Jadrenka the Mother

Sulako's page

40 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS


Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
Sulako wrote:

One thing that has been tossed out there in aether (I haven't confirmed it yet, so if it has been, awesome) is that the new Campaign Setting Book is going to take into account all of the events of the previous Adventure Paths.

That's actually pretty dope. It gives the players a tangible effect on the world up to this point. I like that.

It annoys me slightly for the same reason Starfinder's take on Iron Gods annoyed me, it kind of makes a canon end to the APs. Which, granted, most of them did have.

It's just nice to see something the characters did have an in-game effect.

Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms really didn't have this. It was always just explained through the novels and what have you and not through game-play.

That always bothered me.

But I do see what you're saying. The Adventure Paths (at least some of them) had some pretty open-ended endings. Doing it this way does sort of assume the players went the standard way with things but still, it's better than what happened to other settings.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Just because a player's as strong as a giant, doesn't mean when that giant bashes him across the head with a greatclub, it isn't going to kill a few brain cells.

That's neither here nor there, I simply don't like the idea of a human being as strong as ogres, trolls and giants, etc, sans magic.

There is also no brain cell tracking in PF!

Your table, your rules, boss.

My table, my rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Noodlemancer wrote:
Sulako wrote:

I play several point-buy systems. I don't mind them. In fact, my favorite roleplaying game OF ALL TIME is Shadowrun. It's a point-buy game. I love it. The setting, the combat, the crunch...it's all good to me.

What I DON'T like, is a game that offers you an option to roll stats, then punishes you for doing so. Yes, most people don't roll stats as well as I do. I get that, I do. I've rolled some pretty piss-poor stats in my day and been forced to play them. It sucked.

But when I do roll, I always tell the DM that I rolled incredibly well and would have no problem offering up those same numbers for everyone in the party to use. Mostly, this is met with a good response. Though, there are some people that don't like using numbers they didn't generate. I can respect that. It's the same reason I won't play a pre-generated character. I have nothing invested.

The fact is, I, like Daedalus here, am an optimizer. I like scouring the texts available to get every ounce of benefit I can. Some call me a power-gamer because of this. Fine, I'll accept the stigma that comes with that. But to have the numbers to do so, only for the game to outright tell you "NO!" and giving NO reason for it, smacks of just being an angry parent yelling at their child.

It's pointless. It serves no purpose than to be limiting.

Now before anyone wants to try and deconstruct this argument with exaggerated hyperbole, no I don't mean you should be a fighter, but be able to backstab/sneak attack, or that you should be a monk and be able to cast wizards spells. To people that wanna blow it out of proportion like that, f*ck off! I'm talking about stats. It's where the game starts. If the attribute system is warped, it throws the whole game out for me. And being limited to no stat above 18, even though you have the numbers to go beyond that, and the game gives you no adequately explained reason why it's a deal-breaker for me.

If that makes me a power-gamer, then so be it.

It's not a punishment.

You...

Here's the kicker. And everyone seems to be missing this point. With their non-rolling system, no matter what you do, you CAN'T get more than 18 in a single stat. You simply CAN'T. No matter what you do.

But if you roll your stats, you CAN. Because say you roll all 18's. Slim chance, granted, but it's a POSSIBILITY. And not only is it a possibility, it's an INEVITABILITY. Because the law of large numbers. Someone, somewhere, sometime, is GOING to do this. So what do you do? At that point, you can't apply ANY 'Boosts'. At all. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

At that point, you are, in fact, being PUNISHED for rolling high stats. It doesn't matter that they are all 18's already. That is completely beside the point. It is a possibility that was NOT accounted for and it SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Bottom line.

Setting the cap at 1st level at 20 would have, at the very least, allow players that have God's own luck, to build a character instead of getting hosed out of EVERY boost just because the rolled well.

But by having that 18 cap in place, I can't take my highest stat and put it where I want it. I HAVE to put it somewhere I don't want it, thus resulting in a character I DON'T want to play.

That, to me, is PUNISHMENT.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing that has been tossed out there in aether (I haven't confirmed it yet, so if it has been, awesome) is that the new Campaign Setting Book is going to take into account all of the events of the previous Adventure Paths.

That's actually pretty dope. It gives the players a tangible effect on the world up to this point. I like that.


GameDesignerDM wrote:
Khudzlin wrote:
If you want choice, why are you rolling stats in the first place?
So they can be a power gamer, since apparently they always roll the best stats ever.

It's about the OPTION of rolling the best stats ever. The CHANCE that you COULD. If I do, I do. If I don't, I don't. But I like that option.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason.
Ah yes, level caps for demihumans is loathed by many, but ability score caps are great and not for no reason, to stop a human from becoming as strong as a fire giant sounds like a good enough reason.
That might be a fine reason for some. But not for me. I want an in-game reason. I want to be shown, hands down, where having a stat that high breaks the game.
There is an in-game reason, and I am not talking about breaking the game, mechanically; humans are simply not as strong as giants.
Very true. And, at 1st Level, a human has absolutely no chance of being.
Not sure why the focus on 1st level, they can surpass giants as they gain ability score increases. Even being as strong as an ogre is stupid.
But see, ogres can level, too.

