The_Kurgan's page

The black raven wrote:

Why are the 7 other alignments unable to get their own Champion base class ?

Why should they? Paladins are not champions of LG alignment. NOr are Anti-paladins alignment champions. They are Lawful and Good but more Lawful and good then LG itself is. They are the embodiment of ideas more pure then LG. Most paladins can't live up to those standards much less other LG people.

The mistake you are making is you think they exist because of the alignment system. The alignment system is merely a reflection of the paladin. Strip out alignment and you know what that changes? Nothing, the paladin acts the very same.

But the same could be said of the "Paladin of Freedom" concept from Unearthed Arcana. That concept is the exemplar of the ideals of CG, but as it stands, there is no class or archetype set aside for it, unless a GM comes along (like me) and says "This is stupid, why is there no class for this concept, yet there is already the precedent for a similar class" and makes one.

And you are right, Without an alignment system, paladins would act very much the same. But that's not really because of the class itself, but it's based on the tradition that Paladins are always LG, and they may never fall from their LG. If Paladins had been introduced as being champions of a certain ideal (and that ideal would change with the alignment, whether the system actually existed or not), Paladins would not act the same. Because of this, I have attempted to broaden the selection of ideals that the Paladin could embody. I almost think that I haven't gone far enough with this, since they are still bound to an alignment-based ideal, but I can't think how to remedy this without remaking the class from scratch.

kikidmonkey wrote:

we really need more archetypes that can overlap.

We have too many archetypes that overlap.

I think what he meant is the fact that, in theory, you can use multiple archetypes on a class, assuming they don't replace the same features. The problem is, too often do the archetypes replace one or several key class features, so there is overlap in the features they replace. As a result, you can't have, for example an evangelical-divine strategist cleric.

I agree with this to an extent. I think smaller changes would have allowed for more modularity, but I like the fluff of the archetypes, as they are, so I'm not sure if I would have actually enjoyed small-change archetypes.

Umm whats PbP. I actually moved last year so I have very few friends and I doubt any of them would like to be in a role playing group. I dont even know if I can trust to tell them I'm starting the group without telling the entire school. So I'm probably just gonna put a few posters. Ill have people sign up beforehand so I know how many people I'm dealing with and stop anyone who I think might ruin the whole thing from coming. Id simply send them an email saying that there isn't enough room for them to join in. That may actually be true as Id be the only person running it.

PbP is Play-by-Post Role Playing. It's essentially using forums and message boards (like this one right here) to play out a game of Pathfinder or other such RPG. In my experience, they can drag on really slowly, but they're usually pretty fun (not as good as an in person game, but it makes due in a pinch).

And I don't know if it's just my situation, and how there was less of a stigma for "geekdom" at my school, but with a lot of people, as long as you're not being annoying/overly geeky about it, people don't really care. They may not want to join, but if it isn't really impacting them (ie they don't have to hear about it every five minutes), they don't really care. I remember when I was a freshman, and I was just getting into RPGs and Comics and the like, I was afraid that someone would mock me for it, if I ever let them know, but I went to comic con one year, and had bags of nerdy stuff, and saw one of my friends there, more for the video games and movies and such than anything else, and I was afraid of looking like a geek, but he actually kind of respected me for it. For example, I had seen that Chris Claremont was going to be there, and I wanted to see him, and potentially get a comic signed, and even though he didn't really get what I was so excited about, he still understood my enthusiasm for it. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, at least in my case, people don't really care, so you might have to just put yourself out there and trust that people won't really care.

When killing someone is the right thing to do, a Paladin shouldn't hesitate-- but that's not always the most appropriate response to every kind of evil.

