This isn't a line, you know. You can be a cool individual and still be a part of the group.
Batman worked with the Justice League, you know :U
But if he worked with them... he generally worked to help them succeed.
But if you're going to go to a convention and join a table with up to 5 other players... the Lone Wolf attitude isn't going to get you very far.
Yes, that's my point :p
A group is made of individuals, but the individuals are parts of a group. If you don't want to play with a group, then why the hell are you playing D&D with one? Nothing is more irritating then one player who just needs to be the ~*~SPECIAL ONE~*~ and paints himself as a lone wolf alone who's alone and thinks only of his lonesome.
Seriously, if you don't want to be with the group, then don't. I've yet to see anyone ache over the loss of a player who didn't want to join us in the first place.
So I guess I'm the weird one. Eh, no big deal, it happens.
I will clarify my position though. I myself don't see the overall campaign as a 'we' experience, but a given group adventure as a 'we' experience.
To me, your roleplaying a character. An individual. In many games it's a Big Damn Hero ontop of being a unique and independent personality.
I would never start a game with a party slammed together by some contrived plot. Whenever I GM a campaign, I run a solo session with each character, helping them establish their connection to the character and build them as an independent person, rather than just "Power Ranger Red" or "Power Ranger Blue" or whatever.
I don't want to be playing some random part of "team hero," I'm playing a unique independent individual with his own values, goals, dreams, and purpose. There will be times he disagrees with the party, there will be times he feels the need to do his own thing. There MAY even be times when the situation dictates that he prevent the party from accomplishing some goal, because it conflicts with his own nature/purpose/goals.
To me, a roleplaying game is all about roleplaying a character, not about filling the 'caster'or 'striker' or whatever role the team needs so they can go beat up "team evil"
I do want the players to have individual characters with their own goals, likes, and dislikes. My players all have that. What they also have is individuality in the game because each person can fill the role that they choose. I now see each character take on a more personal aspect. They have to focus their skills and abilities. I can have two clerics in the party with two very different roles and the overlap is minimal with their abilities. The same holds for all the other classes.
I don't mind when the party needs to split for a moment. I just have an issue when one player thinks that I'm there for his personal entertainment. I invited 5 friends over and I would like to game with all 5 at the same time. I don't run solo adventures anymore. I just don't have time between work and illness, I can barely find time to game anymore.
I hope you don't think I'm criticizing you. I don't think I'd have an issue with you in my games. From what I'm understanding, you aren't looking for ways to have the DM run improve adventures for you each week while the rest of your friends watch you play. You feel that those times when your character may need to go off on his own, maybe scouting ahead or is separated by a trap or whatever, you want to be able to succeed for that short amount of time.
Stormwind Fallacy.
You know something about the Stormwind Fallacy? You may be able to hard-core optimize and role-play well, and they may be totally different skill-sets, but I have yet to meet any players that actually do both. I've met some that CAN do both but don't, but none that CAN and DO. Just giving that up as anecdotal here.
As for the rest, spot on. Power is not reflected by the number of points in point buy, really, if you have someone that want's to 'break' the game they will find a way. What matters, though, is that you and your group play the way that you enjoy.
Stormwind Fallacy.You know something about the Stormwind Fallacy? You may be able to hard-core optimize and role-play well, and they may be totally different skill-sets, but I have yet to meet any players that actually do both. I've met some that CAN do both but don't, but none that CAN and DO. Just giving that up as anecdotal here.
While I respect what you are saying you do realize as an anecdotal statement it has very little sway in refuting the fallacy right? You would need something that actually proves that part of the fallacy doesn't hold in order to remove it.
In fact part of the fallacy is the fact that you are right -- it takes two separate skill sets that don't conflict with each other and don't really interact with each other in and of themselves. That's actually a key part of the fallacy because if they did interfere with each other or had a direct impact on each other then there might be a hole in the fallacies logic.
Beyond that it doesn't really matter. The question in this case is one of fun and which isn't easily quantitatively measurable. So long as everyone at the table is enjoying what they are doing then it doesn't matter if they are a bunch of number crunchers that know the rules well (not a bad thing to be either) or people that enjoy fudging the rules on occasion to keep the whole thing looking like a comprehensive whole (which honestly isn't generally necessary -- usually what the person wants to do won't really break the rules and can be done in the situation already).
Some tables I've seen don't even like using dice -- they prefer to keep them away as much as possible using average damage and taking 1,10, or 20 to keep the game moving quickly without a bunch of rolling -- and that's ok too. So long as everyone at the table is on board with what is happening it's all good.
In fact part of the fallacy is the fact that you are right -- it takes two separate skill sets that don't conflict with each other and don't really interact with each other in and of themselves. That's actually a key part of the fallacy because if they did interfere with each other or had a direct impact on each other then there might be a hole in the fallacies logic.Stormwind Fallacy.You know something about the Stormwind Fallacy? You may be able to hard-core optimize and role-play well, and they may be totally different skill-sets, but I have yet to meet any players that actually do both. I've met some that CAN do both but don't, but none that CAN and DO. Just giving that up as anecdotal here.
The fallacy isn't that 'roll' and 'role' playing are different skills.