Okay, so the ogre can become as strong as a Titan or what-have-you, that's not any better.

You can also use the Epic Level Handbook and have 50th-level Barbarian ogres walking around, or just keep adding class levels from all classes until they surpass Zeus in power, that is why I do not dig unbounded systems.

Understandable. To each their own. Like I said, this was my b*!$@. I'm pretty damn sure I'm the minority. It's just an important issue to me. Won't be an issue for everyone.

And not to put too fine a point on it but, if you were so inclined, you could level Zeus up too. Just sayin'...

Hahahaha, exactly, where does it end?! Azathoth not strong enough, raise hit dice and add some levels.

Oh, I could bust out some straight up Unicron level sh!t. Planet destroying. But be that as it may, players do have limits to what their stats can be. Dice, stat bumps, and magic can only get you so far. So there's no real need to escalate.

Just because a player's as strong as a giant, doesn't mean when that giant bashes him across the head with a greatclub, it isn't going to kill a few brain cells.


Khudzlin wrote:
If you want choice, why are you rolling stats in the first place?

Because when I roll stats, I generally roll better than anything a typical 'point-buy' spread is going to give me.

Point-buy, first off screws you if you want higher stats as they allow you to do 1-for-1 up to a certain point, then start charging you more for each individual stat bump. And whenever someone like me pimps in with how it's BS, everyone whines about 'game balance'. Whining about 'game balance' is just tantamount to saying "I'm a lazy GM and don't wanna put in anymore effort than I absolutely have to."

Whenever I do point-buy for players, I allow 1-for-1 with no stat cap. I'm a good enough GM that I can balance that crap out.

I don't see how any GM should have a problem doing this but hey. Monkeys and typewriters.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:

When you belly up to the table as a player and a GM, that's the risk you take. Some people roll good, some people roll bad. If we're all rolling with the same method and you get someone with uberstats, that's just the way it goes.

You wanna dance, you gotta pay the band.

Some people find this rough, so I let them roll, and if they are unhappy with the rolls, they can take an array/point buy.

That's one of the reasons why, at my table (and as a player) I allow everyone to roll and will offer to let the group use the highest set of stats rolled.

Most of the time, this works out. But every so often you'll get that holdout that is all "I didn't roll them, so I don't want to use them".

Yeah, that's fair, and very generous, but some people don't like everyone in the party having the same array, and what you said about not rolling them personally.

That's their choice. But that doesn't mean the player that DID roll really well should be punished for it. If it means there's a huge stat gap, then C'est la vie. That's the box they checked themselves into.

I'm a harsh GM, but I'm fair. If a majority of the players want to roll stats, then we roll. If a majority wants to point-buy, we point-buy. But if a player wants to roll, rolls complete garbage, then refuses to take a spread of stats rolled by another player, tough. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

That doesn’t destroy anything. You do have plenty of choices. It’s just now you choose where to put that 18, instead of the 20.

Games like this have limitations, otherwise it’d be impossible to balance.

It isn't about the choices I DO have. It's about the one choice that I DON'T have. And I don't have this choice for no adequately explained reason. Previous games didn't have this limitation. So why now? Why here? The previous edition was pretty damn balanced, all things considered.

There is legit NO reason why I can't. As I've said, THAT'S my biggest gripe. Give me the limitation, that's fine. But give me a reason beyond 'because we said so'. That just doesn't fly. I didn't accept it when my parents did it (shocker, I got smacked a lot as a kid) I sure as hell ain't gonna accept it now.

As I said, it breaks the game balance.

As a player and a DM i know that from experience.

IF all players have the same rolls, the high ones as you said.
That is fair, but it also pushes DM to build encounters that are 100% more though,because default like in printed adventure is a pushover.

But that's the GM's JOB. If you can't hack it, hand the game over to someone who can. And sorry to be the bearer of bad news, my friend, but the only person that can break game balance...is YOU. The GM. You shouldnt' be relying on the game to do it for you. If you see a system that is just too whacked out to play, then you don't run it. However, if you know what you're doing and have any adaptations skills whatsoever, game balance should be a breeze.

And I know THAT from experience. I routinely play with a group that has killer stats. And I have NO problem challenging them when the game calls for it. Every GM worth a damn should be able to do this. It's tabletop roleplaying 101.


GameDesignerDM wrote:

That doesn’t destroy anything. You do have plenty of choices. It’s just now you choose where to put that 18, instead of the 20.

Games like this have limitations, otherwise it’d be impossible to balance.

It isn't about the choices I DO have. It's about the one choice that I DON'T have. And I don't have this choice for no adequately explained reason. Previous games didn't have this limitation. So why now? Why here? The previous edition was pretty damn balanced, all things considered.

There is legit NO reason why I can't. As I've said, THAT'S my biggest gripe. Give me the limitation, that's fine. But give me a reason beyond 'because we said so'. That just doesn't fly. I didn't accept it when my parents did it (shocker, I got smacked a lot as a kid) I sure as hell ain't gonna accept it now.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:

When you belly up to the table as a player and a GM, that's the risk you take. Some people roll good, some people roll bad. If we're all rolling with the same method and you get someone with uberstats, that's just the way it goes.