I remember a player who once did that all the time, so what I did was I got fed up and had a murder mystery session. The Paladin, as I knew he would, used detect Evil, and saw that the Captain of the town guard had an aura of evil, and so he attacked him. It turned out that the Captain was a wife-beater, and had several extramarital affairs, but according to the law, he hadn't broken any laws that anyone could prove and charge him with. The paladin was thrown in jail for the attack, and lost his Paladin powers, for his actions. The player was a bit pissed at me, but we talked afterward, and I let him roll up a temporary character, while the paladin was serving out his sentence (thankfully it was only assault, which, good behavior, I could say would only last a couple months). After he atoned, he actually played the class intelligently.

But shouldn't what "intelligent sorcerer" means scale with the point buy as well?

In a high point buy game, your intelligence focused classes will be 18-20 Int, so your 16 int sorcerer will be well behind them. In a lower point buy game, they might be 16-18, so a 14 int sorcerer will be relatively the same.

It only stops being relative if you run into hard numbers like qualifying for feats or spell levels.

But the feel isn't the same. A 14 or 12 Int sorcerer may be above average, but a 16 int sorcerer is quite gifted, and could even be thought of as an intellectual, rather than just "pretty smart."

The black raven wrote:

- LE should have a Holy Champion base class (Blackguard ?) whose archenemy would be Chaos

- CG should have a Holy Champion base class (Liberator ?) whose archenemy would be Law

CG should not be against law, that imply that the azatas would be at war with the archons. CG should be against Tyrany.

LE antipaladin whose arcenemy is chaos could be found in a dragon magazine, dark powers if I remenber well, is a good class concept but not that good in game mechacnis.

This (black raven's way) is the way that I do it as well (except I also allow NG, NE, LN, LC and TN Paladins; NG opposes E, NE opposes G, LN opposes C, CN opposes law, and TN opposes the corners), and apart from the whole "makes it even" thing, by having each side be opposed by something, I justify the CG's opposition of L as a Liberation issue. The most frequent enemies (in my experience) of a CG "liberator" are LE Tyrants and LN soldiers, guards, bureaucrats and their ilk. If they oppose E, they can take down the tyrants, but the society that allowed the Tyrant to rise to power still exists. A LG Paladin may say "Good! Now we can install an LG Ruler, and we can maintain order, but this time for the side of good." A CG Paladin would be more prone to say "The Tyrant is dead, but another will be quick to rise; we must take down the society structure that allowed the tyrant to rise in the first place."

As for the dragon magazine thing, I think I saw that one too, and I felt the same way. My current Paladin models are much more standardized, with certain stuff based on their place on Law-chaos axis, and other stuff based on their place on their place on the Good-Evil axis, and another set of stuff based on what they oppose. More often then not it's pretty much a find and replace good/evil/law/chaos with the appropriate alignment.

My school was a bit different, since almost everyone was a nerd to a certain extent, and there weren't really any of the stereotypes like Jock, Prep, ect, so I don't exactly know how well this will translate, but what I did was just asked some friends if they'd like to start up a group. You don't have to go out and "advertise" so much as put out to a few friends that you're looking to form a group. This won't work quite as well if you don't have many nerdy friends, but back in my High-school 3.5 days, that's how I got my first group together.

Alternatively, if you really want to get something together, but can't get people around you to form a group, you could always play a PbP game, or a game with Skype and maptools.

I would like to say, auticus, If your players have fun, and you have fun with your PB set up, more power to you (that being said, I would never play with that setup; too restrictive for MAD relative to SAD, and even if there is no real benefit to a 15PB, if I were the guy who couldn't write a Bio, because I was busy with higher priorities, like, you know, working make sure I could afford groceries, and I missed that important check by 1, you can guarantee I'd be a bit pissed)

That being said, I don't really have much of a problem with 15PB, if I'm playing a SAD character. The main problem is that at anything under 20PB, it feels to me like MAD characters are severely restricted, relative to SAD. The way my current GM does it, which I wish I could remember off the top of my head how he did it, was to make an alternate Point buy chart, that scales even more pricey than the current one does with time. That means, for 55 points, which equates to the Elite array, in this chart's point value, you can get much spread around points much easier, without feeling like you're spread too thin, and it disincentivizes pumping the SAD's Main Stat, while dropping everything else, since that's really costly, point wise, so you end up with more well rounded characters that aren't too biased towards either MAD or SAD (Though I will admit, it shows a slight preference for MAD, but it's less noticeable than the current system's SAD bias).

