| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like somebody really wanted bayonetta.I should clarify that Witch, Summoner, and Gunslinger have been nixed. xDAt first, I thought you said that Witch, Summoner, and Gunslinger had been mixed. I thought to myself, now that sounds like an interesting class!
3/4ths BAB, 6th level witch casting, Improved Unarmed Strike for free, Gunsmithing, Gun Training, some kind of crazy new Hexdeeds (Wicked Weaves), and Summoner standard action summoning.
Pretty easy Homebrew honestly.
Mark Seifter priced 4d6, drop lowest averages in 21 point buy. That's why that is the standard on PFS.
Didn't someone at Paizo admit that the 15 standard point buy was due to a math error?
Yes and no.
Mark Seifter did, while being RogueEidolon and not a Paizo employee. Now he's a designer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the best balance is probably around 20pts;
- MAD classes function well enough.
- PCs aren't dwarfed by no-pts companions.
- Everyone gets equal points to spend.
- PCs can be competent at their main job without severe dumping other things, helping to maintain well-rounded PCs.
- Not so powerful that you can't use stock Bestiary monsters without modification.
Well, I find that quite convincing - at the next campaign my players will enjoy an upgrade from 15 to 20.
PCs can be competent at their main job without severe dumping other things, helping to maintain well-rounded PCs.
The irony, of course, being that plenty of people will take a 20 point buy and min/max like mad, and then gripe that their class doesn't grant enough skills...
I do agree though that 20 is a good place in general.
Honestly fora good dm the strength of the PCs do not matter. if you have a 10, 0, 30 point build. As long as the DM adjust the game accordingly.
Honestly fora good dm the strength of the PCs do not matter. if you have a 10, 0, 30 point build. As long as the DM adjust the game accordingly.
nothing to adjust when the best classes didn't get nerfed at all at lower pt buy.
this is why I say it's not really a balance thing the DM can arbitrate. Several things stay at their respective power level and several other things drop like a brick, it simply restricts the system.
not to go into it, but this is why I just let everyone choose their ability scores, skips all this mess.
Honestly fora good dm the strength of the PCs do not matter. if you have a 10, 0, 30 point build. As long as the DM adjust the game accordingly.
I think the OP mentioned it was the GM's first campaign, so the GM might not be a "good" GM yet. That will come with practice. He's currently a beginner GM.
And I think someone else upthread mentioned that there might be a false equivalency going on where "Low Point Buy" = "Low Magic" = "Easier to Run."
Hopefully, the OP and their group can work together with the new GM and share their experiences and can create a collaborative campaign they can all enjoy.
I played in a 15 point campaign that was fun and gritty, but we also had NPC henchmen bolstering us. The NPCs were 5 point or 10 point builds with NPC classes (exclusively warriors for ease of play). This was also a campaign with only 3 PCs.
Commoner, because that is what the GM obviously wants you to play.
Somebody actually had the idea to make Commoner a playable Class. If your GM is going for The Simpsons in Golarion, this might be just the thing.
Pet class. The Kitty of death will by far be the most effective character.
Dwarven Drood
STR: 7 DEX: 7 CON: 18 INT: 14 WIS: 17 CHA: 5
20 PB with a MAD class is comparable to 5 PB with a SAD class. Unless their fourth stat is int or they're named "bard" they really don't have enough skills.PCs can be competent at their main job without severe dumping other things, helping to maintain well-rounded PCs. The irony, of course, being that plenty of people will take a 20 point buy and min/max like mad, and then gripe that their class doesn't grant enough skills...
I do agree though that 20 is a good place in general.
...that depends entirely on what 'enough' means. I don't think every character needs to be able to max-out ranks in over a half-dozen skills, but maybe that's just me.
Lower point-buy may be quite annoying with MAD classes, but I've never understood the drama over the -1's that come from dropping a stat a bit. You can often shift from 20PB to 15PB or from SAD to MAD by just accepting a 16 top ability to start with instead of an 18, as that frees 5 points or turns a 10 into a 14.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot depends on how the campaign is supposed to feel.
