There are no such things as gimped chars!
I beg to differ. A char with 12/rest 10 may not be gimped if the other chars are equally low on stats but is certainly gimped if the rest rolls 25-point buy equivalent.
I played a "gimped" char and was valuable!
Fine - why?
- did you play the other players chars by suggesting things they should do while they were largely passive?
- did your GM have a pang of guilt for letting you play such a gimp and threw all kinds of goodies your way to make up for the difference?
- did your GM play old style "only roll on combat" and thus let you succeed at many tasks without rolling checks at all (or giving you a hefty bonus because your idea was so good)?
It all boils down that in the average game good ideas are nice, but you also need the stats to pull them through! If you somehow make the stats unimportant or "borrow" other players chars or rely on GM fiat then yes, you can be valuable.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Great! So you play the character with 10s across the board and one 12.
Been there, done that. Next?
I think he means do that and survive when the DM does not hold back. Like I said before, if the DM is willing to help you out the stats really dont matter.
I admit to being baffled.
Hypothetical GM #1 is working with a group of characters that are spectacular: something like a 35-point buy for each PC, with an extra feat, magic items tailored to the characters' strengths, etc. They're 4th level.
Next door, GM #2 is working with weaker characters, maybe including that {10, 14, 8, 12, 10, 10} elven rogue. They've been down on their luck and have half the equipment of the other party. They're fourth level.
Raise your hand if you think those two GMs should be throwing the same degree of challenges against those two parties.
Right. If the GM is doing her job right, she's providing challenges appropriate to the party's abilities. She doesn't throw a pair of Bone Devils against either party, because that's too tough an encounter. That;s not "the DM helping you out"; that's good judgement regarding what kind of combats are too tough.
Go ahead and play with bigger numbers; by rights, you'll be fighting bigger opponents.
I ask the same question I raised when Pathfinder PCs came out with better racial attribute bonuses, and extra hit points / skill points, and just over-all more capable races and classes: why not just start play at 2nd Level?
I will ask you what I ask Brian, what should we call it then? It does exist. What word you apply to it does not matter. It would be like me complaining about being short. You, not calling me short, does not stop it from being true. Negative things always have negative connotations. Useless, gimped, dead weight and so on are not positive, but pretending like they don't exist wont solve anything either.That doesn't mean that "gimped" is a meaningful or useful term.
Once again just because decisions matter more, that does not mean stats don't matter.The problem is they're relative terms at best. Is a character with all 12s or 14s gimped? How about a character with an 18 and all the rest 10s? What does "gimped" or "dead weight" mean? Whose standards do we use?
Better to just say what they are - a character with all a little above average, a character with one high the rest middling, or a character with an ineffective player.
How is being called ineffective any less offensive than being called dead weight? Maybe because I am more thick skinned than most I don't see the difference. My point is basically that I dont see the point in switching words out when they mean the same thing.
PS: There is nothing wrong with holding back by the way. Players just need to know when it is going on if they have a weak character so they dont walk in on another DM's game wonder why they can't get away with the same things as they did at another table.I totally agree with you in that there is nothing wrong with holding back once in a while-- fudging the twenty that would kill a player's character (and maybe, effectively, the party) into a devastating blow that cleaves his magical armor and renders it useless instead, for instance, or for the sake of a more compelling story.
But I don't know that I would ever personally tell my players that I held back on their account or anything. If so, it would take an immense amount of tact on my part to say it and not make it sound like, "I let you win." I'd rather have them celebrate their victory, feel like they accomplished something unbelievable (which most likely they did) and had a great time. Telling them that they shouldn't have won, but I fudged a roll or knocked down the CR of the BBEG would almost seem like a hollow victory.
I would not say "I let you win" because it sounds like gloating, but they should be aware of what is expected to work and what isn't.
How is being called ineffective any less offensive than being called dead weight? Maybe because I am more thick skinned than most I don't see the difference. My point is basically that I dont see the point in switching words out when they mean the same thing.
An ineffective player could have a PC with great stats or poor stats. An effective player could have great stats or poor stats. So what's a "gimped" character? It differs from player to player. That's why those sorts of terms aren't useful. They literally don't mean the same thing.
|
One of the problem is that they system rewards high attributes and penalizes low attributes. Which is why most go with high attributes. As for holding back on a player with low attributes maybe once or twice. After that it is fair game. If a player insists on taking low attrbutes than you take your chances like everyone else. I have enough to do as a DM. I sure as hell am not going to rework an entire adventure for that one player.
As I siad before one of the problems with low attributes is the inability of many players to not roleplay them properly. I had two different games where a character with low ability scores knew the answer to something but was unable to do get it across to the party because he was not able express it in the right terms according to his low ability score. The player maybe very smart outside of the game yet if he plays a character with a 6-8 int and/or wis well your out of luck. Not to mention in my experience those who favor low ability scores also tend to be the ones that seem to want to be in the frontlines inthe thick of the action. Yet cannot understand why their character cannot survive or be able to diah out as much as the guy with the standard ability scores.
