|
Me, I sometimes think the right balance is to assign the size of the point-buy based on the class being chosen. So, pick a MAD class, you get more points to spend. Pick a powerful class, you get fewer points to spend. Might kinda balance things out a bit.
Mind you, I haven't tried it, but I've noodled it around in my head from time to time. Something like this:
Interesting idea but some of your choices really raise eyebrows. I suspect you would see a LOT more monks and bards. Personally, I would just break it into 2.5 tiers.
Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Summoner - 15
Everyone else - 20
Monk - 23This would include the playtest classes also.
Actually I would probably lump summoner with everyone else. That way it's...
full casters - 15
everyone else - 20
monks - 23
This works better for MC as well since if you MC to get better stats, you'd lose out on CL...seems fair to me. If you take a level of monk for the extra stats as a melee, you lose out on BAB. I think I'll do that for my next game.
Just do 20 point-buy g@*&!*n :|
15 point buy does two things: it makes SAD characters like wizards reign supreme, and it makes everyone else throw away fluff for the sake of "not sucking."
Alternatively, if you are concerned with min-maxing ability scores, make a rule like 'no beginning ability score at less than 8 or greater than 18' with a 20 point buy, and you will get characters that are less min-maxed.
Alternatively, if you are concerned with min-maxing ability scores, make a rule like 'no beginning ability score at less than 8 or greater than 18' with a 20 point buy, and you will get characters that are less min-maxed.
#
As it is, I'm fairly sure its between 7 and 18 for ability scores.
As others have said and I agree, good ability scores do not make that huge of a impact over the whole career of a PC. Poor ability scores have a HUGE impact as the PC will be fairly frustrating to play and may not survive long.
I myself have played with many different ability generation methods... using 25 or higher point buy or 4d6 drop the lowest re-roll ones once methods the most. Recently I'm using the "Heroic" 2d6+6 stat generation method and having wonderful results with it as it prevents stats below an 8. However in all methods the max cap for any ability score before any racial modifiers is always 18 so lowering the amount of points given to players is never going to prevent them having that one GOOD score but instead will increase the chance that they will have a bunch of poor ones. {One of the reasons I prefer a dice rolling method over point buy.)
I have even played in one game where we used the Elite Array for our stats.
As the DM/GM for the majority of my games over the last 8-10 years I've rarely had a problem adjusting to so-called "powerful" characters as they all have the same max 18 limit at first level and if using CORE races only you'll never have a stat above a 20.
For larger more "powerful" groups you often need only increase the HP of the monsters a small amount so they monsters stay around long enough to have some impact OR increase the number of monsters slightly. Even weak monsters can take down "super" PC's if played intelligently and creatively by the GM/DM and so they don't really need any tweaking at all past that.
Compentent players will usual bend the curve. Great players ride the sucker to the ground and get a ECL added to their characters.
Why thank you Mr Fishy :D
I, for one, like 20 point buy better than 15 point buy for the reasons Abraham Spalding pointed out, but 15 point buy is quite doable. I think the trend in our group has been to play with less and less stat points over time. Nearly 10 years ago we were playing with 36 point buy characters (although the 3.0 system is slightly different than paizo's point buy system).
Edit- I tend to be a player who uses extra points to not have dump stats. I do not think Evil Lincoln is being to hard on us, or am secretly wishing for extra +1's to get by. We fail at a perfectly reasonable rate. The game has reached an equilibrium difficulty wise, IMHO, and that happens to be slightly higher than our level. That said, most of our players have played DnD for more than 10 years.
What I DO think might be leading my esteemed DM to this perception is the fact that we have both a paladin and fighter (now barbarian) who were doing intense damage. (if you guys are reading, I am just sayin' ...)
I also think that as well written as RL is, it can't compensate for every combination of characters. We were mowing down the ghouls in the skinsaw murders. They didn't have the HP to last long enough to paralyze anyone. The trolls were no match for a mounted lance-wielding paladin with smite on. these things just happen. Sometimes you have to see that the encounter is not well suited to the characters an adjust on the fly, which is not easy.
I used to give my players 32 points in the old 3.5 system, but have been slowly converted to a more balanced approach by some other friends in whose campaign I am a player and who use 15 point buy.