10 points would certainly give more of a "fish out of water" feel. Those orcs would be scary. Things like favored class bonuses become more important.
Point of reference 4d6 drop lowest works out at just shy of a 19 point build in raw stats. However given the numbers are not optimized (lots of odd stats) I speculate that the 'power' of the character may be a bit lower, and closer to the 15 point build where you can optimize the stat layout more.
Realistically when rolling, characters end up with higher than normal abilities as many of the characters with low stats never get played. So you wipe the bottom of the range, leaving quite a skewed distribution of artificially powerful characters. Of course some may just call that survival of the fittest :-)
Low point gives advantages to classes with more features that are not ability score dependent. Things like rangers who can get the TWF tree with a low dex suddenly look a really inviting. Especially with those six skill points.
Of course some of us think Rangers look pretty inviting most of the time anyway.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PCs can be competent at their main job without severe dumping other things, helping to maintain well-rounded PCs. The irony, of course, being that plenty of people will take a 20 point buy and min/max like mad, and then gripe that their class doesn't grant enough skills...
I do agree though that 20 is a good place in general.
This is part of the irony of people moaning about "year of the skill check" which has been going on for a couple of years now.
Once upon a time scenarios were quite dumb and all you needed was to be a combat monster. People "learned" that dumping Intelligence was fine, it got put in a lot of build guides too.
You might even say, at that time 15 build points would have been enough, because scenarios were easier because they only challenge your PC on a few points instead of requiring more well-rounded abilities.
Then the scenario-writing style changed to include more challenges beyond combat. Which I think is good - there's a lot more to Indiana Jones than the fights - but everything people had learned about it being OK to dump Int became false. And it's very painful if the stuff you have learned ceases to be true. Unlearning things is hard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lower point-buy may be quite annoying with MAD classes, but I've never understood the drama over the -1's that come from dropping a stat a bit.
*looks at your 10-point-but stat distribution* I'm sorry, but I just don't see how playing a lvl1 monk with 9hp, 12AC and a +1 to attack rolls is fun.
The irony: If you are an unexperienced GM, low point buy is literally the stupidest thing you could do. Low point buy means everyone will want to play pet classes and full casters (especially summoners). Somehow, that doesn't really sound like the easiest group to GM for...
I'm not the GM of the original poster, but I've run a Core Only game with 10-point buy. I also added that nobody could take animal companions: classes with animal companions had to take the non-companion option.
It's gaming on "Hard Mode," and was an attempt at recreating the feel of an OD&D game using a modern ruleset.
I only do this for very-experienced players that are very good at optimizing.
The game would bring them from level 1 to level 8 or 9, when I would end the campaign.
My players really enjoyed it!
(Note: I gave the players a choice of systems for the game: PFRPG using the above limitations, Swords and Wizardry, or Lamentations of the Flame Princess. They chose the former.)
Lower point-buy may be quite annoying with MAD classes, but I've never understood the drama over the -1's that come from dropping a stat a bit.*looks at your 10-point-but stat distribution* I'm sorry, but I just don't see how playing a lvl1 monk with 9hp, 12AC and a +1 to attack rolls is fun.
{. . .}
Could be worse. You could have to play the 1st Edition AD&D Monk that was a martial class with no armor, d4 hit dice (except they got 2d4 at 1st level), and limited total number of Monks starting at 8th level . . . .
I'm not the GM of the original poster, but I've run a Core Only game with 10-point buy. I also added that nobody could take animal companions: classes with animal companions had to take the non-companion option.
It's gaming on "Hard Mode," and was an attempt at recreating the feel of an OD&D game using a modern ruleset.
I only do this for very-experienced players that are very good at optimizing.
The game would bring them from level 1 to level 8 or 9, when I would end the campaign.
My players really enjoyed it!
(Note: I gave the players a choice of systems for the game: PFRPG using the above limitations, Swords and Wizardry, or Lamentations of the Flame Princess. They chose the former.)
just feel like pointing out to you then, that you only made it harder on the worst classes, the better the class, the less it is effected by your changes.
