Hi everyone. Haven't done much posting as of late but an interesting 'debate' between me and some good friends came up about a proper Pathfinder character. I wanted to hear about your opinions on this aboard the topic I am about to broach (I haven't tried my search-fu to find a topic similar nor do I care to). The discussions we've had has nothing to do with any specific game that has taken place or characters that have been made. It is all theory-craft such as what we find on these boards which I think fits it well. These 'debates' tend to have multiple facets with them but I'll try to break it down as best as I can so we can focus on differing parts easier.
For a quick background these friends are used to playing in the 'high powered' campaigns where you regularly see 18, 17, 16 stats in at least three stat boxes. They are very much set in their ways (as I am) in how things are supposed to be and anyone who argues otherwise (as with me) just don't know what their talking about. Of all the games we've played, except for when one friend made a ranger/rogue character, each of my characters (without trying!) end up being stars of the show. What I mean by this is not me tooting my horn, but just by a few basic choices I end up with characters that easily over-shadow others in abilities. This ends up with my perception that these friends are over-emphasizing certain things that I believe they don't need to be (not even for optimization purposes either, just principle).
Multiple Ability Dependency (MAD)
Friend's Argument:High constitution is required to play a playable character. The character is unplayable if it does not have at least a +2 in Con. This makes even casters MAD. Low con will equal death and short survival life span. Required for casters as much as a fighter type character. Claims his characters constantly die if they don't have the higher con and therefore it is mandatory.
My Argument: High constitution is only required for a specific style of play. If you expect to play a fighter type or one that is constantly up in the front. For casters a high constitution is quite lovely but not mandatory as is suggested. Having a -1 in the stat is certainly not preferable, but not near as damaging as to a front line fighter. A single stat (the casting stat) is the primary focus of a caster and con is secondary for any kind of efficiency. A caster getting constantly killed is either a GM intentional deal or poor play choices on the caster's part.
Point Buy vs Rolling Dice
Friend's Argument: Rolling dice makes 'heroic characters' and therefore more fun to play. Point buy makes characters that are average. Point Buy is no fun at all (Yes, I realize this is relative).
My Argument: Point buy makes characters have to rely more on one another; instead of having the solo player that does what he wants because he always roll amazing somehow. The game becomes grittier and more realistic instead of steam-rolling of obstacles. The game is designed with 15 point buy as the standard, therefore fewer balance issues when closer to this.
Druids and Animal Companions
Friend's Argument:Druids are unplayable without animal companions.
My Argument: Learn to play noob!!
Well, there ya have it. I'm curious to hear who beats me over the head with a rod or how people present the arguments (for/against) in a more reasonable manner.
|
Have to agree with you about the CON. It's helpful, but not necessary for every style of play, particularly after you've gotten a level or two under your belt.
I've been on both sides of the point buy vs. rolling argument, and frankly there's a time and place for both. I actually prefer point buy for campaigns that I know going in will be more difficult, since at least I'll be able to balance my build to what I think I'll need, instead of making random numbers that have as good a chance of giving me three 8's as three 18's into something workable.
Druid's are pretty good with their animal companions, particularly at low levels, but I've seen people build potent and capable druids that took the domain instead because they simply didn't want the trouble of trying to keep their pet alive. There are some situations where the pet actually becomes a bit of hindrance, whereas the domain is always going to be a static benefit that can never be dominated and turned against you.
|
I'll throw my views in.
Multiple Ability Dependency (MAD)
Friend's Argument:High constitution is required to play a playable character. The character is unplayable if it does not have at least a +2 in Con. This makes even casters MAD. Low con will equal death and short survival life span. Required for casters as much as a fighter type character. Claims his characters constantly die if they don't have the higher con and therefore it is mandatory.
My Argument: High constitution is only required for a specific style of play. If you expect to play a fighter type or one that is constantly up in the front. For casters a high constitution is quite lovely but not mandatory as is suggested. Having a -1 in the stat is certainly not preferable, but not near as damaging as to a front line fighter. A single stat (the casting stat) is the primary focus of a caster and con is secondary for any kind of efficiency. A caster getting constantly killed is either a GM intentional deal or poor play choices on the caster's part.
After playing Pathfinder for a year under a new GM. We found ourselves in serious danger of dying each and every combta, so each of us chose to better our characters in those areas that we felt needed it, AC, Perception, and Hit Points. So what happened? The encounters scaled with the improvements we made and we were still hanging on by the skin of our teeth. There were a few times that the GM had to do a GM fiat at the end of a fight so that it would not be a TK. It wasn't that he was a killer GM. He was actually a pretty smart, creative guy. At one point, I asked him why the encounters were so tough and he told me he was trying to make each encounter exciting and was worried that we would end up steam rolling the encounter if he did not make it challenging. I have a feeling that your friend has had too many heavy handed GMs. I agree with you that ideally, a player should not feel pigeon-holed into making character choices based on the GMs play style. Every GM is different and adapting to the GM and his world is part of playing the game, but not when a player feels he has no choice.