In my current Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign I still gave my players 20 points, which had a positive and negative effect.
For the negative one, I had to re-write every single stat-block for the NPC's.
For the positive one, I had the opportunity to optimize every single opponent the players were going to face. :p Missing one point of constitution here? Easily remedied. Light on the AC? Better armour and a better dexterity.
I will agree, though, that 15 points are problematic for characters which suffer from MAD, which are for me the Bard, Cleric and Monk.
|
Right; I prefer PCs to feel heroic. I give 25 points with the stipulation that no stat can be below 10, even after racial adjustments. I like my PCs to feel heroic, not minmaxed gimps with 7 int / wis Pallys etc (sadly the PFS standard). Since most characters drop 2-3 stats in PF, this is actually a little weaker than standard 20 run by min-maxers.
I have had to adjust up encounters a little, but not much. Traditionally I tend to simply use better tactics when dealing with powerful PCs, rather than worry too much about upping stat blocks.
Good stuffs about the level of argument.
The funny thing is while I'm talking high level the math actually trickles down. First level *mechanically* really isn't that different than 20th level. One hit can still kill the wizard, the fighter can still drop anything in one round, save throw DC to Save throw bonuses are about the same -- and the stat range means that the good are still good and the bad are still bad. Monster save throws still have a tendency to track higher than what the spell DCs do.
The minor stuff becomes less of a problem, and the PCs do have other ways of solving problems -- but that doesn't mean that mechanically the game actually changes all that much.
Honestly most of the games I play in don't get past about 13th level and almost all of them have started at first. The differences in function do not change with the point buy -- limiting stats and how much people can raise them does, but the ratios stay the same even then provided the GM plays by the same rules.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Funny though.
I use 15 point build in all my tests. Talyn Paultros (My Arcane Legionary Iconic) is a half elf, with the 15 point buy stats of S 13, D 14, C 12, I 16 (14+2) W 8, Ch 12. That gives him 7 or 8 SP/level depending on where the prefered class bonus goes, a decent AC(studded leather + dex = AC 15), 9 HP, +1 to hit and damage in meele, and a good DC on his spells (13+ level from the 16 int) At 4th level, he puts his stat bump into strength, so he does +2 TH and +3 to damage when fighting two handed. The 8 wisdom isn't bad, his racial bonus helps negate it for perception, and he's in a good will save class (though if he wasn't, Iron Will is always an option)
Now my old group had a cow when I ran adventures and they used the 15(well 25 back then) array. They'd become used to high stats since our other GM used the '4d6 drop lowest, reroll ones) It became annoying listening to the rogue player lament he 'only' had 11 skill points/level (8 for rogue, 2 for int, 1 for race)
As to players bringing their own ECL... I ran Hollow's last hope with the iconics for some kids and they did fine. First time gamers, all of 'em. Then ran it later for some adults, who were experienced gamers, and it was almost a TPK.
Monk Challenge:
I think E. Lincoln's main point is that the game was redesigned with 3.0, on the assumtion of 15 point buy being baseline. And yet, if this thread is any indication, no one plays it at the baseline! which is a little odd, isn't it? Has anyone tried the game at the attribute level that has the word "standard" next to it? If so, was it lacking anything, or did you come away with a new appreciation for it? Was it no different?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Anburaid, I suspect that players like it when their characters have an easy time of it, and GMs, well, are only one voice at the table.
--+--+--
I leave a point-buy version of my home generation system for your approval:
25 point buy, with no traits.
First trait costs 1 point of that.
Second trait costs an additional 2 points. (So, 22 point buy, with two traits)
Third trait costs an additional 3 points.
Fourth trait costs an additional 4 points. (That is, 15 point buy, with four traits)
MAD characters are easily doable, but have fewer traits.
|
|
I mean, that monk is terrible, by any sttandards, and underlines the issue. 15 points is easy for a Wizard, they really only haave Int and Con (and Dex if Ray-focused).
For a Monk, 15 should be.
