Depends on how those extra points are used. Some folks will use it to round out their character, and eliminate dump stats, others will just bump their primary and secondary stats into the stratosphere. In most cases it probably would not even bump things up a CR.
In my opinion, it is more important to set score limits, then simply provide a point buy. I usually say no stats below 10, and none above 17 or 18 after racial adjustments.
In my experience: The difference amounts to roughly a -1 to attacks and damage for fighter-types and a -1 to DCs for spellcasters. YMMV, etc.
From what I've noticed, the difference is miniscule enough (at most a +1 to one or two "dump" stats or a +1 to a major stat) that it really doesn't make a difference. My group has played through entire adventure paths at 20 point buy and I feel that sticking with 15 would not have made a difference.
Standard point buy seems to be what the APL and CR considerations are based off of. It requires some degree of sacrifice to boost important stats. I like this, because some characters can really shoot themselves in the foot when they try to min/max their stats. It maintains a degree of balance.
20 point buy doesn't really change things much, and seems to mostly round out the characters so they have fewer dump stats.
25 point buy gets things a little bit ridiculous and, in my experience, screws up some of the expected APL to CR comparisons. I usually bump up the APL by 1 if they're operating on a 25 point buy.
At least, in my (very limited) experience.
|
Well, the difference is that using Epic (25) points, people tend to invest in 20 -- or at least 18-19 -- in their primary score, and then put 7-8 in one or two dump stats. However, 15-20 points is significantly less -- at least in a psychological sense -- and using it tends to result in more well-rounded PC ability scores. I don't think the difference in primary ability scores is dramatic, and how it affects game play is dependant on the campaign and your GMing style. I tend to write my campaigns and balance things in regard to PC abilities and player wishes, occasionally changing stuff on the fly.
Well, the difference is that using Epic (25) points, people tend to invest in 20 -- or at least 18-19 -- in their primary score, and then put 7-8 in one or two dump stats. However, 15-20 points is significantly less -- at least in a psychological sense -- and using it tends to result in more well-rounded PC ability scores. I don't think the difference in primary ability scores is dramatic, and how it affects game play is dependant on the campaign and your GMing style. I tend to write my campaigns and balance things in regard to PC abilities and player wishes, occasionally changing stuff on the fly.
I've seen exactly the opposite. Where players with few points min-max to the gills to get their core stat as high as they can. With more points they relax and fill out the rest more roundedly.
|
|
Well, the difference is that using Epic (25) points, people tend to invest in 20 -- or at least 18-19 -- in their primary score, and then put 7-8 in one or two dump stats. However, 15-20 points is significantly less -- at least in a psychological sense -- and using it tends to result in more well-rounded PC ability scores. I don't think the difference in primary ability scores is dramatic, and how it affects game play is dependant on the campaign and your GMing style. I tend to write my campaigns and balance things in regard to PC abilities and player wishes, occasionally changing stuff on the fly.I've seen exactly the opposite. Where players with few points min-max to the gills to get their core stat as high as they can. With more points they relax and fill out the rest more roundedly.
Hmmm... maybe your players are not optimizers, then? Because mine surely are, and only one of the PCs has more rounded ability scores (a dwarf fighter with relatively high scores in dex, int and wis). I guess their logic is something like: "With this many points I can *finally* get a maxed-out primary score, and I can still invest in decent Dex and Con! Wait... I can lower Cha and Int to 7? Awesome -- I can raise my physical scores even higher!"
Well, the difference is that using Epic (25) points, people tend to invest in 20 -- or at least 18-19 -- in their primary score, and then put 7-8 in one or two dump stats. However, 15-20 points is significantly less -- at least in a psychological sense -- and using it tends to result in more well-rounded PC ability scores. I don't think the difference in primary ability scores is dramatic, and how it affects game play is dependant on the campaign and your GMing style. I tend to write my campaigns and balance things in regard to PC abilities and player wishes, occasionally changing stuff on the fly.I've seen exactly the opposite. Where players with few points min-max to the gills to get their core stat as high as they can. With more points they relax and fill out the rest more roundedly.
I agree. If I feel a character has target scores that need to be met I am less likely to have to do cannibalize the less needed scores with a higher point buy.
Little thought experiment. Give 30 point buy, and forbid stat dumping (a stat can be left at 10, but can't be reduced.) See what kind of scores it creates. (Racial penalty can still drop a score to 8 of course.)
I've done 32 point buy and it let me start with 9, 14, 14, 16, 10, 17 (+2) for a sorcerer. :D
10 point by (ekkk), Pure caster only with all 10 points in one scrore to get a 16. So would have 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 16.
