Irontruth,
Please realize that there is more to table-top role playing games than combat. Again - this isn't WoW.
Please tell me how a FATE game is similar to WoW? Because I've played both, and you making that comparison tells me you clearly have no idea what FATE is.
It's like if he were complaining about his car using too much gas, and I suggested riding a bike... And then you chimed in that not everyone can afford a private jet. Seriously, you are that far off base with associating my comments with WoW.
While this is true, your characters are useless on the standard assumptions of how the game is played on these boards. If you fail to provide context, those characters are going to be assumed to be jokes or intended for games where you don't actually fight anything other than goblins... even at high levels. You posted them and suggested they were valid character concepts, it is not Umbral Reaver's job to provide the necessary context, it is your job.
This. These are the Paizo boards. A campaign where "some guy who knows a lot about cheese" is a valid character concept is not a game where the Pathfinder ruleset, or any similar rulesets, is going to do you a single bit of good, so stop pretending it's even marginally relevant.
The only problem with this is that you can end up with concepts with no real weaknesses or any reason to be working in the group. This means that when it comes time to actually make the character and put the party together, you end up with a disappointed player because their concept didn't actually work because the rules had no reasonable way of allowing it while still having a functional character and/or a party of misfits that have very little reason to trust each other or even tolerate each other.I really don't know what you are talking about. What does stat generation have to do with party trust?
Stat generation by itself does not, but where rolling requires interaction between the DM and the player as the concept is being developed, even if it's confirmation that the player didn't cheat on his rolls, point buy tends to allow and even encourage the development of the concept before any mechanics at all are applied and often before any real discussion between the different players and/or the DM occurs. This means that not only do many concepts fall flat when actual mechanics are applied, leaving disappointed and frustrated players, which carries over to the game, but often that the DM only has a vague idea of what the party is going to end up looking like, and often gets at least one nasty surprise once all the details are fully known that causes a fair bit of extra work for both DM and player.
Again, these aren't exclusive to point buy, but I've found the lack of communication, which is the root problem, to be more common with point buy. It's just too easy to assume that because it's in the book, that the DM will automatically allow it, so a lot of questions never get asked until the answers are more painful instead of being asked earlier in the process before the player has made a lot of detailed decisions based on the assumed answer. Because roll playing requires either DM presence, or at least DM trust, the chances of having to make major changes to the character later or less because the lines of communication are already established.
I'm not sure I agree that a point buy, applied with the same 'hands on' attention from the GM, would be inferior. But I certainly appreciate your perspective. I've seen a lot of times in our games where the PCs are developed sans GM involvement and it does cause a lot of issues you mention (although I don't believe it is specific to point buy vs rolling)
I never said that the DM couldn't be equally involved with point buy, simply that point buy makes it easier for the DM to tune out of the character creation process, which is not a good thing because it creates more problems down the road when the prep for the actual game starts. It's possible to have inattentive DMs who allow rolling, but it's not nearly as common, and they tend to learn quickly that doing so can have very big problems in the game very quickly. Not only does point buy allow the DM to simply hand the player the book, and do nothing more, but because it tends to create similarly powered characters, a lot of the problems that arise from that approach don't show up even at the beginning of the game (because the DM assumes they must be good because its point buy, and doesn't thoroughly vet the character sheets before the game starts), but rather later, when they really cause problems. Point buy is not the actual problem, but it can certainly enhance other problems that rolling tends to catch and mitigate.
I've run a lot of different campaigns, and, for me, the ones that have been most satisfying are the ones that used point-buy. I've used that as my standard since 2003 or so (in 3.5). Prior to that it was 4d6, drop the lowest.
The 4d6 method really didn't work for me. It created wildly different characters that didn't match in power level or balance level, which made the campaign either wildly fun for some and trying at best for other players. The break for me was the Wizard with every stat over 16 except Wisdom (which was 11). Watching those rolls just made me sad. No one else at the table had that, and it was not cool.
I can't disagree with any of this and really respect your approach to DM involvement during PC creation, but I do wonder - what do you do when the stats are unplayable? Or if the stats are entirely contrary to the character concept?