Str: 19 with racial mod
Int: 7 (Sorry skill points, we need too many attrib)
Wis: 14
Dex: 14
Con: 14
Chr: 7
That's at least survivable, but you do need dump stats to make it work. I'd prefer to give them 25 and say "no dumping", this actually costs the wizard 3 points (he has 3 easy dump stats which only affect his will save by 2 and carrying), while granting the monk 2 points and letting him keep his skills.
I think E. Lincoln's main point is that the game was redesigned with 3.0, on the assumtion of 15 point buy being baseline. And yet, if this thread is any indication, no one plays it at the baseline! which is a little odd, isn't it? Has anyone tried the game at the attribute level that has the word "standard" next to it? If so, was it lacking anything, or did you come away with a new appreciation for it? Was it no different?
See my post up-thread. Last couple campaigns I ran were baseline stats, to make it easier for me to pick challenges for the players.
As far as I can tell, the games have gone well. I think some players were challenged to really think about where to put their points. No one complained, though. If my players pipe in, they may have different perspectives. And I don't think being challenged about where to put your points is a bad thing. Considering some of the things my players dish out (it is a high level party, mind) I don't think they're terribly weak or unable to play their concepts.
I'd also like to try a game at a higher point buy too--but NOW that I've gotten a feel for what the baseline was established to be.
I mean, that monk is terrible, by any sttandards, and underlines the issue. 15 points is easy for a Wizard, they really only haave Int and Con (and Dex if Ray-focused).
For a Monk, 15 should be.
Str: 19 with racial mod
Int: 7 (Sorry skill points, we need too many attrib)
Wis: 14
Dex: 14
Con: 14
Chr: 7That's at least survivable, but you do need dump stats to make it work. I'd prefer to give them 25 and say "no dumping", this actually costs the wizard 3 points (he has 3 easy dump stats which only affect his will save by 2 and carrying), while granting the monk 2 points and letting him keep his skills.
That's silly. If you genuinely think you need that stat array to be useful, then I honestly don't get it. A fairly competent monk at 15 pt would be Str 14, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8; He's shy but well rounded physically. That's before racial modifiers which can go into Dex or Str. That monk wouldn't beat down the fighter at every oppurtunity, but he's never supposed to. He would conversely not be totally ineffective in combat, a 14 is pretty decent with a 20 pt point buy, and with 15 you can get 3 of them. 14,14,14,12,10,8 is fairly doable for most MAD characters and easy with 15 pts. The wizard might be
Str 8, Dex 14, Con 10, Wis 10, Int 16, Cha 10 and get a +2 int from racial and he's flying it. Both 15 points, neither ineffective. I personally prefer 20 pts, but your proposed minimum level for an effective monk is a total exagerration, and just, well, silly.
Alternatively, if you are concerned with min-maxing ability scores, make a rule like 'no beginning ability score at less than 8 or greater than 18' with a 20 point buy, and you will get characters that are less min-maxed.
This pretty much exactly what I am saying. The thought that those extra 5 points enhance the power curve is an illusion. But in order to make a reasonably rounded character you need to be able to spend a few points in stats other than just your prime. One trick ponies are not interesting to play. If you can only cast, or only swing a sword or only chat up the local noble you are a one note player. I like a little depth to my character, it is not enough to just roleplay being good at something as there are rules in place that make you roll a die to succeed. Taking a negative to every single social interaction and likely having less than 4 skill points just to be able to perform my role as the parties sword swinger is pretty much exactly what I have no interest in doing.
I have been both GM and player for 30 years now, through every edition, and can tell you that, in my opinion, the PC's stats are not the most important factor in his/her success. How the character is played, and the decisions that are made in the game determine success far more. That said, I tend to prefer characters with pretty good stats, whether I'm GMing or playing. The reason is that I think players want to feel heroic, something most of us can't really do in normal life. My group is old school, so we still roll stats, as that makes for less min/maxing and more varied characters, but that's just a preference.
As a GM, perhaps because I've been doing it so long, adjusting encounters on the fly to make them easier or harder isn't hard at all. The players don't have any idea what the numbers are behind the screen, so I feel free to change them at will to either add challenge or give them a break, as needed.
