15 point no-dump rogue (Human Rogue)
Str: 13 Int: 10 Wis: 10 Dex: 18 Con: 12 Chr: 10Comments: Archery style; will get deadly aim and such, but mostly made for out-of-combat.
15-point no dump monk (Dwarf Manuever master monk)
Str: 10 Int: 10 Wis: 16 Dex: 16 Con: 12 Chr: 8Comments: will eventually combine Wis and dex for Manuevers (agile manuevers and the manuever master bonus). Good AC, great at lockdown. I think playing a monk as a damage machine is generally a mistake. When you do want to go that route, you should be able to afford an amulet of agility by level 5. Highly effective.
No, these guys aren't the supergods they would be with 20 and 25 point stat-dumps, but they're quite good at the 15-point game with the 16-18 statted casters and 12 dex 12 con fighters. All classes scale, and believe it or not casty types use the points better than SAD classes (getting that 18-20 doesn't hurt as badly, so they can work on defenses).
The game breaks to a large degree if you go up from 15 (or 20 no dump), as it makes a sharp difference early but only a minor later (so CR differential is hard to calculate). A better way might be to start with a 15-point build and give them an additional point every other level; so they'll be a 20-point buy at 10 and 25 at 15.
Those are good points to mention. For 10 or 15 point builds I'd pretty much leave the monsters in the manual alone, but for 20 point builds and above, I'd consider bumping up monsters by +2 to compensate.
How about a 15 point buy, then allowing 2 points every four levels instead of the standard one? Or one point every two levels instead of four?
Our group is talking about this right now. Actually we are talking about a 20 point buy with two stat points every 4...but banning all the stat boost items. I am a big fan of this, tired of wasting resources that could be spent on a cool or interesting item just to get my prime stat to the proper level to use all my abilities when we reach higher levels.
Without trying to be insulting, I do wonder, how many of you who support 15 as a buy routinely dump two or three stats to get the build you need? How often do MAD classes see play at your table?
I ask this because I notice a lot of builds posted on the boards throw away any and every stat not essential to the build, which always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Many sight power gaming as why they hate higher point buys, but in my experience...with admittedly very un-powergamey players all it does is make more well rounded PC's. Meanwhile I see lower point builds routinely trying to squeeze out 18's in the needed stat or two for their uber wizard or Fighter.
I think if you are an optimizer type of person then I can definitely see where one would have an issue with it. One of our new saturday players is an optimizer and was over last night flipping through the manual thinking about his character with a 10 point buy and discussing it (in a constructive way).I don't think you've ever played with a munchkin. They absolutely love low-powered campaigns and challenging content as that makes their optimization stand out more above the rest. They play to "win" and if you make it harder to "win" their efforts will make it all the more worth it.
Meanwhile the players who enjoy making diverse and unique characters will be harshly punished for their efforts to do so in a low point buy game. Not only will they simply be worse at everything, they will probably die so often as to make character development largely pointless.
As a side note, saying that you're The Best GM Alive and that your players love you and have no problems ever is not giving you any bonus points in this discussion as there is nothing to base that on. I've played with plenty of GMs who thought their campaigns were great while the players had no fun at all.
I've played with many munchkins thanks. Your baseless assumptions are noted. As is your whining that you can't make diverse and unique characters at low point buy and that they are worse at everything and will probably die all the time. You are false on all counts, but this is the internet after all.
Long live the internet.
How about a 15 point buy, then allowing 2 points every four levels instead of the standard one? Or one point every two levels instead of four?Our group is talking about this right now. Actually we are talking about a 20 point buy with two stat points every 4...but banning all the stat boost items. I am a big fan of this, tired of wasting resources that could be spent on a cool or interesting item just to get my prime stat to the proper level to use all my abilities when we reach higher levels.
Without trying to be insulting, I do wonder, how many of you who support 15 as a buy routinely dump two or three stats to get the build you need? How often do MAD classes see play at your table?