Point Buy vs Rolling Dice
Friend's Argument: Rolling dice makes 'heroic characters' and therefore more fun to play. Point buy makes characters that are average. Point Buy is no fun at all (Yes, I realize this is relative).
My Argument: Point buy makes characters have to rely more on one another; instead of having the solo player that does what he wants because he always roll amazing somehow. The game becomes grittier and more realistic instead of steam-rolling of obstacles. The game is designed with 15 point buy as the standard, therefore fewer balance issues when closer to this.
I disagree with your friend. the relationship between a GM and Player make a character heroic. The player has to want to be a hero and the GM has to want to have the character be a hero. People who think that stats make characters heroes are most likely playing roll-playing games instead of role-playing games.
I've played D&D/Pathfinder/d20 games for over 20 years. Its fun to roll up stats with the hope that you might get that unexpected awesome character, but it's not fun rolling up a below average character and spending the next year watching some cocky player's character do everything better than you. Point Buys allow players to start at the same place. As I said above, it's up to the Players and GMs to decide if characters will be heroes.
Druids and Animal Companions
Friend's Argument:Druids are unplayable without animal companions.My Argument: Learn to play noob!!
You are both wrong. Your friend is not seeing beyond that one class boon; and you are wrong because you are taking a stance that belittles your friend. Pathfinder is a social game. Help your friend instead of knocking him down.
I think that was supposed to be humorous. We don't know it the poster actually said that.
I was a big fan of point buy when it came out. I was one of those that couldn't roll a strong set of attributes, and my friend who played in every game with me was the one who couldn't roll a bad set.
What dice rolling method were you talking about? Because 4d6 drop the lowest averages to a little bellow a 20 point buy. A character is not more heroic (i assume your friend means powerful) by rolling dice. What he is is more random. If you want a powerful character your best bet is a 30 point buy or something of the sort. Then you are assured a high stated character. Dice just gives you a chance at it (unless you fudge the rolls).
Multiple Ability Dependency (MAD)
Constitution isn't an end all, as many has said, it depends on play style. So in this regard you are correct
Point Buy vs Rolling Dice
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but sure you can get some high (or low) stats with rolling dice. But we all know that we allow for more re-rolls of stats when rolling dice. With Point buy, everything is consistent. No one is statistically better because you call started with the same options for scores. And as you say the heroic factor is completely based on GM and Player relationship. (and the high stat isn't what makes a hero it's their flaws)
Druids and Animal Companions
Wait, how is this even a question, the base build allows for non-animal companion options PLUS the many Archetypes that remove it all together.
Though some are right in saying that you should probably pick a better argument, but I'm sure you did that for the pure inane nature of the question.
.
.
My argument for an array is rooted in the disadvantages of the other two methods.
Rolling - I find imbalance between PCs in a party to be the worst kind of game imbalance. Randomly rolled attributes are a prime cause of intra-party imbalance.
Point Buy - I'm not opposed to point buy systems in some other games. However, the curved-cost vs. flat-bonus in Pathfinder rewards and encourages very similar attributes between characters. I prefer to have very strong barbarians & very smart wizards, each of whom has other weaknesses.
Array - With an array, characters within the party have completely balanced attributes. Also, by giving an array with 8 & 18, I insure that all characters have a truly remarkable strength and a weakness.
I use 18,16,14,12,10,8
That's what a 32 point build (assuming doesn't take into account class attribute bonus)
Assuming you want the smart being SMART and the strong being STRONG, each with a weakness, I'd say just raise the points for the point buy. This allows for things like multiple 14's or 16 so that someone can be equally smart/string and be weak in other aspects. (say House rule 30 point build, must have at least 1 negative stat(lower than 10)
OK, I am currently playing two Pathfinder characters, a druid and a witch.
Both have a constitution of 10. The druid has reached level 9 (from level 1) in a campaign which has seen the following PC deaths: Ranger, Rogue, Cleric, Rogue again, Animal companion (twice) and another Cleric.
So far the witch's party hasn't had any deaths, but we've only just reached level 3. But so far an average constitution has not been an issue.
As far as animal companions go, my druid has one and I like it, but I have seen many, many posts here on the boards arguing that the AC is worse than the other Nature's Bond options. Not sure I agree but with that much support for other options, they must be perfectly viable.
Point buy produces predictable, balanced attributes. Rolling dice produces random ones. On average they are about the same, assuming you use one of the common dice rolling techniques. My druid's attributes were rolled, and she came out the equivalent of a 16 point buy. My witch's attributes were rolled and he came out around a 25 point buy.