More often than not from my experience is that players tend to not really want to go out of their way to accomadate or help a person with low attributes. The reason being that most consider them dead weight.
An ineffective player could have a PC with great stats or poor stats. An effective player could have great stats or poor stats. So what's a "gimped" character? It differs from player to player. That's why those sorts of terms aren't useful. They literally don't mean the same thing.
How is being called ineffective any less offensive than being called dead weight? Maybe because I am more thick skinned than most I don't see the difference. My point is basically that I dont see the point in switching words out when they mean the same thing.
Bill if you want us to stop using the word gimped for a character that has a mechanically disadvantage so bad it can't be played effectively without the DM's help you need to give us a word. I will not be using mechanically disadvantaged as that word. People are not stupid. Even if you "nice things up" they still know what you are really saying. On the issue of people calling a character gimped when it is not mislabeling will always happen. One of my players said support characters(battlefield control, buffers, and debuffers) are no good because he only cares about damage. It is easier to educate people so they know the difference between a weak character and one they dont like.
PS: Your version of ineffective could not replace gimped then since it does not fit the meaning in the way it is most commonly used.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Bill if you want us to stop using the word gimped for a character that has a mechanically disadvantage so bad it can't be played effectively without the DM's help you need to give us a word.
Wraithstrike, I hate to keep calling you out on this, but you seem to think that a GM who runs encounters appropriate to the skills of the party is somehow being charitable to the players.
Party 1 is mostly fighters and rogues. All 4th Level.
Party 2 is all clerics and a paladin. All high-charisma, all 4th Level.
If the GM is planning to run a pre-written module where every monster is undead, with no traps to speak of, is it your position that discriminating between these two parties, toughening up the encounters in the second party, while easing up on them for the first party, indicates the first party "can't be played effectively without the GM's help"?
The following is only my opinion, but I hold it pretty strongly. Good Game Masters Fit Challenges To Party Capabilities. A GM who throws encounters at a party that the PCs cannot overcome, because they aren't as powerful (high stats, optimized, what-you-please) as he thinks they ought to be, is simply a bad GM.
Bill if you want us to stop using the word gimped for a character that has a mechanically disadvantage so bad it can't be played effectively without the DM's help you need to give us a word.Wraithstrike, I hate to keep calling you out on this, but you seem to think that a GM who runs encounters appropriate to the skills of the party is somehow being charitable to the players.
Party 1 is mostly fighters and rogues. All 4th Level.
Party 2 is all clerics and a paladin. All high-charisma, all 4th Level.If the GM is planning to run a pre-written module where every monster is undead, with no traps to speak of, is it your position that discriminating between these two parties, toughening up the encounters in the second party, while easing up on them for the first party, indicates the first party "can't be played effectively without the GM's help"?
The following is only my opinion, but I hold it pretty strongly. Good Game Masters Fit Challenges To Party Capabilities. A GM who throws encounters at a party that the PCs cannot overcome, because they aren't as powerful (high stats, optimized, what-you-please) as he thinks they ought to be, is simply a bad GM.
I never said dont help players, but my point is that if you have to help a player without helping the others on a consistent basis due to bad mechanics, whether it is feats or bad stats, the character is gimped/dead weight/some other word depending on the situation. It is also not fair for one player to get preferential treatment.
PS: helping out a party is a different thing altogether. Another point is that if a group decides to make all casters or fighters they need to consider whether or not the DM has time to adjust the campaign. If he does then he should, but if he does not then what happens is on them.
|
|
The following is only my opinion, but I hold it pretty strongly. Good Game Masters Fit Challenges To Party Capabilities. A GM who throws encounters at a party that the PCs cannot overcome, because they aren't as powerful (high stats, optimized, what-you-please) as he thinks they ought to be, is simply a bad GM.
That not exactly fair to say. It's all easy to throw out the "bad GM" term yet imo the system doe not reward you for taking characters with low attributes. While I do not make it a habit of killing characters I do like running interest and challenging encounters. Hard to do with someone who is not as strong as the rest of the group. I have nothing against tailoring an encounter for someone who has a good backstory to a character with low attributes. But for someone because he can I will ne honest not a chance.
Call me a bad DM but I have enough work to do as it is as a DM without adding more to it.
|
|
To be honest, I didn't want the DM to help his character survive. I wanted the DM to be brutally fair and let his character die, so that he'd have to roll up a PC that was useful.Ken
I appreciate you being honest. I feel the same way. Your example is someone delibratly crippling his character imo. It's all good to play a coward yet when he cannot even hiot targets that imo is a liabilty not a character concept.
Apologies if I misunderstood your post, I haven't read the entire thread, but...