The only problem that comes up is sometimes you wind up with "wasted points" since it's less easy to have everything fit together in nice neat point packages, with a bigger jump in point costs, but the GM balances that with fluff perks, that he gives out. So, for example, you wind up with 2 points that you can't fit anywhere. The GM will then offer something like a nice furnished house (not really much benefit for the player other than not having to pay for lodging, though meals still have to be payed for, while at the campaign's central town). Or sometimes, we keep them around for something in the future (like, for example, if the party needs horses, a player with a left over point can "call in a favor" and borrow some horses, or at least rent them at a reduced price). Usually only 1 or two points are left over, so it doesn't really impact the game too much, but it's a nice thing to have as a consolation for not being able to use up all your points.

1) Bard: I like almost all of the Archetypes for it
2) Non-deity Cleric: This is mostly for the flavor, But I've played 4 of these, through the course of my 3.5/pathfinder career, and I really love the whole Cleric-y thing, without having to be the mouthpiece of a god.
3) Fighter: Fighter is one of those classes where you can make each build you make feel distinct, just through the shear amount of options afforded to you.

*Yawn*

Another pointless thread about people's inability to ignore rules in a book. Yay.

Play a lawful barbarian. I doubt Paizo will send Cosmo to confiscate your dice.

Alignments: The dumbest thing they put in D&D.

Good Idea, in fact, why don't I just go up to my GM, and say, I don't like the fact that my wizard has a +1/2 BAB/level, so I'm going to play them as if they had d10 HD and +1 BAB/Level, ok?

The reason why this is such a contentious issue is that some GMs are uncomfortable from breaking with the RAW, if they don't see the problem, even if it's glaringly obvious to everyone else. The reason I quit playing D&D 4E for the most part was because the DM didn't understand the concept of feat taxes, and wouldn't bend the RAW to suit the group's wishes.

(For this post, please read law as both codified law, and codes of honor)

I don't really understand why the Law-chaos alignment is made to so often preclude rational-thought or logic on the side of chaos. I'd like to think of myself as a CN person, and I'm a ton more logical than I am emotional. Likewise, there are a lot of Paladins I have seen, who are still LG, but are guided by emotion more than logic. I see Law-Chaos as more of a blend of the Authoritarian-individualist political-axis, and the and the Conscientiousness personality trait (a la big 5).

On a macro-scale a L character will be prone to impose law or code, or see that law or code is followed, and a C character will fight against restrictive laws (though for who depends on the alignment; Good would be fighting against laws that restrict society or others; Neutral would be fighting against laws that restrict them, and their families and friends; Evil would be fighting against laws that (perhaps rightfully) restrict their own personal goals).

On a more passive scale, an L character will follow the law, and a C character will disobey the law. This is not to say that an L character will be bound to the law 100% of the time, nor is it to say that a C character will break laws just for the sake of it, but if the situation comes down to the law being just restrictive enough to be hindering, but not too restrictive as to outweigh the penalty for breaking it, this is the way the characters will tend.

This is the same reason I find problems with the "Burn Everything" CE. I see CE having the potential to be just as rational as LE, but CE is unfazed by the fact that a law says something is illegal, as long as there isn't the danger of immediate retribution (that is to say, if the penalty*probability to be caught < gains*probability to succeed, they will try it). But this isn't really the time or place.