It's that in a large sense, roleplaying games are reward mechanisms. Players will, by preference, take the actions that don't get their characters killed, and which make an enjoyable experience.
These behaviors are rewarded by an overlapping Venn diagram:
1) Things the game system rewards
2) Things your GM rewards
3) Things your fellow players reward
A lot of the 'Stormwind Fallacy' stems not from the fact that 'combat machine' and 'funny voices' players use different skills. It's that they're going after different rewards in game, and simply Do Not Care about the other reward mechanisms in play.
In large part this is because few RPGs are designed around their reward mechanisms as deep fundamentals of their designs.
Quick question: What percentage of d20 class abilities, spells and magic items were NOT designed around combat? My rough guess is that it's under 5%.
The entire Challenge Rating system is built around the presumption of combat encounters. This isn't a bad thing in and of itself...but it does mean that the 'optimizers' are perfectly justified in going for things that make them better at combat to the exclusion of nearly everything else, because it's the reward mechanism that they can influence most directly.
Actually that's the exact opposite of what stormwind states.
I suggest you reread the original post, which I included in my earlier post on the subject.
Stormwind Fallacy.You know something about the Stormwind Fallacy? You may be able to hard-core optimize and role-play well, and they may be totally different skill-sets, but I have yet to meet any players that actually do both. I've met some that CAN do both but don't, but none that CAN and DO. Just giving that up as anecdotal here.While I respect what you are saying you do realize as an anecdotal statement it has very little sway in refuting the fallacy right? You would need something that actually proves that part of the fallacy doesn't hold in order to remove it.
In fact part of the fallacy is the fact that you are right -- it takes two separate skill sets that don't conflict with each other and don't really interact with each other in and of themselves. That's actually a key part of the fallacy because if they did interfere with each other or had a direct impact on each other then there might be a hole in the fallacies logic.
I'm not trying to refute it, merely pointing out that it is rare for an individual to have both skills and rarer still for them to use them both.
A lot of the 'Stormwind Fallacy' stems not from the fact that 'combat machine' and 'funny voices' players use different skills. It's that they're going after different rewards in game, and simply Do Not Care about the other reward mechanisms in play.
Exactly! When I tell optimizers that 'I can optimize, but you know I prefer not to' I get the same incredulity I would reserve for comments like 'I can role play - I just happen to be roleplaying a single-minded combat machine. Again.'
Fact is hard core optimizing and hard core role playing may involkve totally different skills, but they also entail very different apoproaches to the game where one must almost always be subjugated to the other. Even if you have both skills, you frequently have to choose between them.
Actually that's the exact opposite of what stormwind states.
I suggest you reread the original post, which I included in my earlier post on the subject.
I did. I wasn't agreeing with the fallacy, which is why what I stated is about 90 degrees orthogonal to it.
Stormwind Fallacy: Every player can do both optimization play and funny voices play. Saying that they are mutually exclusive is a fallacy.
Burnside's Observation: Games are reward mechanisms. The reason people see the two kinds of play as being mutually exclusive is because each play style is going for a different reward mechanism, and the people indulging in that play style Do Not Care about the other reward mechanisms available.
Fact is hard core optimizing and hard core role playing may involkve totally different skills, but they also entail very different apoproaches to the game where one must almost always be subjugated to the other. Even if you have both skills, you frequently have to choose between them.
The trick is to design games that reward the kind of play you want to see in game.
Though we've gone far afield on this with regards to the original topic. I'll start a new thread so that my heresies can offend a wider audience. :)
Ok so what you are postulating is that while stormwind might not be incorrect it is irrelevant due to the fact that the game is little more than a rewards system with rewards for two types of players that have little to do with each other. That the system can be used to support either (possibly both in fact) but the people using just generally don't care -- they simply want the rewards of the type they are after.
(restating to make sure so I understand your position correctly)
So basically "Yeah stormwind but so what? Stormwind doesn't apply since people want the rewards they are after not the other type."
I would state that generally I do want to do both -- I want to play in a world that feels real with real consequences that rewards me and the other players for interacting (role playing) well -- but that I also want to know that I'm going to get my good stuffs through my hard work and that when I level I am becoming more than I was.
I like making optimized characters and I make pretty dang flavorful ones to boot.
And yet I exist :O
Ok so what you are postulating is that while stormwind might not be incorrect it is irrelevant due to the fact that the game is little more than a rewards system with rewards for two types of players that have little to do with each other. That the system can be used to support either (possibly both in fact) but the people using just generally don't care -- they simply want the rewards of the type they are after.
(restating to make sure so I understand your position correctly)
You're close. I'm saying that Stormwind is correct as far as he goes, but that he stops short of providing a solution to the problem. Saying the difference in play style don't exist ignores the differences in player behavior.
So basically "Yeah stormwind but so what? Stormwind doesn't apply since people want the rewards they are after not the other type."
I would state that generally I do want to do both -- I want to play in a world that feels real with real consequences that rewards me and the other players for interacting (role playing) well -- but that I also want to know that I'm going to get my good stuffs through my hard work and that when I level I am becoming more than I was.
I'm saying that the problem Stormwind identifies is a game design problem.
The things that encourage roleplaying in d20 do not make you more effective as a D&D character. They're kept separate. A better designed game would make sure that you got combat bonuses for roleplaying.
