into that myself), but with compensation added on the opponents' side (even to the point of becoming "Hard Mode"), this would likewise be a win-win.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that hasn't been noted is the simple fact that the game designers need to have a standard to design to. If they didnt, it would be impossible to have any meaningful balance and product consistency. It just so happens that 15 points is the standard, regardless of the reason. If they had chosen 25, we'd be arguing about how hard it is to build MAD characters with only 25, and 42 is much more flexible.
It's like when pinball machines went from top scores of 100,000 to 1,000,00, to 10,000,000, to... ad nauseum. The basic gameplay didn't change, just the extra zero on the end.