|
I've been playing in the same Pathfinder group since we first discovered the Alpha playtest, I've even still got my hard copy of the Beta. With the exception of PFS we've almost entirely run 25 pt builds with 4 PCs for several of the PF adventure paths and been really happy with the system.
I'm about to join another PF group and have just been told to use a 35 pt build for my lvl 1 character. With 6 players I imagine we're going to be absolutely lethal. I argued the 25 pt buy for a little until one of the other PF 'veterans,' as he calls himself, complained that 25 was way too weak and that there had been plenty of online debate on this subject. None of which I can find...
Does anyone else out there run 35 pt games or is this just a sign of things to come with this group?
It depends on how fond people are of dumpstatting. If your players like to make characters that are very varied and do things outside their class specialisation (for example, intelligent sorcerers and fighters, strong wizards, charismatic rogues, etc.) then a higher than 25 point buy may encourage that diversity.
If not, then you'll have trouble.
Sounds like you may actually have a functional monk character for this game.
Sounds like you may actually have a functional monk character for this game.
Human/Half-Elf/Half-Orc +2 Str:
18, 14, 14, 12, 17, 10:D
I know it's not optimised but with 35 points, who cares?
My current 8-man RotRL group uses a communally rolled array of 17, 16, 15, 14, 11, 11 (which would come out to be a point buy of 37, though not quite since it is a set array). The encounters take a little bit of rebalancing, but I had to rebuild encounters to convert it to PF already anyway (as well as compensate for the large party size), so it was no big deal. Honestly, if the group likes a high-powered campaign and the GM is willing to compensate for the increased ability scores while designing encounters, I don't think it should be a problem. I regularly run games using a 15 point point-buy and haven't had any trouble though, so I'm not quite sure what the comment about 25 points being "too weak" is about, unless they are absolutely horrid at character building.
|
|
When a player complains that "25 is way too weak", beware.
Yeah... That was my concern. Luckily I'm only playing, not GMing...
I'm looking at running a Summoner me thinks, with a 7 in strength I can smash a 20 CHA and still have enough points left for a decent DEX and CON.
Although because we do have such a high build I'm tempted to try and get my Dwarven Runesmith back in the game. Come on Paizo, bring back the Runesmith!
Use this chance to use character ideas that are normally unplayable or just too impractical. Could be a sign, yes. Of what will depend on what you and the group you're joining make.
But then, maybe I've been spoiled by a GM that has allowed such high stats. Very odd and fun to play a Gunslinger with Dex as my fourth highest stat.
35pb is nothing short of awesome sauce. Six well-built characters will be Ministers of Death to be sure.
/ for me, as a DM, I'd allow 35pb in a game with only 3 players.
|
35 point-buy is the kind of thing that will let you make even the most sub-optimal build work. Either that, or grab a really MAD class like a TWF paladin or a monk. With a 35 point-buy you could make even a mystic theurge work quite well:
Elf Cleric 1
Str 10, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 18, Wis 16, Cha 14
Longbow, lots of skills, grab wizard at fourth level and shift into theurgy at 7th with stacked stats.
|
|
"grab a really MAD class like a TWF paladin or a monk."
Wow... The Monk really doesn't get any love these days, does she?
Briefly entertained the idea of a Dwarven Cleric of Angradd with the Crusader Archtype. Greataxe and flames, how can you go wrong?
Also very tempted to rip out Treantmonk's guide to Wizards and just cheese the hell out of it. Prove just how OP I can be, but if they're finding 25 pt builds weak I suspect they're not going to be the best at building characters...
"grab a really MAD class like a TWF paladin or a monk."
Wow... The Monk really doesn't get any love these days, does she?
Yeah, tis the season for people to complain about Monks, Rogues, and Gunslingers right now. For different reasons.
|
|
A concept I would like to try is a half-orc ranger 1, vivisectionist thereafter. Two-weapon fighting with an orc double axe, and a bite secondary attack, with sneak attack.
Str 18
Dex 16
Con 13
Int 16
Wis 12
Cha 10
If you're going to go with a single level of ranger, you had might as well grab the second level for the bonus feat. Free Double Slice is pretty sweet.
EDIT: A straight melee alchemist would be boss with this array:
Str 20, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 8
Feats: Some combination of Toughness, Iron Will, Medium Armour Proficiency, and Improved Initiative.
Start with a longspear (+7 [1d8+10/x3] at first level with mutagen!) and grab Feral Mutagen at level 2. Once you qualify for it go into master chymist and enjoy yourself.
|
|
Aww... But I love my Gunslinger in PFS. Haven Quickdraw, fastest gun hand in Galarion. 3 foot something of Halfling bravado...
I'm having real problems building any character at the moment, I've been playing a lvl 17 Hound Archon Ranger, Tunguska. I'm kinda attached to the furry blighter, not really in the mood for building anything else atm /headdesk
35 pb might mean one stat at 16 and 5 at 14 before racial adjustment.
|
|
Barbarian is strictly better than ranger for 1 level splash; rage + mutagen + potion of strength you keep spitting out = win.
Str: 20 Int: 16 Wis: 12 Dex: 14 Con: 14 Chr: 7 is how I would do combat Vivi; possibly switch Int and Con. I'd generally advise against multi; but if you must the Barbarian will have you a few extra hp, a little extra speed, and rage; along with almost as many skill points.