If you want Hard mode, just CR+1 everything. easiest method is 1.5 times as enemies as you'd normally throw, or possibly 1.5 times as many encounters per day.
This all works out much better. The level of old school-ness is generally kept if you pretend the level cap is level 10 and then remove everything that people couldn't reach past level 10.
Lower point-buy may be quite annoying with MAD classes, but I've never understood the drama over the -1's that come from dropping a stat a bit.*looks at your 10-point-but stat distribution* I'm sorry, but I just don't see how playing a lvl1 monk with 9hp, 12AC and a +1 to attack rolls is fun.
...why would you use a basic Core Monk if you had to do 10PB? And why would you use that exact 10PB stat distribution for a MAD class?
You're conflating two different posts. In my post about 10PB, I said "something like this", not "take this exact stat array, pick what's probably the worst possible class option, and then go about it in a dumb way while ignoring things like feats and FCB to create as much drama as possible on some level-1 reject".
10pt Core Monk
Human with +2 Str and +2 Wis
Str16
Dex14
Con13
Int7
Wis16
Cha7
Two big dump stats, sure. He can't talk for shyt, and only gets 2 skill points per level. But he starts off with 10HP...which could certainly be better. He gets AC15, which could be better...but it's not a game breaker. He gets +3 to hit and dmg, which is good enough.
Take the trait "mizu ki hikari rebel" for +1 bonus damage rolls with unarmed attacks and "martial manuscript" for +2 bonus when confirming critical hits with your fists.
For your lvl1 feat, take "weapon focus" unarmed for +1 to hit. This gets you up to +4 to hit and +4 dmg.
I say go for this, as monks only start with about 35gp and could start with as little as 10. That's not much, and your fists doing 1d6+4 dmg is good enough.
Is this a great character? No. Is it doable? I think so.
...why would you use a basic Core Monk if you had to do 10PB? And why would you use that exact 10PB stat distribution for a MAD class?
If for you, not being able to play a good portion of the game's classes falls under "annoying" or "drama over the -1's", I don't really have anything to say to you.
@Grumbaki: Can't take Weapon Focus at first level because someone at Paizo thought that mastery of your own body and being the best at punching people doesn't warrant a full BAB. That said, that monk doesn't look fun to play, either. Useless out of combat, still really bad in combat.
@Haladir: How is "go full caster or go home" hard mode?
made a monk to see how it does.
Human monk 3
LN Medium humanoid (human)
Init +3; Senses Perception +9
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 16, touch 16, flat-footed 14 (+1 deflection, +1 Dex, +1 dodge, +3 Wis)
hp 24 (3d8+6)
Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +6; +2 bonus vs. sleep, paralysis, and stunning, +2 vs. enchantments
Defensive Abilities evasion
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 40 ft.
Melee unarmed strike +5 (1d6+3) or
. . unarmed strike flurry of blows +4/+4 (1d6+3)
Special Attacks flurry of blows, stunning fist (3/day, DC 14)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 16, Dex 12, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 16, Cha 8
Base Atk +2; CMB +6; CMD 21
Feats Acrobatic, Deflect Arrows, Dodge, Dragon Style[UC], Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist
Traits martial manuscript, reactionary
Skills Acrobatics +9 (+13 to jump), Escape Artist +5, Fly +3, Perception +9, Sense Motive +7, Stealth +5
Languages Common
SQ fast movement, maneuver training
Other Gear ring of protection +1, 1,000 gp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Deflect Arrows (1/round) While have an empty hand, negate one ranged weapon hit you are aware of (unless from a massive weapon).
Dragon Style +2 vs. sleep, paralysis, and stun, first unarmed strike in a rd deals 1.5x Str, and can ignore difficult terrain/allies when charging.
Evasion (Ex) If succeed on Reflex save for half dam, take none instead.
Fast Movement (+10 ft.) The Monk adds 10 or more feet to his base speed.