One point on min/maxing. A lot of players do it assuming that the low stats they take are in attributes that effect role playing more than dice rolling, assuming they can get away with it. I make players role play the attributes they have taken. A fighter with a 7 intelligence better not be making incredibly astute (or even slightly more than competent) tactical and strategic decisions. A barbarian with a charisma of 4 (yes, one of my players made one like that one time), had better play him like a disgusting social outcast (he did), and is going to run into problems in virtually every social situation.
Finally, on monks and other classes that supposedly are handicapped by not having uniformly high stat scores. My comment would be that the thread seems to be focusing almost purely on combat effectiveness, expecially since, given the choice, the first stat raised to 16 seems to be Strength. Combat is a big part of the game, but it's certainly not everything. Let the fighters excel at combat, that's what they are good at, and frequently it is the only thing they are good at. Monks, bards, rogues, paladins and rangers bring other skills to the table in non-combat situations, when fighters largely have nothing to add. In our games, monks are not front-line fighters. We play them more as fast scouts and flankers.
FYI, I'm currently playing, rather than GMing, and my character did not have a single stat above 14 when I rolled him up (but also had none less than 10). Despite having lower stats than every other party member, my cleric is the party leader, and very, very effective in both combat and non-combat situations. Does he wish he had a 20 wisdom? Sure, but he's not letting that 14 (now up to 17 at 8th level due to attrribute increase and magic item) stop him.
Humm that's an idea...but MC would abuse that a bit...you can take ranger one for example get all these stat boost and go straight fighter after that...or one level of monk if your willing to take a BAB hit. That and the fighter at 16 seems a bit low. A fighter can be pretty MAD if you wanna TWF and/or use combat expertise tree. They should at least get as much as the barbarian.
Yep, I thought of that too. In fact, it's one of the main reasons it's never been more of a thought experiment. WHen I posted it, I kinda wondered how fast the Paizo community would catch on and point out this tragic flaw (consider it a macrocosm for my smaller gaming group).
Looks like it twook two posts...
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but I like the following array:
8,10,12,14,16,18.
And you can't compare an array directly to point-buy, because you are forced to have certain stats, that you might not do with point-buy.
I just wanted to give my support to the OP - the elite array is not "gimped stats". I've run a fairly long campaign, with perhaps two dozen PCs, all based on the default/elite array. Made things very interesting, and they were not gimped... well... actually the 8 Dex Paladin actually did take the slow and frail flaws, so he was...
Funny though.
I use 15 point build in all my tests. Talyn Paultros (My Arcane Legionary Iconic) is a half elf, with the 15 point buy stats of S 13, D 14, C 12, I 16 (14+2) W 8, Ch 12. That gives him 7 or 8 SP/level depending on where the prefered class bonus goes, a decent AC(studded leather + dex = AC 15), 9 HP, +1 to hit and damage in meele, and a good DC on his spells (13+ level from the 16 int) At 4th level, he puts his stat bump into strength, so he does +2 TH and +3 to damage when fighting two handed. The 8 wisdom isn't bad, his racial bonus helps negate it for perception, and he's in a good will save class (though if he wasn't, Iron Will is always an option)
Now my old group had a cow when I ran adventures and they used the 15(well 25 back then) array. They'd become used to high stats since our other GM used the '4d6 drop lowest, reroll ones) It became annoying listening to the rogue player lament he 'only' had 11 skill points/level (8 for rogue, 2 for int, 1 for race)
As to players bringing their own ECL... I ran Hollow's last hope with the iconics for some kids and they did fine. First time gamers, all of 'em. Then ran it later for some adults, who were experienced gamers, and it was almost a TPK.
Monk Challenge:
** spoiler omitted **
Thank you. Your experience mirrors my own. I have players that like to be above-average across the board but not superior in a single stat and others that are ok amping one stat and being average in most others.
4d6 drop lowest, reroll ones is about as generous as this Rat-bastard GM can manage!
|
I to prefer to roll, hate homogenized characters in the name of parity...at least if I have to buy give me enough points to be able to build against type.
If every player were to act on that ideal, I suspect you'd see far less call for reduced point buy.
