Hello!
My fellow players and I want to start with Pathfinder after playing a few 3.5 campaigns. I love the new rules, but I'm not sure why exactly there was a change in the attribute rules.
What was wrong with the old system with starting attributes at 8 etc?
We were playing with 32 attribute points at first level and I would like to change the rules, but not before I understand why they were changed. Furthermore I would like to know, how many "new" attribute points I can give my players so that their characters are equally powerful.
I have been searching for this answer for a few hours now, I hope I didn't miss it in the forum.
Hope someone can help!
Thanks in advance
I would recommend doing that. I can't imagine who decided that reducing your score from 8 to 7 should grant 2 points.
At times I have to remind myself that these developers were talented individuals who simply have different concept of how the game should be played. Sitting in my computer chair, it's far too easy for me to say that who ever made that call just didn't have any idea how this game actually works.
|
Well first of all, character generation using the Point Buy system from the DMG was not part of the SRD, and was closed content of WOTC, so they CAN'T use the exact same chart. They were obligated to change it in some way to set it apart from that system.
Second, :) If you prefer the old way use it. Just because something changed in PFRPG does not mean you HAVE to use the change in your game.
Third, from my rather limited experiments, I tend to get very similar character builds from the new point buy as I did from the old one. Not exact same mind you, but close enough for me. :)
If you just changed it so that an 8 gave you back one or two points (with no extra points should you choose a 7), then gave out a few more points to make up for that, it wouldn't be that bad. Increasing cost on even scores rather than odd is a fine idea.
I just don't know what the heck they were thinking with the 4-points-for-a-7 thing. Point-buy was conceived as a deterrent to min-maxing (otherwise, we could just have you pay 18 points for an 18 and 3 points for a 3). This rule, on the other hand, actively encourages min-maxing. It gives you more bonus points the harder you dump a stat. What the hell?
Hello!
My fellow players and I want to start with Pathfinder after playing a few 3.5 campaigns. I love the new rules, but I'm not sure why exactly there was a change in the attribute rules.
What was wrong with the old system with starting attributes at 8 etc?
We were playing with 32 attribute points at first level and I would like to change the rules, but not before I understand why they were changed. Furthermore I would like to know, how many "new" attribute points I can give my players so that their characters are equally powerful.I have been searching for this answer for a few hours now, I hope I didn't miss it in the forum.
Hope someone can help!
Thanks in advance
The new system was an attempt at simplicity. Things really haven't changed -- they've just been rearranged.
For instance, standard fantasy is 15 points. That would give you:
15 (7)
14 (5)
13 (3)
12 (2)
10 (0)
8 (-2)
which equals the 3.5 standard elite array in 3.5.
Just eyeballing it with no real analysis:
For high fantasy (20 points) it's roughly equivalent to 28 point buy.
For epic fantasy (25 points) is slightly better than 32 point buy.
What Krome said. It was changed primarily for legal reasons.
As for the point system discouraging min-maxing I find it's almost the opposite. The point system is designed to make the game more equitable for the players. The reality is that any point system benefits the min-maxers the most.
|
|
What Krome said. It was changed primarily for legal reasons.
As for the point system discouraging min-maxing I find it's almost the opposite. The point system is designed to make the game more equitable for the players. The reality is that any point system benefits the min-maxers the most.
Normally I don't Min/Max when I make a character, BUT ability scores is one place I certainly do. :) but only if it is point buy.
When I said "the point system", what I actually meant was "the fact that some points cost less than other points". This is a counterbalance to the fact that- like you both said- if you can choose your scores anyway you're going to want to min-max.
But making a curve that actually rewards min-maxing (even by one point) is stark, howling madness.
|
|
When I said "the point system", what I actually meant was "the fact that some points cost less than other points". This is a counterbalance to the fact that- like you both said- if you can choose your scores anyway you're going to want to min-max.
But making a curve that actually rewards min-maxing (even by one point) is stark, howling madness.
why?