Chris, isn't it OK for the PCs to face encounters they can't overcome every now and then? What's wrong with running away and coming back when you're higher level?
Ken
I think he was saying that if the GM should adjust to the party because he misunderstood an earlier post I made about a gimped character.
I appreciate you being honest. I feel the same way. Your example is someone delibratly crippling his character imo. It's all good to play a coward yet when he cannot even hiot targets that imo is a liabilty not a character concept.
To be honest, I didn't want the DM to help his character survive. I wanted the DM to be brutally fair and let his character die, so that he'd have to roll up a PC that was useful.Ken
Maybe liability should be the new word or XP sponge.
On a more serious note I would explain to the player the issue with the character is, and how it makes things harder for the other players. If he does not make any changes he will just have to accept his fate, good or bad.
4d6 ⇒ (4, 4, 6, 2) = 16
4d6 ⇒ (3, 4, 2, 2) = 11
4d6 ⇒ (5, 1, 6, 4) = 16
4d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 5, 1) = 10
4d6 ⇒ (2, 1, 5, 6) = 14
4d6 ⇒ (6, 2, 4, 1) = 13
4d6 ⇒ (1, 1, 2, 5) = 9
1d3 + 1 ⇒ (3) + 1 = 4
14
11
15
9
13
8
4 bonus points...distributed Final scores:
16
11
16
9
13
9
What would you do with these scores?
I appreciate you being honest. I feel the same way. Your example is someone delibratly crippling his character imo. It's all good to play a coward yet when he cannot even hiot targets that imo is a liabilty not a character concept.
To be honest, I didn't want the DM to help his character survive. I wanted the DM to be brutally fair and let his character die, so that he'd have to roll up a PC that was useful.Ken
Maybe liability should be the new word or XP sponge.
On a more serious note I would explain to the player the issue with the character is, and how it makes things harder for the other players. If he does not make any changes he will just have to accept his fate, good or bad.
At the very least you accept the possiblity that this character could end up saving the party's bacon or simply become excellent in his own right through determination or just plain luck. More than what most on that side of the fence are willing to admit.
Bill if you want us to stop using the word gimped for a character that has a mechanically disadvantage so bad it can't be played effectively without the DM's help you need to give us a word. I will not be using mechanically disadvantaged as that word. People are not stupid. Even if you "nice things up" they still know what you are really saying. On the issue of people calling a character gimped when it is not mislabeling will always happen. One of my players said support characters(battlefield control, buffers, and debuffers) are no good because he only cares about damage. It is easier to educate people so they know the difference between a weak character and one they dont like.PS: Your version of ineffective could not replace gimped then since it does not fit the meaning in the way it is most commonly used.
I already have provided for an alternative. Describe the character in less ambiguous terms. "High stats, low rolled hit points", "High primary stat, low other stats", "Low stats all round", "High stats, inattentive player", and so on.
It's not about being nice. It's about the term gimped meaning different things to different people. I know players who can make do without high stats. I know players who can't play very well even with them. Which character is gimped?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Isn't it OK for the PCs to face encounters they can't overcome every now and then? What's wrong with running away and coming back when you're higher level?
Hey, Ken. Sure, that makes sense; but retreating and returning with better preparations or experience is one way to overcome a threat.
Thank you, wraithstrike, for your patience in explaining your position to me. Your concern isn't a party's overall capabilities, but rather that everybody be able to pull his or her weight, relative to his or her colleagues, right?
Far upthread, I proposed compensting PCs with low stats, by giving them an extra trait for every 3 point-buy difference their stats had relative to the PC with the best attributes. (So the {12, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10} character is likely to have a handful of traits, depending on how tough the toughest PC is.) Does that address your concern, without the DM softballing the threats against that character?
To be clear a gimp character is one that most likely wont survive in a standard game without DM intervention. Deadweight normally applies also, but Bill did make me realize that the terms or not the same. Deadweight is the guy who is not contributing to the success of the party, like the cowardly rogue. Of course his ability to contribute varies by DM and group, but I think most of us have an idea of what standard is compared to our own games.
Could the character survive and contribute with a neutral DM(no fudging/help/etc)in a Pathfinder AP?
I appreciate you being honest. I feel the same way. Your example is someone delibratly crippling his character imo. It's all good to play a coward yet when he cannot even hiot targets that imo is a liabilty not a character concept.