15 Point by. Would prefer Rangers, Bards, Monks, paladins. Scores with 12,12,12,12,12,14. Veryering on prime for class.
20 Point by. Back to casters = 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 16. Or melee /hybreeds = 12, 12, 13, 13, 14, 14 and pumping up the 13 to 14 when possible.
What i dislike negatives :)
Not really into maxing out str, dex, con on melee types, as i would rather have a +1 bonus in Fort, Reflex, Will saves... and +1 skill points or reaction rolls. Just not an Optimizer when it comes to melee.
I removed a few posts. Don't harass each other. Also, I'd rather not see this thread degenerate into the same old argument.
|
|
This. Min maxing is by definition the act of making the most of limited resources. The more limited those resources are, the more min maxing you will see out of necessity. Mandatory stats always come first. If there's anything left, throw it in flavor stats. The less limited those resources are, the more likely this is to happen. And this is why the only power difference between a 15 PB Wizard and a 25 PB Wizard is -2 Will saves, whereas non casters are substantially more shafted.
Anything over 25 PB is generally meaningless. Just means flavor stats get a boost.
IME the effect is opposite; you sort of know you have to do with limited resources, and using all your points for a maxed-out primary score is not really wise. You *can* raise your secondary scores above 10 by lowering a couple of stats to 7, but most veteran players I know would not do that. The thing is, it's better (IMO) to have a spread of 16, 16, 14, 10, 10, 8 than 20, 12, 10, 10, 10, 8. Spellcasters might do better with the latter spread, but only if you're really, really careful. However, when you have points to spare, why not go for 20, 16, 14, 12, 8, 8? Or drop those two dump stats to 7 for even higher secondary ability scores? How about a dwarven fighter with Str and Con 18? It's tempting when you can afford it *without* crippling your character, which is what happens if you try it with 15 points.
My own group, and my perception, may be influenced by two decades of rolling for ability scores; getting more than a single stat above 16 was rare, and three stats between 16-18 was a dream come true. Therefore it *is* tempting to have that control in your hands... finally I can create a "real" elven fighter/wizard with *HIGH* scores in Str, Dex and Int (plus a decent Con as well). Ever since 3.5 I have noticed that this feeling of being in control might even overshadow any concerns over roleplaying aspects (such as do I *really* want to play a Cha 7 elven character). In that regard the point-buy system is IMO worse than rolling. But, if I only get 15 points to spend, I think I (and all the guys I've gamed with) understand that a more well-rounded spread is better. Also, with less points the GM is probably going to be more "forgiving". For example, I could live with a fighter/wizard with Str and Int 14, and rest of the scores between 10-12, if I know he's not expected to be "optimized". But if I get 10 extra points, I might easily "go overboard", and not just because I want to have multiple high ability scores; with more points to spend it also feels like the GM is saying: "This is going to be a campaign for tough PCs, so you'd better specialize!".
YMMV, naturally.
Which dump states do you do as 8.
Str: lower encumbrance means less you carry, -1 damage to hit with melee, climb and swim checks.
Dex: -1 ac, -1 Reflex rolls, -1 range attacks.
Con: -1 hp per level, -1 Fort saves.
Int: -1 skill point per level, -1 knowledge/craft checks.
Wis: -1 Will saves, -1 Perception, -1 scene motive or survival checks
Chr: -1 influence NPC, -1 to bluff or diplomacy checks.
Fighter will still need to negotiate with people and make knowledge checks. Rogues still need to find stuff with perception and make there will saves. Wizards still have to carry stuff around, like spell books, wands, potion, scrolls, food, water, sleeping bag, tent, etc.
While i understand maxing, it also leads to one trick ponies.
And it's better still to have a 20, a 16, a 10, and 3 meaningless 7s. If you can, which you can as a SAD character and cannot as a MAD character.
In 3.5 this doesn't work (lowest stat is 8, plenty of things punish dumpstats), but in PF you have a free license to go nuts. The only reason not to is if you don't need to. Which is why I mentioned higher PB = fill out flavor stats.
In low PB you cannot afford "well rounded". That is what having limited resources and using them to the best of your ability means. Take that same 15 PB Wizard, and make him 25 PB and his Str is 8, and his Wis and Cha are 10, and that's the only change. Flavor stats raised.