Anyway, I also see the flavor of a class as merely the default concept assigned to characters in the class. In my opinion, having the concept of a Revolutionary Demogogue, who gains powers through his force of personality (a reskinned cleric of Chaos) is no less of a departure from the default concept of a Cleric, as the listed "Controlled Ragers" or Flow Barbarians, or whatever other lawful aligned Barbarian they propose, and the same with non-Lawful Monks, and even Non LG Paladins (Though I'd rule that they'd need to be the same alignment as their deity, and LG and NG oppose E, CG and CN oppose L, CE and NE oppose G and LN and LE oppose C, and N opposes the corners, but even that, I'm almost opposed to)

How detailed are your Governments in your campaign settings? And how are they organized? I once had a 4 branch government, where I defined it to the point where I almost had a constitution for it (the campaign dissolved, so I didn't see the point; It was originally a very politically focused campaign, where the party was trying to stop this one guy from getting elected, and over the only two sessions that we actually had, they encountered a lot of legal and governmental based plot points). So, yeah... what are your general feelings/stories/whatever on government?

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Haha.

At some point I might take a group and tell them, "Choose whatever stats you feel is appropriate for your character concept."

No point buy. No rolling. Just pick the numbers. :P

It'll probably end up more 'fair' than most rolling methods.

I recall this method from somewhere, with the addition of Hubris points. Everyone assigns there own stats and then calculates the Point Buy value. If your PB value is over a certain number, you get Hubris points. Anytime the DM needs to make a random decision, like which character will this random event/monster/attack etc... effect/hit, he picks the person with the highest Hubris score, and then subtracts 1 from that Hubris score. I wish I could remember where I saw this...memory is always the 2nd thing to go with age, I just wish I could remember the first.

I kind of like this Idea, though, I'd be more prone to subtracting more than just 1 point at a time, since if the point buy is that egregious, there's going to be a large point difference. And no one, no matter the stats can survive being picked on by the GM that much.

I understand everyone's problem to an extent, that the Rogue is outclassed by many other classes, but I personally don't see much of a problem with it. If you want to play Rogue, make sure your niche isn't taken, which is quite possible, even with the problems that were outlayed above, a lot of them deal with specialized archetypes of other classes, so your niche is fairly well protected (especially if your GM does more traditional traps, rather than Summon traps). Even if you're not the best possible at what you do, you're probably better than the rest of the party.

Or, if you don't mind not being a rogue in name, play another class that "does it better." I don't care if my Rogue is classed as a Rogue, or a Bard. If he does the same type of thing, he's a Rogue, in my eyes.

I just tutored him on how attack rolls and damage rolls work, and I think he FINALLY gets it.

What didn't he get? Was it on determining the modifiers, or on actually what you do? Because if it's the former, you can just have him tell you what he wants in a character, and make sure you have a cheat sheet for him, and have all the weapon attacks (Attack rolls and Damage rolls)/CMB/Saving Throws/AC(including the variations of Touch, Flatfooted)/ect

If it was about the actual "what you do," How did you explain it? Because when I learned (and I was pretty young and had no Idea what I was doing), I was basically taught: *point at d#* "that's the size die," *point at +#* "that's what you add." My first few characters were made for me/I had help running through the character creation, but as long as I had the modifiers for whatever I needed, I was solid.

Having already said that, I'd probably go with fighter, because, it's pretty simple to pick up, and doesn't really have too much difficult to worry about.

So, standardly guns are rather expensive running more than a starting PC that's not a gunslinger can get.

The question is, even with the touch AC to hit thing within the first range band, is it worth that much more standardly?

The Touch AC thing is a pretty big deal (Not wonderful, I know, but it's a substantial bonus, when dealing with certain enemies), and most classes/archetypes that focus on guns grant you a battered gun at first level (and by the time non-gun classes can afford the feat they probably aren't as starved for cash). Though it may not be the right price, mechanically, for the weapon, given its effects, It's not terrible when it comes to establishing the tone: if guns are meant to be rare, it's represented well, by requiring a feat and a substantial monetary cost, not to be used as a sidearm. If guns are meant to be less rare, there are rules for it, by making simple firearms cheaper (Commonplace Guns), and making all guns even cheaper, and making them martial weapons (Guns Everywhere).