BTW in 3.x some points cost less than others. So what is the difference?
In 3.x
9 1
10 2
11 3
12 4
13 5
14 6
15 8
16 10
17 13
18 16
from 9-14 it goes up 1 point. 15-16 costs 2 points, 17-18 rises to 3 points. Some cost more than others.
in PF
7 -4
8 -2
9 -1
10 0
11 1
12 2
13 3
14 5
15 7
16 10
17 13
18 17
I'm going to rewrite the array, exact same costs, just a different format.
7 -2
8 0
9 1
10 2
11 3
12 4
13 5
14 7
15 9
16 12
17 15
18 19
from 9-13 it goes up 1 point. 14-15 costs 2 points, 16-17 rises to 3 points, 18 is 4 points. Some cost more than others.
Remember they cannot use the exact same chart so they HAVE to change the costs somehow. To further distance themselves from the original chart, and distance themselves from legal action, I bet they chose the format in print. However, it does almost exactly the same thing with very modest changes.
Points cost a bit more 1 score earlier is really about the only difference.
**EDIT- darn I ALWAYS forget the forums kill formatting. Hope you can figure out the charts. Let me know if it is unclear what I meant to say. :) **
Yes, a stat costs a number of points equal to it's modifier value. The only difference is stats that cost 0 -- they all cost 1.
As far as 7: I'm pretty sure it's because a 7 is FREAKING LOW. That's probably why.
Min-maxing is not a bad thing at all. Lots of people do it so much it's a shame, and don't care for role-playing, but not all. I min/max my stats by a major degree, but I play to role-play, not throw numbers around.
It's an insult to say min/maxing is a bad thing -- and it shows anyone who says it in a bad light.
I think there is one very valid reason to have a bonus for low stats. To encourage people to have character weaknesses or warts. Ultimately the +2 they gain isn't going to ramp up the character too much because the stats they are trying to boost will already be high and cost +2-+4 to boost anyhow.
Thanks for the insights!
From this view, I like the new system.. it makes sense to pay more when the modifier is higher - and not one step before that. I haven't noticed that before.
For high fantasy (20 points) it's roughly equivalent to 28 point buy.
For epic fantasy (25 points) is slightly better than 32 point buy.
I will run a few tests (and generate a few characters) to find out what you can do with 25 points.
Anyone else out there who can guess how much these 25 points are? Do you all play with 25 points?
|
Yes, a stat costs a number of points equal to it's modifier value. The only difference is stats that cost 0 -- they all cost 1.
As far as 7: I'm pretty sure it's because a 7 is FREAKING LOW. That's probably why.
Min-maxing is not a bad thing at all. Lots of people do it so much it's a shame, and don't care for role-playing, but not all. I min/max my stats by a major degree, but I play to role-play, not throw numbers around.
It's an insult to say min/maxing is a bad thing -- and it shows anyone who says it in a bad light.
I'm going to agree with this post entirely. 7 is a low, low score. A friend of mine made a gnome wizard with 5 str (7 - 2 racial mod), and I could only shake my head thinking of the upcoming poisons, rays of enfeeblement, etc... Negative numbers are dangerous, especially with how poisons and such have been boosted.
Add on to that, your skills associated with that score are going to crash and burn. I have a fondness for playing low wis characters, and if I had a gold piece for every time I rolled obscenely low on a Spot check... low scores really do affect you more than you think.
And before you mention the Big Stupid Fighter with 7 cha and 7 int... I hope he likes his 1 skill point a level and complete inability to talk with anyone when he's in the middle of a city. Dropping scores that low really does have some significant ramifications.
Overall, really, there's nothing wrong with trying to not suck at what you're supposed to be doing.
Anyone else out there who can guess how much these 25 points are? Do you all play with 25 points?
I play with 25 points and I agree that it's roughly equal to 3.5e 32 points, though it's a little more strict with the higher scores (17s and 18s).