You wanna dance, you gotta pay the band.

Some people find this rough, so I let them roll, and if they are unhappy with the rolls, they can take an array/point buy.

That's one of the reasons why, at my table (and as a player) I allow everyone to roll and will offer to let the group use the highest set of stats rolled.

Most of the time, this works out. But every so often you'll get that holdout that is all "I didn't roll them, so I don't want to use them".

At THAT point, they're choosing to hamstring themselves. But that's THEIR choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Sulako wrote:


I can, however, see why Wizards felt they needed a new edition. The OGL was just tearing them apart. The 3rd party material was just a travesty of hodge-podge dumpster fires.
Hey, you really shouldn't speak that harshly of Pathfinder.
Dude. Enough with the gasoline.

Now why not? More gasoline, I say. We got a lot of weenies to roast. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Sulako wrote:


I can, however, see why Wizards felt they needed a new edition. The OGL was just tearing them apart. The 3rd party material was just a travesty of hodge-podge dumpster fires.
Hey, you really shouldn't speak that harshly of Pathfinder.

Hey, now later in that post I did say that MOST of what the 3rd party publishers was bad. Some of it was good.

Paizo also sort of had an inside track as they took over Dungeon and Dragon Magazine in 2003. They knew what would and wouldn't work within the system.

But I stand by my former statement. A majority of the 3rd party stuff was terrible.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:

But I rolled those stats. Why can't I use them? If you wouldn't want me to use what I rolled, why would you allow me to roll at all?

That's the very CORE of what I'm talking about. Paint it however you want. Bottom line is I rolled the numbers, everyone watched me do it, then after the fact, is getting mad at me for doing so because no one else at the table did.

By not letting me play my character as I created them within the boundary of the options presented to me, how can it be seen as anything but a punishment?

You're looking at it as a "Well I'm GIVING you this," but I'm seeing as "No, you're TAKING AWAY all of THIS because little Johnny over there is pouting that he doesn't have as good a stats as I do."

I've been on the back end of this. I've played with people that have had stats better than mine. That's the name of the game. Point-buy does alleviate some of this. And if the group decided to do point-buy, I'd probably go along with it. But if everyone wanted to roll and I just happened to roll higher, then, well, Wah! That's the way it goes. Nut up, or shut up.

But hamstringing the player that rolled well just to make everyone ELSE happy is DELIBERATELY creating an antogonistic environment. If the other players are butt-hurt that so-and-so rolled better, they need to quit being wusses and man/woman up.

Sure you did.

But, I would point to you in advance, that you can roll but any rolls over certain treshold will be reduced to that treshold.

Same with rolls below it.

For this playtest as I said. point buy is 78 pts in total.

If you want to roll, legal values are 74-82 anything above/below will be set to 82/74

And you will be creating character in the boundaries of options as those are your options.

Also because I saw many low-roll characters meet their early demise so new(and hoping better) characters can be rolled.

that is why I am 99% for point buy, but if someone is insistent to roll

...

When you belly up to the table as a player and a GM, that's the risk you take. Some people roll good, some people roll bad. If we're all rolling with the same method and you get someone with uberstats, that's just the way it goes.

You wanna dance, you gotta pay the band.


GameDesignerDM wrote:

You said it destroys the game limiting it to 18. How? The burden is on you to prove that, not Paizo to give you a reason why it doesn’t. They said the game is balanced around the cap.

Also, every design decision ever made is “because a designer wanted to”.

Playing an RPG is about CHOICE. It is about determining what you want to be, how you want to play, and how you want your character to be built.

When you impose a limitation on a character, DESPITE OPTIONS TO THE CONTRARY, that destroys the game. It gives the ILLUSION of choice but then turns around and rescinds it at the 11th hour because the game didn't expect you to roll that well.

That's been my complaint all along. Is that the game gives you the option of rolling your stats. So the option of getting 18's is there. The game just ASSUMES no one will and went full steam ahead. It didn't play for the eventuality that someone would. Law of large numbers says SOMEONE is going to do so. It's inevitable. So the fact that they didn't compensate for that is, frankly, amateur hour on their part.

And yes, most things the designers do is 'Because we said so'. But most of the things they agree to do that with MAKE SENSE. Not allowing a 1st level character to have a stat above 18 DOESN'T make sense.

Not allowing Fighters to cast spells? That makes sense. Not allowing Wizards to Dual-Wield Greatswords? That makes sense. Even if they don't come right out and say WHY Fighters and Wizards can't do this, it still MAKES SENSE. It isn't arbitrary.

The 1st level stat cap IS arbitrary. There's no logical reason why. There isn't even any perceived reason why. OG Pathfinder didn't have this stipulation and it was an extremely solid system. Wasn't perfect, but then there's no such animal, so take that as you will. But a starting character with a stat of 19 or 20 didn't destroy the game. It didn't screw things up SO BADLY that the rest of the game was unplayable.

So I don't see why it's such a big thing here that they felt the need to limit it.

Now yes, by that same token, people could ask me 'Well, if it ISN'T such a big deal, why are you fighting so hard against it?'