Sure. This comment mainly springs from a campaign setting I was working on a year or so ago, where there were no Deities, there were aspects of different ideas. Each of law, chaos, good and evil had an aspect, as well as other aspects, such as the aspect of Knowledge, the aspect of Intuition, the aspect of Deciet etc. Unlike gods, they are not some all-powerful forces. They are immortal, but not invulnerable, and they are as bound by physical laws as anything in the universe (basically, they were high level NPCs), and when they die, another aspect emerges, but at a very weak power. The main conflict in the mid-late levels were that certain aspects were enslaving, and killing other opposing aspects, to keep their power weak. In this campaign setting, Alignments were done away with, because they provided too strong of a predefined allegiance to one side or another. Instead, the first few levels were meant to serve to flesh the character out, and later, the Party and the individual PCs would decide where they would side in this conflict. I never finished with the campaign, but I liked the way it worked, as we started to get into the conflict, since some less expected character developments happened, like the rogue, who would have been CN, if we had alignments, ended up siding more with the more, as a whole, LG side when the conflict broke out.

I'll admit, it wouldn't be impossible to do this within the Alignment system, but at least in my opinion, the players I game with rarely shift in alignments, and RP their alignments (or shades thereof), rather than getting into their characters.

Even apart from this, I don't like the way alignment is set up right now, since the system puts the characters into more or less preset roles, but this is less of an issue with your method, since it's a gradient scale of each axis.

In addition to alignment, I've contemplated doing other methods of defining characters, such as taking political or psychological typing tests for the characters, but I'm afraid the same preset roles will occur in other ways. Also, it's a bit unrealistic to ask people to do it for their characters, before they get into their characters personalities, and it's not really necessarily to do so, after they have a general feel of the character.

I actually would tend to disagree with this system. On the whole, I think that personality is the basis, and that the Alignment is merely a nice way of labeling things.

If I were to draw a comparison to the Law-Chaos axis, in another place, I would draw it from the Jungian personality traits, specifically the Intuition-Sensing pair, with a little bit of Judgement-Perception. Sensing is very by-the-book and traditional. A Sensor would not go against proven methods, and holds a much more clear and definite grasp on what is right and wrong. This is very much like lawful characters. The law was made for a reason, so they will not disobey the law, without a very good reason, and they are more inclined to work within the law rather than break it. Same goes with the "Personal code" side of lawful; sensors are more bound to it than would an intuiter. On the Intuition side, Intuiters are more driven by insight, and inspiration, and they look more to potential than proven methods. Also, they are more prone to seeing everything with a bit of a blur to the edges. This is like Chaos, which will go against law if they find it goes against their intuition. In addition Chaos sees a "good law" being more blurred around the edges; a "good law" could serve evil, even if that was not it's intent.

To a lesser extent, Judgement also serves Chaotic characters, as they are more willing to follow their Judging Trait (Thinking or Feeling), while Perception serves Lawful characters, because they are more willing to let things ride, even if they might disagree with it. However, this is much more like your above Judging hidden alignment. A Judging character will be willing to go against their alignment more easily, while a perceiving character will stand by their alignment, as a more passive choice.

The other two pairs, Extroversion-Introversion and Thinking-Feeling are much less close to the axis. You could have a Demogogue, who is Extroverted and Lawful, a Revolution Leader, who is Extroverted and Chaotic, a chaste Monk who is Lawful and Introverted, and a hermetic Ranger, who is chaotic and introverted.

Similarly, the Thinking-Feeling axis has very little to do with Law-Chaos, since a Chaotic character can be driven by emotion, like a Barbarian, or by Reason, like specific builds of Bard, especially detective bards, or (occasionally) Archaeologist. A Lawful character could similarly be driven by emotion, like the standard Code-of-Honor characters, or by Reason, like an Inquisitor.

Morality really isn't based much on Personality, since personality traits can be either Good or Evil, and I say that's more based on prior events or ingrained natural tendencies.