Flurry of Blows +1/+1 (Ex) As full-rd action, higher BAB and combo unarmed/monk wep as if two-weapon fighting.
Improved Unarmed Strike Unarmed strikes don't cause attacks of opportunity, and can be lethal.
Maneuver Training (Ex) CMB = other BABs + Monk level
Stunning Fist (3/day, DC 14) You can stun an opponent with an unarmed attack.
Stunning Fist Helper This is a dummy ability to add an extra entry for the stunning fist feat in another section of the statblock (since it is shown with a different name in the two places, we can't use sbName).
I don't like it. did an unchained monk that did much better but that's not core.
level 3
+4/+4 on a flurry, +5 otherwise (1d6+4{+3}) {} - non-first attacks
Mostly uses acrobatics to ignore threatening and tries to get into flank with partner is my best guess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forcing specialization can be a desired goal though. You may want to create a game where the players rely on each other more, rather than each player trying to solo the game. The problem is that this is a game where any little thing like combat or a social encounter can take up most of your game night, meaning that if your character isn't capable of contributing in such an encounter, then you basically don't get to play for that game time. And this leads to all players feeling like they need to be able to do it all.
Forcing specialization can be a desired goal though. You may want to create a game where the players rely on each other more, rather than each player trying to solo the game. The problem is that this is a game where any little thing like combat or a social encounter can take up most of your game night, meaning that if your character isn't capable of contributing in such an encounter, then you basically don't get to play for that game time. And this leads to all players feeling like they need to be able to do it all.
A well deserved favorited.
Last game session, we had a paladin player. 2 skill points per level plus Int doesn't give much to play with. He can't sneak. He can talk, sure...but we had someone who due to the story was a more natural party face. He didn't get to do anything 3/4 of the time, and for the 2 combats that we had, he didn't do anything in the first one. Due to...well, being melee against ranged ambushers.
I've come to the conclusion that Pathfinder games have 3 components to them.
(1) Problem Solving
- Knowledge Skills
- Stealth/Perception/Disable Device
- Survival Skills
This can be anything from sneaking onto a ship to steal documents, to deciphering ancient writings. If you can't do any of these, then there is a good chance that you'll be side lined.
(2) Talking
- Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff
Usually there is a party face who does most of the talking. I still think that it is useful to max one of these out if possible. Even if it is just intimidate, you never know what it will come in handy. A situation may arise where the sweet talking noble steps aside for your fighter to flex his muscles. Either that, or you can get some words in to assist the party face. If you can't do any of these, then you are side lined for another big part of the game.
(3) Fighting
All too often people focus on fighting. Ok...you can fight well. Great. That's really important. But the paladin I mentioned earlier wasn't a bad fighter. He just didn't have the tools to be useful.
If you focus on only one of the three, then you run the risk of having nothing to do for most of the game. And like the paladin, if the way you focused your character doesn't fit the event...even that you might be sidelined.
Not sure if this is allowed in Core only, but...
(1) Breadth of Experience (+2 to all knowledge skills and profession skills, may make all tests untrained)
(2) Divine Obedience Irori (+4 to all knowledge skills)
Dwarf, elf and gnome only.
So for a dwarf fighter...
Str16 Dex12 Con14 Int10 Wis12 Cha5
* Take a talent which makes knowledge (religion) a class skill.
* At lvl 1 take breadth of experience for your level feat. Get Power Attack.
* At lvl 2 take another combat. Get intimidating prowess.
* At lvl 3 take divine obedience (Irori).
This gives you +6 to all knowledge skills, with your knowledge religion being at +13. All profession skills are at +3. Put you other 3 skill points into intimidate, making it +7.
At least this way you get to be a decent enough fighter. You've got enough knowledge skill power to be relevant in getting things done. Get knowledge dungeoneering and engineering as soon as you can so they can shoot up to +10.
And with intimidate at +7, you won't be the party face, but you can be useful enough to scare someone/assist the party face in scaring someone.
So with this, you at least have the chance to do something in all parts of the game.