And my answer is very simple. I was presented with the option and I took it. In doing so, they gave me the chance to get a stat higher than 18. Then, when I got that number, they took that option away.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:

But I rolled those stats. Why can't I use them? If you wouldn't want me to use what I rolled, why would you allow me to roll at all?

That's the very CORE of what I'm talking about. Paint it however you want. Bottom line is I rolled the numbers, everyone watched me do it, then after the fact, is getting mad at me for doing so because no one else at the table did.

By not letting me play my character as I created them within the boundary of the options presented to me, how can it be seen as anything but a punishment?

You're looking at it as a "Well I'm GIVING you this," but I'm seeing as "No, you're TAKING AWAY all of THIS because little Johnny over there is pouting that he doesn't have as good a stats as I do."

I've been on the back end of this. I've played with people that have had stats better than mine. That's the name of the game. Point-buy does alleviate some of this. And if the group decided to do point-buy, I'd probably go along with it. But if everyone wanted to roll and I just happened to roll higher, then, well, Wah! That's the way it goes. Nut up, or shut up.

But hamstringing the player that rolled well just to make everyone ELSE happy is DELIBERATELY creating an antogonistic environment. If the other players are butt-hurt that so-and-so rolled better, they need to quit being wusses and man/woman up.

Sure you did.

But, I would point to you in advance, that you can roll but any rolls over certain treshold will be reduced to that treshold.

Same with rolls below it.

For this playtest as I said. point buy is 78 pts in total.

If you want to roll, legal values are 74-82 anything above/below will be set to 82/74

And you will be creating character in the boundaries of options as those are your options.

Also because I saw many low-roll characters meet their early demise so new(and hoping better) characters can be rolled.

that is why I am 99% for point buy, but if someone is insistent to roll I will give 4-8 window where those rolls can be.

And that is why I wouldn't play with you. I wouldn't be able to play with a DM that tells me "You can roll stats, but if you roll too high, I'm going to punish you. But it's okay, because if you roll too low, I'm going to adjust things upward."

That's not an incentive. If you were to simply tell me, no stat-rolling. We do point-buy only, then I'd make the decision whether to play or not.


CorvusMask wrote:
4e had lot of things going on against it huh.

Weirdly enough, there was quite a bit to like. As someone who plays World of Warcraft, I could see a lot of fun elements to be had but it just kind of boiled down to if I want to play World of Warcraft, I'll play World of Warcraft.

I can, however, see why Wizards felt they needed a new edition. The OGL was just tearing them apart. The 3rd party material was just a travesty of hodge-podge dumpster fires. Some were cool but most were trash.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason.
Ah yes, level caps for demihumans is loathed by many, but ability score caps are great and not for no reason, to stop a human from becoming as strong as a fire giant sounds like a good enough reason.
That might be a fine reason for some. But not for me. I want an in-game reason. I want to be shown, hands down, where having a stat that high breaks the game.
There is an in-game reason, and I am not talking about breaking the game, mechanically; humans are simply not as strong as giants.
Very true. And, at 1st Level, a human has absolutely no chance of being.
Not sure why the focus on 1st level, they can surpass giants as they gain ability score increases. Even being as strong as an ogre is stupid.
But see, ogres can level, too.

Okay, so the ogre can become as strong as a Titan or what-have-you, that's not any better.

You can also use the Epic Level Handbook and have 50th-level Barbarian ogres walking around, or just keep adding class levels from all classes until they surpass Zeus in power, that is why I do not dig unbounded systems.

Understandable. To each their own. Like I said, this was my b$*+$. I'm pretty damn sure I'm the minority. It's just an important issue to me. Won't be an issue for everyone.

And not to put too fine a point on it but, if you were so inclined, you could level Zeus up too. Just sayin'...


CorvusMask wrote:
So when you say you want reason for it, you want mechanical proof/essay that lack of cap on stats makes balancing the game harder?

I want an example. I want a scenario where having a strength of 18 is okay but a strength of 19 or 20 is detrimental.

And game balance isn't the responsibility of the GAME. That's the responsibility of the DM. If the DM can't balance the game properly for his/her players, then, frankly, they shouldn't be DMing. Learning game balance is one of the first things you learn as a DM. "Will this system work with my players?" That's the FIRST question any good DM should ask himself.

And, as I said, if it's rule the DM wants to impose, that's fine. But, as with the game, he'd BETTER have a good reason. And 'Because I'm the DM and I said so' is NOT a good reason. I won't play with dicks like this.

Now, if it were a situation of 'I'm not that familiar with you guys as players, so I'm doing this to keep it tight until I learn your play styles,' that's fine. While not necessarily the reason I'm looking for, it's a reason I'll accept.

But this game doesn't even give you that. It's just 'No because...*shrug*'. Doesn't fly with me.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason.
Ah yes, level caps for demihumans is loathed by many, but ability score caps are great and not for no reason, to stop a human from becoming as strong as a fire giant sounds like a good enough reason.
That might be a fine reason for some. But not for me. I want an in-game reason. I want to be shown, hands down, where having a stat that high breaks the game.
There is an in-game reason, and I am not talking about breaking the game, mechanically; humans are simply not as strong as giants.
Very true. And, at 1st Level, a human has absolutely no chance of being.
Not sure why the focus on 1st level, they can surpass giants as they gain ability score increases. Even being as strong as an ogre is stupid.