Sounds crazy?
How about combat bonuses based on description of your action? For example:
"Borogan steps forward, falchion at the ready. 'The cairn of skulls under my throne in Valhalla shall be larger today.' you get a +2 to hit and +2 to damage.
I like making optimized characters and I make pretty dang flavorful ones to boot.
And yet I exist :O
And note that I'm saying that you get the table experience based on the overlap of reward mechanisms.
If your game is nothing but combat encounter after combat encounter, leavened by clever traps, and your GM says "Yeah, what does the Ranger do? OK, the Sorcerer is up next."
... what are you getting rewarded for?
On the flip side, there are gaming groups that are so thoroughly in the "GM rewards trump all camp" that the system doesn't matter.
I like making optimized characters and I make pretty dang flavorful ones to boot.
And yet I exist :O
Do You?
I am not convinced.
|
I've strangely found the opposite as well. Optimizers I've met tend to also be the more "outgoing" members in the groups I've played in, which leads them to more extreme roleplaying and developed characters. I consider myself a hell of a roleplayer, and am generally one of the more talkative members of the party, but every character I build will be optimized to the extent the system allows (at least for that character type; I may build an Eldrich Knight just to do it even if it sucks, but I'm going to build one that will stand toe-to-toe or do better than the lest optimized "concentrated" characters).
I always find it funny when people suggest that we're not playing the game "for fun". I look at it as "just lazy" to build characters without putting much thoughts into the mechanics and enjoyment they can get from their build. And much as I think it's cute to flavor your character with obscure feats, if they almost never come up is there really a point to it? And if your "whiffing" more often than the rest of the party is going to frustrate you and the people around you, you're detracting from the fun, not adding to it.
Look just cause you can't role play it doesn't mean others can't. Your assumption that someone who understands the numbers can't be more than "1/2 way toward role play" smacks of stormwind fallacy.
Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood my purpose. I didn't mean to say that others can't role-play. Heck, some of the best Role-Players I've seen have been min-maxers who understand the numbers way better than I. I in no way meant to indicate that people who understand the maths can't be good role-players. My intention here was to say that there is a spectrum of PREFERENCE. You might well understand the maths perfectly, but still prefer to give focus to role playing over numbers. Or, you might have no understanding of how the dice work but prefer to sit down and play a game where you just move a piece around a board.
Also your assumption that an INT of 7 is an idiot shows you haven't been following the thread very closely -- that's in the 16th percentile which means 15 out of 100 people are dumper than you are -- if a 7 is full bore idiocy what are those other 15 people?
True, perhaps idiot was the wrong word to use. But definitely if you're only as smart or smarter than 15 out of 100 people, you're below average by definition.
By your same logic someone with a 13 INT must be a full blown genius since that's the same distance in from an INT of 10 as 7 is only in the opposite direction.
An Int of 13 is above average.
doesn't mean he didn't learn early on that "practice makes perfect" and developed amazing technique and a great body from all that practice.
Once again, though, the idea that everyone falls into the niche of what they're best at isn't very believable from a campaign world setting. I know people far more intelligent than I who are working at lower level jobs. Some of them just prefer it. Isn't it possible that an person in Pathfinder with an int of 17 might just enjoy being a fighter, with no interest in magic? Of course it is, and that's a very interesting character. BUT, by the numbers, it's a waste of points. So, my real point was that some people will look at the numbers and make the most efficient character they can with those numbers, whereas some people will come into generation with a character concept (i.e. the intelligent fighter) and use the numbers to build it. With a 15 point buy, building an intelligent fighter means he's going to be pretty sub-par at fighting. So, my conclusion was that people who prefer to focus on the GAME aspect of RPG are more likely to be able to accept the lower point buy because they can build the character they want, whereas people who might want a more non-orthodox character for RP purposes will have more trouble building it.
Once again, I did not mean to offend anyone or even indicate than an RP focus was more valid than a complete game focus. It's just two different ways to play, at two ends of the spectrum. Most people, myself included, are somewhere in the middle.
I like making optimized characters and I make pretty dang flavorful ones to boot.
And yet I exist :O
Good for you! Have you ever been able to make and play a character that did both to the max with no conflict of interest between the two?
Good for you! Have you ever been able to make and play a character that did both to the max with no conflict of interest between the two?I like making optimized characters and I make pretty dang flavorful ones to boot.
And yet I exist :O
I suppose it's possible I have an advantage in this arena as I grew up learning to roleplay through play by post games that were pure roleplay, and combat was resolved through RP, with some rules to back it up, but yes, I have yet to play a character that wasn't heavily optimized (with a sufficient amount of restraint to not completely break the game) for their intended capabilities. Thus far I've been the most immersed player at any of my table games when it comes to staying in character and getting into the story. (Of course, it probably helps that I never really quit playing 'pretend' ever lol, just changed formats for it)
Exhibit A:
Shayla: Massively multiclassed 3.5 twelve year old human 'acrobatic and agile melee' type, was the 'team kid' of the party, with a playful and prankster persona that very much suited her chaotic neutral alignment, and had varying relationships with the party, from being hated by the evil halfling cleric Delnus whom she regularly pranked, to being adopted by the 20 something year old human beatstick fighter named Marino (even going so far as to literally cry when Marino died [yeah I can be a bit of a ham, oh well lol] and be the one who motivated the party to get her resurrected)I should point out that past level 8 or so she never once failed a save except on a natural 1 or was hit on less than a natural 20, hit the enemies about 80% of the time without flanking (and flanking was often present) and was swinging for about 85% as much damage as Marino per hit (and two-weapon fighting so landing more hits)
Just one example :)
wasn't Shayla a monk/swashbuckler at one point?