I ask this because I notice a lot of builds posted on the boards throw away any and every stat not essential to the build, which always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Many sight power gaming as why they hate higher point buys, but in my experience...with admittedly very un-powergamey players all it does is make more well rounded PC's. Meanwhile I see lower point builds routinely trying to squeeze out 18's in the needed stat or two for their uber wizard or Fighter.
4th edition covers this actually, that's why they make defense and offensive scores tie off of TWO abilities, because stat dumping has been around forever.
At higher point buys you do get PCs that are good at a lot of things. At low point buy you have more specialist type of players.
There is a difference in how the two interact. At low point buy the party members are more reliant on each other to cover the areas that they are deficient at, while at higher point buy the players are able to cover more roles and rely on the party less because they are better at more.
It's not really power gaming to have a higher point build I don't think.
In auticus' defense, even though I personally would loathe his style of play, if his players are having fun it means he is objectively a good DM, even if you think that he is having badwrongfun.
DMing an artificially low-powered campaign takes more skill and understanding than a normal power game, since the level of all the challenges will need to be altered. I know this because when I tried running a gritty low-power game, the players were unhappy and it stood in the way of telling the story. So I want to say kudos to a DM who successfully implements his group's preferred style of play, even if I am on the other side of this particular issue.
I do disagree about high level characters not relying on party members though.
In auticus' defense, even though I personally would loathe his style of play, if his players are having fun it means he is objectively a good DM, even if you think that he is having badwrongfun.
DMing an artificially low-powered campaign takes more skill and understanding than a normal power game, since the level of all the challenges will need to be altered. I know this because when I tried running a gritty low-power game, the players were unhappy and it stood in the way of telling the story. So I want to say kudos to a DM who successfully implements his group's preferred style of play, even if I am firmly in the other camp.
Thanks. I realize I am in the minority. You can't really find games of Warhammer or Rolemaster either for a reason... it's not what's popular.
It's important to query your players often to make sure that things are ok. After this thread emerged since I know several of my group read these boards, we discussed it and they were all fine with how things are.
It is true that there are groups that hate the game but play anyway, and I don't want to run one of those groups. If you're running a less popular way of doing things, it's important to make that known up front and frequently ask questions.
Most of my players play in multiple game sessions so they get their high power games in too.
On high powered groups not relying on their party members, I don't mean that they are totally not reliant but as they can cover more roles, they can effectively and mechanically do more on their own whereas the lower stat players are good at one thing, ok at another, and that's it.
There was a couple years ago on another board a long thread on this topic and what was popularly accepted (this is anecdotal I realize) was that 3.5 catered more to the "lone-wolf" and 4.0 catered more to the party-centric. It was a 4e vs 3.5 debate thread.
Because you have more skill points and have higher defenses overall with higher stats, your reach of influence is greater.
I do a lot of games at 18 pts. 15 always feels too low, but I think 20 is a little too good.
There was a couple years ago on another board a long thread on this topic and what was popularly accepted (this is anecdotal I realize) was that 3.5 catered more to the "lone-wolf" and 4.0 catered more to the party-centric. It was a 4e vs 3.5 debate thread.
Because you have more skill points and have higher defenses overall with higher stats, your reach of influence is greater.
Ok, I can see that argument, since 4e moved very strongly into the paradigm of "roles" that everyone must stick to, to my mind more in the style of an MMO than a tabletop game.
I think that the freedom and ability to have a character have more than one strength is a very important part of the appeal of tabletop games. It allows you to make more interesting characters, with some contradictions in their build. In a game of 15pts or lower, there is no leway to do this and in my experience, this forces people back towards the undesirable paradigm of "roles".
Yes. That's it exactly. I like the idea of "roles" more though. So that may be why lower stats appeal to me more.
It's been a long time since I've run a small group. In a smaller group I'd probably want to run higher stat characters because you need to cover more ground. My groups always tend to be six players though.
Auticus, I mean no disrespect to you or your own gaming group. If I conveyed that impression, I do apologize to you. I don't agree with you, but that is beside the point. If it works for you and your players, then more power to you both. I am just saying it normally doesn't turn out so well in my experience.