To be honest, I didn't want the DM to help his character survive. I wanted the DM to be brutally fair and let his character die, so that he'd have to roll up a PC that was useful.Ken
Just a couple of points:
1) There is an in-game, in-character and entirely appropriate response to cowardice. The other PCs boot him out of the party. Only seen it happen a few times over the years, and it usually led to some out of character arguments. However, the point was made that if you create a character that doesn't mesh with the rest of the group, they logically have no reason to tolerate that character's presence. When you're fighting a dragon, you want to be fighting with someone who's got your back, and if you don't have that confidence, they shouldn't be there. Same applies to people who want to play the only evil character in a good party, or a paladin in a group full of chaotic neutral thieves, or want to play a character who for whatever reason has drastically different goals than the others.2) All that said, you can't tell someone else the best way to play or create their character. Playstyles differ, and in many parties I've played in, folks who didn't contribute much in combat contributed in other ways, so you have to look at the complete picture of a character's contribution. Combat is just one part of the game, and thieves have a lot to contribute in other aspects. I think sneak attack gave the thieves enough combat oomph that many have started to consider them just like sneaky fighters, but that's not the way they have to be played.
3) The thing about cowardly characters is that they are usually pretty good at self-preservation, so it's hard to kill them off if you're being fair. Agree thoroughly that the DM shouldn't pull any punches on this guy. However, targeting him specifically for early termination because he is a coward is bad form. Of course, it's not uncommon for intelligent opponents to attack from the rear...
Isn't it OK for the PCs to face encounters they can't overcome every now and then? What's wrong with running away and coming back when you're higher level?
Hey, Ken. Sure, that makes sense; but retreating and returning with better preparations or experience is one way to overcome a threat.
Thank you, wraithstrike, for your patience in explaining your position to me. Your concern isn't a party's overall capabilities, but rather that everybody be able to pull his or her weight, relative to his or her colleagues, right?
Far upthread, I proposed compensting PCs with low stats, by giving them an extra trait for every 3 point-buy difference their stats had relative to the PC with the best attributes. (So the {12, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10} character is likely to have a handful of traits, depending on how tough the toughest PC is.) Does that address your concern, without the DM softballing the threats against that character?
Yes, pulling your own weight was what I was looking at. By giving traits he is still compensating. The difference is that he is doing it up front instead of continually. I dont mind that being done since it makes my job easier in the game, but the fact that it has to be done speaks for itself in my debate with Bill that such characters do exist. The denial of the existence of a useless character was more of an issue than the rolling of the character itself. At least by recognizing the problem you can fix it. If the traits did not fix it I would just assign the player a point buy. I dont beleive in rerolling until you get decent stats.
To be clear a gimp character is one that most likely wont survive in a standard game without DM intervention. Deadweight normally applies also, but Bill did make me realize that the terms or not the same. Deadweight is the guy who is not contributing to the success of the party, like the cowardly rogue. Of course his ability to contribute varies by DM and group, but I think most of us have an idea of what standard is compared to our own games.
Could the character survive and contribute with a neutral DM(no fudging/help/etc)in a Pathfinder AP?
Since I am the one who originally objected to the term gimped, let me expand a bit on why I don't like it. I don't like it because many seem to automatically apply it to any character with lower stats )sometimes to the extreme of saying that a character who doesn't haev at least 3 stats of 15 or better is "gimped"), and I think what Bill and I have been trying to say is that there is much, much more to the character than the stats. If you want to use gimped to apply to the end result of an ineffective character, and you are willing to apply it regardless of what that character's stats are, I probably won't object (although in general I object to most derogatory labels, as I find they tend to cut off civilized debate and clear thinking). I'm sure we have all seen characters with godlike stats fail because they were spectacularly misplayed.
Regarding your point about survivability, I have to say that I reject your assumption. If we were just running a combat simulation, as I used to do years ago for the Department of the Army, I'd agree. In that case, you plug in the numbers, run it through a compuer program, and it gives you the winners and losers, or at least the probabilities of who will win and who will lose. We (or at least I) are not playing that game. We're playing a tabletop fantasy roleplaying game that has combat and non-combat encounters and just plain roleplaying, all of which are important to the success of any individual character and to the party as a whole. I wouldn't assume any character is not survivable or can't make an important contribution in that kind of game.
To be clear a gimp character is one that most likely wont survive in a standard game without DM intervention. Deadweight normally applies also, but Bill did make me realize that the terms or not the same. Deadweight is the guy who is not contributing to the success of the party, like the cowardly rogue. Of course his ability to contribute varies by DM and group, but I think most of us have an idea of what standard is compared to our own games.
Could the character survive and contribute with a neutral DM(no fudging/help/etc)in a Pathfinder AP?
Since I am the one who originally objected to the term gimped, let me expand a bit on why I don't like it. I don't like it because many seem to automatically apply it to any character with lower stats )sometimes to the extreme of saying that a character who doesn't haev at least 3 stats of 15 or better is "gimped"), and I think what Bill and I have been trying to say is that there is much, much more to the character than the stats. If you want to use gimped to apply to the end result of an ineffective character, and you are willing to apply it regardless of what that character's stats are, I probably won't object (although in general I object to most derogatory labels, as I find they tend to cut off civilized debate and clear thinking). I'm sure we have all seen characters with godlike stats fail because they were spectacularly misplayed.