I agree with CoDzilla, for the most part. I don't feel it's necessary to have a 20 strength to be viable as a warrior, but I do feel that the warrior gets a bigger bang for his buck earlier on for it. Unless you're playing a SoD caster - which has been diminished in PF, though thankfully not removed - then the extra +1 DC isn't a big deal. Likewise, it's arguable if the bonus spells is really a big deal either. It's also something of a high-end investment (the best save or dies are generally 6th level or higher spells, with a few save or disables early on, such as colorspray, sleep, and hideous laughter, but most of those are fairly situational).
Now, the warrior type gains a huge benefit from that extra +1/+1 to hit and damage at low levels. You see, at low levels, the warrior's perfect BAB hasn't had a chance to come into its own yet. Really you're not much better at actually hitting things than a wizard, except for your ability score modifiers. Having a +5 strength means you have a +6 to hit at first level, which gives you about a 60% chance to hit an opponent with an AC 15 (most CR 1/4 through 1/2 humanoids fall into this range). Grabbing a masterwork weapon and perhaps weapon focus (if you're a fighter planning on specialization) can boost this up to +8-9 over levels 1-2. You're still limited to killing one enemy per round though, unless they're tightly packed and you're also sporting Power Attack & Cleave (possible as a 2nd level fighter).
The damage bonus isn't to be ignored either. While 18 gives +6 with a 2 handed weapon, and 20 a +7 with the same weapon, it means that getting buffed (say via enlarge person, +2) brings you to a +9 damage, which essentially means ignoring you is a death sentence at these levels (which allows you to fulfill your role in the party much better, since you put the heat on the enemies and make them question going after the casters first). If you're a dual-wielder, it means you have more accuracy. Double Slice allows you to milk more benefit. Let's not forget that it also increases your critical confirmations by 5%, and grants an extra +2-4 damage on a critical.
Essentially, for the fighter-type, you see a lot of benefit out of that little +1/+1 at 1st level. Arguably more than the +1 save DC the caster will get. The benefit also remains at higher levels (because it allows you access to higher even-numbered strength scores sooner (which is key with 2 handed weapons), but it's most noticeable at low levels, whereas at high levels, the difference between a 14 starting Int and a 20 starting Int is of little importance (your wealth of options is fine, and you don't have to rely on saving-throw spells to do well).
Mind you, the core game assumes that having a 14-15 starting ability is just fine. It doesn't require a lot of optimization. CoDzilla plays a very specific style of D&D which leaves very little room for anything but the absolute best in a given field. Much of what he says won't apply to everyone or their games, but it does hold many grains of truth in its foundation.
"My father was a were-wolf hunter. If you asked him to tell you about vampires, he would say, ask a vampire hunter. Tell me of the vampire." (Roughly from memory.)
If you're interested in game-balance, ask an optimizer. Most good optimizers are well-versed in how the system works and what it is and isn't capable of doing well. It doesn't mean we know every rule, or that our advice is needed or even welcome at certain tables, but we usually know what we're talking about in the context we're talking about (like I said, CoDzilla has been noted as playing a very specific style of game, and optimizing appropriately for his style; whereas in some games optimization may take a different route).
Most good optimizers will try and help you succeed and offer good advice, while some seem to enjoy acting superior and stroking their id at the expense of others, or trying to assert dominance or authority in understanding of the game over other optimizers. In all cases, we just call these sorts of people jerks (optimizers or not).
Ok, I kind of ran off on a tangent, so I'll end this here. ^.^;;
I don't feel it's necessary to have a 20 strength to be viable as a warrior, but I do feel that the warrior gets a bigger bang for his buck earlier on for it.
I really agree with this.
For a long time I built melee characters with pretty balanced stats. Then once for a sort of throwaway character I jacked STR to 20 and dumped what I needed to get it. Having tried that out in play I don't think I could go back to the balanced stats. On paper the difference between 14 or 16 and 20 doesn't seem that big but in practice I find it to be staggering.
Mind you, the core game assumes that having a 14-15 starting ability is just fine. It doesn't require a lot of optimization. CoDzilla plays a very specific style of D&D which leaves very little room for anything but the absolute best in a given field. Much of what he says won't apply to everyone or their games, but it does hold many grains of truth in its foundation.
I don't know about Pathfinder as I had very limited experience with it, but 4e D&D, which I know better, assumes a 16 in the main attack stat, which is pretty much automatic with the standard array. Having more isn't necessarily a universally good thing as versatility, in my opinion, pays a lot more in that game.