Yes. That's it exactly. I like the idea of "roles" more though. So that may be why lower stats appeal to me more.
And here is the crux of what is the heart of our disagreement. I hate being shoehorned into a single role. I don't play healbot clerics and I enjoy fighters that can things other than just fight; nor do I like running such two-dimensional PCs.
It's been a long time since I've run a small group. In a smaller group I'd probably want to run higher stat characters because you need to cover more ground. My groups always tend to be six players though.
Small groups, for me, are four-to-six players; I have been involved in games that had as many as nine player characters, a DM, and an assistant DM. And even in a large, powerful group, I generally prefer more flexible players that can deal with more situations (both combat and noncombat).
Master Arminas
|
I don't point drop any more or less than I would at 20 or 25; usually end up with lower Dex/con and such. And we play plenty of mad.
Next week we start a base book only campaign. Our party is a rogue, wizard, cleric, unknown (probably ranger), monk, and myself, a dwarven Druid, primarily support but with some ability to move to front line later. My stats are (15 point buy):
Str: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 18 Dex: 12 Con: 14 Chr: 5
Given 20 points, I'd be Con 16-Int 12. 25 would be Wis 20-Con 16.
The fact that we have a rogue and monk and combat druid disproves people will not play MAD characters on low points. And we would still dump at the same rate... we'd just have strictly better combat stats.
Yes. That's it exactly. I like the idea of "roles" more though. So that may be why lower stats appeal to me more.
I thought your opinion was that it did not matter all that much wether PB 10, 15 or 20 was used?
I've mainly played in Pathfinder Society games, which, interestingly enough, use a 20 point buy. If I were running a home campaign, though, I would probably use 15 points or even adopt the method outlined by Auticus with the 10 point buy/15 points-with-background, which I like very much in theory. Auticus, if you ever run a play-by-post game, look me up!
Getting back to the Society, what do you all think it means (if it "means" anything) that the Adventure Paths and even the monsters' challenge ratings are, if what I've read here is correct, built around a 15 point build, but the organized play campaign uses a 20 point build?
Aside: Is there a guide someplace to acronyms commonly used in RPG (there's one now!) message boards? I'm guessing SAD and MAD are single ability and multiple ability something but I'm not positive. And there are plenty of other acronyms on these boards I'm clueless about as well.
|
|
Well, PFS is starting to go Living Greyhawk style and "ramping up". Season 0 were cakewalks with the rare "TPK potential modules", 1 was flat a little bit harder, and 2 I've seen tables of unoptimizied players nearly wiped. In LFR this got to season 6 where there were a LOT of TPKs, as module writers started using shinnanigans like "unassociated class levels" to bump encounters to absurd levels (in LFR, it was somehow ruled that if a class does not directly support the monster, it counts as half CR up to the monster's level. This led to shinnanigans like the "unassociated" Monk leveled Mind Flayer grapple tentacle machine of death).
But I think PFS would be better with a "flat" 15-14-13-12-10-8 (a la the book); as this would lOwer the discrepency in mods between power players and non-power players.
It's also worth noting PFS is made for 4 players, but i've rarely played at a table without exactly 6.
I've always used 15 point buy for my games....I did 25 point buy once for a one-shot level 20 gonzo adventure, otherwise I always default to 15 points.
Christopher...SAD is single attribute dependent and MAD is multiple attribute dependent.
The prevailing opinion is that although the base for AP's is set at 15 point buy, the fact that organized play is set at 20 is an acknowledgement that perhaps 15 is a little to conservative to be conistantly survivable.
To be very clear, I dont want anyone to think that I believe 15 point is this horrible cross to bear..I just find being able to do only one thing very boring at this stage in my gaming career. I conseed that there are other play styles and things can be abused, but my days of the fighter that can only swing a sword are behind me.
@Master Arminas
Well, we are defined by our own experiences. No harm done.
If it hadn't worked for me in the past, I'd do my best to avoid it now as well. We've had different experiences though.