Now other things I will applaud. I like the 0-10 scale, so that a player can play a Lawful good character, without other players expecting Lawful-stupid, or (more rarely) Stupid-good. I agree with the thought of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil being concrete aspects, but I disagree with the idea that alignment is the best thing to serve the notions of good, Evil, Law and Chaos.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, I'm just presenting my point of view. And as a result, I'm going to list some generic ideologic grounds of each corner:

LG - I do what is right for all, using previously proven methods, because that is what I know will work. CG has good intentions, but their methods are prone to fail as often as they succeed. As the saying goes 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.' LE is Selfish, but unlike CE, I know the law will keep their evil in check. CE is unfettered. They do what they want and nothing will stop them, not even the Law.

CG - I do what I believe is right, even if I must break a few rules. LG has good intentions, but they are restricted by the law, in what good they can do. CE is impossible to predict, but that also limits their power. LE is the most fearsome Alignment, because not only are they evil, but it provides them an avenue to institutionalize their actions.

LE - I do what is in my best interest, but I always follow the rules, especially my own. CE is a fearsome adversary, because they cannot be kept in check, like my LE subordinates. LG is a bane of my existence, but unlike CG, they will be slower to act, because my actions are not against the law, and they will go through all legal methods in order to fight me. CG is scary to me, because they will fight me tooth and nail, and they will not be stopped by the fact that the law is on my side.

CE - I do what is in my best interest, and the law will not stop me. LE is a potential problem for me, because they can use the power held previously defined institutions to fight me. CG is going to oppose me, but they do not have the power of the law on their side, and if I play my cards right, I can get the law to slow them down. LG is my archnemesis. They will bring the Law against me, and unlike LE, they will fight me on an ideological ground, rather than only if I get in their way.

Reroll 1's, without a note that you keep the reroll whether or not it's a 1, means you CAN'T come up with 3-5. Rolling a 6 becomes every bit as unlikely as rolling an 18.

My bad, It said Traditional, so I missed the reroll 1s thing. Then yeah. That's probably accurate.

Kuma wrote:

Easier to just roll the traditional 4d6, drop lowest, reroll 1s.

That's about a 30 point buy on average.

Actually it's not. You must be disregarding rolls of 3-6. Using a continuation of the general trend (with the exception of +0 modifiers) that to jump to the next modifier in either direction, you either add or subtract that modifier's value in points (ie, a 8 down to a 7 is -2 points, and 7 is a -2 modifier; 15 up to a 16 is 3 points, and 16 is a +3 modifier), I got the point values for the 3-6 range being 3 (-16 points), 4 (-12 points), 5 (-9 points), and 6 (-6 points). adding these values to the table and multiplying the point value by the likelihood to get them, nets you a bit over 3 points per stat, or just under 20 point buy, (which might I add is actually more points than the mean value in each stat, and is just about the points for the most likely value in each stat.)

I'm not going to argue that the chance to get a ridiculous point buy is still there, but there's also the chance to get a rediculously low point buy as well.

On an unrelated, and hopefully less controversial note, anyone who does/has done stat rolling in their campaign, has anyone tried the Dice pool method? It looks like it could be interesting.

For me, when in doubt, make the player roll a check. Set the DC to whatever feels right. That solves most problems I've encountered. For other things that aren't die checks, don't let the Players see what the published trap/monster/ect, and fudge everything as needed.

The_Kurgan wrote:

Moses turning his staff into a snake is an action of the player.

I am pretty sure that was a petrified snake. And stone to flesh is a 6th level wizard/sorcerer spell. So he wasn't a cleric afterall!

I'm aware it would be difficult to do with cleric spells, if not impossible (well, without a miracle spell, which would be a waste), but I was making a point on what defines a deities' action, and what defines a player's action.

The_Kurgan wrote:

I do miss the D&D supplement I used to have, that I can't find anymore, that had stats for Greek, Egyptian, and Norse gods (and another pantheon, I think, but I can't remember).

