|
My two coppers: 15 point buy? 20 point buy? Rolling 4d6 dropping the lowest one? I guess the question I end up asking, are we having fun? Am I as the DM or the player having fun? Is everyone else around the table? Different groups will have different expectations. Even within the same group, you will have some people who want to make a character who wields a giant sized adamantine spiked chain, who enjoy min maxing and munchkinism, others who prefer to have their characters have disadvantages and are more into role playing, others who like to keep track of their characters encumbrance down to the weight of their last copper piece and keeping track of their spell components down to the last eyelash and pinch of sand, bat guano and sulfur.
For a home game, where you know the people playing, I prefer die rolling, usually 4d6’s and re-rolling the ones. For a more public setting like a convention or a game store, where you don’t necessarily know who is going coming or showing up, I prefer a point buy.
I havn’t tried a 15 point buy. Is that the baseline assumption on which PCs and the Iconics are built? The 20 point buy seems to provide enough points to make decent but not overly powered characters. It is the baseline for the Pathfinder Society organized play. But I guess over powered is a matter of opinion.
On a serious note, thank you. This thread has been eye-opening; just not in a good way. I seriously hope this thread just has a disproportionate # of min-MAX-ers, 'cause if most people HAVE to have god-stats to be "viable" then future versions of Pathfinder RPG will be Pathfinder: The Fantasy Super-Hero RPG (capes-n-tights included).
...
Based upon this thread, my idea of a challenge would probably be deemed un-fun in favor of "We're the PCs. Give us our cakewalk."
Heh, no kidding. I just had to shake my head at a bunch of this thread - no wonder I read these messageboards for a laugh (since they have near zero-value for our actual home game).
"Ineffective" and "viable" - laugh-worthy. Needless to say, I'm glad I'm (apparently) playing a very different game than a number of people here.
|
Personally I think re-rolling ones is silly. I wish people would make rules like that in other games. "Okay guys we're playing Yatzee, remember re-roll your ones because nobody likes having to deal with low scores because they rolled ones"Wow. Comparing D&D to Yahtzee?
It's a game where people gather in a group, roll dice, and make believe there aren't more productive things they could be doing with their time, I don't see much difference.
I've run enough mediocre characters to know 14 in a game where people are rolling with 18s is not effective.Isn't this *entirely* the OP's point?
Should you choose to give everyone 15-point-buy, those "14's" will be effective.
Some things don't scale with abilities, some do. Full-plate fighters with 14 str and power attack won't be as penalized as a monk with 12 or 14 wis.
|
|
Except yatzee rolls dont follow you for years of gaming. One bad roll is ONE bad roll. Bad stats impact your gaming for the life of the character, which can be a couple hours or multiple years of actual time.Personally I think re-rolling ones is silly. I wish people would make rules like that in other games. "Okay guys we're playing Yatzee, remember re-roll your ones because nobody likes having to deal with low scores because they rolled ones"
We use 4d6, re-roll 1's, and drop the lowest. With the option of calling a mulligan on the stat block if you don't get an single 18.+1
Randomness gives a bit of edge and challenge to the PC creation IMO
Yeah, I hear the same thing argued about HP, so reroll ones on HP as well. Eventually you either learn to deal with the scribbles on a piece of paper or you don't. I can have fun playing a guy with 20s in all stats, and I can have fun playing a guy with all 8s. Even though I've never done either. In fact I think I'd probably have MORE fun playing the guy with all 8s because when he manages to succeed, it's awesome. When the guy with all 20s succeeds, what did you expect.
Gimped, useless, non-heroic. They're all just silly labels for something that isn't true. There's no such thing as an ineffective character
My two coppers: 15 point buy? 20 point buy? Rolling 4d6 dropping the lowest one? I guess the question I end up asking, are we having fun? Am I as the DM or the player having fun?
This is the most important thing, after all.
Some percentage of players consider the challenges in the game to be static, and therefor a character with higher scores will fare better against those challenges.
As a GM, I know this is not true. If the party is cake-walking through my campaign to the point where it becomes no longer fun (and not a moment before) I will up the challenge to meet the characters.
Therefor: Higher ability scores make more work for the GM.
15, 20 point, it doesn't so much matter. The further you get from the "heroic" baseline, the less valuable CR is for determining appropriate challenges. It is by no means the only wrench that can be dropped into the CR machine, but it is a common one.
I've run enough mediocre characters to know 14 in a game where people are rolling with 18s is not effective.Isn't this *entirely* the OP's point?
Should you choose to give everyone 15-point-buy, those "14's" will be effective.