Ok so what you are postulating is that while stormwind might not be incorrect it is irrelevant due to the fact that the game is little more than a rewards system with rewards for two types of players that have little to do with each other. That the system can be used to support either (possibly both in fact) but the people using just generally don't care -- they simply want the rewards of the type they are after.
(restating to make sure so I understand your position correctly)
So basically "Yeah stormwind but so what? Stormwind doesn't apply since people want the rewards they are after not the other type."
I would state that generally I do want to do both -- I want to play in a world that feels real with real consequences that rewards me and the other players for interacting (role playing) well -- but that I also want to know that I'm going to get my good stuffs through my hard work and that when I level I am becoming more than I was.
I think he's definitely right about some players. I'm typically blessed with a group full of people that like to both optimise and roleplay. But one of our players very clearly cares nothing for the 'rollplaying' aspect, to the extent of leaving or zoning out during every combat scenario and publically stating that he really wishes he never had to level up again so he wouldn't have to pick skill points and feats and such. However, he can get into character extremely well, and he really flourished in my 'Burn the Witch' one-shot game where everyone played NPC class characters.
Sounds crazy?
How about combat bonuses based on description of your action? For example:
"Borogan steps forward, falchion at the ready. 'The cairn of skulls under my throne in Valhalla shall be larger today.' you get a +2 to hit and +2 to damage.
So our player who was the opposite of this got together with another player and devised a technique that actually worked for getting him into participating in combat and picking his move tactically. He played speed chess against the other player during every combat, but on his turn, he didn't get to ding the timer until he picked his move, so he had to pay attention to the current combat situation (yes, I know it's ridiculous that playing another game at the same time made him pay more attention). Since his character was supposed to be a striker sort, he was also given significant extra time when he dropped opponents.
This actually worked for getting him into combat, but it distracted some of the other players and took away from the game, so we nixed it.
Very good memory Neko, I don't even remember when I posted that. Yes, she was Monk 2, Swash 3, and a bunch of other stuff.
Twas Sometime last year that you posted that. what else did she have besides monk and swashbuckler?
I suppose it's possible I have an advantage in this arena as I grew up learning to roleplay through play by post games that were pure roleplay, and combat was resolved through RP, with some rules to back it up, but yes, I have yet to play a character that wasn't heavily optimized (with a sufficient amount of restraint to not completely break the game) for their intended capabilities. Thus far I've been the most immersed player at any of my table games when it comes to staying in character and getting into the story. (Of course, it probably helps that I never really quit playing 'pretend' ever lol, just changed formats for it)
I do a lot of those too, but I do find that when making a character I'm often making 'suboptimal' choices that are more appropriate to the concept I have chosen over the 'optimal' choices. Likewise in play I have to choose between what I know would be the 'optimal' option and the one that is the 'flavourful' option.
I almost always choose flavour ... it just makes for more of a challenge.
Now we have that out of the way lets recap the thread:
1. 15 point buy does not lower the power of the game. The maximums and minimums are already built in and can't be exceeded due to the number of points a character is allowed and therefore the basic "power level" isn't really going to be broken by assigning more points.
2. A 15 point buy character is perfectly playable. It isn't going to have room for fluff stats but you can easily build a character that can function in a game without dragging the party down.
3. Fun is good. If you like rolling great, if you like point buy great. In the end everyone has their own way of genning stats and that's ok.
4. Role playing is not anti-thetical to roll playing and visa versa.
I agree. But.
Obligatory LE fiend's advocate...
1} If 15-point buy doesn't lower the power of the game, 20-point or 25-point buy doesn't raise the power of the game. Arguments for or against any particular point buy budget related to power are mooted.
2} While a 15-point buy character may be perfectly playable etc, a 20-point or 25-point buy character will be equally perfectly playable and may have the possible bonus of having room for fluff stats. Since both allow one to easily build a character that functions in a game without dragging a party down, arguments for or against any particular point buy budget related to fluff stats and playability are mooted.
3} Preference of dice-rolls versus point buys are outside of the scope of the original purpose of the thread.
4} Play styles of role-playing and roll-playing are outside of the scope of the original purpose of the thread.
Conclusion: #1 and #2 negate the supposition of the thread and #3 and #4 shut down semi-related tangential side-discussions.
Can we end with simply replying to the original poster with "no" and call it a day? <Grin>
|
Good for you! Have you ever been able to make and play a character that did both to the max with no conflict of interest between the two?I like making optimized characters and I make pretty dang flavorful ones to boot.
And yet I exist.
Specific build to follow, if desired, but I believe my goblin Druid Toki would qualify.
Crazy, powerful, and highly useful to the party throughout RotRL.
We still talk about him, and we played that right after it came out.