Forcing specialization can be a desired goal though. You may want to create a game where the players rely on each other more (...)
The important part of what Create Mr. Pitt said, and the reason low point buy doesn't work for it, is "for almost every other class." A wizard on a 10PB will still have a lot of skill points and most of the spell casting power of any other wizard. It's always part of pathfinder's problem (and the main reason for the CM/D) that while a martial has to specialize to do something well, a caster merely needs to invest a few spell slots to be amazing at something (buffer? prepare haste a few times. taxi? prepare teleport a few times!), with no other investment.
(...) rather than each player trying to solo the game.
And the best way to play a low PB character is also the best way to "solo the game" (pets and summons). So once again, low point buy has the exact opposite of the desired effect.
|
Human dual talent alternate racial.
You can get:
20 on your primary stat
17 on constitution
8,7,7,7 on other stats
I think Human is always good. If you want a variant, Gnome is a good starting point for INT+CON casters.
Just don't let people bully you. You should be unkillable if you built yourself correctly...
As long as you choose a fairly SAD character, you will rule the kingdom. Also, you will teach the short-sighted DM that low point buy only encourages already overpowered SAD class choices.
Basically, SAD choices already rule everything. If your DM further restricts point-buy, all they are doing is further encouraging the SAD classes.
TLDR: Your DM is stupid. You can :D feel free to tell them that nennafir said so.
made a monk to see how it does.
** spoiler omitted **...
If you look at the Bestiary table for monster creation, a CR 3 monster should have: AC 15, to hit +6, 30 HP.
So you hit on a 10+, not bad, even 11+ with flurry.
It hits you on a 10+.
You kill it with 5 hits (assuming average damage and no crits).
I don't see a problem here.
Switch our deflect arrows with weapon focus and you hit on a 9 or better.
A monk is not a front line fighter, but a generalist. Compared to a level 3 rogue or bard, you seem to be doing just fine.
A level 3 fighter is only going to have +8 (+4 Str, +3 Bab, +1 weapon focus), with worse saves and no skills to speak of.
I don't understand why people are afraid of low point buy.
standard array 20bp: 16 14 14 12 10 8, net of +7
standard array 15bp: 15 14 13 12 10 8, net of +5
stardard array 10bp: 14 13 12 11 10 9, net of +3
Not game breaking.
I would absolutely go with a Barbarian in a 10-pt buy game; probably half-orc.
S 16 (+2 racial) = 18
D 10
C 12
I 10
W 12
Ch 7
Grab Power Attack and the 2-hander of your choice at level 1, and you're all set! FCB goes into hp, so you're at a healthy d12+2/level (well, healthy for a 10 point buy hero.)
Any of the full casters are probably more powerful, but I wouldn't be able to pass up a Barb.
@j b 200: Sure, if you compare a pile of crap to a turd, you don't see much differences. Core fighter, monk and rogue are all not much better then a commoner, and bards are rather bad in combat at low levels. How about comparing that monk to a Barbarian, who does twice that damage, similar saves due to Superstitious, and much more HP?
I don't understand why people are afraid of low point buy.
You don't understand why people have a problem with making the weakest classes weaker without touching the already strongest classes?
made a monk to see how it does.
** spoiler omitted **...
If you look at the Bestiary table for monster creation, a CR 3 monster should have: AC 15, to hit +6, 30 HP.
So you hit on a 10+, not bad, even 11+ with flurry.
It hits you on a 10+.
You kill it with 5 hits (assuming average damage and no crits).I don't see a problem here.
Switch our deflect arrows with weapon focus and you hit on a 9 or better.
A monk is not a front line fighter, but a generalist. Compared to a level 3 rogue or bard, you seem to be doing just fine.A level 3 fighter is only going to have +8 (+4 Str, +3 Bab, +1 weapon focus), with worse saves and no skills to speak of.
I don't understand why people are afraid of low point buy.
standard array 20bp: 16 14 14 12 10 8, net of +7
standard array 15bp: 15 14 13 12 10 8, net of +5
stardard array 10bp: 14 13 12 11 10 9, net of +3
Not game breaking.
deflect arrow is a monk feat.