I understand the dislike for roles. It's a flavor thing. Granted, 3.5/PF is still more open than 4e is in terms of this, and my players are still able to do a lot more with their characters than going outside of the role in 4e let them do.
I'll run down the list of our characters right now to illustrate.
We are running a derivitive of Kingmaker in a land I created. I posted links before but the link to the campaign in question is here:
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/the-age-of-kings
Before the campaign, each player rolled a D6 to determine if they had any noble blood or relation. On the roll of a 6, the character had a background tie to the king directly via blood. On a 5, the character belonged to a noble house. On a 4 the character was related to a knight or other minor lord. On a 1-3 the character was a "normal" character. This is done for background purposes to tie in to the Kingmaker adaption to our own campaign.
Player 1 - the rogue. She did a bio. Has a 15 point build. S10 D14 C10 I15 W12 Ch14. No dump stats. Rolled a "5" and as such is a member of a noble house. In combat prefers range. Heavy roleplaying. Utilizes skills to find solutions. Roles: ranged support, basic rogue role (traps, etc), charisma and social.
Player 2 - the cleric. He did a bio. has a 15 point build. S12 D13 C12 I13 W14 Ch13. Chose a well rounded character without any huge bonus anywhere. Does the healing, but also gets in to support in combat. Also has decent skills, particularly in knowledge and in sensing motives etc... Roles: Healing. Melee support. Knowledge support. Social.
Player 3 - the fighter. Rolled a "6" and is a nephew of the king. Has a 15 point build. S16 D13 C12 I13 W10 Ch12. Chose to be a defensive fighter with tower shield as opposed to an offensive damage output machine. Again well-rounded stats. Light roleplaying. Optimizer generally, playing a balanced character this time around. Roles: Melee combat (defense primary), Protection, Engineering and Construction, minor social.
Player 4 - the paladin. Rolled a "4" and is related to a knight. Aspires to be a knight. No bio, 10 point build. S16 D10 C12 I8 W10 Ch14. Chose to dump Int. Offensive minded, double weapon. Light roleplaying. Roles: Melee Combat (offense), Social, Knowledge support.
Player 5 - the barbarian. No desire to do a bio. Little to no roleplay. Major stat dump, but would have dumped stats anyway if given 15 points as he likes to max out one dimension of his character. S17 D13 C14 I7 W7 Ch13. If given 15 point buy would have done S18 C15 and kept I and W dumped. If given 20 point buy would have probably had a S20 and moved his con up to 16. Regardless he would have dumped. Role: Melee Combat predominant.
Player 6 - Druid. No desire to do a bio. Little roleplay. Stat dump as well, no character sheet to go off of so I don't have the stats. Dumped strength down low and maxed Wis and cha. Same as player 5, if given more points would have probably capitalized on the prime stats. Role: Melee Combat Support, Minor healing.
Four of the six players created fairly balanced players. Two of the six players dumped heavily but would dump heavily no matter what stat buy option they had because that's just how they build characters. Most have various roles that they can fill and perform at.
DCs are not ungodly difficult. Chance of success for many of their non-combat encounters sit at around 60% - 70%, and in combat they hit around 60% of the time.
I'm fairly pleased with how the campaign has run so far. The idea that "characters can only do one thing" with low stats I don't agree with, because the characters I play with do multiple things. They just don't have super-high modifiers in everything to make things near auto-pass barring a super bad roll.
I do agree that the characters with lower stats are only going to succeed 60-70% of the time with a standard difficulty challenge of any type, and that 60-70% is too low for some, who prefer a higher rate of success or else feel that their character is not as powerful or successful as they should be.
I thought your opinion was that it did not matter all that much wether PB 10, 15 or 20 was used?Yes. That's it exactly. I like the idea of "roles" more though. So that may be why lower stats appeal to me more.
I don't recall specifically stating this. My opinion is that I don't care what others use in other games outside of my own. My personal preference is 10 or 15 point builds. I do not like 20 point builds in my own campaigns, so if there was a disconnect somewhere where you thought I didn't mind 20 point builds, it was a communication mistake.