You are also likely not to get all 14s while the other classes that aren't MAD are going to focus everything into vital stat(s)
Yeah, the 'one-true-way' attitudes are ridiculous here.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, as long as it doesn't devolve into bickering with one other poster and drowning out the very good advice a thread can create. When that happens: lincoln smash.
As a GM, I know this is not true. If the party is cake-walking through my campaign to the point where it becomes no longer fun (and not a moment before) I will up the challenge to meet the characters.
Character. No s. Unless everyone is min-maxing, upping the game difficulty makes the game not fun for everyone not running the Paladin/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight.
Gimped, useless, non-heroic. They're all just silly labels for something that isn't true. There's no such thing as an ineffective character
This is true, but at the same time it is also true that some characters are more effective than others in a given situation, and every character should have a chance to shine. However, the scale of point buy effects different characters in different ways.
For some classes, it does not make a huge difference - they only need a couple of decent scores and after that can function fine; combat classes generally just need a couple of good physical scores, rogues need decent intelligence and dexterity. Other classes need one good score as an essential, ie the casting classes. Still others need a lot of not necessarily outstanding scores, but above average, like the monk and bard. What the monk suffers from is not that they need outstanding scores, but that they don't really have a 'dump stat' - you don't want very low intelligence and charisma even if you don't need high scores, because these impact your skills, which you need.
15 point-buy favours the SAD characters and those that don't need more than one decent score.
25 point-buy favours the MAD characters, because it is cheaper to get two 15's than one 18.
20 point-buy is the happy medium so far as I can see.
15 point characters encourages the for basic classes.
Monks, paladins, Druid and Rangers are hard to make.
If players play a little bit versatiled and put effort in stats and skills not only for combat but also for a little rpg and background.
With 20 points my group tends to not powerplay and with 15 the make Die Hard Powerplay characters. Thats the same i do!
One Wizard example.
20 point buy.
Gnome
Str 10
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 16
Wis 10
Cha 13
To make a social wizard who is alround. A Wizard who growns up in a societe where he is loved for is personalaty and his intellegence. He was healthy and he was eager to see the world.
15 Point buy: (Geek build)
Elf
Str 7
Dex 14
Con 10
Int 19
Wis 10
Cha 7
The I cant lift and socialise but is very nasty for the GM with the Save DC.
At first level those points represent 2 AC, +1 to two all three saves, 1hp, +1 to many combat skills and perception based ones, as well as a bonus to CMD.And all those +1's make the difference between "mediocre" and "good"? Considering the weight of the roll to the weight of the numbers, it is statistically rather underwhelming (even the AC, which is only a 14% increase).
If you cant see how several small improvements make a character more versatile and at the same time grant a slight increase to life expectancy at low levels I doubt there is alot more I can say. We aren't talking about power gaming here just leveling the playing field over classes that are less stats dependent while enhancing a characters utility from " I hit it" or " I shoot it"
On a serious note, thank you. This thread has been eye-opening; just not in a good way. I seriously hope this thread just has a disproportionate # of min-MAX-ers, 'cause if most people HAVE to have god-stats to be "viable" then future versions of Pathfinder RPG will be Pathfinder: The Fantasy Super-Hero RPG (capes-n-tights included).
...
Based upon this thread, my idea of a challenge would probably be deemed un-fun in favor of "We're the PCs. Give us our cakewalk."Heh, no kidding. I just had to shake my head at a bunch of this thread - no wonder I read these messageboards for a laugh (since they have near zero-value for our actual home game).
"Ineffective" and "viable" - laugh-worthy. Needless to say, I'm glad I'm (apparently) playing a very different game than a number of people here.
Congrats to you both for being so much better than the rest of us.
As others have said, the big problem is that 15 point buy favors characters that are already strong. All you do is increase the disparity between the wizard and everyone else. All you're doing is making the monk even worse off.
People keep saying the monk is a defensive character, but here's the flaw in that - how is that in any way useful for the party? Joe the fighter can split an orc in two, Roger the thief can slit a man's throat without the man even noticing, Zalabar the Magnificent the wizard can conjure up walls of flame, and Ani the monk, well, he's really good at being ignored by the monsters while they concentrate on the actual threats.
People also keep confusing "being a terrible character" with "depth." Do you know why so many people hate to play fighters? Because having to be the guy with low intelligence and low charisma is boring as hell. What's this, we aren't fighting? Alright, I go droll in the corner since I can literally add no things to the conversation. Yes, having the mindless raging berserker is fun once in awhile, but if you mandate that as being what everyone has to go by, then yes, it's really, really boring.
