Not wanting to play a game where death is common is not playing on easy mode. That's a pathetic insult to throw.
I prefer games where character death is something that might never happen without sufficient story leading up to it. No meaningless deaths. The party's success or failure is not in how many of them survive the encounters, but how they influence the world and how it influences them. While death along the way is not an impossibility, I prefer that it is used as a storytelling tool and not something to lord over the players as a 'badass GM'.
Preferences differ. At the other extreme, some like to put little investment into their characters and go into a game where they bring a stack of backups knowing they'll be losing one or two characters per session.
You misunderstand, that wasn't what I was saying. I'm not saying I'm so hardcore look at me. I am saying there should be some challenge, the rewards are greater because of the challenge, but a game with such a high pc death toll is undesirable.
The best position lies somewhere in the middle. Death is possible, it'll probably happen once or twice, but tpks are rare to non-existent. If there are no meaningless deaths in the world though, it can be quite protected (that would be the word I would use). If you can always open a chest and walk through any corridor and never have to worry about death from traps, because that would be meaningless, traps are no longer a threat. Just take the hit from them and move on, no deaths are possible without meaning or build-up.
All good?
|
Not wanting to play a game where death is common is not playing on easy mode. That's a pathetic insult to throw.
I prefer games where character death is something that might never happen without sufficient story leading up to it. No meaningless deaths. The party's success or failure is not in how many of them survive the encounters, but how they influence the world and how it influences them. While death along the way is not an impossibility, I prefer that it is used as a storytelling tool and not something to lord over the players as a 'badass GM'.
Preferences differ. At the other extreme, some like to put little investment into their characters and go into a game where they bring a stack of backups knowing they'll be losing one or two characters per session.
I pretty much agree with you except for the meaningless deaths. If a character acts stupidly then they die stupidly. Even with mature players it happens too often to just let them live.
I guess some people get stressed out by having a challenge. I thought that was half of the fun was for the game to be somewhat difficult. Loyalist I know that your game is heavily house ruled. Would it be possible to see some of your house rules? I'm interested on how your game runs.
|
|
I guess some people get stressed out by having a challenge. I thought that was half of the fun was for the game to be somewhat difficult. Loyalist I know that your game is heavily house ruled. Would it be possible to see some of your house rules? I'm interested on how your game runs.
A game can be challenging with only the threat of death. You have to know that your DM will kill characters for the threat to be valid so deaths in previous campaigns can works in his favor.
D&D is rather combat oriented so most challenges will be combat based. It is possible to make a game mostly social and intrigue and challenging.
I guess some people get stressed out by having a challenge. I thought that was half of the fun was for the game to be somewhat difficult. Loyalist I know that your game is heavily house ruled. Would it be possible to see some of your house rules? I'm interested on how your game runs.A game can be challenging with only the threat of death. You have to know that your DM will kill characters for the threat to be valid so deaths in previous campaigns can works in his favor.
D&D is rather combat oriented so most challenges will be combat based. It is possible to make a game mostly social and intrigue and challenging.
It's true that you can make social encounters. I never said you should make combat the only challenging thing.
In home campaigns I tend to play with more power players; they will make the most of their 20-points no dump (my "15 point equivalent"). I think a lot comes down to your player base; more points is a crutch, some players will still be challenged out of the box if you give them 30 points.
15. 15, 14, 14, 14, 14.
That's a balanced stat array for a human.
despite my UN, I don't like min-maxing too much.
I don't like unavoidable random deaths, but I like my D&D games brutal-- any fight could turn into a TPK and unintended consequences abound. It's not playing on "hard mode" or anything like that, it's just a preference for a more high-risk/high-reward style. It's more exciting to me when the PCs are performing acts of epic heroism and walking a razor-thin tightrope between glorious victory and crushing defeat.
The only TPKs I want are stupidity-induced ones. And boy was the one TPK I've allowed a stupid one.
I have seen very few in my many years of Gming. But most boil down to that in one way or another really.
I pretty much agree with you except for the meaningless deaths. If a character acts stupidly then they die stupidly. Even with mature players it happens too often to just let them live.Not wanting to play a game where death is common is not playing on easy mode. That's a pathetic insult to throw.