I'm going to agree with this post entirely. 7 is a low, low score.
It's only 1 point lower than 8.
And that's virtually the only drawback you're taking- being 1 point closer to an ability-coma if you meet a ghost or a necromancer. If a stat is already an 8, then it's clearly a dump-stat, and (for another 2 points) there is absolutely no reason not to reduce it further.
You actually understand why the costs of ability scores are on a curve in the first place, right? You get that boosting a high score is much better than boosting a low score?
In pathfinder, going from a 7 to an 8 costs the same as going from a 13 to a 14. Which would you rather do?
In pathfinder, going from a 7 to an 8 costs the same as going from a 13 to a 14. Which would you rather do?
Well going from a 7 to an 8 you are going from -2 to -1. 13 to 14 you are going from +1 to +2... seems a reasonable trade off. I imagine there are going to be a lot of 5CHA dwarves running around.
Well going from a 7 to an 8 you are going from -2 to -1. 13 to 14 you are going from +1 to +2... seems a reasonable trade off.
You're aware that players get to pick which abilities they put their scores in now, right? =p
If you're a fighter, that 13 is going to be dex and the 7 is going to be cha. If you're a cleric, the 13 is going to be cha and the 7 is going to be int. If you're a wizard, the 13 is going to be dex or con and the 7 is going to be strength or charisma.
To say that that is an even trade off is to ignore why we have a cost curve in the first place. Like I said, you might as well just charge 18 points for an 18 and 7 points for a 7. That's better than a curve which actively discourages average stats by rewarding extremely low ones.
|
|
In pathfinder, going from a 7 to an 8 costs the same as going from a 13 to a 14. Which would you rather do?Well going from a 7 to an 8 you are going from -2 to -1. 13 to 14 you are going from +1 to +2... seems a reasonable trade off. I imagine there are going to be a lot of 5CHA dwarves running around.
Ummm, EXCUSE me? We dwarves are known for our charming and heart warming personalities, not that you, an ugly green stinky ogre that can't differentiate his own sweat from a fine ale, would know ANYTHING about CHARISMA!
:)
See we are a charming people :)
*buuuuurp* ahh a nice fine ale!
excuse me, me butt itches now...
All the arguments against going down to 7 are just as relevant against going down to 8.
Since 3.0 and 3.5 allowed going down to 8 and nobody complained, I do not see what the new problem is.
In 3.5, you couldn't go below 8 before racial mods.
In Pathfinder, not only can you, but your rate of return actually improves. You get two points for a 1-point penalty.
You're aware that players get to pick which abilities they put their scores in now, right? =p
Well going from a 7 to an 8 you are going from -2 to -1. 13 to 14 you are going from +1 to +2... seems a reasonable trade off.
You are aware that you are being snarky and confrontational right? Does every conversation need to go into flamewar mode?
If you're a fighter, that 13 is going to be dex and the 7 is going to be cha. If you're a cleric, the 13 is going to be cha and the 7 is going to be int. If you're a wizard, the 13 is going to be dex or con and the 7 is going to be strength or charisma.
To say that that is an even trade off is to ignore why we have a cost curve in the first place. Like I said, you might as well just charge 18 points for an 18 and 7 points for a 7. That's better than a curve which actively discourages average stats by rewarding extremely low ones.
Um... yeah. What you are stating is obvious but does not really change things. The goal of the point buy system is to make a level playing field. Every class and every character can dump something, even Monks can dump CHA. Effectively it's still a level playing field. Perhaps some min-maxer is going to get a slightly higher DEX. The goal is to level the playing field and everyone has the option. The higher the point buy you go with the less relevant it is.
As I said above, it encourages players to take on a character wart or deficiency. Often these sort of things help in roleplaying as much as (sometimes more) than strengths.
You are aware that you are being snarky and confrontational right?
I wasn't, actually. I apologize.