I like rolling better.
But point buy is fair.
One thing to note. If you use low character stats then you restrict characters from taking a lot of feats and, by extension, PrCs. As well as the other points made here already (increased failure to hit your DCs, and difficulty making an effective MAD classed character.) To be fair, if you enforce low stats you should probably remove the stat minimums off feats and classes.
|
I like rolling better.
But point buy is fair.
One thing to note. If you use low character stats then you restrict characters from taking a lot of feats and, by extension, PrCs. As well as the other points made here already (increased failure to hit your DCs, and difficulty making an effective MAD classed character.) To be fair, if you enforce low stats you should probably remove the stat minimums off feats and classes.
or not...
honestly 15 is enough. And I have no issues with a player having to choose between two prestige classes...or not having access to every single feat in the book.
I like rolling better.
But point buy is fair.
One thing to note. If you use low character stats then you restrict characters from taking a lot of feats and, by extension, PrCs. As well as the other points made here already (increased failure to hit your DCs, and difficulty making an effective MAD classed character.) To be fair, if you enforce low stats you should probably remove the stat minimums off feats and classes.
or not...
honestly 15 is enough. And I have no issues with a player having to choose between two prestige classes...or not having access to every single feat in the book.
To support your point, most feats do not have difficult to meet requirements. Those that do favor builds that would need those stats in other ways.
Ones that require stats:
Combat Expertise -13 Int
Whirlwind Attack - 13 Dex
Deadly Aim - 13 Dex
Dodge - 13 Dex
Mobility - 13 Dex
Spring Attack - 13 Dex
Wind Stance - 15 Dex
Lightning Stance - 17 Dex
Deflect Arrows - 13 Dex
Snatch Arrows - 15 Dex
Stunning Fist - 13 Dex and Wis
Natural Spell - 13 Wis
Improved Precise Shot - 19 Dex
Shot on the Run - 13 Dex
Rapid Shot - 13 Dex
Many Shot - 17 Dex
Power Attack - 13 Str
Cleave - 13 Str
Great Cleave - 13 Str
Improved Sunder - 13 Str
Greater Sunder - 13 Str
Selective Channeling - 13 Cha
Shield Slam - 15 Dex
Two-Weapon Fighting - 15 Dex
Double Slice - 15 Dex
Improved two-weapon fighting - 17 Dex
Greater Two Weapon Fighting - 19 Dex
Acrobatic Steps - 15 Dex
So it's not hard to qualify for those feats, some even as a first level character assuming only those are the qualifications. You aren't going to take all of them and you would probably be focused on the feats that fit your concept/build. Most of them are going to use only one or two attributes and those probably won't need to be higher than 15 for most. There are only 4 that require you to have 17 or 19 in Dexterity. Probably not going to be taken by non-dexterity based classes anyway.
Honestly? Do you really think it's fair that you leave the stat requirements in place even after you set the stats lower than normal? That forces people to be unable to build their characters with any sort of freedom. If all you want is a game with basic classes only and a restricted feat list then you are missing out on a lot of the fun of creative building. For example, maybe someone wants to build a character who uses two weapon fighting. But doesn't want to focus all their points on Dex.
Can't you see my point? What if you want a wise fighter or a smart thief? Then you have to give up the feats that let you fight effectively? With higher point totals this isn't an issue. But with lower totals you are stuck with carbon copy character stat blocks! Just so you can get the feats you need.
|
|
Honestly? Do you really think it's fair that you leave the stat requirements in place even after you set the stats lower than normal? That forces people to be unable to build their characters with any sort of freedom. If all you want is a game with basic classes only and a restricted feat list then you are missing out on a lot of the fun of creative building. For example, maybe someone wants to build a character who uses two weapon fighting. But doesn't want to focus all their points on Dex.
Can't you see my point? What if you want a wise fighter or a smart thief? Then you have to give up the feats that let you fight effectively? With higher point totals this isn't an issue. But with lower totals you are stuck with carbon copy character stat blocks! Just so you can get the feats you need.
All that CAN be done with 15 points...what 15 point doesn't allow for you to do is make a wise, dexterious, strong, healthy, smart fighter. You can't be good at EVERYTHING...and I like that aspect. Like I said, I can get viable stats for a gish using 15 points. That is the either the hardest or second hardest (after monk) to do. So yeah 15 is enough for anything that is not I wanna be a munchkin.
Also 15 ISN'T lower then "normal"...it IS normal.
Good for you! Have you ever been able to make and play a character that did both to the max with no conflict of interest between the two?I like making optimized characters and I make pretty dang flavorful ones to boot.
And yet I exist :O
Yep! Xufwyp the kobold factotum!
Honestly? Do you really think it's fair that you leave the stat requirements in place even after you set the stats lower than normal? That forces people to be unable to build their characters with any sort of freedom. If all you want is a game with basic classes only and a restricted feat list then you are missing out on a lot of the fun of creative building. For example, maybe someone wants to build a character who uses two weapon fighting. But doesn't want to focus all their points on Dex.
Can't you see my point? What if you want a wise fighter or a smart thief? Then you have to give up the feats that let you fight effectively? With higher point totals this isn't an issue. But with lower totals you are stuck with carbon copy character stat blocks! Just so you can get the feats you need.