But see, ogres can level, too.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Seriously, if I were your DM that character would never see the light of day in my campaign.

Your stats are almost as good as a 20th level in this playtest.

And you would play this beside someone with 18,16,14,12,10,8?

We gave up on rolling for stats in 2003 :p

First, if I rolled those stats and you, as the DM said "No, I would have to ask why? I rolled them. You WATCHED me roll them. There's NO reason not to allow it." If you still said no, I would decline to play but that's my option. I don't like being PUNISHED because I rolled well. It's unfair to me. But, as most people don't roll that well on a consistent basis, most don't see it that way.

And if I rolled those stats, and someone else rolled the spread you offered, and the DM allowed them to take the spread I rolled, and they said "No, I'll play these," then that's the choice THEY made. Why should I be punished for that?

Like I said before. I don't mind a point-buy system if the game was built with point-buy in mind. If the game gives me the option to roll stats, I'm going to take it. Because I can, more often than not, beat the spread. But I shouldn't be penalized for doing this. If everyone at the table chooses to go a point-buy route, instead of rolling, then I have a choice to make. I can either fall in line, doing the best with what I'm being given, or I can opt out.

But it shouldn't be the GAME that forces me to make this choice. It should be the DM. If the book offers different options, it shouldn't arbitrarily favor one of the other.

THAT is imbalanced.

As I said we have got rid of rolling ages ago.

But if you rolled that high in comparison to others point buying, I would compare rolls and told you to reduce your scores by some number. You would still have higher scores than point buy as a reward for taking a chance but it would be by 4 max.

I.E. by current method of buying you can get

...

But I rolled those stats. Why can't I use them? If you wouldn't want me to use what I rolled, why would you allow me to roll at all?

That's the very CORE of what I'm talking about. Paint it however you want. Bottom line is I rolled the numbers, everyone watched me do it, then after the fact, is getting mad at me for doing so because no one else at the table did.

By not letting me play my character as I created them within the boundary of the options presented to me, how can it be seen as anything but a punishment?

You're looking at it as a "Well I'm GIVING you this," but I'm seeing as "No, you're TAKING AWAY all of THIS because little Johnny over there is pouting that he doesn't have as good a stats as I do."

I've been on the back end of this. I've played with people that have had stats better than mine. That's the name of the game. Point-buy does alleviate some of this. And if the group decided to do point-buy, I'd probably go along with it. But if everyone wanted to roll and I just happened to roll higher, then, well, Wah! That's the way it goes. Nut up, or shut up.

But hamstringing the player that rolled well just to make everyone ELSE happy is DELIBERATELY creating an antogonistic environment. If the other players are butt-hurt that so-and-so rolled better, they need to quit being wusses and man/woman up.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason.
Ah yes, level caps for demihumans is loathed by many, but ability score caps are great and not for no reason, to stop a human from becoming as strong as a fire giant sounds like a good enough reason.
That might be a fine reason for some. But not for me. I want an in-game reason. I want to be shown, hands down, where having a stat that high breaks the game.
There is an in-game reason, and I am not talking about breaking the game, mechanically; humans are simply not as strong as giants.

Very true. And, at 1st Level, a human has absolutely no chance of being. Best a human can hope for is a Strength of 20. Stone Giants, among the weakest of the giants, has a Strength of 27. Even if you have a Barbarian raging, at 1st Level, you're going to have a Strength of 24. So a human CAN'T be stronger than a giant.

Without limiting the character, the game has already seen to that.


CorvusMask wrote:
Let me rephrase that: How is 18 stat cap different from "+10 is max cap for enhancement and special abilities bonuses weapons and armor can have with +5 also being cap of said enhancement bonus"?

The reason given in the old ass players handbook I had said something along the lines of 'items can only contain so much magic'. It was a clunky reason but it was a reason and it made some sort of sense so I was okay with it. It's been a staple of D&D since as far back as, at least AD&D. It's a rule that's been in the book for a long time and is a part of the lore. I can accept that.

What I CAN'T accept is the game giving me an option, then slapping me down when I avail myself of that option.

Now, if the book has some sort of ability for a weapon that is a +11 Enchantment/Enhancement but then in the next chapter it hammered home that weapons can ONLY be a +10, with no exception, THEN I'd have a problem.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason.
Ah yes, level caps for demihumans is loathed by many, but ability score caps are great and not for no reason, to stop a human from becoming as strong as a fire giant sounds like a good enough reason.

That might be a fine reason for some. But not for me. I want an in-game reason. I want to be shown, hands down, where having a stat that high breaks the game.

Fact? It doesn't. I know this because I've run players with seriously awesome stats. And you know what? They can die. They can be hurt. They can be outsmarted. They can fail.

But when they do so, it's with the character they WANTED to build. It wasn't some jury-rigged, pigeon-holed monstrosity that is nothing but a patchwork of compromises to fit a flawed narrative. I've got the DMing chops to make things a challenge for my players regardless of what stats they have. Every DM should. Adaptation is the hallmark of a decent DM. I've had many that had the imagination of wet cardboard. And the games were terrible as a result.