But editions aside, I think most of the problems stem from the gaming style of various groups. Ashiel's right, CoDzilla's games aren't what I would consider "typical" and certainly not ones I'd want to play in, but in there the caster/noncaster attribute dependency is true: PB 15 is enough for a caster while it heavily shanks everyone else. Don't hope to play a monk with 15 PB, for example, unless you like being subpar and forgettable at everything you do.
I still don't know what is the "intended" balance of the game. I've browsed through Age of Worms and, to my uneducated, non-optimizer eyes, some encounters look quite mean and bordering on luck-based missions to a 4-character party, but that's 3.5, I haven't had the chance to browse through, let alone play, a PF adventure.
Well... I had one, but it was a con game and... It was bad. I'll leave it at that.
At any rate, I understand that 15 PB and 4-person party is what people at Paizo envisioned as their "standard", base game, so yeah, 14-15 in the main stat and a dumpstat of 8 somewhere else are more or less expected, with everything else in the middle depending on class and personal preference; this means that if you increase the PB value, like at 25 or so, you usually end up with characters that aren't glaringly more powerful, but they usually have a little less exploitable weaknesses and a little more flair.
In the end, the difference in point buy construction is that less points means less versatile and more straightforward characters that are, at best, mediocre outside their field of expertise; higher PB can mitigate that and allow for less optimal concepts without sacrificing so much as to render the character dead weight.
I personally prefer higher point buys, but then, if you give me 25 points, I'll put everything at 12 and increase from there, so I may be a borderline case.
I've gone to fixed arrays (players pick one of several fixed arrays and arrange the stats in it as desired) for over a year now for much this reason. I absolutely LOATHE 20s in casting stats at level 1, and I'm not a fan of stats dumped to 7 for purely mechanical reasons either. The 20 at level 1 is something of a magic number (+1 DC, 1 more 1st level spell) and enables the 36 (+5 level +5 inherent +6 headband) at level 20, which is also yet another magic number (2 bonus level 9 spells). I don't have a problem giving out 'good stats', the arrays I'm willing to give actually point out very close to 25, but they're not optimized for SAD characters. That's deliberate.
Interestingly, I switched to fixed arrays a few years ago too, but with almost the opposite goal in mind. I found that point buy, the way it was written for 3.0-3.5, encouraged rather similar and bland characters. (when looking at ability scores) The Pathfinder point-buy is slightly better. But, still doesn't have the effect I want.
I want the barbarian to have an enormous strength score, the rogue to be incredibly dexterous, and the bard charismatic. I generally use 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8. That would be a 32 point buy, but without being able to dump multiple stats or dump to 7, and without the ability to make efficient high-stat purchases like 17, it's about as powerful as 25 point buy.
As many others have expressed here, I've found that relatively small variations in ability scores don't significantly change the power level of the game. On the other hand, I find that players really enjoy having "Max Stats". Playing a barbarian with a 20 strength is simply more fun than playing one with a 17!
Also, since I'm sure we've all seen the "Casters are too powerful" debates, it's worth mentioning that point-buy favors casters in general, and Wizards in particular. By giving out higher abilities, I've found that monks, rogues, barbarians, and "weaker" classes in general benefit, while casters stay essentially the same. Your Wizard was going to have a 20 Int either way, but will now have +2 Dex. Your rogue was going to have a high-ish dex and a 10 charisma, but will now have a 20 dex and a 14 charisma.
CoDzilla's game isn't typical? What is? I currently am switching my games from 3.X to PF while running 2 (mostly) seperate groups. One has 3 female players and is hardcore RP (Although one of these is easily the most bloodthirsty player I currently run.), while the other is all male, dungeon crawl, how-can-I-optimize-this-cheese, twits-on-a-rampage, morons that I should feed to Mr. Fishy. I also play (socially) in a 'story telling' game that only rarely has combat. All three are valid within themselves, although switching Gurin (?) into the player's wife's game would be BAD!
Per the thread, I have to agree with Blueluck's statement of: 'On the other hand, I find that players really enjoy having "Max Stats".' The reality of my game is that a few stat points do not radically change the game, although their have been occasional skids caused by a 'weak' fireball (3 of 8 trolls barely made their saves) and the like, but my players tend to respond to such as obstacles to be overcome (Yes, I reward great on the fly thinking and 'Neato!' solutions.) and treat them as part of the adventure. But the players with unbalanced stats all relish the higher DC, the extra hitting power, the X they otherwise crippled their character to attain. And after the've done their little ego rant, I point out that the Halfling Rogue played by the wife of one player has only a single 'good' stat and is deadlier than any of the guys in the Dungeon Stomp Brigade.