Anyway, the issue is this monk is technically CR 4, CR 4 should be the level of difficulty this would pose to a party. I think it's clear that it's probably not.
also, what about a monk is a generalist? monks are survivalists, they're supposed to be able to weather any opposition longer than anyone else, but this just doesn't do great.
...why would you use a basic Core Monk if you had to do 10PB? And why would you use that exact 10PB stat distribution for a MAD class?If for you, not being able to play a good portion of the game's classes falls under "annoying" or "drama over the -1's", I don't really have anything to say to you.
Dropping point-buy by 5 typically involves either -1s on a core ability, or some -1s on secondaries. Dropping point-buy by 10 involves both. If we're talking about a level 1 base Monk with a temple sword, then it's something like:
20PB: 16/18, 12, 14, 10, 14, 8, Toughness, +Dodge, +1hpFCB
(flurry) +3ab, 1d8+4(x2)/ 12hp/ 14AC/ +4fort/ +3reflex
10PB: 14/16, 10, 12, 10, 14, 8, Toughness, +Dodge, +1hpFCB
(flurry) +2ab, 1d8+3(x2)/ 11hp/ 13AC/ +3fort/ +2reflex
Even if the whole point-buy loss is taken in physical stats, it amounts to a bunch of -1s on d20 rolls, and less than a 15% difference in damage and health. Is it considerably weaker, and a nuisance to deal with? Absolutely. Is it somehow 'unplayable' when compared to the 20PB build? Hardly. This is what I mean by "drama over -1s" - the idea that a 1-in-20-rolls difference in a few stats and a fractional weakening in things like damage and hp is somehow this fatal catastrophe, instead of simply marginally weaker.
I'm certainly not arguing for using 10PB, or saying that a bunch of marginally weaker stats doesn't add up to a noticeably weaker character; just that a little perspective goes a long way.
all that also comes out to about 1-2 class level FYI, PB is important.
@j b 200: Sure, if you compare a pile of crap to a turd, you don't see much differences. Core fighter, monk and rogue are all not much better then a commoner, and bards are rather bad in combat at low levels. How about comparing that monk to a Barbarian, who does twice that damage, similar saves due to Superstitious, and much more HP?
I don't understand why people are afraid of low point buy.You don't understand why people have a problem with making the weakest classes weaker without touching the already strongest classes?
Yep, pretty much this. It's not so much fear, it's that low point buy "limits" you to sticking with the already-potent Single Attribute Dependent classes by "punishing" you from breaking away from them.
While there's been a fair amount of talk in this thread about the capabilities of a 10-point buy monk (which obviously suffers a bit), a 10-point buy barbarian hardly notices the difference. Just get that Str up to an 18 with your racial stat bump, rage up to a 22 Str with power attack and a 2-hander, and you're absolutely golden.
Wizards and Sorcerers likewise don't give a hoot. Even clerics and druids, which are slightly more MAD aren't hurt all that much (and if we're not talking Core-only, a cleric can even go the Guided Hand route if they want to exchange feats in order to be SAD.)
Other classes are hurt to greater or lesser degrees.
Now, this can still be okay if you're going with a low point buy in order to play out a specific type of game, though if I were looking to run that kind of a game, I'd probably go full oldschool and have everyone roll 3d6 six times placed in order of Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, and Cha, and see what everyone can put together (we actually did that once, and it was an *extremely* successful grinder campaign.)
all that also comes out to about 1-2 class level FYI
...you mean except with regards to damage, WBL/equipment, feats, class features, attribute bonuses and skills. Sure, hp it's a fraction of a level weaker, attack bonus it's a 1-level difference or less, and for saves it's actually worth more than a level. Put all together, is that really supposed to make the difference between powerful and unplayable?
Yeah, PB is important. Of course. Like all sorts of things are important. There's a difference between 'point-buy is important' and 'low point-buy utterly ruins everything!!! It's unplayable!!!'.