I prefer games where character death is something that might never happen without sufficient story leading up to it. No meaningless deaths. The party's success or failure is not in how many of them survive the encounters, but how they influence the world and how it influences them. While death along the way is not an impossibility, I prefer that it is used as a storytelling tool and not something to lord over the players as a 'badass GM'.
Preferences differ. At the other extreme, some like to put little investment into their characters and go into a game where they bring a stack of backups knowing they'll be losing one or two characters per session.
Live and let die, if they're stupid. Ha ha, can we all agree on that golden rule?
Black lantern, send me an email address and I'll pass some stuff on. Some of my house rules are on the forums, but that will require google-fu from you.
Something like that.
I would probably love to play with auticus, not sure the opposite would be true.
lol so long as you aren't actively trying to break the campaign and rules lawyer the campaign into submission and power game your character into godhood and then get angry if I up the challenge on you, I'm pretty much good.
lol so long as you aren't actively trying to break the campaign and rules lawyer the campaign into submission and power game your character into godhood and then get angry if I up the challenge on you, I'm pretty much good.
Would a Fiend making "Soul Deals" with people be too much? </sarcasm>
If I turned a character into a god... probably wouldn't be fun unless the other PCs and part of the enemies were also gods (or god slayers).
Our group plays with 4d6, drop lowest, 6 times, arrange as desired. Then repeat, making as many of these stat blocks as desired until you get a stat block you like, even if that means you roll 270 of them. Most players never exceed four blocks. Then, once you have your stat block, roll a d4 and thats how many points you can shift around. Then apply race, etc.
None of us have any particular desire for challenge, or any particular fear of death (we have had several). We just like good stats and weird niche stat placement. Also, most of the players are non-min-maxy, and do weird stuff like take sub-optimal skills, or take a level of bard or rogue or you never know what. Maybe we end up on a long boat journey so someone asks permission to take a level or two of swashbuckler from 3.5.
Also, most of the players do non optimal combat things, like tripping guys when they could have just stabbed them, or splitting multiple attacks across different targets, or maybe running over to another part of a fight to get their "own" foes to fight. And when AoOs eat them up, maybe they take a level or two of rogue and throw 16 ranks in tumble across two levels.
But ya know, we have good fun. And nobody can heal and nobody has UMD pumped. But hey, we get by (all around level 11 now). So we would probably be horrified at the macho GM beatdowns many of you would deliver, and we wouldnt have much fun.
To each their own. :)
Does anyone do 15 point buy?
Discuss.
Yes. Frequently. My 13 year old brother doesn't generally like anything higher. 15 PB is the standard and in my opinion creates more realistic characters who have weaknesses to counteract their strengths. As Topher from Dollhouse said, anyone who excels at something is compensating for something else, and with 15 PB, that's usually what you get. Not a lot of PCs running around above-average at everything.
The only class that has a significant problem with 15 PB is monk, but only one of my players ever plays monks, and he has recently realized that psionics are better for emulating his mystical martial artist concepts than the core monk is, so we don't really need it anymore.
Otherwise, our group sees a very solid variety of classes. All the staples are there. Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Fighters, Paladins, Psions, Psychic Warriors, Rangers, the occasional Rogue (but rangers are better), and Wizards. We un-nerfed sorcerers, so they see a bit of play occasionally.
Our group usually played on the medium or slow experience progression, and tended to face challenging to epic encounters frequently. Despite the emphasis on modest ability scores and slower XP progression, our group tends to come off as being very high powered in conversation because of the stuff they do and survive, and the level of tactical situations the group frequently overcomes.
While only mildly related (as a character creation option), our group is experimenting with a throwback to 1E and 2E, with a tiered XP system. The current campaign the group is in is using the fast XP progression for single and multi-classed characters, but allowing PCs to gestalt or triple gestalt during creation by taking the medium or slow experience progression. So far it has been interesting, but our current campaign hasn't gotten past 3rd level (one of the PCs is 3rd level, one PC was turned into a ghast and is undead 2/cleric 1, and the third is a gestalt character at 2nd level).