Regarding your point about survivability, I have to say that I reject your assumption. If we were just running a combat simulation, as I used to do years ago for the Department of the Army, I'd agree. In that case, you plug in the numbers, run it through a compuer program, and it gives you the winners and losers, or at least the probabilities of who will win and who will lose. We (or at least I) are not playing that game. We're playing a tabletop fantasy roleplaying game that has combat and non-combat encounters and just plain roleplaying, all of which are important to the success of any...
I understand the label is misapplied at times, but you know the intent is to apply it to mechanical issues. I can only suggest you ignore those that apply it erroneously. If the character fails because a player makes mistakes I can't call the character gimped because the issue is with the the player not the character.
It does not have to be combat simulation. Even RP'ing uses stats. How does the 12 10 10 10 10 10 character contribute on a consistent basis?
Great! So you play the character with 10s across the board and one 12.Been there, done that. Next?I think he means do that and survive when the DM does not hold back. Like I said before, if the DM is willing to help you out the stats really dont matter.I admit to being baffled.
Hypothetical GM #1 is working with a group of characters that are spectacular: something like a 35-point buy for each PC, with an extra feat, magic items tailored to the characters' strengths, etc. They're 4th level.
Next door, GM #2 is working with weaker characters, maybe including that {10, 14, 8, 12, 10, 10} elven rogue. They've been down on their luck and have half the equipment of the other party. They're fourth level.
Raise your hand if you think those two GMs should be throwing the same degree of challenges against those two parties.
Right. If the GM is doing her job right, she's providing challenges appropriate to the party's abilities. She doesn't throw a pair of Bone Devils against either party, because that's too tough an encounter. That;s not "the DM helping you out"; that's good judgement regarding what kind of combats are too tough.
Go ahead and play with bigger numbers; by rights, you'll be fighting bigger opponents.
I ask the same question I raised when Pathfinder PCs came out with better racial attribute bonuses, and extra hit points / skill points, and just over-all more capable races and classes: why not just start play at 2nd Level?
OK. Let me spell it out a little more explicitly. I guess I was too subtle.
"OK, you play the character with all 10's and one 12 in a party where everyone else rolled a total of +10 stat mods with no one else having a high score lower than 16".
I'm not debating that you can have a fun time playing a statless character. There are entire statless systems for that. What I am saying is that fairness and relative balance matters for the degree of fun the vast majority of players experience. Some people get off on being the gimp. More power to them. The rest of us would rather not be the commoner in the party of archmagi.
Similary, from the DM's side of the screen, it's dramatically more difficult to balance encounters for parties that have wildly different stat levels. If you aim for an encounter that will challenge the weaker party member, it will end up too easy because the stronger party members out-rate it. If you aim for an encounter that will challenge the stronger party members, the weaker guy is going to get destroyed if he tries to contribute, unless you metagame and ignore him.
My two cents on stats.
First, I despise rolling stats (in Pathfinder or any other game). That is based purely on my view that everyone should start on the same base. Where it goes from there is based solely on player choices in developing their character as they advance. So I prefer the point buy system and it was one of the things I was happiest to see in 3.0. I am glad Paizo continued it in PFRPG.
However, given the small bonus that Abilities give compared to Class Skill Bonus and purchased Ranks combined. Right out of Level 1 you can easily start with a +4 just for putting one rank in a skill (+6 on some race/class/skill pairings) before even considring adding ability modifiers. Low stats steadily loses their impact the higher the levels go when it comes to skills. Having recently reread Justin Alexander's article "D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations" that is a pretty good bonus to start with actually in my view.
Where it really stings is the limitations on casters (what level they can cast and the Save DC of their spells) and the effect on HP at higher levels.
-Weylin
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yes, pulling your own weight was what I was looking at. By giving traits he is still compensating. The difference is that he is doing it up front instead of continually. I dont mind that being done since it makes my job easier in the game, but the fact that it has to be done speaks for itself in my debate with Bill that such characters do exist.
Well, it's a compensation in the same way that, under point buy, a character with a low Wisdom score might be compensated with some other ability score that's higher. Just as some characters might have more weight in Strength as opposed to Dexterity, some characters could see more of their competencies spelled out in Traits rather than raw Abilities.
Lots of interesting stuff ending with challenge to play character with 12,10,10,10,10, 10 stats who contributes consistently.
Well, this is an extreme example which wouldn't be very likely under any character generation system I'm aware of, whether it be die rolling or point buy. Any system that produced this character would also be pretty unlikely to have all the other characters be a lot more powerful. However, since it is at least theoretically possible, I'll bite, and assume that this character was rolled with those scores.
First I make him human and add my two points to his Wisdom. I make him the party cleric and concentrate on healing and buffing other characters. In combat, I fight second line, trying to keep our main tanks from getting flanked, and sometimes using the assist other (don't have my books with me so not sure that is what it is called, or even if it carried through into PF) action when the tanks are fighting something powerful that I won't be likely to hit myself. In that way, I'm also close to heal him when he's hurt. I fight bravely and contribute what I can as a secondary combatant, but retreat when necessary. If necessary I guard the thin-skinned wizard or sorcerer when stuff gets past the tanks.