But you could give 30, 35, even 40 point-buy, to allow for well-rounded PCs, and some players would still dump their Cha to 6, and demand that they should be allowed to drop it even further.
|
|
I think most DMs would be happy to allow a few more discretionary points, if they knew they would go toward 'non-essential' stats, in the same way as some gave/give bonus skill points or Skill Focus for background Craft and Profession. They know the skills won't crop up every session, they may never be improved, but it makes the PC more believable, and aids in characterisation.
But you had to ring-fence those bonus skill points and feats, otherwise, they wouldn't be used that way.
Yet another PC, who's lived in his village for years, without picking up any remotely applicable knowledge? Great.
He can't tell a cow from a horse, he tries to hammer nails with a hatchet, he gets lost on the way to market, and can't haggle a better price for his shoddy workmanship.
He's really good at Perception, though. And Acrobatics. And he's got Blindfighting. And Improved Initiative. Yay.
What was this guy's childhood like? All I can think is that his Dad used to lock him in the house, away from any other human contact, then leap out at him 24/7, like Cato, in the Pink Panther movies...
"You'll thank me one day, Son! This is character-building!"
I go with 20 point buy myself. 15 is just too hard for characters that need alot of ability scores. I dont like punishing players for their character concepts.
That said, in my experience the base status unless they are outrageous (we once had a player who rolled in front of us 3 18's a 17 and 2 14's) do not impact play in the long run. The main stats are always going to be high in a point by. The fighter starts with an 18 or 20 strength, the wizard starts with a 18 or 20 int. This at least for my group is always the case. What suffers is the secondary and tertiary stats. The ones that have little impact on success/failure in encounters, and more on fluff and flavor of the character. Want to play a smart charismatic rogue? Makes sense right? Well your dex and con will have to suffer. Want to play a fighte with a high int so you have some skills and can participate out of combat? Well i hope you like your reduced success rates in combat.
No one in my group EVER chooses to lower their primary stats for these 3rd and 4th priority stats particularly the 3 mental ones. Dumb fighters, boring druids, and idiot paladins gets old...really fast.
From my experience the base stats play such a small role in the long run that it just isnt worth it to limit them, because it also limits character ideas. Want to play zorro? Dextrous, charismatic, intelligent, cant have them all, sorry. To me the character choices have way more of an impact on balance then base stats. The difference between existing classes used to their potential is WAY more then the difference between a charager having a 15 point buy and a 20 point buy. Particuarly after the early levels.
For instance, who would you rather have with you in a difficult encounter? 15 point by Treantmonk Made 'god' wizard or a 20 point buy made Barbarian? If you had a party that consisted of 'stronger' classes you are far more likely to have an imbalance with standard CR then you are with a higher point buy.
|
|
I mean, that monk is terrible, by any sttandards, and underlines the issue. 15 points is easy for a Wizard, they really only haave Int and Con (and Dex if Ray-focused).
For a Monk, 15 should be.
Str: 19 with racial mod
Int: 7 (Sorry skill points, we need too many attrib)
Wis: 14
Dex: 14
Con: 14
Chr: 7
That's silly. If you genuinely think you need that stat array to be useful, then I honestly don't get it. A fairly competent monk at 15 pt would be Str 14, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8; He's shy but well rounded physically. That's before racial modifiers which can go into Dex or Str. That monk wouldn't beat down the fighter at every oppurtunity, but he's never supposed to. He would conversely not be totally ineffective in combat, a 14 is pretty decent with a 20 pt point buy, and with 15 you can get 3 of them. 14,14,14,12,10,8 is fairly doable for most MAD characters and easy with 15 pts. The wizard might be
Str 8, Dex 14, Con 10, Wis 10, Int 16, Cha 10 and get a +2 int from racial and he's flying it. Both 15 points, neither ineffective. I personally prefer 20 pts, but your proposed minimum level for an effective monk is a total exagerration, and just, well, silly.
Sure, your wizard is "Fine", but he'd be more surviable with a higher con. I generally get wizs up to 14 (Con is far more important than dex for wizards). Also, on both of your guys... With this point buy why stop at an 8? 7 is basically the same "I nerfed", and gets you 2 more points. If I were building a Wiz "right" I'd 20 int, 16 con, 14 dex, and dump everything else. Typical "nerd"... Weak, absent minded, and unlikeablee but is used to being punished.