.... Auticus, if you ever run a play-by-post game, look me up!
Getting back to the Society, what do you all think it means (if it "means" anything) that the Adventure Paths and even the monsters' challenge ratings are, if what I've read here is correct, built around a 15 point build, but the organized play campaign uses a 20 point build?
Aside: Is there a guide someplace to acronyms commonly used in RPG (there's one now!) message boards? I'm guessing SAD and MAD are single ability and multiple ability something but I'm not positive. And there are plenty of other acronyms on these boards I'm clueless about as well.
I am considering a play-by-post campaign in my world actually. I will be sure to post it if I get around to running one =) Feel free to contribute and thanks!
As to the society statement, Society is basically RPGA with a different name. In RPGA the characters are also very powerful. What I think it means is that Paizo recognizes that the majority of players like running heroic high-power characters and that death and failure turn people off, so by standardizing a 20 point character build in a world where monsters are built for 15 they are setting the stage for it to be a little easier to run and appeal to what the majority wants.
I use 15 points. However I did allow 20 for the current campaign, which is Carrion Crown because the reviews from those that had completed it were that it was pretty harsh in a few places. With hindsight I wish I'd stuck to 15.
Wow. I had a 1200+ word response written up and fatfingered my keyboard. Ugh. Oh well, that was a waste of 20-25 minutes. Oh wait...the point was raised that writing a 1000 word background story was incredibly time consuming and that having a full time job and family made it nigh impossible. Point disproved.
After reading the thread, I agree with Auticus. I both DM a Kingmaker campaign and play in a Council of Thieves campaign with 15 point buys and hero points. Believe me, in both campaigns, it's been plenty effective. Granted, most of the players in our group stat dump...something I'm not a fan of in any way.
Auticus did nothing but present the background story as anything but a reward. It was other people who came in and twisted and argued a point so that it appeared to be a penalty and then ran with that idea. On top of that, they certainly appeared to assume a stance of superiority for it.
The 15 PB has served us well in both of our campaigns, we've had powerful, capable, and specialized characters. I don't like every character to be good at everything. It's a personal preference...something it appears that some posters have taken to equating to right vs. wrong.
I don't recall specifically stating this. My opinion is that I don't care what others use in other games outside of my own. My personal preference is 10 or 15 point builds. I do not like 20 point builds in my own campaigns, so if there was a disconnect somewhere where you thought I didn't mind 20 point builds, it was a communication mistake.
Your point was, that 5 points difference do not matter much. Now you are arguing that 5 points difference make for a totally different playstyle.
Your point was, that 5 points difference do not matter much. Now you are arguing that 5 points difference make for a totally different playstyle.
I don't recall specifically stating this. My opinion is that I don't care what others use in other games outside of my own. My personal preference is 10 or 15 point builds. I do not like 20 point builds in my own campaigns, so if there was a disconnect somewhere where you thought I didn't mind 20 point builds, it was a communication mistake.
If 10 is the standard and 15 is the bonus, then 20 is 10 points higher than the standard, not 5 points.
Is the difference between 10 and 15 "catastrophic" as you said? Hardly. Is the difference between 15 and 20 "catastrophic"? No.
Is the difference between 10 and 20? Yes.
Note: "catastrophic" was a word someone used in the thread but generally refers to the statement on page 1 or 2 where it was said a character with a 10 point stat is going to suck heavily next to a 15 point stat character.
So to clarify, I'm "arguing" that a 10 point character plays differently than a 20 point character, because 10 point characters are my standard, and 15 is a bonus. 20 points is different level of character compared to a 10.
A 10 point character will be more role oriented and play a cog in the party's machine. A 20 point character will have a broader range of abilities and be able to overlap duties more. A 20 point character will also be 10-15% more effective in combat and do 2-3 more points of damage per swing, which represents at 1st level about 25% more damage or so thereabouts, which end results in the challenge of encounters needing upped by that much to maintain the same difficulty level as when facing a 10 stat character.