As I said above, it encourages players to take on a character wart or deficiency. Often these sort of things help in roleplaying as much as (sometimes more) than strengths.
Point-buy systems already encourage this. In fact, they encourage it too much. That's why you pay (or used to pay) proportionately less for low scores and more for high scores, so that having more balanced stats is a viable option too.
In this system, making your off-stats 10's rather than 7's costs you 4 points per stat.
I miss rolling dice for my character but I hate to see players with wildly different character stats.
In our new game we went in a radical direction. Everyone rolled 4d6 dropping the lowest for their six stats. After everyone was finished I wrote them all down and passed them around the table and told them to pick what ever stat array they wanted.
As it turned out one player came up with an epic stat array so everyone was happy.
17 16 15 14 14 10
I miss rolling dice for my character but I hate to see players with wildly different character stats.
In our new game we went in a radical direction. Everyone rolled 4d6 dropping the lowest for their six stats. After everyone was finished I wrote them all down and passed them around the table and told them to pick what ever stat array they wanted.
As it turned out one player came up with an epic stat array so everyone was happy.
17 16 15 14 14 10
I've heard variations on this and like the idea. It does tent to inflate stats versus standard 4d6. I might just do this where each player rolls 3d6 6 times then let the player pick an array :)
Over time I've come to allow only two options in my games:
- the "organic" system sadly dropped from Pathfinder: 4d6-drop-lowest assigned in the order they are rolled, then optionally reroll any one and take the higher roll, then optionally trade the positions of any two;
- or standard elite array, 15 14 13 12 10 8.
In this system, making your off-stats 10's rather than 7's costs you 4 points per stat.
There is no problem understanding the implications. I just don't see it as a problem.
I like 2d6+6 and point buy.
If I ever need a few ideas how to manage the attributes in another way, I will definitely revisit this thread :)
Thanks a lot!
My personal take on it is:
1)As a previous poster said, it encourages uniqueness and differentiation. RPGA and standard point buy characters all are roughly the same much of the time, with straight 12-14's all the way down, and occassional lower/higher scores. The Pathfinder system makes people specialize, which in turn creates defined roles and party utility.
2) The system is at a higher power curve than 3.5core, more along the lines of the more integrated stuff (like, all the races, completes, etc. all used at once), and attributes always lagged behind the rest of the curve, especially into epic (feat pre-reqs?! hahahaha never gonna happen). This way, they stay a bit higher in the places a given character will need them.
3) And last but not least, they had to change stuff for legal reasons.
1)As a previous poster said, it encourages uniqueness and differentiation. RPGA and standard point buy characters all are roughly the same much of the time, with straight 12-14's all the way down, and occassional lower/higher scores.
In my experience this is virtually never the case. Most point-buy characters have at least one 8 or 9, sometimes two or three.
If a character goes with a row of 14's it's because they've actively set out to make a jack-of-all-trades, and in 3.5 there isn't a single class for which that's better than a min-maxed array. I've seen that happen, yes, but the player was building a mediocre character and he knew it.
|
I miss rolling dice for my character but I hate to see players with wildly different character stats.
I don't mind the dice rolled random stats method of character creation. We use it on occassion.
The main problem with it is you end up with groups who have just rediculious stat rolling methods like 1d8+4d6, drop 2 lowests, keep any 1's in addition to other dice, and a free 18 if you don't get one. It's absurd.
They should just use that elite array you posted or something then. Or just say, all 18's. -.-;
Well, hey, if it works for them. ^^;
I remember reading about a system that used cards rather than dice, but I can't remember exactly how it went.
Well, hey, if it works for them. ^^;
I remember reading about a system that used cards rather than dice, but I can't remember exactly how it went.
Take 4 through 9 of two suits, shuffle, deal two cards to each stat. 13 average (same as Heroic 2d6+6)
|
|
Well, hey, if it works for them. ^^;
I remember reading about a system that used cards rather than dice, but I can't remember exactly how it went.