Higher point buys are better for MAD classes, naturally.
Based on no math and only anecdotal evidence (so beware), I've found 25-30 is right around where MADs are plenty viable, but the PCs aren't just stupid strong.
35 is a bit high, and in a 6 man group, you're looking at some extreme power. You will probably end up with every base covered with a bit of overlap (assuming the party metacreates [discusses group composition before character creation]), and each character strong as heck to boot.
Nah, man, straight-18's is the only way to play.
I mean, is there any other way? If you're not starting out with a +4 modifier in every stat, then I submit that you're doing it wrong.
I actually think that the differences between point buys are generally overstated, and the higher your point buy is to begin with, the less difference adding more points will make. With 25-pt buy, all but the MADdest characters are likely to have good-to-great scores in the abilities that are most important to them. Adding another 10 points mostly lets you make your secondary stats great instead of good or your least important stats good instead of fair. I'm not really confident that when watching people play a game, I could tell without looking at their sheets whether it was a 25-pt or 35-pt buy game.
For most of my 3.X gaming career, my group used a 30pt buy where 11-14 was 1 pt, 15/16 were 2 pts, and 17/18 were 3 pts.
What this meant is that pretty much everybody, for every character, did some sort of assortment of 16/16/16/14/12/10.
At levels 1-3, we were pretty overpowered. After that, things start to even out.
But then again, my group has always prefered more balanced characters, and no one has a min/maxing problem. ("Dump stat into negatives? Are you insane? I don't want penalties!")
As long as everybody is of the same mind, and builds their characters with roleplaying in mind first, then high point buys are fine. However, the moment someone starts hard optimizing is when the whole group falls apart because one person is too powerful.
I recently learned that 25 pt buy was around +1 APL, so I would guess 35 point buy is +2. If DM understands this, it can work. I can see the charm of such a game, i would couple it with a setting that hampers the players, like Dark Sun, or restrictions in other benefits that are available.
Your summoner will suffer, implicitly the Eidolon will be 2 levels lower when APL is two higher. Play a character that deals physical damage, and possibly add some magic to spice it up.
I've run 8 players with 50 point buy. I had to make adjustments but everyone had fun.
Man I feel almost heartless doing a 6 PC 15 pt buy for Carrion Crown... heh.
Wow. 35 point buy seems like a lot of adjustment would be required to make stuff challenging at low levels.
I like 20-25 point buy. Anything higher, and you're playing anime characters...or maybe Exalted or something.
To each their own, I suppose.
Wouldn't having high ability scores like this also require an adjustment to magical items rewarded as treasure? I think Pathfinder accounts for this, right?
I have been running a game (on hiatus right now for completely unrelated reasons) in which the players ended up having the stat equivalents of a 37 point buy.
I have always been big on the players having as much say as the GM in making decisions about the base factors of the game, so going into it I proposed a point buy and pretty much unanimously was told they would prefer to roll. My reservation was that the ones who didn't roll as well would feel shafted by the ones who rolled better.
The overwhelming consensus (the way they had been doing it since they had been gaming together and I not with them since I left for college 10 years ago or so) was to go with the "heroic" method which they knew as 2d6+6, place where you want them.
Well, as I predicted, the ones who rolled worse were unhappy with how much better others rolled, so I finally said they could just use the array that the guy who rolled best used. Like I said above, it works out to something like a 37 point buy.
I then proceeded to run Carrion Crown as written. To my surprise I had to make no adjustments for lethality and several players have experienced character death for the first time in their gaming career. My experience has been that for this particular set of players, just playing the tactics of the monsters has been more than enough to deal with their increased power. So it really hasn't broken the game in any way.
Still, if I were to go back, I would just not have made it an option in the first place and just stuck with point buy (and go with a pretty generous 25).
Sean Mahoney
I have been running a game (on hiatus right now for completely unrelated reasons) in which the players ended up having the stat equivalents of a 37 point buy.
I have always been big on the players having as much say as the GM in making decisions about the base factors of the game, so going into it I proposed a point buy and pretty much unanimously was told they would prefer to roll. My reservation was that the ones who didn't roll as well would feel shafted by the ones who rolled better.
The overwhelming consensus (the way they had been doing it since they had been gaming together and I not with them since I left for college 10 years ago or so) was to go with the "heroic" method which they knew as 2d6+6, place where you want them.
Well, as I predicted, the ones who rolled worse were unhappy with how much better others rolled, so I finally said they could just use the array that the guy who rolled best used. Like I said above, it works out to something like a 37 point buy.
I then proceeded to run Carrion Crown as written. To my surprise I had to make no adjustments for lethality and several players have experienced character death for the first time in their gaming career. My experience has been that for this particular set of players, just playing the tactics of the monsters has been more than enough to deal with their increased power. So it really hasn't broken the game in any way.
Still, if I were to go back, I would just not have made it an option in the first place and just stuck with point buy (and go with a pretty generous 25).
Sean Mahoney
Carrion Crown run as written could be lethal to "18 everywhere before racial and level adjustments, level 5 characters with maximised Hit Dices"