For what hes trying to accomplish you would be better off limiting the maximum you can put into a stat say nothing higher then 16 starting out or 14 if your a sadist.
I'm not the GM of the original poster, but I've run a Core Only game with 10-point buy. I also added that nobody could take animal companions: classes with animal companions had to take the non-companion option.
It's gaming on "Hard Mode," and was an attempt at recreating the feel of an OD&D game using a modern ruleset.
I only do this for very-experienced players that are very good at optimizing.
The game would bring them from level 1 to level 8 or 9, when I would end the campaign.
My players really enjoyed it!
(Note: I gave the players a choice of systems for the game: PFRPG using the above limitations, Swords and Wizardry, or Lamentations of the Flame Princess. They chose the former.)
just feel like pointing out to you then, that you only made it harder on the worst classes, the better the class, the less it is effected by your changes.
If you want Hard mode, just CR+1 everything. easiest method is 1.5 times as enemies as you'd normally throw, or possibly 1.5 times as many encounters per day.
This all works out much better. The level of old school-ness is generally kept if you pretend the level cap is level 10 and then remove everything that people couldn't reach past level 10.
I was merely pointing out that not everyone plays the game the same way, and that some groups are completely fine with rule restrictions that you might find distasteful.
deflect arrow is a monk feat.
Anyway, the issue is this monk is technically CR 4, CR 4 should be the level of difficulty this would pose to a party. I think it's clear that it's probably not.
also, what about a monk is a generalist? monks are survivalists, they're supposed to be able to weather any opposition longer than anyone else, but this just doesn't do great.
I know deflect arrows is a monk feat, but so is dodge, so slide dodge into bonus feat slot and now you get WF.
This monk I believe is at best CR2 (lvl - 1, +1 PC wealth - 1 10 pb)
Generalist: they are ok to good at most/several thinks but not great/best at any. Monks have good saves and fast movement. Decent at combat, but not great. Decent skills, but not great. Decent secondary abilities (slow fall etc.) but not great. Looks like a generalist to me. Agree to disagree? If you were trying to build a Survivalist monk, you would be a finesse build so you boost AC with Dex and Wis.
@j b 200: Sure, if you compare a pile of crap to a turd, you don't see much differences. Core fighter, monk and rogue are all not much better then a commoner, and bards are rather bad in combat at low levels. How about comparing that monk to a Barbarian, who does twice that damage, similar saves due to Superstitious, and much more HP?
I don't understand why people are afraid of low point buy.You don't understand why people have a problem with making the weakest classes weaker without touching the already strongest classes?
1: hyperbole.
2: Is the wizard really that much better off? He's only got a 16 Int, and yes his spells can boost his AC, but for a limited time. Wizards are easy to fight, just eliminate the 15 min work day.
3: You argue that the Barbarian is SOOOOooo much better, but isn't the Barbarian better than the monk no matter what the pb is? Isn't the wizard the strongest class in the game no matter what, even with a poor build? These are issues that transcend a 10 pb argument. A barbarian is a better designed class, period. High point buy won't change that.
4: My point is that we have become so spoiled with the idea that a PC has to start with an 18 in its main stat and 14 in all secondaries that we balk at the idea that any character might not be great at everything. God forbid they have weaknesses.
deflect arrow is a monk feat.
Anyway, the issue is this monk is technically CR 4, CR 4 should be the level of difficulty this would pose to a party. I think it's clear that it's probably not.
also, what about a monk is a generalist? monks are survivalists, they're supposed to be able to weather any opposition longer than anyone else, but this just doesn't do great.
I know deflect arrows is a monk feat, but so is dodge, so slide dodge into bonus feat slot and now you get WF.
This monk I believe is at best CR2 (lvl - 1, +1 PC wealth - 1 10 pb)
Generalist: they are ok to good at most/several thinks but not great/best at any. Monks have good saves and fast movement. Decent at combat, but not great. Decent skills, but not great. Decent secondary abilities (slow fall etc.) but not great. Looks like a generalist to me. Agree to disagree? If you were trying to build a Survivalist monk, you would be a finesse build so you boost AC with Dex and Wis.
they're both monk feats... they gain them at 1st and 2nd level...
also if you think any of those are decent, we're not going to get far. they all look rather poor.