I'm not saying everyone should have all 18's, mind you, but it's important to note who benefits from the stats. You aren't giving wizards cool and interesting weaknesses. You're just making fighters dumb.
If you cant see how several small improvements make a character more versatile and at the same time grant a slight increase to life expectancy at low levels I doubt there is alot more I can say. We aren't talking about power gaming here just leveling the playing field over classes that are less stats dependent while enhancing a characters utility from " I hit it" or " I shoot it"It is NOT that stat's are unimportant. And I prefer higher pt buy to lower ones.
My problem is the thinking that 14's are sub-par, and that a +1 to X or a +2 to Y makes the character suddenly vastly superior, which has been implied here more than once.
As an aside, I played a low-stat game as a one-shot once. I took 12's in everything and played a Bard. The guy playing the Wizard dumped everything for a great INT. The Fighter did the same for STR.
I buffed the party and rushed into combat. The Fighter charged. The Wizard casted from the rear (there were others, but they are unimportant for this). The fighter fell to a Color Spray (-2 WILL save). The Wizard fell to Kobold Arrows (they were only 1d4-1!). I lived. There are problems with maxing out one stat in low-stat settings.
its not that 14 are sub par far from it I think 14 is the most bang for the buck number in point buy, but it is that those couple of points spread out accrossed you stats grant you the ability to build a wider variety of character and implement more strategies at earlier levels and in reality do not vastly up the power of the character to the point many seem to believe. What many of us are trying to say is a min/maxer can still do his thing with a 15 point buy he is just am even worse one trick pony than he already was going to be, mean while those of us who had a concept in mind of a sword wielding fighter who has several non weapon based skills due to his past as a military tracker and is good with animals from growing up on the farm simply cant make our concept unless we want to be considerably less effective in combat since there are no points to spare for a few extra Int.
5 pages in, and all it's done is make me MORE in favor of rolling for stats. ;-P
|
I suspect Evil's original point is long lost here.
I think the point he was making is the game is just as fun with a 15-20 point buy, characters are every bit as heroic. It's just a bit easier on the GM planning encounters and using pre-generated adventures.
Ultimately it's not a "my game is better than your game" sort of thing,
everyone can and should play the game they enjoy most.
There are some good counter points. Namely:
5 pages in, and all it's done is make me MORE in favor of rolling for stats. ;-P
While I like stat rolling this is what got me to switch
2 Players over 3 games
Player 1 :14,12,14,12,13,10
Player 2: 17,16,18,17,15,18
Player 1:15,14,13,14,14,11
Player 2:18,17,17,14,16,16
Player 1:12,13,15,15,12,9
Player 2:18,17,17,17,18,18
They both use the same dice and I watch the rolls. They dice gods love player 2. He never has less then one 18 and two 17's and have never seen him roll under a 14.
5 pages in, and all it's done is make me MORE in favor of rolling for stats. ;-PWhile I like stat rolling this is what got me to switch
2 Players over 3 games
Player 1 :14,12,14,12,13,10
Player 2: 17,16,18,17,15,18Player 1:15,14,13,14,14,11
Player 2:18,17,17,14,16,16Player 1:12,13,15,15,12,9
Player 2:18,17,17,17,18,18They both use the same dice and I watch the rolls. They dice gods love player 2. He never has less then one 18 and two 17's and have never seen him roll under a 14.
Fair enough. I've seen this happen too. This is why my homebrew rules create a pool of "bonus" points for stats in an attempt to counter this- so far(note: SO FAR) it has made powerful characters only slightly more powerful and helped characters that were low-grade move up a much-needed step. I'm sure there are some bell curve atrocities that will occur eventually, however.
|
|
5 pages in, and all it's done is make me MORE in favor of rolling for stats. ;-P
Dice rolling has it's own issues with regards to balance. If you assume the game is designed around an honest 4d6 then when people start dropping 1s and 2s or allowing mulligans they are going to encounter the same issues that a higher point buy gets you. Also, as Seeker points sometimes the dice favor you when you are rolling a character up then it's even worse because one guy at the table has crappy stats and the other has great stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To follow up on my earlier post, I just coded a Monte Carlo for Pathfinder Point Buy of the average roll, and I consistently get 21 Point Buy average with millions of characters rolled (dropping about 10% of rolls due to hopeless characters). I can post code if anyone cares to check for errors.
And...if stats only matter greatly at high levels...that would be judging the value of something based on high-level play...which is the CAPSTONE FALLACY!