Since I don't have any below average scores, just average, I contribute like anyone else to planning and strategizing. With my exceptional (14 is a lot better than average) wisdom and access to clerical divination skills, I probably make more of a contribution than most to this aspect ofthe game. I try and take knowledge skills that others don't have to strengthen overall party capabilities.
As I progress in level, I seek ability boosting items and concentrate on improving my Wisdom. At 8th level I have a 16 base Wisdom. At 16th level it is 18, before almost certain magical boosts.
He may not be the star of the party, but I defy anyone to say he isn't contributing.
Note that this example is not entirely theoretical. My current character's original rolls were 14, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, far lower than anyone else's in our pretty generous character generation system (4d6, drop 1, reroll 1s, arrange to suit, most folks end up with at least one and frequently two or more scores above 16). I made him a dwarven cleric built along those same lines, but with his 14 strength he was more involved in melee. He is currently the party leader and the cornerstione of a very successful party. This week it was his character that ran into the open and baited the red dragon that was roasting the town from altitude (we're playing Red Hand of Doom) into descending to attack, enabling the rest of the party to gang up and beat the snot out of it. He was knocked unconscious and didn't witness any of it, but if he hadn't done it they wouldn't have won that fight. He didn't do a single point of damage, but he was the key to the whole fight. It's not all about the numbers.
One problem is that there are a lot of folks on these boards who seem to consider a character who's not absolutely optimized for every possible advantage to be "gimped". That's what I don't like.
|
|
Been there, done that. Next?Great! So you play the character with 10s across the board and one 12.
I cannot disagree more. A character is far more than just a collection of stats, and the game is far more than just the mechanics. I've said it before on these boards and I'll keep saying it - the success of a character is determined far more by the roleplaying decisions a player makes than by their stats. An 18 constitution won't save a stupidly played character, and a 6 constitution won't doom one played well (Yes, in a recent campaign I had a guy who played an elf thief with a 6 constitution, made it all the way to 9th level before he died even once, and then was promptly resurrected because he was one of the most valuable members of the party.)
+1.
Don't need no point buy crutch to have fun.
One problem is that there are a lot of folks on these boards who seem to consider a character who's not absolutely optimized for every possible advantage to be "gimped". That's what I don't like.
Once again I say ignore misapplied labels.
Been there, done that. Next?Great! So you play the character with 10s across the board and one 12.
I cannot disagree more. A character is far more than just a collection of stats, and the game is far more than just the mechanics. I've said it before on these boards and I'll keep saying it - the success of a character is determined far more by the roleplaying decisions a player makes than by their stats. An 18 constitution won't save a stupidly played character, and a 6 constitution won't doom one played well (Yes, in a recent campaign I had a guy who played an elf thief with a 6 constitution, made it all the way to 9th level before he died even once, and then was promptly resurrected because he was one of the most valuable members of the party.)+1.
Don't need no point buy crutch to have fun.
??
I have always been a firm believer in the randomness of character generation throughout all of the editions of D&D I have played. It was once a badge of honor to be willing to risk really crappy rolls for the chance of really outstanding rolls. You'd roll your stats and, since you had an outrageously strong grasp of the system, fit your rolls into a character you were comfortable playing. When did that give way to point buys that merely give you the illusion of control?
I'm just curious how everyone else feels about this topic. Generally, we use the 4d6, drop the lowest, version. It seems to work well enough. How does everyone else handle it?
Point buy really lends itself to the min/maxer. I even min/max in those systems. In fact, point buy screams at you to min/max. I really, really prefer the roll and decide methods - but my group uses point buy. So guess what? With magic items, at 6th level our fighter has a 26 strength and our wizard has a 23 Int.
That's a problem with the amount of points that you're using, not the fact that you're using point buy.
Ken
Or the magic items the DM is giving them. Either way, 26 in a stat at 6th level should be utterly impossible. The official point buy only lets you buy an 18. With a +2 from race, that'd be a 20, and with +1 from the level 4 stat bump that's 21. So we're looking at a +6 enhancement item, which costs considerably more than a level 6 character's wealth (more than twice what a 6th level character should have, in fact).
Don't blame the rules when the rules aren't being used.
Don't blame the rules when the rules aren't being used.
+1. I hate just saying plus one, but there is nothing more to be said.
What would people think of trying this idea, for a balanced party with random ability scores?
Take a deck of standard playing cards. Get cards 4 to 9 from two suits. Shuffle them separately, then deal them out in pairs. You will have six pairs, totalling a minimum of 8 (two fours) and a maximum of 18 (two nines). Total up the pairs and that is your array. If you are so inclined, assign them in the order you deal the pairs.