But 'Just because' isn't a reason. It's an excuse. And excuses don't belong in my source material.


CorvusMask wrote:

1e did have dice rolling caps for though. With 4d6 only 3 highest dice were chosen meaning cap was always 18. Same with dice pool method.

Hmm, but even I like having the barest minimum support for rolling even if it will never be used, I want there to be rules for it if I ever wanted to run oneshot game where we used them. Granted, it is waste of one page when you really think about it, but I think lot of folks would actually be sad that there wasn't stat rolling option at all

That just means the BEGINNING cap is 18. But, alas, if you play a human and wish to apply your +2 bonus at creation to Strength, after you put an 18 into it, at 1st level, you'd have a Strength of 20.

In this playtest, if you rolled an 18, put it into your Strength, and wanted to play a Strength-based Fighter, tough sh!t! You are then being PUNISHED for rolling that 18 and are arbitrarily being FORCED to put that into Dexterity instead. This railroads you into creating a character you don't wanna play.

THAT is my issue. OG Pathfinder didn't do this. 18 was the cap BEFORE racial ability modifiers. In this playtest, 18 is cap REGARDLESS of 'Boosts'. That's just complete BS.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Seriously, if I were your DM that character would never see the light of day in my campaign.

Your stats are almost as good as a 20th level in this playtest.

And you would play this beside someone with 18,16,14,12,10,8?

We gave up on rolling for stats in 2003 :p

First, if I rolled those stats and you, as the DM said "No, I would have to ask why? I rolled them. You WATCHED me roll them. There's NO reason not to allow it." If you still said no, I would decline to play but that's my option. I don't like being PUNISHED because I rolled well. It's unfair to me. But, as most people don't roll that well on a consistent basis, most don't see it that way.

And if I rolled those stats, and someone else rolled the spread you offered, and the DM allowed them to take the spread I rolled, and they said "No, I'll play these," then that's the choice THEY made. Why should I be punished for that?

Like I said before. I don't mind a point-buy system if the game was built with point-buy in mind. If the game gives me the option to roll stats, I'm going to take it. Because I can, more often than not, beat the spread. But I shouldn't be penalized for doing this. If everyone at the table chooses to go a point-buy route, instead of rolling, then I have a choice to make. I can either fall in line, doing the best with what I'm being given, or I can opt out.

But it shouldn't be the GAME that forces me to make this choice. It should be the DM. If the book offers different options, it shouldn't arbitrarily favor one of the other.

THAT is imbalanced.

As I said we have got rid of rolling ages ago.

But if you rolled that high in comparison to others point buying, I would compare rolls and told you to reduce your scores by some number. You would still have higher scores than point buy as a reward for taking a chance but it would be by 4 max.

I.E. by current method of buying you can get 18,16,14,12,10,8.
That is 78 in total.

you got 18,18,17,16,16,16....

Again, forcing me to reduce my points is PUNISHING me for rolling well.


CorvusMask wrote:
To be fair though, is "18 is max cap you can raise stat without items or magic" any more different from "Average character has max of 10 feats" 1e had? Like, how should it be explained in book that would make it feel better for you?

Given that a fighter, my preferred class, gets a feat and nearly every level, they exceed that 10 feat cap. Now, if it were to say Everyone can only start with 2 feats at first level, no matter what, and I picked a human fighter (giving me 3 feats and first level) and I was forced to have to give one of those up because 'sorry, you can only have 2 feats', despite the book offering human as a race and fighter as a class, then yeah, I'd be pissed as hell. Or everyone only gets a max of 10 feats, despite the Fighter getting bonus feats every even level, again, I'd be pissed as all get out.

I should be given an example of where having a 19 or 20 at first level would irreparably shatter the game. Because if there is no in-game, mechanical REASON that your characters CAN'T have a stat above 18, then it's just plain arbitrary and is there for no other reason than to bone people who want to roll instead of point-buy. This isn't a limitation that MATTERS to the 'Assigned Boost' system they tout. It ONLY affects those that like to roll for their stats. And there's just flat out no reason.

If they can provide an example of where 'Yes, having an 18 in this situation is okay but having a 19 or a 20 renders this first level character UNPLAYABLE and would completely destroy the game' then I'd be all for it. But as someone who's been doing this crap since Bush Sr. was in office, I'm pretty sure no such instance exists.


CorvusMask wrote:
All 1e stat generation methods had same stat caps.(though to be fair, point buy didn't allowe lower stats than -7 while rolling did)

The only option in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook that has a limitation is the 'Purchase' option. According to the text as written, no other option states that there is a cap.

And if the whole 'stat rolling' option isn't balanced, then it shouldn't be in the book. If they want point-buy, make the game point-buy and be done with it. Don't pu$$y-foot around about it.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I actually like capped numbers (ability scores, AC), I never liked that 3rd Ed did away with that. I would prefer characters to be capped at 18 for ability scores, the idea of a halfling as strong as an ogre, bothers me.
A halfling, according to the rules as written in 3rd Edition CAN'T be as strong as an ogre at first level.
I am not talking about 1st-level, with ability score increases they can become as strong as an ogre.
Then we are having two different conversations.
Ah, so not about hard caps, but how high ability scores can be at 1st-level?