Realism? We left realism behind when someone first used a supernatural ability.
Realism? We left realism behind when someone first used a supernatural ability.
.
Lol, you kinda have a point, but...
Realism? We left realism behind when someone first used a supernatural ability.
Perhaps realism was the wrong word. Maybe believable is the word I should have used. As in, creates characters who don't seem "too perfect". It's less verisimilitude breaking, I would say.
Look at characters in different stories. Most of them have pros and cons. It leaves to believability in character. Too perfect and the mind rejects. Too imperfect, and the mind rejects. If I was to stat myself out, I'd mark Intelligence high, Charisma low, strength average to slightly above, Constitution is probably average, Wisdom is definitely a dumpstat with Charisma...
Realism? We left realism behind when someone first used a supernatural ability.Perhaps realism was the wrong word. Maybe believable is the word I should have used. As in, creates characters who don't seem "too perfect". It's less verisimilitude breaking, I would say.
Look at characters in different stories. Most of them have pros and cons. It leaves to believability in character. Too perfect and the mind rejects. Too imperfect, and the mind rejects. If I was to stat myself out, I'd mark Intelligence high, Charisma low, strength average to slightly above, Constitution is probably average, Wisdom is definitely a dumpstat with Charisma...
.
.You can make a profile here, it includes Ability scores.
Realism? We left realism behind when someone first used a supernatural ability.Perhaps realism was the wrong word. Maybe believable is the word I should have used. As in, creates characters who don't seem "too perfect". It's less verisimilitude breaking, I would say.
Look at characters in different stories. Most of them have pros and cons. It leaves to believability in character. Too perfect and the mind rejects. Too imperfect, and the mind rejects. If I was to stat myself out, I'd mark Intelligence high, Charisma low, strength average to slightly above, Constitution is probably average, Wisdom is definitely a dumpstat with Charisma...
Yeah, most of those cons are in behavior more than physical/mental ability, especially amongst protagonists. Like Harry Dresden. What are his flaws?
His strength is above average (he hits pretty hard for a skinny guy and he's strong enough to cart people around), his dex is very high (good shot, better reflexes, awfully nimble when he wants to be), very high con (the man can take a tremendous beating and a lot of his magical ability is based on physical endurance), his intelligence is high (he's a detective, you need to be smart to be a good detective) his wisdom is high (good amount of perception, incredible will power, etc.), and his charisma is high (he can be very intimidating when he wants to be, a lot of females view him as highly attractive, even if he doesn't, and if he tries to be diplomatic he's not shabby at it).
His flaws are all in his behavior, he thinks poorly of himself, in all aspects. He is incredibly protective of women and children. He's rather short-tempered. He's stubborn. Etc.
Same goes with -MOST- fictional characters, it's all in their head, and it's not related to their mental statistics, merely their behavior.
Think about a fictional protagonist of an adventure series, try to figure out where their stats are, by all odds they are probably very high across the board. At the end of the day a PC built on 15 points is merely an incomplete hero.
|
The word you are looking for is "Fiat". You want characters to have flaws and enemies that are on par. The high-point without GM adjustment group wants to feel like a god amongst men, and has fun hacking down creatures and being a group of super men.
And there's nothing wrong with either. Both can be fun, as long as everyone is on the same page. I personally prefer challenges, but that's not for everyone. The third option (and probably the worst) is to up the monsters as well, but that is a really, really difficult balance and a huge GM burden.
So either 15 points, or accept that you want the challenge lighter and the deaths less frequent and go higher. Either way should be acceptable.
The word you are looking for is "Fiat". You want characters to have flaws and enemies that are on par. The high-point without GM adjustment group wants to feel like a god amongst men, and has fun hacking down creatures and being a group of super men.
And there's nothing wrong with either. Both can be fun, as long as everyone is on the same page. I personally prefer challenges, but that's not for everyone. The third option (and probably the worst) is to up the monsters as well, but that is a really, really difficult balance and a huge GM burden.