Level 9 is only HALF the max levels in the game, which is notable if you actually EXCEED level 9.
To follow up on my earlier post, I just coded a Monte Carlo for Pathfinder Point Buy of the average roll, and I consistently get 21 Point Buy average with millions of characters rolled (dropping about 10% of rolls due to hopeless characters). I can post code if anyone cares to check for errors.
Also, there seems to be only a 30% chance of rolling a 15 or worse Point Buy on 4d6 drop lowest. This is the standard rolling method, nothing with dropping 1s or anything like that.
So to all you players out there, I beg you, take the 15 points. Your GM can then build encounters super-easily, and you'll get to play more!
What? No way. With 15 points, the characters are total wimps and I have to touch them with kid gloves.
The last time I played in a game with rolled ability scores (4d6), my array was 13, 11, 10, 10, 7, 5. The party also included someone that had 18, 17, 17, 14, 13, 10. I don't remember the rest, but they were worth around the 20 point mark, approximately.
I tried to play a skill-focused rogue that avoided combat, but more and more as time went by, the party just saw my character as a liability that wasn't worth the share of treasure to keep alive.
Never again.
|
What? No way. With 15 points, the characters are total wimps and I have to touch them with kid gloves.
The trick is to just not care about the party. Throw a Hill Giant at them in their first session. If they die, just bring their twin brother in with two ability scores switched! If they're lucky enough to make it to 2nd level, have them stumble into a red dragon lair. That'll teach 'em!
|
|
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.
I like this idea. I think I'm going to go start futzing with the math to see what the real numbers would look like.
5 pages in, and all it's done is make me MORE in favor of rolling for stats. ;-PDice rolling has it's own issues with regards to balance. If you assume the game is designed around an honest 4d6 then when people start dropping 1s and 2s or allowing mulligans they are going to encounter the same issues that a higher point buy gets you. Also, as Seeker points sometimes the dice favor you when you are rolling a character up then it's even worse because one guy at the table has crappy stats and the other has great stats.
Whoops! Forgot to mention that I do stat raises every 4 levels differently(2 points instead of 1).
|
I like the 20 point buy (our group standard), but I could play with more or less if that's what the DM wanted to give us. I just don't like rolling stats, because that almost always creates a power disparity between group members and I would like to think that we are all equally heroic (or villainous, if you're into that sort of thing).
The last time I played in a game with rolled ability scores (4d6), my array was 13, 11, 10, 10, 7, 5. The party also included someone that had 18, 17, 17, 14, 13, 10. I don't remember the rest, but they were worth around the 20 point mark, approximately.
I tried to play a skill-focused rogue that avoided combat, but more and more as time went by, the party just saw my character as a liability that wasn't worth the share of treasure to keep alive.
Never again.
You didnt have a 14, so that would qualify for a reroll under the standard rolling mechanism.
You didnt have a 14, so that would qualify for a reroll under the standard rolling mechanism.
Whoops. I never looked at the rules for it (I didn't have the books at the time and was playing online, using SRD for reference), and the DM insisted I stick with it and that bad stats had good 'roleplaying value'. Overcoming adversity and all that.
Not bloody likely.
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.
This is... just silly. Any knowledge skill can be made untrained up to a DC 10. A lack of a skill point doesn't mean a lack of ability in that. The skill system states as much in the opening section.
I just want to point out that my OP was a little deliberately inflammatory. I definitely think people should play the game they like, and ignore me if I contradict that.
That said: If the players have more points, the GM loses CR as a tool for building encounters quickly — now he has to do all sorts of tweaking and math to get things where they should be. If he doesn't, the players will breeze through things and the game will be boring.
Your character does not get more effective with higher scores. The GM just has to put more effort in, and he's already putting the most effort of anyone at the game table.
It does not take that much more effort, and it seems to involve a lot less effort than trying to convince the players to accept a 15 point buy. Giving them 20 or more points to use seems to be less time consuming to me, plus the if the 20 points makes them feel heroic why not give it to them. <--There is no question mark here because that is not really a question.
Cue the rise of the Celebrity Supermodel political party and their thousand year Reich!
A government headed by Laeticia Casta, Heidi Klum, Adriana Lima...I'd vote for it!
I think it's also important to note that, yes, you can optimize a good character on 15 point buy.
...But not everyone is a good optimizer.
20 point buy also gives leeway to those of us who aren't as creepily attached to numbers and charts as I am (Mmmmmmmmmm, charts~). Yes, it's easy for some people to see the 15 point buy and know how to make a fun and flavorful character that isn't terrible. But for a lot of others, they see 15 point buy and try to make a monk and end up with a ten in every stat and a 17 in wisdom.