All that CAN be done with 15 points...what 15 point doesn't allow for you to do is make a wise, dexterious, strong, healthy, smart fighter. You can't be good at EVERYTHING...and I like that aspect. Like I said, I can get viable stats for a gish using 15 points. That is the either the hardest or second hardest (after monk) to do. So yeah 15 is enough for anything that is not I wanna be a munchkin.
Also 15 ISN'T lower then "normal"...it IS normal.
15 is substantially lower than average if you are used to rolling, and under character generation on page 15 of the core rulebook, rolling 4d6 drop lowest is listed as 'standard'. However, the idea that approximately this point buy is average has been around in design since 3.5. I believe it comes from the fact that the average stat roll is roughly 12.5, and buying three 12s and three 13s is 15 point buy. This fails to consider the fact that the higher stats cost more than 1 point to increase, but it's the only way I think that this could have been misconceived since the beginning of 3.0 when they did so many other beautiful mathematical calculations.
So yeah 15 is enough for anything that is not I wanna be a munchkin.
Thanks for telling me I'm having badwrongfun. Perhaps you might want to reign in the vitriol a little bit.
I agree with Min, although I might not be so doomsaying about it.
With 15 point buy, you will be hard pressed to maintain an effective role in your primary game, while simultaneously picking up those things that give you added options.
The whole combat expertise line is probably the best example, and in fact, if the Int requirement were removed from that (or if whirlwind and the improved maneuver feats didn't require it), I'd feel a little less strongly about the whole thing.
Quite simply... finding a Fighter who simultaneously has a decent enough Dex and Int to get Whirlwind, and still maintain effectiveness in staying power and damage (Con and Str), is extremely difficult in a 15 point buy. Finding one who isn't tanking his Wis and Cha is impossible.
With 15 points you get a lot closer to cookie cutter gaming (most of a particular role look nearly exactly the same, barring a tweak here or there).
At 20 point buy, and especially 25... I see Fighters with ranks in non-class skills and someone actually picking up the Stunning Fist feat as a non-Monk.
Also 15 ISN'T lower then "normal"...it IS normal.
I'm not trying to pick on you, but actually "Point buy" isn't even standard.
Standard is 4d6 drop lowest, which produces, on average, Heroic Fantasy (between 20-30 point buy usually).
Purchase is another "option", where "standard fantasy" is 15 point buy.
Note... standard fantasy. Rolling tends to produce at least "high" fantasy type stats.
Now somebody who locks onto a perspective of "My character absolutely must be the most character possible with the rules, concept be damned" is usually going to be a boring roleplayer who isn't as much in character etc etc, but most of the optimizers I know choose a concept to roleplay, and then use their optimization-fu to crank out the maximum mechanical effectiveness for said concept.
But this is what 'optimization' means to the hard core optimiser,and Stormwind says that they can be every bit as good at RP at the same time.
But yes, I agree.
Can't you see my point? What if you want a wise fighter or a smart thief? Then you have to give up the feats that let you fight effectively? With higher point totals this isn't an issue. But with lower totals you are stuck with carbon copy character stat blocks! Just so you can get the feats you need.
15 point buy may be close to 'normal', but I think we can safely agree that player characters in a D&D world aren't 'normal'. I have to agree with Min in that while 15 point buy does not prevent viable characters, it does limit other factors some player find fun.
In the end, it's 'horses for courses', but 15 point buy wouldn't be my preferred choice.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
15 is substantially lower than average if you are used to rolling, and under character generation on page 15 of the core rulebook, rolling 4d6 drop lowest is listed as 'standard'.
Hey there, RE.
Just a touchstone: as people have commented before, the text on page 15 of the Pathfinder RPG reads: "The number of points you have to spend using the purchase method depends on the type of campaign you are playing. The standard value for a character is 15 points." Table 1.2 then goes on to offer alternatives fro low fantasy (10 points) to epic fantasy (25 points).
If your players are used to "roll 3d6, drop the lowest, add 6, eight times, rerolling 1's and 2's, arrange as you please" then yes, a 15-point buy will feel low. I suppose that people used to "roll 3d6, in order" will find a 15-point buy giddily expansive, if such people existed.
It was the assertion of the original poster that the modules are designed assuming a 15-point buy, and that anything higher requires the GM to adjust the module, if the group is sticking to pre-written adventures. If not --if GMs are sending 20- or 25-point characters (or some super-stat-rolling characters) through an adventure intended for 15-point buy parties-- then the game is easier than the designers intend.
That may be fine. If the players are trying to get their varsity characters to "win" and don't mind playing JV opponents, then they're happy. If the players are happy, the GM is likely to be happy.
Honestly? Do you really think it's fair that you leave the stat requirements in place even after you set the stats lower than normal? That forces people to be unable to build their characters with any sort of freedom. If all you want is a game with basic classes only and a restricted feat list then you are missing out on a lot of the fun of creative building. For example, maybe someone wants to build a character who uses two weapon fighting. But doesn't want to focus all their points on Dex.
Can't you see my point? What if you want a wise fighter or a smart thief? Then you have to give up the feats that let you fight effectively? With higher point totals this isn't an issue. But with lower totals you are stuck with carbon copy character stat blocks! Just so you can get the feats you need.