As to the monk, Treatmonk goes into the details, but bottom line is you're already the weakest class in and out of combat. You need Str to be at least semi-competent. At level 1 your guy is < 50% to hit a dexless gobilin in leather (+0/+0 on attacks), and if he hits he does d6+1. That's not acceptable by any standards. At least if they have Str they can output some respectible damage; and good con increases survival rates when your AC is the worst in the party.
So yes, the presense of the monk with those stats would feel like a waste to me and probably frustrate the player playing them.
I have my players roll for stats. However, if I used the point buy, it would be 20, not 15.
That said, I don't actually think that ability scores are THAT important. Player tactics and magic items are BOTH more important in determining the difficulty of an encounter.
For example, as a fighter, I'd rather have a 14 strength and a +2 longsword than an 18 strength and a normal longsword. They both do the same damage, and have the same chance to hit. However, the magic longsword can overcome DR and is resistant to sundering.
So, my advise is to control the magic, rather than adjust every monster in every encounter.
One point on min/maxing. A lot of players do it assuming that the low stats they take are in attributes that effect role playing more than dice rolling, assuming they can get away with it. I make players role play the attributes they have taken. A fighter with a 7 intelligence better not be making incredibly astute (or even slightly more than competent) tactical and strategic decisions. A barbarian with a charisma of 4 (yes, one of my players made one like that one time), had better play him like a disgusting social outcast (he did), and is going to run into problems in virtually every social situation.
THIS is key.
Gimped unplayable characters are not fun...sorry.
Only tried 15 point buy and it works fine (for ME and those that I play with).
I know that people are different, but saying that a 15 point buy character is gimped, seems a bit .... dramatic.Saying that YOU don't like it and WHY, would be interesting and informative.
I'd like to hear about your experiences and what kind of troubles that you've had with 15 point buy.
GRU
For the first time I'm having my group use 15 pt buy for my next adventure. We met and scribbled up some characters and my players seemed pleased for the most part. Most of them had an 18, mid to high scores and one stat that was pretty low. A couple of examples of the characters they made:
Human Fighter
STR 17
DEX 15
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 12
CHA 8
Gnome Fey Sorcerer
STR 8
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 8
CHA 18
They aren't optimized by any means, but calling them useless is pretty silly.
That said, I'm considering giving them two ability score increases every fourth level instead of one. My gripe with the system isn't the initial stats, but the growth of the characters. Most players just increase their primary stat while the other ones remain the same throughout the game, and if that isn't metagaming I don't know what is. One of the things I liked from 4th edition (HERETIC!) is that at 11th level or so, all stats increased by 1, and again at 21st level (my numbers might be off) and I think that's great. I prefer characters that start out mediocre but gain a lot more from leveling up.
Been using 15 point buy in my group since beta, and so far, it has been a pleasure for me as a DM, and really has not negatively effected me as a player. APL+1= CR for the most part, for a tough fight, APL+3 if I really want them to sweat. I HAVE killed more PCs int he last year or so than ever, but that was also by design- I want them to try and talk thier way out of a fight.
But they never do...
|
|
No, those characters are well built, you don't have to be optimized to be acceptable... But a 13 Str monk is the epitimey of a character that will make the party feel they need to "protect" the guy and make the monk's player feel worthless.
As to Int, it again brings up the question "do you give the 20 int wizard the strategies to win"? It's hard to enforce high stat scores (how many social incompetent Pal/Sorcs have I seen)? Obviously the low int guy will have no monster knowledge, and people will look down on the low Cha guy. Mechanics deal with that well.
In my personal experience...
Higher stats are not about getting more pluses. It's about opening up more options for a character.
Until the game does away with minimum stat requirements like Dex 15 for TWF, Int 13 for Combat Expertise (which is the gateway to a lot of nice combat options), many skills are unusable unless trained (or capped, like Knowledge), and various other requirements, playing a low point buy character simply means to me that I have a limit on my options.