A 15 point character has minor functional differences between a 10 or a 20 (5% in a couple stats) as opposed to 10 vs 20 (10% in a couple of stats, or 5% in four different stats or a combination therein) A 15 will be about 5-10% more effective in combat and do 1-2 points more of damage, for a smaller % increase, which still works with the monsters as-is.
I think it depends on the opposition for what point buy you are playing. The opposition for 10 point buy would need to be toned down some from how it normally is. I use higher point buys when there are fewer than 4 characters to help them make up for not having as many members. This way their skill checks can be better and they are tougher and do not get a total party kill as easily. Somewhere around 25 point buy and gestalt if only two characters becuase of how action economy messes you up with that few characters. For larger parties lower point buy is better.
I think it depends on the opposition for what point buy you are playing. The opposition for 10 point buy would need to be toned down some from how it normally is. I use higher point buys when there are fewer than 4 characters to help them make up for not having as many members. This way their skill checks can be better and they are tougher and do not get a total party kill as easily. Somewhere around 25 point buy and gestalt if only two characters becuase of how action economy messes you up with that few characters. For larger parties lower point buy is better.
Absolutely. A six-man party running 10 point buy will be better off than four-man party running 10 point buy. A four-man 10 point buy party the DM will have to adjust the monsters a little to prevent TPKs from being common.
In retrospect, a 20 point buy party will require the DM to up the monsters a little bit to prevent non-challenges from being common.
Well, since you seem as much aware of the facts as everyone else, how did all the arguments start in the first place? Poor communication? :U
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
First, let me thank everyone for their comments. Some of those 10 point build characters were interesting.
Re: Some of the points I saw were arguing that the '15 point build' is too weak. I beg to differ. 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 isn't 'weak' and that's the standard array. It might be challenging (for a monk I think I'd go 14, 14, 14, 13, 10, 8, 'dumping' int and cha) But even then, with the greater racial bonuses in Pathfinder, you can still come out pretty decent on the power.
(Half Orc Monk, level 1. S:13, D:14, C:14, I:12 (racial +2), W:14, Ch:8. AC is 14, about even with a first level magus, in my experience. Take Weapon Finesse for a +2 over +1 to hit. Think the Beast from X-men)
MAybe it's me, but I don't see a 16 (or an 18!!!) needed at first level to be a HERO.
Well, since you seem as much aware of the facts as everyone else, how did all the arguments start in the first place? Poor communication? :U
I'll be specific for you:
Yeah. Really. I prefer low-heroic games.I did not mean that, but the fact that you penalize players who do not put a character bio with at least 1000 words on paper (do you actually count the words?).
The first post that started the argument. We got into penalized vs bonus, and the inflection was that doing this is wrongbadfun.
Semantics - its a penalty, and a hefty one.
The boss / coworker analogy you are creating frankly disgusts me. Its a game you play with your FRIENDS, who might be hard-working family persons and put a lot of effort in keeping the game evenings free.
You are massively disrespecting players like these with your ruling.
Here we have an instance where asking for bios and rewarding those that give them is somehow massively disrespecting the people who dont' want to do bios. This is a strongly worded attack and also very clearly states that doing so is [U]disgusting[/U] wrongbadfun.
Just because your group is fine with it doesn't make it right for everyone, auticus. Sorry, but them's the facts.
I don't know what this is in response to. No where did I post that the way I like to play should be right for everyone, so this caused some replies to go on the defensive.
Also the sense of entitlement you ooze: "I have sooo much work as a DM, if the players do not at least XY, I will penalize them".IMO, no good game will arise from such an attitude.
EDIT:
If you want an incentive for players to write a bio, give them a masterwork item as starting equipment. Or a bonus trait (as a maximum). But DO NOT cripple their characters if they dont do as you wish.A PB 10 character is much less powerful than a PB 15 character.