So either 15 points, or accept that you want the challenge lighter and the deaths less frequent and go higher. Either way should be acceptable.
I think the best feeling is like the one the Order of The Stick provides: Not only is each character a god amongst humanoids, but their enemies are also incredibly powerful, and it's a challenge for them to win, sometimes it's impossible. The rest of the world is made of plasticine (ridiculously fragile material) in comparison to the protagonists and their enemies. Just look at the slugfest that was the last Thog vs Roy fight, they destroyed a Colosseum, and that was only 2 of the dozen or so characters.
This is pretty easy to accomplish: you build your heroes far more powerful than the rest of the world, then you build your bad guys to be just as tough, or tougher if you don't want to play smart villains, as your heroes.
|
|
Well, again that takes lots of GM work. If you look at Order of the Stick as merely high-level low-point build characters (plenty of dump stats amongst them); I think you'll get a better view of how Pathfinder is meant to play out. They look as gods among men because their powers far surpass those of 1st level commoners and such, but that is more from power and magic items than stats. In the early renditions they were quite challenged by goblins and the like :).
Upping the power across the board doesn't make anyone feel powerful; in reality it just makes the GM have to adjust encounters a lot more to find that challenge-without-killing spot.
Bingo. Make sure everyone is on the same page. Nuff said ;)
You like challenge? Make sure your players like challenge. Done.
You don't like challenge? Make sure you are playing in a game where you are predominantly superior to anything thrown at you. Done.
Is any one way better than the other? No.
You can also play supermen vs super villains. That works too.
There are probably a large number of other options I'm missing as well =)
I myself prefer challenge and not having to dump a serious amount of time tweaking modules to challenge my players, so I stick with 10/15 point builds.
Well, again that takes lots of GM work. If you look at Order of the Stick as merely high-level low-point build characters (plenty of dump stats amongst them); I think you'll get a better view of how Pathfinder is meant to play out. They look as gods among men because their powers far surpass those of 1st level commoners and such, but that is more from power and magic items than stats. In the early renditions they were quite challenged by goblins and the like :).
Upping the power across the board doesn't make anyone feel powerful; in reality it just makes the GM have to adjust encounters a lot more to find that challenge-without-killing spot.
Not really. Make NPC rules, use the same ones they built monsters out of, then make PC/Villain rules, which are simply a higher tier. They already have this in the rules: 25 point-buy. On that alone your PCs are better than everyone else.... except the higher order monsters because they are all kinds of different cheat, but they are also meant to fight entire parties by themselves, and action economy resolves that.
Not really. Make NPC rules, use the same ones they built monsters out of, then make PC/Villain rules, which are simply a higher tier. They already have this in the rules: 25 point-buy. On that alone your PCs are better than everyone else.... except the higher order monsters because they are all kinds of different cheat, but they are also meant to fight entire parties by themselves, and action economy resolves that.Well, again that takes lots of GM work. If you look at Order of the Stick as merely high-level low-point build characters (plenty of dump stats amongst them); I think you'll get a better view of how Pathfinder is meant to play out. They look as gods among men because their powers far surpass those of 1st level commoners and such, but that is more from power and magic items than stats. In the early renditions they were quite challenged by goblins and the like :).
Upping the power across the board doesn't make anyone feel powerful; in reality it just makes the GM have to adjust encounters a lot more to find that challenge-without-killing spot.
So; up the PB, Maximize the HDs (instead of rolling 1Dx, you just get x), give better equipments, etc.. ?
If the players and the GM like that... but this is more for homemade campaigns that "official ones".
Not really. Make NPC rules, use the same ones they built monsters out of, then make PC/Villain rules, which are simply a higher tier. They already have this in the rules: 25 point-buy. On that alone your PCs are better than everyone else.... except the higher order monsters because they are all kinds of different cheat, but they are also meant to fight entire parties by themselves, and action economy resolves that.Well, again that takes lots of GM work. If you look at Order of the Stick as merely high-level low-point build characters (plenty of dump stats amongst them); I think you'll get a better view of how Pathfinder is meant to play out. They look as gods among men because their powers far surpass those of 1st level commoners and such, but that is more from power and magic items than stats. In the early renditions they were quite challenged by goblins and the like :).