Just to be clear, it's not my intention to dismiss or discredit anyone. When I said "CoDzilla's games aren't typical" I don't mean it as a way to counter, let alone ridicule, his points, I'm just saying that he's taking RAW very seriously while, in my admittedly anecdotal experience, there's people that only take RAW as a guideline that refers to a hypothetical utopia that may or may not be what someone has in mind.
I've seen plenty of stupid houserules and fixes that broke everything (like add flat Int bonus to all spells per day per level, or allow weapon finesse to be used with everything and anything, or allow 1:1 point buy without a base cap of 18), but people still had fun playing that. And I've witnessed a wizard with, like, 20 spells per day at level 6, was a completely useless character because all she did was shoot with her crossbow and cast "darkness" when we were surrounded by barbarians with nets and no escape route. Yeah. And she also waited to be in a position to take at least 3 AoOs before doing so.
To avoid further digressing: people tinker with their games and rules, and while it's right that RAW should be examined as-is when discussing balance issues, it is only really useful during playtesting or when tinkering for official or unofficial fixes. If one has to think up a fix for his gaming table he should approach community suggestions much like he does with the rules: take what he needs, ignore all that's irrelevant, so those that say "In my game nobody needs a 20" are probably very much okay with a 15 PB for all classes and a 14-15 in the main stat, and consider PB 25 a very high-powered scenario. Those that feel a 20 is mandatory to their gaming style might feel differently. It's not just about the game, the game doesn't exist in a featureless void, the game happens around a table with people that have a variety of ideas and things they like and don't like, so that's what matters most.
That's about it, really. As I said, I prefer high-powered variants for the ability to mess around and still be able to do something, but then I'm a type I and half player, so yeah, take what I say with a grain of salt.
Looking at the standard (15 point) array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, it seems that going to 20 points would allow the array to read 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10
And that right there is pretty much the difference I see between the 2. +1 in your primary or secondary, and +1 in a dump stat.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Looking at the standard (15 point) array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, it seems that going to 20 points would allow the array to read 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10And that right there is pretty much the difference I see between the 2. +1 in your primary or secondary, and +1 in a dump stat.
*nods* It would mean my foppish half elf magus/damascarran (they're both int casters so they're interchangable for my example) would go from S 13, D 14, C 12, I 16(14+2), W 8, Ch 12 to S 14(12+2), D 14, C 13, I 16, W 8, Ch 12 Not that big a bump.
Then again, I don't 'go for the 18' all the time. *shrug*.
What the "CoDzilla's games aren't typical" crowd is missing is that I'm discussing the game, and not my game on these forums. My games somewhat fix these problems. If we were discussing my games, they'd be less of a problem. But I understand and recognize my games are not important to anyone not in my games, which is why I discuss the game instead, only bringing up my game as examples of what fixes these problems.
Or to put it more directly - arguing against my games as atypical means that the problems I describe are more, and not less severe as my games are defined by heavy attempts to fix those problems. So every time someone plays that card against me, they destroy their own arguments, and don't touch mine.
I agree with you that you can't really dismiss anyone's game as "atypical" to win (whatever the hell that means on the Internet) an argument. Where I differ with you is your assertion that you are only discussing "the game". I don't think "the game" even exists, if you define it as a static, immutable thing. Even the RAW is open to a hell of a lot of interpretation, and there are many, many areas that are unclear and/or not covered. This is true of every set of game rules I've ever read, even excessively detailed ones like Advanced Squad Leader.
What that means, IMHO, is that each of us comes to these boards with a perspective that is informed by our own experiences, which can be amazingly different without invalidating any of the others. Failure of anyone to recognize that they have a unique perspective, or worse, to represent their own perspective as the only possible or the best one, is where most of the ridiculous little spats on these boards originate.
In my opinion, "the game" is what we all, collectively, make of it. It is the sum of all our individual games, incorporating a wide variety of equally valid playstyles and a dizzying variety of houserules ranging from trivial to profound. While some of the more profound houserule sets might border on being entirely new games, most are just minor variations in keeping with the strong tradition of the genre as being a flexible and adaptable platform for running a lot very different fantasy roleplaying games that allow us to live out our heroic (or not so heroic) fantasies and collectively tell our own unique stories.