First, I use 2d6+6 so the lowest they can get is an 8, which is hardly unplayable. I also give one automatic 16, so they are guaranteed at least one good stat. With this setup, it's hard to have the stats completely contrary to a concept, but I will occasionally make minor tweaks to the middle stats and even more often look for tweaks and minor one time additions I can make elsewhere to make it work (traits, class skills, that sort of thing). In the last campaign I started, I had once character that had stats that didn't quite work for the proposed concept, so I change a 10 to a 13, and he's doing just fine. The extra +1 was all it took, and I didn't have to touch the stats on either extreme to do it, so the overall feel of the rolls he got was retained. The biggest problem with rolling is that many people tend to overthink and overcorrect genuine weaknesses, which discourages the use of perfectly playable arrays, even if they aren't godlike. I also tend to de emphasize the direct use of attributes in my game, preferring to let other elements drive the character, and that helps a lot in smoothing over any differences in the rolls.
We have been doing point buy for the last year or so and everyone seems to enjoy it. We use the standard point buying system with Epic - 25 points.
Too many times the randomness of the rolls favored people way too much and its not that I dont trust my players but with the point system if they make a mistake I can immediately catch it where with the rolls there is no way to go back to it without having some tracking sheet of them.
The cheese bard was in a Pathfinder game. Rather than buffing the party or being a walking reference library, his focus was on other things. He was a spy for the king, and because no one took him seriously, he did very well.
And his negative charisma really helped him make bluff checks? I'm sorry, it sounds like your GM was using the "whatever sounds cool to me" system.
I'm sorry, it sounds like your GM was using the "whatever sounds cool to me" system.I've never understood the benefit of the 'you are playing it wrong!!' comments like these.
Maybe it would make sense if you read the whole thread? Because he was saying from the start that HE had real honest-to-God characters unlike the rest of us who actually want to have numbers to back up our abilities.
I have read the whole thread. There is a tone on these boards from some (like you, apparently) that if you don't do X, Y, and Z, you 'aren't playing right'.
There is no right way to play Pathfinder or D&D (1Ed-4Ed) or anything else. I'd much rather have a guy at the table who wants to develop an interesting persona and contribute to the storytelling.
The thing is, if the conversation is about "Rule X in Pathfinder leads to problem Y," there are always a bajillion people who immediately pipe in with "No it doesn't, because we use non-existent rule Q (or no rule at all) and never have that problem! Therefore there is no problem, so shut up, you dirty min-maxer!"
If a discussion at hand is about the Pathfinder rules, for the sake of clear communication, it should be understood that everyone is talking from the standpoint of what's printed in the rules. Not from the standpoint of how some particular group in Oklahoma does things, or from the standpoint that people who don't use rules are oh-so-much better than everyone else because they're "real role-players," not from the standpoint of games in which 8 Wis clerics are viable at 10th level when thrown into a published AP written by Paizo for use with the Pathfinder rules published by Paizo.
Maybe everything is better in storyland. But that doesn't matter, in the context of how things work in Pathfinder.
Much the same way, if I ask for help in fixing a Windows bug, it does me no good to have 20 people tell me how Linux doesn't have that bug, and 100 people to tell me I shouldn't use a computer.
Obviously everyone can play how they want. That's their private business. But once you talk about it on the forums, IT'S NOT PRIVATE. And if you go into a thread that is ABOUT STATS and talk about characters with poor stats, it's relevant to point out that the DM clearly wasn't even using those stats.
The thing is, if the conversation is about "Rule X in Pathfinder leads to problem Y," there are always a bajillion people who immediately pipe in with "No it doesn't, because we use non-existent rule Q (or no rule at all) and never have that problem! Therefore there is no problem, so shut up, you dirty min-maxer!"
If a discussion at hand is about the Pathfinder rules, for the sake of clear communication, it should be understood that everyone is talking from the standpoint of what's printed in the rules. Not from the standpoint of how some particular group in Oklahoma does things, or from the standpoint that people who don't use rules are oh-so-much better than everyone else because they're "real role-players," not from the standpoint of games in which 8 Wis clerics are viable at 10th level when thrown into a published AP written by Paizo for use with the Pathfinder rules published by Paizo.
Maybe everything is better in storyland. But that doesn't matter, in the context of how things work in Pathfinder.
Much the same way, if I ask for help in fixing a Windows bug, it does me no good to have 20 people tell me how Linux doesn't have that bug, and 100 people to tell me I shouldn't use a computer.