15 Point buy gives the standard array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. With racial bonuses there is little reason why you can't qualify easily for most of those feats with a low level character at least as far as the stat requirements. The only ones that are an issue are the ones that are 19 but even then those aren't an issue because by the time you need that stat you either have a magic item that would qualify you or you could have added 2 points to your ability by level 8.
You can easily play a wise fighter or a smart thief with 15 point buy. You cannot easily focus on two-weapon fighting unless you focus on Dexterity. That's the nature of those feats, you must be focused. Even then you can still build a character that focuses on two-weapon fighting easily with 15 point buy.
Don't get me wrong, you can do more with 20 or 25 point buy. My point is that you can also build playable characters with 15 point buy. Your characters don't need to be carbon copies of each other.
|
|
15 is substantially lower than average if you are used to rolling, and under character generation on page 15 of the core rulebook, rolling 4d6 drop lowest is listed as 'standard'. However, the idea that approximately this point buy is average has been around in design since 3.5. I believe it comes from the fact that the average stat roll is roughly 12.5, and buying three 12s and three 13s is 15 point buy. This fails to consider the fact that the higher stats cost more than 1 point to increase, but it's the only way I think that this could have been misconceived since the beginning of 3.0 when they did so many other beautiful mathematical calculations.
No, it's not. 15 SEEMS lower because of several factors. Like you remember the 18,17,15,13,10,8 monstrosity more then the average 15,13,12,11,9,7 you usually end up rolling with the standard method. The second is that most games let you boost up or just plain re-roll even when you shouldn't because you as a player complain, DM feels bad, or you will be made useless because somebody rolled one of the lucky ones. A roll of 14,13,11,10,10,7 is a valid character under the roll system. That is a 3 point character. You think point buy is limiting? Play a couple of those and you will be screaming for point buy.
|
|
Thanks for telling me I'm having badwrongfun. Perhaps you might want to reign in the vitriol a little bit.
I agree with Min, although I might not be so doomsaying about it.
With 15 point buy, you will be hard pressed to maintain an effective role in your primary game, while simultaneously picking up those things that give you added options.
The whole combat expertise line is probably the best example, and in fact, if the Int requirement were removed from that (or if whirlwind and the improved maneuver feats didn't require it), I'd feel a little less strongly about the whole thing.
Quite simply... finding a Fighter who simultaneously has a decent enough Dex and Int to get Whirlwind, and still maintain effectiveness in staying power and damage (Con and Str), is extremely difficult in a 15 point buy. Finding one who isn't tanking his Wis and Cha is impossible.
With 15 points you get a lot closer to cookie cutter gaming (most of a particular role look nearly exactly the same, barring a tweak here or there).
At 20 point buy, and especially 25... I see Fighters with ranks in non-class skills and someone actually picking up the Stunning Fist feat as a non-Monk.
I'm not trying to pick on you, but actually "Point buy" isn't even standard.
Standard is 4d6 drop lowest, which produces, on average, Heroic Fantasy (between 20-30 point buy usually).
Purchase is another "option", where "standard fantasy" is 15 point buy.
Note... standard fantasy. Rolling tends to produce at least "high" fantasy type stats.
Okay I hate this board and it's unending ability to eat any long posts I make...
1) I'm not saying higher point buy play or rolling uber stat play is wrong...I'm saying the mentality of I must be good at EVERYTHING to be viable is a munchkin mentality. So yes 15 points is perfectly viable. Higher is fine...thinking 15 isn't viable because you need to make trade off in your stats for different character is what I have issues with.
2) str 15, dex 13, con 14, int 13, wis 11, cha 7...add +2 to str...your whirlwind fighter. Can drop wis to 7 for 16 con if you want more HP and fort saves vs will. Personally I like my fighters having good will saves.
3) I have made 15 point fighters with stunning fist. Other players as well. With the unarmed feats, quite worthwhile in fact.
4) See my previous post about misconception of what 4d6 method produces.
|
|
The game just isn't set up for dramatic combat. At base, it's a tactical game, not a role playing game.
That being said, it's also the game many people start their role playing hobby with. So, when they realize the game is missing some vital components (ie. the ability to do dramatic combat), they try to fudge and squeeze a square peg into a round hole - they try to play dramatic combat with a tactical game.
One way they try to do this is to bump up the power of their characters.
I used to think that bumping up the power of the characters was done because some players have a need to have their imaginary characters be all wonder powerful - some sort of ego play or compensation.
I'm now thinking that bumping up the power of the characters is done because people want to play dramatic characters, not tactical sims.
Well that is one option...but to be honest, I see more ego trips and compensations for the high stat is a MUST then I do about dramatic play. You can have pretty dramatic characters since the battle system is already skewed in favor of the players "winning". I actually see LESS dramatic play from the must have high stat players in my area then the ones who just roll with whatever system is at hand. The whole I need to be awesome to be dramatic is a crutch for bad roleplaying IMHO. my vampire LARP character was quite dramatic, changed stuff that happened world wide in the LARP, got a prince of a city killed, started a war between two cities...and all I did was talk and act. No use of powers. This character would be equally dramatic in a table top D&D game...and I wouldn't need very much. This is however only my own experience so YMMV.
most of the optimizers I know choose a concept to roleplay, and then use their optimization-fu to crank out the maximum mechanical effectiveness for said concept.