Several things here. It starts with a personal attack based on words that were never said nor insinuated, second it goes back to the "penalize" word, insinuating that bios that grant a bonus are wrongbadfun, third it reinforces that this is wrongbadfun by saying no good will arise from this attitude, and last it states a PB 10 character is much less powerful than a PB 15 character, which is also false in that it is not MUCH LESS powerful (insinuating that a PB 10 is crippled vs a PB 15). This was also argued against, because the statement that a PB 10 character is MUCH LESS powerful (also the word "CRIPPLED" was used to compare a 10 point buy to a 15 point buy) is false unless your definition of MUCH LESS POWERFUL is that a character that is 5-10% more effective is MUCH MORE powerful (of which I do not define that as such, but your mileage may vary)
1st and 2nd Ed were much much less stat dependent than 3E/PF.
Disagree. Nothing to back this statement up, and it caused some argumentive replies.
A lot of players dislike fudging and would rather know that they aren't being kept alive at every turn by the will of the GM, but the unfortunate effect of 15 point buy is that you get smashed a lot harder a lot more often so that control ends up firmly in the court of the GM in every fight.
Of course, a lot of GMs enjoy that power over life and death which is why some still use 15 point buy. Some GMs get off on having total control over the party at all times and directing what they do, basically having the players as slaves that must do whatever you say.
15 point buy is simply inferior if you don't want to play a board game.
This insinuates that not only is 15 point buy wrongbadfun, but that GMs who use this at their table are using the players "as slaves that must do whatever the GM says" and that one is merely "playing a board game" at 15 PB. Also that if you use a 15 PB that control of the game is "firmly in the court of the GM in every fight".
These are some examples of why there was an argument. Definitely not a miscommunication there. Definitely a lot of personal jabs, attacks, insults, and derrogatory meaning, aka sweet internet flame war.
My "argument" is that you shouldn't deride someone for how they play the game. My other "argument" is that you can have fun with 10-15 point builds and other people do have fun with them.
For some people, being uber and max effective doesn't equal having the most fun. For others it is.
I've been running modules solo against myself with 15 point buy 1st level characters. Its incredibly fun and is helping me learn. Actually I use the "elite array" which is a set 15,14,13,12,10,8 before mods.
I ran a long-lasting campaign with the default/elite array under 3.5. Worked fine, even for pal/monk. Would work better in PF due to additional abilities (acid darts, etc.) that round out characters capabilities ( so a particularly low stat is detrimental less often.)
I do a lot of games at 18 pts. 15 always feels too low, but I think 20 is a little too good.
I'm surprised you can even tell the difference between 18 point buy PCs and 20 point buy PCs!
Can you detect a pea under a big stack of mattresses as well? ;-)
stuff
Oh my.
...
And well, It doesn`t need to be "backed up" that 2E was less stat-dependent than 3E. Its obvious. Look into your old 2E Player Handbook, for gods sake.
stuffOh my.
...
And well, It doesn`t need to be "backed up" that 2E was less stat-dependent than 3E. Its obvious. Look into your old 2E Player Handbook, for gods sake.
Is it? Hmmm. I must be playing wrong ;) I don't see it. At least not on the sweeping scale that you claim it is.
Considering you said a 10 point character is "crippled" compared to a 15 point character, I have some reservations on how stat dependent 3e is compared to 2e (of which I played both editions through start to finish).
One thing about 10 point buy is animal companions become that much more relatively powerful. A dwarf druid that casts some but still has an animal companion might be powerful then since the companions stats do not change relative to other characters. That is one worry I have.
One thing about 10 point buy is animal companions become that much more relatively powerful. A dwarf druid that casts some but still has an animal companion might be powerful then since the companions stats do not change relative to other characters. That is one worry I have.
Our druid is a 10 point build. She has a honey-badger animal companion. It doesn't give a ####. (youtube reference). I have had bad experiences with druids in the past and their animal petting zoos, but so far things have been fine.
Anyone suggest 10 PB to me I am just going caster. The more points I have to play with the less I have to optimize in order to feel secure with my character surviving. I guess we can assume Druid for this case.