Yeah, well this discussion is about using point buy or rolling stats in our campaigns, not about whether or not a cleric with a low wisdom might have trouble in a specific set of adventures published by Paizo. Since there's a lot of variation in campaigns people play, as Blake correctly points out, his comments are as relevant as anyone else's.
And to your larger point - I don't find Pathfinder 'incompatible' with a role-playing-heavy style. It's a matter of preference.
That depends; using the Pathfinder rules to conduct a RP-heavy game = no conflict. We're in 100% agreement there. Actively ignoring most of the rules because a particular group thinks they "get in the way" of RP? That's a definite conflict there, and I wouldn't want to pretend like there isn't.
Either way, it is indeed a matter of preference, but the first group is playing "Pathfinder" (defined as "a system of game rules under that name published by Paizo Publishing, LLC") and the second group is playing a storytelling game loosely based on Pathfinder.
Don't get me wrong -- the second group's game might be a lot more fun; that's not what I'm saying. I personally don't play Pathfinder, and don't mind admitting it freely and openly. I currently play a game that my players and I have more or less made up, using Pathfinder as a base, but blatantly ignoring some things, adding a bunch of things from elsewhere, and totally redoing some things. I like it better, but I won't claim that it's "Pathfinder," because it isn't. After 2nd edition came out and we tried it for a while, my friends and I started not actually playing that, either -- we played a game loosely based on 1e and 2e, but with 2/3 of the rules ignored in favor of what the beer we were drinking told us would be fun.
Obviously everyone can play how they want. That's their private business. But once you talk about it on the forums, IT'S NOT PRIVATE. And if you go into a thread that is ABOUT STATS and talk about characters with poor stats, it's relevant to point out that the DM clearly wasn't even using those stats.Nobody said anything about privacy (that I've read anyway).
OP: Do people use point by or stat rolling?
Response: You are playing wrong and your characters are a joke because you play differently than I do!!!
I meant privacy in the sense of "why is it your business how he plays?" Well, because he made it my business by posting on a public thread.
As far as I see the conversation went:
Do people use point buy or stat rolling?
Some people said, "We use point buy because we don't want massive discrepancies in power level."
Then the reply said, "Well I played a bard with an 8 Charisma and he managed to bluff an entire kingdom with his awesomeness so your concerns are not valid"
And I said, you're clearly not playing by Pathfinder rules as written, so it's not relevant to the subject of point buy, which is a rules topic no matter what forum it's posted in.
Then the reply said, "Well I played a bard with an 8 Charisma and he managed to bluff an entire kingdom with his awesomeness so your concerns are not valid"And I said, you're clearly not playing by Pathfinder rules as written, so it's not relevant to the subject of point buy, which is a rules topic no matter what forum it's posted in.
The fact that the character could be pretty well-invested in alternative means of getting his skill bonuses up (like having lots of ranks, feats invested, other items, and maybe even a circumstance bonus for having a really good cover - all to compensate for a weak charisma bonus) tells me that you're clearly making an assumption that may not be true.
I do not believe that is the case and am not sure why you would come to that conclusion. The level of combat is a matter of storytelling. If I build a valid PF character and follow the rules for PC generation, advancement, etc. - how am I 'actively ignoring' the rules?
1. At least one of the people in this thread haa stated elsewhere that DM fiat is a "far superior" system to using most of the rules, so that's not coming out of nowhere.
2. Player P might be following all the rules in actually rolling up his 8 Wis spell-less cleric, but if he's successfully adventuring at 10th level in standard modules, I can pretty well guarantee that either (a) the DM is NOT following the rules, or else (b) P's teammates Q, R, and S are working overtime to keep P's character alive and make P feel important.
2. Player P might be following all the rules in actually rolling up his 8 Wis spell-less cleric, but if he's successfully adventuring at 10th level in standard modules, I can pretty well guarantee that either (a) the DM is NOT following the rules, or else (b) P's teammates Q, R, and S are working overtime to keep P's character alive and make P feel important.
What's a "standard" module in my campaign? What about your campaign? How about Blake's?
This discussion's title is "Do you use point buy in your campaign?" [emphasis mine] That opens the door to a whole lot of different campaigns and styles that don't always include the same "standard" of modules.
What's a "standard" module in my campaign? What about your campaign? How about Blake's?