This means everyone has the same value of array (if you count linearly) but have randomised and varied results.
|
|
2) All that said, you can't tell someone else the best way to play or create their character. Playstyles differ, and in many parties I've played in, folks who didn't contribute much in combat contributed in other ways, so you have to look at the complete picture of a character's contribution. Combat is just one part of the game, and thieves have a lot to contribute in other aspects. I think sneak attack gave the thieves enough combat oomph that many have started to consider them just like sneaky fighters, but that's not the way they have to be played.
I try not to tell a person how to play. The problem imo is that the system does not reward a character that has low attributes. Another thing is that those who do play end up feeling left out because imo more often than not they are not as capable as doing the same as the characters with the better attributes. I also had a rogue who was a coward and did not take weapon fineese. Combined with really bad rolls he did not end up doing as much as he wanted. Let alone hitting anything.
Lots of interesting stuff ending with challenge to play character with 12,10,10,10,10, 10 stats who contributes consistently.Well, this is an extreme example which wouldn't be very likely under any character generation system I'm aware of, whether it be die rolling or point buy. Any system that produced this character would also be pretty unlikely to have all the other characters be a lot more powerful.
If all the characters have these stats it would not be an issue since the DM can create the campaign around the players.
Brian to be clear I am not bashing those that want to play low stat characters. I am only saying you can put yourself at such a disadvantage that you wont be useful. It is not impossible to survive, and/or be useful, but it is highly unlikely. I think after a certain point it be based more on luck than skill.
First I make him human and add my two points to his Wisdom. I make him the party cleric and concentrate on healing and buffing other characters. In combat, I fight second line, trying to keep our main tanks from getting flanked, and sometimes using the assist other (don't have my books with me so not sure that is what it is called, or even if it carried through into PF) action when the tanks are fighting something powerful that I won't be likely to hit myself. In that way, I'm also close to heal him when he's hurt. I fight bravely and contribute what I can as a secondary combatant, but retreat when necessary. If necessary I guard the thin-skinned wizard or sorcerer when stuff gets past the tanks.
If you go upfront and/or try heal your 10 constitution makes you a deadman(assuming average rolls, and the DM is playing the monsters intelligently). There is no more planning after that.
14, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 while barely playable is better than what we gave you to work with, and it could survive depending on the class. I understand it was theoretical, but if I had to bet money I would bet against the character whose highest score is a 12.
|
|
One of the players played a rogue, but he didn't take weapon finesse (even though his STR was 10 and his DEX was 18), and played his character as a self professed coward who sniped from range with his crossbow, rarely getting his sneak attack damage. This was his 'character concept'.
To be honest, I didn't want the DM to help his character survive. I wanted the DM to be brutally fair and let his character die, so that he'd have to roll up a PC that was useful.
Now you see this seems to me to be a case of someone feeling a player "gimped" his character when I wouldn't say he did. He just chose not to play his Rogue as an experienced Melee Combatant. A sniper role may not be what the party are used to, but it could be a very useful one.
So maybe he doesn't get his Sneak Attack damage dice much - if you feel a Rogue is useful or useless based solely on this one class feature then I personally would tend to disagree.
And if he was sniping (i.e. the target was unaware of the attacker), the target should I believe lose his Dex bonus and thus be subject to Sneak Attack.
It's all good to play a coward yet when he cannot even hiot targets that imo is a liabilty not a character concept.
I didn't get the impression he couldn't hit his targets (with a +4 Dex mod for Ranged attacks I would be surprised if he was), just that he wasn't getting his Sneak Attack damage as much.
And if "cowardly" was played in a manner that he wouldn't wade into melee, but would provide combat support via ranged attacks, usually from hiding, then I would have no issue with that at all as he was still contributing (maybe not as much as the fighter but then I am sure the fighter won't be contributing as much to the trap finding!)
I try not to tell a person how to play. The problem imo is that the system does not reward a character that has low attributes. Another thing is that those who do play end up feeling left out because imo more often than not they are not as capable as doing the same as the characters with the better attributes. I also had a rogue who was a coward and did not take weapon fineese. Combined with really bad rolls he did not end up doing as much as he wanted. Let alone hitting anything.
2) All that said, you can't tell someone else the best way to play or create their character. Playstyles differ, and in many parties I've played in, folks who didn't contribute much in combat contributed in other ways, so you have to look at the complete picture of a character's contribution. Combat is just one part of the game, and thieves have a lot to contribute in other aspects. I think sneak attack gave the thieves enough combat oomph that many have started to consider them just like sneaky fighters, but that's not the way they have to be played.