Str
Dex
Con 14
Wis 16(14 base +2 from human or half-orc)
Int
Cha
If I go to another casting class the 16 just goes to the primary stat for that class. I might dump charisma to 7 if need it, and avoid all conversation as much as I can.
I will waste skill points, and other mechanical things just for flavor depending on the campaing in question, but on a 10PB, and maybe even a 15 I am squeezing out every ounce of power I can.
Now some would say why not just write the background story if Auticus was my GM.
1. Time is not always an option. I could do it now, but there have been times when I barely had time to make the character.
2. Some arbitrary number of words should not dictate if I get to use the lowest level of PB possible by the rule.
3. Trying to present the 5 points as a reward does not change my view of it one bit. That is like telling me I have to work overtime to receive minimum wage.
As to the 15 PB not being good enough I disagree. I have made pretty good NPC using the elite array. Now if you are mkaing a monk it might be an issue, but 15 Pb can be made to work regardless of what Trikk said.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
15 point buy could work, I just dislike them greatly. A 10 point buy screws everyone over who is not a single state caster if ya ask me.
Differing opinions are welcome.
Then again, something tells me someone will disagree with your dislike.
Yep some folks will love it. I will not run or play in such a game however.
Wait! Are we doing the wave? No one told me we were doing the wave.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really have to wonder what kind of schedule some people run that they have no time to sit down, even if it is just for ten or fifteen minutes here and there, and construct a brief character bio. I mean, you can do most of the thinking while you do something else in the course of the day--unless what is eating up all your time is some kind of delicate surgery or precise construction, that would require a fair bit of concentration. (Lord knows I would not want my surgeon cutting me open if he was busy thinking about this awesome idea he had for a bard for next week's game.) If there is really no time to get a bio generated then how do you even find the time to play the game?
I am sorry if this is coming across as a little crazed, I just have had players in the past who made up all sorts of rather ridiculous excuses for not being able to through together a couple of paragraphs. Just a little something to give me an idea of where their character is from and why they are adventuring.
Further, I am questioning this idea of 10 and 15 point buy being somehow the death knell of MAD classes. As I understand it, the problem with MAD classes has everything to do with their abilities not keeping them in the theoretical T1 of characters that can be built and the issues there are way more than just the ability scores. Which stinks of this idea that, to have fun, a character has to be bar-none the best at his class. I can understand not wanting to have a lemon for a character, but most of what I see in Pathfinder allows for the easy competent characters.
Besides, shouldn't the focus of a roleplaying game be on telling an interesting and compelling story with friends? A good GM can account for weaker/stronger characters, it is his or her ability to tell a story that needs to be strong! The level of point buy ruining a game holds about as much water as the arguments that you can't RP in one game system as well as another. (Which characterizes a large amount of the edition and system arguments that I have seen in the past.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I make better characters, with more depth and personality, if I don't have to lay it all out ahead of time. Some people are the opposite. Develop in Play vs. Develop at Start.
I honestly failed to consider that; pretty shameful since I had a bud who pretty much worked that way. A valid point and well made, thanks for the thoughts.
I'm happy to let the players spend up big on points, and then as a GM I tone doen the WBL and loot.
I'd prefer it to be more about the character, and less about their gear.
When they have a fair few points kicking about and are pretty robust, they seem less hung up on accumulating 'stuff' to offset perceived deficiencies.
We have found it pretty enjoyable really; rather liberating...
My 15 point buy Elven Alchemist:
Str 14, Dex 16, Con 10, Int 16, Wis 10, Cha 10.
With those stats, I know that my character will have access to 6th-level Alchemist spells. I can raise my Strength to 18 or my Dexterity to 20 with my mutagen, which is not bad at all. I also have a decent amount of skills and I can raise my AC to 21 with only a chain shirt and a Shield extract. My poor will saves and my low hp will be countered by the Spontaneous Healing discovery and the Iron Will feat. My character is a true hero, no matter what 15 point buy haters say.