This discussion's title is "Do you use point buy in your campaign?" [emphasis mine] That opens the door to a whole lot of different campaigns and styles that don't always include the same "standard" of modules.
And what are the "standard" rules, anyway? What if you're not using any?
This is going in circles.If your campaign and your style ignore 99% of what's "Pathfinder," more power to you. But why claim it's "Pathfinder" if it isn't? I've already admitted I don't play Pathfinder -- why can't other people who also aren't?
Do you feel that homebrew campaigns/adventures are 'not' standard rules? To me, these two are completely separate. I can follow the rules completely but design my own setting and adventures.
Is this 'outside the rules' in your view?
If those adventures are built using the standard rules -- such as "monsters, traps, and challenges of CR X are an appropriate challenge for characters of level Y," then you're probably close enough to what most people mean to have a meaningful discussion.
But if, rather, they're built on the predicate that "we won't use skill ranks or bonuses, but just RP the outcome and I'll let the PCs win, and there also won't be any combat, either" then I'd say that's really not a "Pathfinder" game.
Again, it might be a very FUN game, but comparing it to the people on the thread who are running Jade Throne or whatever is like comparing apples to pomegranates.
1. I don't see where anyone has said anything like that in this thread.
2. I know in our group we use skill ranks, bonuses, monsters, and traps. We use classes and HP and AC and feats; in fact, we use all the rules in the PF ruleset.
3. I don't remember a rule that says 'you have to optimize your PC for DPS' or 'you have to have 95% combat in your game and 5% social interaction'.
1. As previously stated, at least one of the people in this thread to whom I was responding (and that person is not you) has very clearly stated that standpoint on any number of other threads.
2. Good deal! But then why are you claiming the people who don't, are also "using the PF ruleset," if they're admittedly not?
3. Me neither. There is no such rule, nor did I claim there was. However, I will note that roughly 80%+ of the rules deal speficially with combat and the use of spells in combat, and reluctantly take that to mean that "no combat" isn't assumed in "Pathfinder."
You make claims that seem to have no basis in previous statements in this thread.
Because this thread got turned into a continuation of this thread.
3. Me neither. There is no such rule, nor did I claim there was. However, I will note that roughly 80%+ of the rules deal speficially with combat and the use of spells in combat, and reluctantly take that to mean that "no combat" isn't assumed in "Pathfinder."
I don't make that assumption. My assumption is that you need that many rules to keep combat reasonably regulated, robust, and fair, not that the game must include combat.
If someone is telling you (in this thread or another) that they are running a storytelling system and calling it a Pathfinder game... I guess I'd be confused too.
Gotcha. Thanks, Blake. I don't think that you and I disagree too much (except maybe on how viable an 8 Wis cleric is!) -- but when you've been on the boards as long as I have, you've seen the infinite haranguing of the "rules are for fools!" enough times that responding becomes reflexive -- and sometimes misplaced, as in your particular case.
I am convinced there are people on this board who sit down, the GM says 'roll for initiative', they kill things for 6+ hours, then they go home. The turn 'role play' into 'roll play.
That's depressing! I've oft said it before, but I seem to have been lucky -- in my personal experience the people who are adept at the tactical wargaming aspects have most often been the people who also got most into their characters and the "role-playing" part as well. Generally, the people I've played with who lacked enough interest to make a personality or backstory for their PC, were the same people who couldn't be bothered to learn the combat or skills rules.
As an example, I've seen so many threads on the absolute contempt for healing magic during combat. And so many posters who want to grab a pitchfork to wield against those who say 'yes, sometimes it DOES make sense to heal the group and not let half the party die'. I often feel these posters are experts at the tactical side but limited on the character development side. (I probably shouldn't feel the two are mutually exclusive).
I seem to recall a clarification thread started by one of the more vocal proponents, that started with something like "although sometimes healing in combat is smart, in order to keep your teammates from dying mid-battle, in general there are more efficient tactics that might be considered, such as..." And this is completely true -- if you're playing in a hard-line campaign, with difficult challenges against bad guys who intend to kill you, then healing in combat often isn't all it's cracked up to be. In my experience, most people who do it, do so because that's what they think a cleric is "supposed" to do.
But unless your cleric has a "4" written next to "Intelligence" on his character sheet, I can't see how intentionally using bad tactics would necessarily indicate better role-playing.