This one? The final pantheon was Greyhawk's, I believe.

Yeah, that one. I still can't find it, but I remember we had an amazing campaign of it in 3.5, where I played a Cleric of Apollo. I wish I could find it so I could run it in Pathfinder (and I can't particularly afford another one at my financial point in life)

And I'd say whether a cleric's spells are something he does or something a deity does through him is a matter of flavor.

I'd have to disagree. The GM controls the deity, the Player controls the cleric. A deity has free reign over the environment, because they are the GM. A cleric has limited control, because they are the Player. Moses turning his staff into a snake is an action of the player. The plagues of Egypt were actions of the GM.

But yeah, this really isn't the best thing to mix Contemporary religion with roleplaying. I do miss the D&D supplement I used to have, that I can't find anymore, that had stats for Greek, Egyptian, and Norse gods (and another pantheon, I think, but I can't remember)

Don't want to be too technical, but Moses didn't do those things. Not even the way Clerics or other divine classes get their powers from their deity, Moses merely was a prophet.

NG, CG, or CN. Unless I want to be a Inquisitor/Investigator character, where I play LN.

]It'd be interesting. I imagine my French Inquisitor as Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral

Hmm... French Lawful Neutral Inquisitor... My Victor Hugo senses are tingling.

So my main question about the item posted here is this: are these items meant to be bought by PC's or crafted by them? What is the intention? Over all the items do seem pretty awesome. I'm just missing the price gap of the buying price.

I'm guessing they're for either, just like magic items in the book. If the caster can craft it (has the time/feats/raw materials), then they can, for a cost of 1/2 the market price of the item, and 1 day/1000gp market price of the item.

I'm not sure what you mean by the price gap, but magic items can be crafted for 1/2 their market price in raw materials, so it's always half as expensive to craft it, but it has feat requirements and time requirements.

I don't have my books within reach right now, but I'm guess the obsidian arrows don't have a full gemstone's worth of obsidian on them. And the GM would say no pretty fast.

I discuss power level with my players.

Then I give them all the same stat array, to suit the power level they want.

I don't see the benefit of this. Some classes are better with a lot of decent stats, and some are good with one good stat, and the rest don't matter as much. If the reason for the same stat array is balance, this doesn't solve it. You might as well get rid of any illusions of balance and just do stat rolling.

I've always wanted to use this method, just to see how it works.

I've used it. It's not bad, but it's not my favorite.

And to clarify a bit, I'm not opposed to point buy in other people's games, but I've just never used it, and was wondering why other seemed to. My group does 7 rolls of 4d6 drop 1, then drop the lowest stat. No rerolls past that.

One thing I've noticed on this message board a lot is the general assumption of point buy. Now, for me, the way my group has always played, even in 4E, which is almost completely set up for point buying, is to do some sort of stat rolling. Is point-buy just assumed for a standardized method's sake, or is this the way that people play in their games?

Personally, I dislike point buy, because it gives the game a more munchkin-y approach. I like the idea that I could get god-stats, or I could get screwed by the dice-gods, and that would affect the way I play my character. Otherwise, it seems it's just a lesson in optimization, how to budget your abilities to get the most bang for your buck.

I've always liked the inquisitor flavor, but have never actually played one. If I were to, I'd probably go with the Black-Powder Inquisition Infiltrator Inquisitor.

EDIT : Also, beware of the Advanced Firearms ; these should not get in your campaign unless you are in a setting where defenses against bullets are commonplace. Hitting Touch AC from so far is way too good, even as a wondrous item, or it should be a high level, costly, low powered one.

I want to know exactly how big a threat this is to game balance. I want to run a Gunslinger, and my GM is willing to allow them in his campaign, but he's not sure how commonplace they'll be. How would you place them on a magic item scale, for example, in terms of strength (ie, a Revolver is as strong as a +3 magic weapon)?