Sounds like your game is focused heavily on combat, given your comments focusing entirely on hitting things and combat oriented feats. If that is the case (and a lot of people's games are that way), then yeah, a cowardly rogue character who has chosen a non-combat character build and playstyle is going to be kind of useless and probably not real happy. If he knew that was the kind of game it was going to be I understand the other players being annoyed with him. If he was expecting a different game with more of a balance between combat and non-combat encounters, his build and playstyle would be more understandable. As I said, lots of ways the thief can contribute that have nothing to do with combat.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
14 is good, but not exceptional. Almost *every* human have a 15 somewhere in pathfinder : the "basic NPC" array is 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, now add the racial bonus. That's what any commoner gets. Being better than 5 over six of the population is certainly good, but being weaker than one sixth of the population prevents you from being exceptional.
The rules are vague on that. If that were true, then a score of 8, which is about 25th percentile on 3d6, becomes instead the basement of human abilities. The weakest adult human in the world: 8 Strength, able to walk around with 80 pounds of gear. Maybe that's the designers' intent, but if so, that's yet another way that Golarion is not like the real world.
And I would be surprised if "almost every NPC" would put their human racial bonus in their strongest ability. A 13 Strength is going to do a blacksmith just fine. But he'll want to bring up his 10 Constitution in order to build his endurance.
If you go upfront and/or try heal your 10 constitution makes you a deadman(assuming average rolls, and the DM is playing the monsters intelligently). There is no more planning after that.14, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 while barely playable is better than what we gave you to work with, and it could survive depending on the class. I understand it was theoretical, but if I had to bet money I...
Have to agree to disagree, then. Your campaign must be a lot more powered-up, combat-dominated and deadly than the ones I've played in then, if everyone needs to have bonuses in their constitution just to survive. The style of play I described, as a second-line combatant and healer/buffer, would be perfectly survivable in every campaign I've ever DMed or played in. However, campaigns differ, and if yours is one in which every combat is a deadly affair that the PCs barely survive, I'll concede that he might not survive in YOUR campaign. Doubt that's the norm, though.
I can't understand how he can be the party leader. His charisma is average or below average, his intelligence can be a little bit above average, but far from exceptional (one third of humans - or dwarves - have at least equal intelligence). If your...
I think we have a basic disagreement about what exceptional means. If ranking in the 80+ percentile of humanity doesn't meet your definition of exceptional, you're obviously used to a much higher-powered game than I am.
Regarding party leader and your other comments alleging my DM took it easy on me, I respectfully remind you that you weren't there, so you have very little data to make these allegations on. This makes it a kind of silly debate to engage in as I have first-hand knowledge and you have only second-hand knowledge coming from me. However, if you insist I'll play.
My character is the party leader because as a LG cleric, he is the only one the rest of the characters trust. The only high Charisma character is a CG beguiler who is rather self-centered and nobody really trusts. The rest are a barbarian, a ranger, a scout, a rogue and a monk. The monk and ranger characters probably could have been party leaders as well, though neither of them have much better than average Charismas either. Not being hyper intelligent or charismatic, the dwarf isn't the greatest party leader, but he's solid, and he's trustworthy, and wisdom counts for something as well. Now at 8th level, his Wisdom is 18 with the two stat bumps and a magic stat booster item.
As for taking it easy on me in that particular encounter. I'll give you a little more detail. We'd already been trying to engage the dragon for several rounds with multiple characters using fly potions, but it was using its greater speed to stay away from our melee fighters and roast the town and any exposed character with dragon fire. The beguiler had already been roasted and was unconscious. Our fighters were choking on their rolls whenever they did get a rare shot in, and the dragon was buffed with shield of faith. We hadn't done much damage to it. In short, we were getting our butt kicked by this dragon. The only way we could deal with it was to get it to the ground. Somebody had to lure it in. Task fell to the dwarf both because he is the party leader and wouldn't ask someone else to do this in his place, and because he had Protection from Fire on. Dwarf strode into the middle of the street, hit the dragon with a sound burst spell on his next pass to get his attention, and started roaring insults and challenges at the dragon. Dragons are smart, but they are also egotistical, and don't let insults pass. He tried to roast the dwarf from altitude, but Protection from Fire negates. The whole attacking hobgoblin army and whole defending human army sees and hears this dwarf defying the dragon, increasing the pressure on the dragon to respond. Since his breath weapon was ineffective, he has to attack physically. He could have tried a fly-by attack, but he was pissed, so he dived on the dwarf and hit him with everything he could. Knocked the dwarf cold from full hit points in one round, and damn near killed him. However that brought him within melee range of the barbarian and monk, and spell range of the revived beguiler. The beguiler dispelled the dragon's shield of faith, and the barbarian and monk pummeled it while the scout, ranger and rogue peppered it from range. A lucky shot from the monk prevented the dragon from taking off again and after that the question was only how long it would take to drag the beast down. The dwarf, unconscious, saw none of it and didn't do a point of damage (OK six points from the sound burst), but the fight couldn't have been won without him.
Apologies for the length, but thought I needed to defend my DM's honor.