While I don't believe there should be caps AT ALL (limited to what you can feasibly do with your character or what the DM proposes), yes. It was that I chose to use one of the methods the book offered, then having done that, was faced with "Sorry, you can't make the character you want." But then not offering any kind of reason as to why that rule is in place. NO other gaming system I have ever played has done this. When all of the other systems I've ran put a limitation on something, it was given a reason.

Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason. And I absolutely loathed it in return. But I played it because it was, at the time, the only option open to me. It was with a grudging hatred. I was, however, able to craft the character I wanted, full stop, at 1st level and didn't limit me in that regard.

I understand that what I'm doing is pretty much just pissing and moaning about something that, by and large, isn't that big a deal to a lot of people. It's just important to me. It's a pet peeve of mine. I'm a DM that likes a system with a HUGE amount of resources for character creation because I like my players to have options. Now, sometimes, players can suffer from option paralysis, and I get that. This game seems to be mostly for those types of individuals. But for someone that's got a lot of experience, I see it as just a clunky mess. And I don't foresee Paizo doing much to change what we're looking at now.

Now, with that said, I honestly HOPE and PRAY that I'm wrong. I want to have to eat my words so badly, I'm buying dipping sauce. I just don't see it happening.

I hope I'm wrong. I really do.


Igor Horvat wrote:

Seriously, if I were your DM that character would never see the light of day in my campaign.

Your stats are almost as good as a 20th level in this playtest.

And you would play this beside someone with 18,16,14,12,10,8?

We gave up on rolling for stats in 2003 :p

First, if I rolled those stats and you, as the DM said "No, I would have to ask why? I rolled them. You WATCHED me roll them. There's NO reason not to allow it." If you still said no, I would decline to play but that's my option. I don't like being PUNISHED because I rolled well. It's unfair to me. But, as most people don't roll that well on a consistent basis, most don't see it that way.

And if I rolled those stats, and someone else rolled the spread you offered, and the DM allowed them to take the spread I rolled, and they said "No, I'll play these," then that's the choice THEY made. Why should I be punished for that?

Like I said before. I don't mind a point-buy system if the game was built with point-buy in mind. If the game gives me the option to roll stats, I'm going to take it. Because I can, more often than not, beat the spread. But I shouldn't be penalized for doing this. If everyone at the table chooses to go a point-buy route, instead of rolling, then I have a choice to make. I can either fall in line, doing the best with what I'm being given, or I can opt out.

But it shouldn't be the GAME that forces me to make this choice. It should be the DM. If the book offers different options, it shouldn't arbitrarily favor one of the other.

THAT is imbalanced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

Umm, but that is really arbitrary point to make.

Like, why aren't you instead angry that game doesn't allow you to start with ability score of 30? Well that is because 1e didn't allow it either. You are angry that first edition allowed you to start with 20(or higher) ability score while 2nd edition doesn't. But you might as well be angry that rangers and paladins don't have spells anymore or that action economy works differently, you are being angry that change exists rather than about why it exists.

OG Pathfinder didn't put any limits on stats whatsoever. What you get is what you get. No compromise. I like that. I don't like arbitrary limits with no reasoning.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I actually like capped numbers (ability scores, AC), I never liked that 3rd Ed did away with that. I would prefer characters to be capped at 18 for ability scores, the idea of a halfling as strong as an ogre, bothers me.
A halfling, according to the rules as written in 3rd Edition CAN'T be as strong as an ogre at first level.
I am not talking about 1st-level, with ability score increases they can become as strong as an ogre.

Then we are having two different conversations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I actually like capped numbers (ability scores, AC), I never liked that 3rd Ed did away with that. I would prefer characters to be capped at 18 for ability scores, the idea of a halfling as strong as an ogre, bothers me.

A halfling, according to the rules as written in 3rd Edition CAN'T be as strong as an ogre at first level. Given the size penalty and their -2 to Strength as to where Ogres in 3rd Edition received a +10 to their Strength score. So, unless your Ogre rolled absolute GARBAGE and your halfling rolled killer, it isn't an issue.

But, if such a thing did occur, while it would be an incredible outlier, it should be allowed because that's the way the dice fall.

See? This just proves what I'm saying. Roleplaying games are about the fantastic and mindboggling OPTIONS for things like this. But when you put the limitations on it, you remove a part of the majesty of the game.

That doesn't sit well with me. That goes against literally EVERYTHING a tabletop RPG is supposed to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:

LOL such anger!

Look, the developers have taken steps so that it's harder to create characters that are unbalanced against each other, which is usually a bad thing at any table.
If your group wants that, just agree to roll your stats and apply whatever bonus you find fitting. Paizo's police won't come to get you.

Also, the fact that you have been lucky when rolling stats so far doesn't mean that you are more likely to roll higher than average in the future. Unless you cheat, of course.
This is a fact.

It's about the OPTION to do so. I want to be able to get my stats that high. Not saying I will. Not saying I won't. But when I go to make the choice and see, out of the gate, that some of my options are limited for NO reason, it's a red flag. It's starting out on a bad foot.