It's inefficient. That kind of dice stacking is designed so that no stat has anything close to a chance of being under a 14 at worst and completely removes any point of rolling for stats in the first place.
I find that kind of thing pretty insulting as a player. You roll dice for randomness, if the chance of rolling something low isn't there then there isn't a point. It'd be like a dungeon crawl where you got free raise dead spells instantly the moment you died, what'd be the point?
It'd be like a dungeon crawl where you got free raise dead spells instantly the moment you died, what'd be the point?
Fun, perhaps?
I'd play in that game, fyi.
It's inefficient. That kind of dice stacking is designed so that no stat has anything close to a chance of being under a 14 at worst and completely removes any point of rolling for stats in the first place.
I find that kind of thing pretty insulting as a player. You roll dice for randomness, if the chance of rolling something low isn't there then there isn't a point. It'd be like a dungeon crawl where you got free raise dead spells instantly the moment you died, what'd be the point?
I like a retro, low stat sort of game but I've played in games with high stats also and it's still fun. Who cares how a group rolls up their stats or if they use a 75 point buy or whatever. They are likely not looking down their noses at you because you are using an edgier stat block, shy not return the favor.
Because game snobbery is kind of weak IMO. (And I'll admit to a bit of it myself on occasion)
I find that kind of thing pretty insulting as a player. You roll dice for randomness, if the chance of rolling something low isn't there then there isn't a point. It'd be like a dungeon crawl where you got free raise dead spells instantly the moment you died, what'd be the point?
Game snobbery, indeed.
Truthfully, both sides of a game are fun. There are occasion where I enjoy a gritty game where you count every single copper and hit point because it matters. Other times, I enjoy being the hero and blasting my way through every minion I see.
I find that kind of thing pretty insulting as a player. You roll dice for randomness, if the chance of rolling something low isn't there then there isn't a point. It'd be like a dungeon crawl where you got free raise dead spells instantly the moment you died, what'd be the point?Game snobbery, indeed.
Truthfully, both sides of a game are fun. There are occasion where I enjoy a gritty game where you count every single copper and hit point because it matters. Other times, I enjoy being the hero and blasting my way through every minion I see.
Ditto. Both are fun potentially, and a ruleset that can accommodate both is the better for it. No reason to rain on someone else's parade, just because their style of gaming doesn't match yours though.
|
You are aware that you are being snarky and confrontational right?
I wasn't, actually. I apologize.
As I said above, it encourages players to take on a character wart or deficiency. Often these sort of things help in roleplaying as much as (sometimes more) than strengths.
Point-buy systems already encourage this. In fact, they encourage it too much. That's why you pay (or used to pay) proportionately less for low scores and more for high scores, so that having more balanced stats is a viable option too.
In this system, making your off-stats 10's rather than 7's costs you 4 points per stat.
You do realize that while 7 offers 2 points, the 18 went up a point right?
Right?
How a bout a point-generating system using harrow cards? I have no idea how that would work, but it would be Golarionated.
You are aware that you are being snarky and confrontational right?
I wasn't, actually. I apologize.
As I said above, it encourages players to take on a character wart or deficiency. Often these sort of things help in roleplaying as much as (sometimes more) than strengths.
Point-buy systems already encourage this. In fact, they encourage it too much. That's why you pay (or used to pay) proportionately less for low scores and more for high scores, so that having more balanced stats is a viable option too.
In this system, making your off-stats 10's rather than 7's costs you 4 points per stat.
You do realize that while 7 offers 2 points, the 18 went up a point right?
Right?
It actually went up a virtual 3 points (going from 8 to 18 costs 19 points; used to cost 16).
But yes, I've said that hiking cost on evens rather than odds is a cool idea. I'll use that (and give a few more points than usual to compensate).
But I still think that having the point scale hop up and start moving backwards below 0 is absurd, and I'm sure we are going to see a lot of 7s and 5s in the years to come.