+1
Optimization is just a tool to make the "roll-play" (system mechanics) match the "role-play" (character concept). However, like any tool, it can either be abused or ignored, depending on the player's preferences. Also, optimization can mean "maximize effectiveness in one activity as much as possible, while being effective in other situations" (well-rounded) as well as "maximize effectiveness in one activity to the limit of the system, even if that makes them substandard in anything else" (one trick pony); some people (on both sides of the Stormwind Fallacy) tend to assume the second, which is what makes the fallacy a fallacy.
On the original topic, a group should use whatever method of generating ability scores they feel comfortable with. Point buy tends to create characters within a predictable range of "power," which makes the GM's job easier.
Personally, I prefer 15-point buy as the baseline; I'm OK with "only" a 16-17 in my "high stat" instead of a 19-20. However, I also like a variation on the 3.5 organic method:
1) Roll 4d6 (re-roll 1's) for each ability score, in order
2) If desired, re-roll any one score
3) If desired, swap two scores
This method allows some choice with step 2), but can result in some interesting characters who aren't "fully optimized."
Quite simply... finding a Fighter who simultaneously has a decent enough Dex and Int to get Whirlwind, and still maintain effectiveness in staying power and damage (Con and Str), is extremely difficult in a 15 point buy. Finding one who isn't tanking his Wis and Cha is impossible.
Starting scores (human, half-elf, half-orc):
16 Str (5 pts for 14 +2 race), 13 Dex (3 pts), 14 Con (5 pts), 13 Int (3 pts), 10 Wis (0 pts), 9 Cha (-1 pt)Qualifies for everything in the Combat Expertise chain, Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack, and Power Attack for two-handed weapon combat. Take the first +1 advancement in Dex and put everything else in Str.
I think maybe your view of "effectiveness in staying power and damage" may be skewed.
Also 15 ISN'T lower then "normal"...it IS normal.I'm not trying to pick on you, but actually "Point buy" isn't even standard.
Standard is 4d6 drop lowest, which produces, on average, Heroic Fantasy (between 20-30 point buy usually).
Actually, 4d6 drop lowest tends to give results similar to the Elite Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) which is equivalent to 15-point buy, it just has a wider variation; there's a reason that both 4d6 roll and 15-point buy are "Standard." It's only when you start with re-rolling 1's, rolling multiple sets, 2d6+6, etc. that it starts to skew upward.
Actually, 4d6 drop lowest tends to give results similar to the Elite Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) which is equivalent to 15-point buy, it just has a wider variation; there's a reason that both 4d6 roll and 15-point buy are "Standard." It's only when you start with re-rolling 1's, rolling multiple sets, 2d6+6, etc. that it starts to skew upward.
25 is probably what you wanted to say.
Point Buy 15 is the average of rolling 3d6.
25 is probably what you wanted to say.
Actually, 4d6 drop lowest tends to give results similar to the Elite Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) which is equivalent to 15-point buy, it just has a wider variation; there's a reason that both 4d6 roll and 15-point buy are "Standard." It's only when you start with re-rolling 1's, rolling multiple sets, 2d6+6, etc. that it starts to skew upward.
Pathfinder 15-point buy:
15 (7 pts), 14 (5 pts), 13 (3 pts), 12 (2 pts), 10 (0 pts), 8 (-2 pts)Pathfinder point buys are not the same as 3.5 point buys. All abilities start at 10 and the break-points for higher costs are different.
How unneccessary.
This kind of makes the additional +2 to one ability score for races even more limiting instead of providing more power.
Neithan, 15 point buy in pathfinder is similar to 25 in 3e, because Pathfinder starts at 10 instead of 8.
You have 6 10s, and then start adding 15 points. In 3e you had 6 8s, which is 10 points less than pathfinder.
15 + those missing 10 points = 25
.
I've noticed that in all the examples given, everyone has to tank Charisma, and no one has anything near a 16 for a starting stat before racial modifiers.
To me, that tells me that you might squeek by the low levels, since much of it relies on luck anyways (the d20 being so much more influential than the modifiers at those levels), but when you get into the higher levels, even with magic, you are going to be behind the curve.
Now granted, it accomplishes exactly what it's meant out to accomplish: a more gritty, less heroic game.
.
Ultimately, I'm thinking the crux of the problem is that people's definitions of "effective" is different.
See... I'm seeing your stats, and I'm seeing "viable". I've never argued that you can't play a game with 15 point buy.
What I've always said from the beginning is that you can't remain "effective" (read as: better than just "viable"), while doing all that.
Perhaps a different term? Perhaps "excel"?
I want my players (I'm the DM) to "excel" in their specialized role, and still remain "viable" in other fields.
Like a Fighter who can "excel" in his chosen combat style, while still remaining "viable" in alternative combat styles and non-combat situations.
I have simply never seen anything but excelling at one single thing (and horrible at most others), or only being "viable" to mediocre at many things, with 15 point buy.
And it's largely to do with requirements for things (such as skillpoint investment, feat requirements, and spell requirements).