And FYI, when I rolled the block they suggested, I ended up with 18, 18, 17, 16, 16, 16. Naturally, I wanted to put my highest number into my strength, because I wanted to be a fighter. But the GAME said 'NO!' for no G!#$~&n reason.

Now yes, it says I could have put the numbers somewhere else, but that should be a choice I get to make. The game should not foist that choice on me. Games that do this are fundamentally broken.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HangarFlying wrote:
Sulako wrote:

So, essentially, what you're saying is...it was arbitrary. They did it because...they wanted to. Not for any kind of hard game-play reasons. Not because it would DESTROY the game in its entirety. They did it because 'We're the game developers and you have to do what we say.'

That's kinda why I have a problem with it. They give no valid, in-game, mechanical reason why you can't. If they did, I wouldn't be complaining. I'd be unhappy but at least they'd have a reason for it.

The whole 'to make the game lower-powered' is the biggest bullsh!t cop-out reason I've ever heard. It's not up to the GAME to lower the power levels. It's up to the DM. Any DM worth their salt would agree with me on that.

Roleplaying games are what they are PRECISELY to cater to fantasies. Some people just want the fun and intrigue to go along with a fantasy setting and don't mind being just slightly above average. That's fine. More power to them. But some want to be a conqueror that wrecks shop at 1st level and have generated the stats through rolling and bonuses to do that. It shouldn't be up to the game - ANY game - to limit that. That's the DM's job. And if any DM is HAPPY with a game that does that for them, so they don't have to, then, in my opinion, they don't deserve to sit behind the screen and run a game.

Have you even played a session yet to see if your complaints have any actual merit, or are you just complaining to complain?

You are whining about there being ability caps at level one, but not considering the context of all of the other rules for which those caps are put in place. Will your character really be so completely weak as you are want to imply? You don’t know. You haven’t played.

Furthermore, this is a playtest. The developers need a baseline, and therefore put boundaries in place to help them collect data. Dial it back a bit.

Yes. Our group did, in fact, TRY to play a session of this. We made it through about an hour and said 'bag it' and continued our previous Rise of the Runelords campaign because it was, you know, not broken all to hell.

And it isn't about my character 'being weak'. It's about the GAME telling me 'NO!' Like an angry parent, then not giving a reason as to why. I don't mind the cap. THAT isn't my issue. It's that there's no reason - adequate or otherwise - given for the cap. It's a limitation without reasoning. THAT is what I have a problem with. And no, 'character balance' isn't a good reason, because if I can achieve those stats, then so can someone else. Them choosing not to doesn't make the game imbalanced. Their choices are.


KuniUjito wrote:
Sulako wrote:
KuniUjito wrote:
This is only for 1st level but Core Rulebook pg 15, 2nd column, 4th paragraph starting with Purchase. "No score can be reduced below 7 or raised above 18 using this method" might be what is being referred to.
If that is, indeed, what he was referring to, then it doesn't limit the character's beginning attributes ACROSS THE BOARD. It JUST limits what THAT PROCESS will allow. You can still roll your stats as you see fit and assign as you will, exceeding 18 or 20.
I'm just curious. what if you have three players that didn't roll above a 12 and one character that rolled 18's across the board? Do you just let that player dominate the game because he rolled well at character creation?

What I've ALWAYS done at my table and encourage other DM's I play with to do, is allow everyone to roll and, if a certain player rolls incredibly well, then all players at the table have an option of using THOSE rolls. If they CHOOSE not to then that's on them. They're choosing to hamper themselves for some sort of perceived 'challenge'. I personally don't like every single fight being a deadly slobber-knocker, and I don't like every task I attempt being tantamount to performing brain surgery blindfolded.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Dairian wrote:
I would say this edition is more D&D 4.5, than 5.5...

Because being associated with what has been universally accepted as THE WORST Edition of Dungeons and Dragons since the OG '74 game is EXACTLY what Paizo should aspire to.

Way to go, guys.

SMDH...

PF1 was great as it took heart of 3.5 and polished it.

this playtest is mostly on 4e with bits of 3e and 5e.

But looks like they took random bits of 3 edition, stuffed them in their mouth and sneezed on the screen.

Then they looked in-between the snort and said: Yeah, this might work!

Couldn't agree more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dairian wrote:
I would say this edition is more D&D 4.5, than 5.5...

Because being associated with what has been universally accepted as THE WORST Edition of Dungeons and Dragons since the OG '74 game is EXACTLY what Paizo should aspire to.

Way to go, guys.

SMDH...


KuniUjito wrote:
This is only for 1st level but Core Rulebook pg 15, 2nd column, 4th paragraph starting with Purchase. "No score can be reduced below 7 or raised above 18 using this method" might be what is being referred to.

If that is, indeed, what he was referring to, then it doesn't limit the character's beginning attributes ACROSS THE BOARD. It JUST limits what THAT PROCESS will allow. You can still roll your stats as you see fit and assign as you will, exceeding 18 or 20.


Mechalibur wrote:
In PF1, one could just have easily have claimed that was NO reason to restrict a 1st level character to stats of 20. Why not have +4 bonuses from races, or allow point buy to get you a 20 to start with, then go to 22 from racial bonuses?

There is no limit on ability scores in OG Pathfinder. If there is, would you please cite a page number?