Upping the power across the board doesn't make anyone feel powerful; in reality it just makes the GM have to adjust encounters a lot more to find that challenge-without-killing spot.
So; up the PB, Maximize the HDs (instead of rolling 1Dx, you just get x), give better equipments, etc.. ?
If the players and the GM like that... but this is more for homemade campaigns that "official ones".
Fundamentally speaking? Yes. When you want a powerful villain, you give them the same benefits.
The word you are looking for is "Fiat". You want characters to have flaws and enemies that are on par. The high-point without GM adjustment group wants to feel like a god amongst men, and has fun hacking down creatures and being a group of super men.
And there's nothing wrong with either. Both can be fun, as long as everyone is on the same page. I personally prefer challenges, but that's not for everyone. The third option (and probably the worst) is to up the monsters as well, but that is a really, really difficult balance and a huge GM burden.
So either 15 points, or accept that you want the challenge lighter and the deaths less frequent and go higher. Either way should be acceptable.
I personally don't find much difference in the overall strength of characters due to higher ability scores. The caps on ability scores basically means there's not a big difference between a character with 15 PB and 25 PB. And as your levels rise, your abilities scores mean less and less compared to your tactical knowledge and contingencies.
I've never really found it difficult to challenge PCs with high ability scores with the same challenges as PCs with low ability scores. In general it only increases their chances by 5-10%, and after a certain point (capping your key abilities) excess points just dump into stats that don't work for you often (it really doesn't matter if a Fighter has a 7 or 20 Charisma in the long run, because it has nothing to do with being a Fighter).
I just like to see a dumpstat or two now and then, as a GM. :P
I feel like a total power gamer right now, which seems funny to me cause I like the rp elements far more than the math. I typically use 4d6 dropping the lowest and rerolling 1's. Crap I check my most recent characters in my character generator and one of the NPC's I made as a bad guy has a 38 point value.
I am starting to think that this makes far to powerful characters. This is how we have played since 2nd addition so it never struck me as overpowered. We only ever had one TPK- 3e converted Castle Ravenloft fighting Strad.
One can be a power gamer and still like RP ;)
I feel like a total power gamer right now, which seems funny to me cause I like the rp elements far more than the math. I typically use 4d6 dropping the lowest and rerolling 1's. Crap I check my most recent characters in my character generator and one of the NPC's I made as a bad guy has a 38 point value.
I am starting to think that this makes far to powerful characters. This is how we have played since 2nd addition so it never struck me as overpowered. We only ever had one TPK- 3e converted Castle Ravenloft fighting Strad.
Don't worry about it, some people played with higher stats than others by default. It's like the difference between running a game in Hero System: if that's all you've ever played, of course you are going to have characters more powerful than anything Pathfinder could duplicate.
What makes a power gamer is when they regularly build something more powerful than everyone else in the same game/system.
One can be a power gamer and still like RP ;)
In my 30+ years of gaming with hundreds of people from around the country of a variety of ages, I can tell you that it is very rare to see. Yes, it is plausible. No, it isn't common. Most of the power gamers I know think they are good role players. They aren't. Most of the good role players I know aren't good power gamers. Yes, they know how to build an effective character but they certainly don't power game.
|
|
See Bob, my (also 30+ years) experience has been different; most non-power gamers aren't as involved, and usually socially awkward people so, while they've poured their hearts into making a cool character concept, rarely play it out.
Power gamers are often number crunchers, and deeply intellectual, but often are good at talking as well. This leads them to be able to realize their ideas more.
But I have certainly seen exceptions on both sides. For my part I am a number cruncher; but reign myself in if most of the table is not. In general everyone has fun as long as everyone in the party are on relatively the same level. I'm also a phenomenal roleplayer; having solid social skills helps in this arena as well.
15 points is an equilibrium where players who know what they are doing and are willing to mix/max a bit are generally challenged without modules / book encounters being terribly modified. If the group won't dump stats, 20 points does the same thing. For beginnings, you can potentially crunch them up to 25; or if they want to feel like superheroes, either accept the loss of challenge or up the encounters.