I frankly get a little bored with most of the purely theoretical discussions of class balance and so forth so prevalent on these boards. The discussion comes alive much more to me when people talk about how things work in their home games. I guess I'm more of a field/practical kind of guy than I am a lab/theoretical one. It's more fun for me to listen to what is happening in someone's campaign and figure out why it happens that way as opposed to in my own, to see what difference in playstyles or assumptions or minor houserules can make in how the game plays and feels. I learn a lot from those discussions. Not so much from the grand theory and sweeping one-size fits all proclamations that usually start the biggest silly arguments (and let's face it, we ain't arguing about world peace and how to end poverty here).
I might try to make a well rounded character at 20, I would never try to do so at 15.
Casters aren't gimped by the loss of the 5 points as much as the melee people are. A caster needs Casting stat, some dex and some con. melee needs strength, dex, and con.
What that means, IMHO, is that each of us comes to these boards with a perspective that is informed by our own experiences, which can be amazingly different without invalidating any of the others. Failure of anyone to recognize that they have a unique perspective, or worse, to represent their own perspective as the only possible or the best one, is where most of the ridiculous little spats on these boards originate.
+1, I don't really get the "Rules as written" approach: even the interpretation on what a PB set is intended for varies wildly according to the table.
I did witness the unsurmountable caster/noncaster divide only once in tabletop, it was my character's fault, we were level 15 and I still had the most unoptimized spell load ever (if I still had the sheet I'd show you). On the contrary, I can't seem to be able to play on the internet because there's a very different game type that uses the same rules, and the different sorts are usually either private or I just happen to miss them.
I'm pretty sure anyone that cared to post about it would have several tales about campaigns working even when they were actually played "wrong". I could go on forever about my 4e one but it would miss the point and get me sad because RL kind of shanked it.
As Carrith and Matthew Morris put it a few posts ago, the actual differences in PB construction are minimal, whether this minimal would work well with your group or not depends on how you like to play and how your players like to build their characters. Discussions about eventual problems and such should stem from there, otherwise we might all be talking about our own pants for what good it could do.
1: Their own game was not tested well. 3rd, 3.5, PF, doesn't matter. Anything past 11 wasn't playtested hardly at all. Anything before 11 wasn't playtested very well.
2: Not all optimization is created equal. While that would be true if it were, since it isn't weak classes require more optimization than the strong ones. The strong ones can get by with practical optimization only (including the 20 stat). For the weak ones, that's only the beginning.
3: I'm still talking about enemies as written, using only things they are written to have. No enemy improvements beyond what is written, at all. That's not some very specific style you can dismiss out of hand. It's the game. Had I been talking of actually optimized enemies, with different feat selections and taking advantage of the many, many tricks you pick up from both being an optimizer and frequent conversations with people in organized play to create something that is technically CR (low number) but really isn't you'd have a point. But I'm not. I'm talking about the game that is Pathfinder D&D, and in order for that to be anything different than what you play you'd have to not be playing PF D&D. Granted, most people here don't, but that's beside the point.
I meant that, due to what was noted in some threads last week during one of our conversations, that your games seem very much played to the hilt. Moreso than most games (probably closer to my games actually). Seeing as we seem to be the minorities on the boards, I concluded that you (and I most likely) play a different way than most (such as doing like the 3.x DMG suggests and letting monsters use their treasure proper). You also tend to bring a lot of 3.x baggage into the discussions, while most discussions on the boards are PF-centric. Like I said, a different game.
The dismissing. Knock it off. And the veiled and false jabs too. Now if you stripped those out, you'd make good points. But instead you were just interested in taking false and poorly concealed shots at me.
I should note I wasn't trying to dismiss your post, or your points, and I wasn't taking jabs at you. If it came off that way, my apologies, it wasn't intentional. I was commenting on optimization in general. I've noticed optimizers often have a bad reputation due to the nameless jerks I mentioned in my previous post. I was trying to convey how optimizers can be helpful and a very useful resource for mechanical information, but some ruin it for the rest of us.
I wasn't intending for you (or anyone else) to think you were the nameless jerk I mentioned. I gave a general description of the nameless jerk (the bad qualities to watch out for), nothing more. Resemblance to those descriptions is coincidental, but probably not desired.
Having read this debate, I don't have a whole lot to weigh in. What I have noticed, is that very very high stats (I foolishly did a 22/20/18/16/14/12 spread once) really does at a level or so of power to a PC's level in 3.5. I also have noticed that my PC's really liked being able to have a single 20 in their primary stat, and RPed it up a lot, because they all had different primary abilities!
CODzilla, out of pure curiosity, what house-rules do you use and what 3.5 material do you allow in your PF games? I would normally PM this, but that doesn't seem to be a feature on this board.