Yeah, you can super power a single thing with 15 point buy. Making a well rounded character that's useful for more than just one, maybe two things, takes a nice array of stats... no matter the class.
When I make my characters, it's based on a concept. All my characters are MAD.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
... I'm considering giving them two ability score increases every fourth level instead of one. My gripe with the system isn't the initial stats, but the growth of the characters. Most players just increase their primary stat while the other ones remain the same throughout the game, and if that isn't metagaming I don't know what is.
Suggestion: instead of raising an attribute 1 point every four levels, give the PCs one point-buy point every level or two. So buying that 10 Charisma up to 11 is much easier than pushing the 17 Wisdom up to 18.
When I make my characters, it's based on a concept. All my characters are MAD.
I never understand this site's acronyms.
What does MAD stand for? I've seen it several times.
When I make my characters, it's based on a concept. All my characters are MAD.
I never understand this site's acronyms.
What does MAD stand for? I've seen it several times.
Multiple Ability-score Dependent. Or some variation of that.
Multiple Ability-score Dependent. Or some variation of that.
When I make my characters, it's based on a concept. All my characters are MAD.
I never understand this site's acronyms.
What does MAD stand for? I've seen it several times.
Wouldn't that be MASD?
Since Batma's alignment was mentioned, I must link this.
As batman was invoked I must now link this
THe only truth everyone can agree on is Batman's pure awesomeness.
I think most DMs would be happy to allow a few more discretionary points, if they knew they would go toward aids in characterisation.
But you had to ring-fence those bonus skill points and feats, otherwise, they wouldn't be used that way.
Yet another PC, who's lived in his village for years, without picking up any remotely applicable knowledge? Great.
He can't tell a cow from a horse, he tries to hammer nails with a hatchet, he gets lost on the way to market, and can't haggle a better price for his shoddy workmanship.
He's really good at Perception, though. And Acrobatics. And he's got Blindfighting. And Improved Initiative. Yay.
What was this guy's childhood like? All I can think is that his Dad used to lock him in the house, away from any other human contact, then leap out at him 24/7, like Cato, in the Pink Panther movies...
"You'll thank me one day, Son! This is character-building!"
Mirrors my own experience, and entertainingly put too.
Mirrors my own experience, and entertainingly put too.I think most DMs would be happy to allow a few more discretionary points, if they knew they would go toward aids in characterisation.
But you had to ring-fence those bonus skill points and feats, otherwise, they wouldn't be used that way.
Yet another PC, who's lived in his village for years, without picking up any remotely applicable knowledge? Great.
He can't tell a cow from a horse, he tries to hammer nails with a hatchet, he gets lost on the way to market, and can't haggle a better price for his shoddy workmanship.
He's really good at Perception, though. And Acrobatics. And he's got Blindfighting. And Improved Initiative. Yay.
What was this guy's childhood like? All I can think is that his Dad used to lock him in the house, away from any other human contact, then leap out at him 24/7, like Cato, in the Pink Panther movies...
"You'll thank me one day, Son! This is character-building!"
Being locked in a dark building with a madman leaping to attack you at random intervals?
A barbarian with a charisma of 4 (yes, one of my players made one like that one time), had better play him like a disgusting social outcast (he did), and is going to run into problems in virtually every social situation.
Was he role-playing or just being himself? ;P
Being locked in a dark building with a madman leaping to attack you at random intervals?Mirrors my own experience, and entertainingly put too.I think most DMs would be happy to allow a few more discretionary points, if they knew they would go toward aids in characterisation.
But you had to ring-fence those bonus skill points and feats, otherwise, they wouldn't be used that way.
Yet another PC, who's lived in his village for years, without picking up any remotely applicable knowledge? Great.
He can't tell a cow from a horse, he tries to hammer nails with a hatchet, he gets lost on the way to market, and can't haggle a better price for his shoddy workmanship.
He's really good at Perception, though. And Acrobatics. And he's got Blindfighting. And Improved Initiative. Yay.
What was this guy's childhood like? All I can think is that his Dad used to lock him in the house, away from any other human contact, then leap out at him 24/7, like Cato, in the Pink Panther movies...
"You'll thank me one day, Son! This is character-building!"
HA! That was my last job.