My beef with dice rolling... I've been on both sides of that coin, and I know the further you stray high or low from the center, the less fun your character is. I've played 10 point equivalents and 45ish point equivalenets... neither are fun when parties average in the 25 range (I've never played with a group where all rolling isn't done in front of the whole table, so I've never seen true extremes where "everyone" has redic stats).
Many point systems work, we can't agree because people who do 25 point buys say "this feels fine"; it might, because either the GM ups the encounters, or they aren't looking for continual challenge, or they don't spend those 25 points optimizing their character.
|
I use 15 point buy and it works great. There is a single 7 ability score in my group, and it's charisma score on a dwarf. I think 20+ makes PCs outliers compared to the rest of the world. I'm fine with "above average", as that's the type of person who would become a successful adventurer. Maxing out any ability score should be rare. Only the wizard in my group has an 18 anywhere (in Int, which means he has crippled Str and Con). This makes for characters who are either barely above average in every attribute or characters who can be very/extremely gifted in some areas but pay for it by being below-average in others.
I also think it's fun to play around with RPing characters with flaws. Taking weaknesses out of the equation limits the ability to do that.
Can someone explain to me what act of sorcery is causing mere point buy to 'break' their campaigns?
I used 15-point buys in my last two campaigns. No one complained. There were also no TPKs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Pince of Knives - Perhaps it is necromancy rather than sorcery. That said, one of our current campaigns used 17 point buy. We're getting through the Kingmaker AP fine with 3 PCs, one of whom is an Oracle/Wizard/Sorcerer.
I read through a number of the older posts, and I genuinely don't understand whatw as driving so many of those debates.
The table outlining how many points starting characters should receive went so far as to qualify what kind of campaign the point buy was appropriate for. Think about the old "Clash of the Titans" movie: with a 10 or even 15 point buy, the PCs aren't Perseus; they're the entourage of ancient Greek fighters that follows him throughout the movie. Alternately, if you're reading Gates of Fire, they aren't playing the Spartan super-soldier/Olympic medal winner Polynikes; they're playing Xeones the helot-squire, who is good at a few things, including shooting the bow, but isn't a particularly impressive specimen physically or mentally.
There's nothing wrong with either direction. Different folks, different strokes and all that. The only thing that matters is that the group know what they're in for at the beginning. If they want their Joe Average characters who happened to get heroic training (hence Core Classes), that's great. If they want the same characters to get thrown into cataclysmic events wherein they'll decide the fate of the world, that's even better. It's just as valid to not want to play an average character who grows into greatness, though. Maybe you want to chance the dice in the hopes that you roll an Achilles (minus the invulnerability), or a Madmartigan, or some other great hero.
We've used 15-point buy for so long, that when I saw that Pathfinder Society used 20-point buy my jaw hit the floor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whats so bad about wanting my barbarian to have 10 charisma/int? It doesn't make me any stronger, but I don't want npcs to stare at me like I'm an idiot just because I had to dump mental stats to be viable in combat.
Thats why 20pb no dump is better than 15, because you dont have to dump.You can suceed at your role without being forced to be an abject failure in another.
I dont want to be a perfect dude, just exceptional at my thing and average at everything else.
I prefer 20 points. 15 is too low for smaller groups, though fine for larger groups. 20 is a nice balance, allowing one to have decent characters. 25 is crazy large. 30 is insane. 10 is too low.
I don't know if it's just me, but I would NEVER let anyone play a Paladin with Intelligence lower than 10. I just can't see it ever happening, more due to story-line reasons and how I can only see Fighters and Barbarians ever being that stupid...
One better not come to my table having dumped anything. If you have a 6-8 cha or int , it better be from a racial ability modifier. Intentional dumping for pumping is unacceptable to me, you want that 20? Sure now you have 3(20 pt buy) left, or 8(25 pt buy). Not enough? Well, that's a trade off for you. Want to power game/munchkin/min max? Find another game. Want to build something strong yet balanced and not try to break the game? Sounds great.