2: Is the wizard really that much better off? He's only got a 16 Int, and yes his spells can boost his AC, but for a limited time. Wizards are easy to fight, just eliminate the 15 min work day.
3: You argue that the Barbarian is SOOOOooo much better, but isn't the Barbarian better than the monk no matter what the pb is? Isn't the wizard the strongest class in the game no matter what, even with a poor build? These are issues that transcend a 10 pb argument. A barbarian is a better designed class, period. High point buy won't change that.
4: My point is that we have become so spoiled with the idea that a PC has to start with an 18 in its main stat and 14 in all secondaries that we balk at the idea that any character might not be great at everything. God forbid they have weaknesses.
2. a group of wizard's don't have a 15 minute work day, literally if we're going to the most optimal route, just go all wizards, the group of fighters would have died before they run out of spells. Also 10 PB for a wizard is 7,12,13,19,10,7. that's a 19 and 20 at level 4 at least.
3. the difference is heightened at lower PB since they compound their weaknesses and lower their strengths. while comparitvely not effecting he best classes.
4. my point is, that low point buy destroys an already weak class balance.
4: My point is that we have become so spoiled with the idea that a PC has to start with an 18 in its main stat and 14 in all secondaries that we balk at the idea that any character might not be great at everything. God forbid they have weaknesses.
We did mention the problem with this earlier. Having a weakness is a problem if it takes the player out of the game. If you have 2 characters and one character can contribute 75% of the time while another can contribute only 25% of the time, then one of those players is going to feel like they are being left out of the game. So, the game itself heavily encourages all players to try to build their characters to handle as many situations as possible.
The "problem" with the Wizard isn't just that their spells can cover most encounters, though that's certainly a big part of it, it's that their entire kit is useful to all encounters. Want to participate in combat? Take Acid Splash and you will always have something to do. Want to participate in knowledge and social situations, then use the considerable number of skill points you have from being int based to be good at those things. So, the wizard almost always has something to do to participate in an encounter of any type. He may not be contributing the most in an encounter, but he's participating. The fighter meanwhile, is pretty good in a fight, if the conditions are correct for his fighting style. But otherwise, he's left with very little he can do.
I was merely pointing out that not everyone plays the game the same way, and that some groups are completely fine with rule restrictions that you might find distasteful.I'm not the GM of the original poster, but I've run a Core Only game with 10-point buy. I also added that nobody could take animal companions: classes with animal companions had to take the non-companion option.
It's gaming on "Hard Mode," and was an attempt at recreating the feel of an OD&D game using a modern ruleset.
I only do this for very-experienced players that are very good at optimizing.
The game would bring them from level 1 to level 8 or 9, when I would end the campaign.
My players really enjoyed it!
(Note: I gave the players a choice of systems for the game: PFRPG using the above limitations, Swords and Wizardry, or Lamentations of the Flame Princess. They chose the former.)
just feel like pointing out to you then, that you only made it harder on the worst classes, the better the class, the less it is effected by your changes.
If you want Hard mode, just CR+1 everything. easiest method is 1.5 times as enemies as you'd normally throw, or possibly 1.5 times as many encounters per day.
This all works out much better. The level of old school-ness is generally kept if you pretend the level cap is level 10 and then remove everything that people couldn't reach past level 10.
and I'm merely pointing out you're not really accomplishing your intended goals. if you were trying to recreate ADnD anyway.
also, I misread you're first line, thought you said you were the GM. oh well, point still stands.
|
|
As for 15 minute adventuring day, that's something players do, not something the class forces players to do. PFS scenarios tend to be good at maintaining tempo, not giving players a chance to hit snooze and regain spells. Most of the time you have to do 3-4 encounters of meaningful CR per day. But after level 3 you rarely if ever really run out of spells.