Congrats to you both for being so much better than the rest of us.On a serious note, thank you. This thread has been eye-opening; just not in a good way. I seriously hope this thread just has a disproportionate # of min-MAX-ers, 'cause if most people HAVE to have god-stats to be "viable" then future versions of Pathfinder RPG will be Pathfinder: The Fantasy Super-Hero RPG (capes-n-tights included).
...
Based upon this thread, my idea of a challenge would probably be deemed un-fun in favor of "We're the PCs. Give us our cakewalk."Heh, no kidding. I just had to shake my head at a bunch of this thread - no wonder I read these messageboards for a laugh (since they have near zero-value for our actual home game).
"Ineffective" and "viable" - laugh-worthy. Needless to say, I'm glad I'm (apparently) playing a very different game than a number of people here.
Um, THANKS!?!
I'm not talking about the one true way. I'm commenting on the ludicrous assertions made in this thread that anything other than maxed out prime/high stats across the board leads to a sub-optimal experience.
It may not suit YOUR play style but then your playstyle is no more or less valid than mine...
Also, as a general design rule, I believe that catering to the min/MAX mindset inevitably leads to continual power bumps as new material is released. I view this as bad game design and I'd prefer the PFRPG not embrace it.
I can't say I see that many "Min/Max" optimizers here or anyone making the claim that a high stat is "mandatory" for fun.
The point of the discussion against the 15 point buy has been that it doesn't really change the game and it does limit player's options without limiting player's power.
|
|
I can't say I see that many "Min/Max" optimizers here or anyone making the claim that a high stat is "mandatory" for fun.
The point of the discussion against the 15 point buy has been that it doesn't really change the game and it does limit player's options without limiting player's power.
I do see a lot of people who are claiming 15 point buy is not fun or unplayable and I cry BS to that.
I also cry BS to your claim that it doesn't increase character power. Are you seriously suggesting that a 25 point buy fighter has the same damage potential as a 15 point buy one? That's not even talking about the 30+ point or equivalent rolled characters out there.
Damage capability is more than just max stat, if you have significantly lower AC and hit points you are going to be out of the fight sooner and damage drops to zero. This even applies to wizards and sorcerers.
Mr. Fishy went to work what, ohh, you still kicking that horse?
Different, not better.
Congrats to you both for being so much better than the rest of us.
Exactly. Thank you.
I can't say I see that many "Min/Max" optimizers here or anyone making the claim that a high stat is "mandatory" for fun.
The point of the discussion against the 15 point buy has been that it doesn't really change the game and it does limit player's options without limiting player's power.
I do see a lot of people who are claiming 15 point buy is not fun or unplayable and I cry BS to that.
I also cry BS to your claim that it doesn't increase character power. Are you seriously suggesting that a 25 point buy fighter has the same damage potential as a 15 point buy one? That's not even talking about the 30+ point or equivalent rolled characters out there.
Damage capability is more than just max stat, if you have significantly lower AC and hit points you are going to be out of the fight sooner and damage drops to zero. This even applies to wizards and sorcerers.
Yes I go with that.
15 point buy fighter:
18 Str 13 Dex 14 Con 7 Int 14 Wis 7 Cha on a human
He's one point below maximum Strength and has a good Con to boot. His dex is acceptable considering his armoring option and by level 20 will be at maximum possible for a fighter to use in mithral full plate.
15 point buy Wizard or arcane trickster:
7 Str 14 Dex 14 Con 19 Int 10 Wis 7 Cha Human (or elf -- elf is good)
15 Point buy monk:
14 Str 14 Dex 15 Con 7 Int 18 Wis 5 Cha Dwarf (EDIT: Forgot the cha penalty for dwarves had to change it to the 5 instead of 7)
15 Point buy Bard:
14 Str 16 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 7 Wis 12 Cha Half elf
12 Str 16 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 7 Wis 14 Cha Halfling
**********
Each of these are the basis for my later 20 or 25 point buy characters. I always start with the 15 and then adjust according to what I'm given. Each of those characters are quite playable and can be quite powerful. I threw the monk in there for proof that each of the classes are playable at 15 points. Now with more points yes some of those might have an extra 14 or even a full 20 instead of just a 18 or 19 but really the small boost from the extra +1 isn't really going to change things for the most part.
Now I like the 20 point buy -- but using a lower point buy doesn't mean the characters are going to be "weaker" -- just that they won't have as much room for fluffy stats.