As with all things you have to find that delicate balance between whats the lowest level of starting heroics your players are willing to accept and whats the highest level of starting heroics wouldn't annoy you if you were game mastering... This isnt tough most of the time. Some folks are good about spreading their points around, some players just arent happy without at least an 18 somewhere...
Having an 18 to start isnt game breaking since you could technically roll one using the traditional 3d6 method. You get up to things like say a 27 point buy and certain folks are going to have an 18 18 10 10 10 10... As a character is that going to be 'good enough' for you and as a GM does a pair of 18s make you feel like you've got to ramp up the death machine to match? Our table doesnt think so since there are so many 10s there to exploit. The character is the 'best at what they do' but they've got a lot of achilles heel even then...
Every table's different.
So it's just finding that happy middle...
I thank you all for your replies! This has been a fruitful discussion I believe not in proving me right or wrong, but a change from various other things we repeatedly talk about.
Now, as far as "Learn to play n00b!" comment, it was in jest. I'm not the kind of guy to be a complete jerk like that. If I am going to give anyone a hard time it's AFTER they complain and then refuse any assistance.
The druid deal was more that he was so adamant on the animal companion being so pivotal to the druid class that it is unplayable without. It goes to the con issue in this: Instead of saying, "Oh I've had bad experiences with GMs that seem to kill my low-con sorcerer. Therefore, I've had to rely on higher CON to work.." I hear "Oh no! You MUST!!!!1! have a high CON score to be viable!".
I could fall in the same category as them, in that I strongly favor my opinion obviously. However, these are the types that tend to have the mentality they are right almost all the time.
------------
As far as the rolling that my friends tend to do, generally they expect roll 3 (Yes THREE) sets of 7 stats, 4d6 with rolls of 1s. It's not rolling down the line for each stat or just a single set of stats that can be placed anywhere. So when we talk high-powered 'heroic', clearly you can see how this can easily get out of hand!
1) MAD is real and it exists. Con is required for every class, and HP's are easily gained in PF because of this. If you have a low Con, that doesn't make you unplayable, but it does make you vulnerable.
A stat required for every class is not a MAD argument. Con is a requirement to have a survivable character. It has nothing to do with what class you take.
I will note that spellcasters have the wherewithal to take False Life, Favored Class (hit points) and the toughness feat...and they can do this starting at level 1 and 3, for +3 hit points/die. Starting with a low con is certainly possible, it's just harder.
2) Rolling dice creates imbalance between characters. I'm reminded of the halfling Feisto I played, where the random stat generator gave me 13 18 18 17 12 10. Before racial mods. Nobody else at the table had anything even CLOSE. That little guy was tough, fast, smart, and the only character to survive all the way through level 12. Everyone else died at least once and restarted.
Point Buy, on the other hand, favors SAD characters like wizards, who can dump 3 stats and feel no pain for it, and penalizes characters with MAD, like monks and paladins, who can basically only dump one stat.
The fairest choice is always an array, which basically stops the practice of dumping and going for multiple extreme stats, and balances out things as much as possible.
3) Animal companions are certainly not neccessary for a druid, but they are thematic and generally very useful, even abusable, as they are generally the toughest companion creatures in the game. But summons can generally replace them, and the extra domain can mean more versatility. It's a play choice, really. Druids are extremely powerful without AC's, AC's just bring them up to greatness and superb solo ability.
==Aelryinth
Huh. Most of my characters don't even hit Con 14, and I haven't suffered a spate of deaths from it.
As for attribute generation, I prefer the control of having a point buy vs. random rolls. I often use an array on the occasions when I'm running; usually because I have a definite idea about how uber I want the PCs to be (or not to be) in relation to the NPC population.
Finally, ACs.
I can't TELL you how delighted I was to FINALLY get a class feature I was willing to USE (the Domain option). I like Druids, but (imo) the AC feature sucks like a chest wound, always has. I've never used one, even before we got the Domain option. So I'd agree w/ya, OP, on that response...
:)
PS: my typical array for a "standard" sort of game is 17, 16, 14, 13, 11, 10. A bit above the curve, with "average" scores being the "weakness" for a PC.
Con is certainly an important attribute, but so are they all to varying degrees... ultimately Con affects hit points which are a resource, and the character determines how quickly those resources are used up or regained. If a character is unable to do that to any degree regardless of what is Constitution score, then the fault lies with him, not his attribute.
Heroism is defined by a character's actions, not his attributes... I would allow a 20 point buy, but if he wants to roll then fine, set up a realistic die-rolling system (perhaps 3d6 re-rolling ones) and make him keep what he gets. Might change his opinion real quick.
Animal Companions - again, a resource. Seen plenty of Druids without one that played just fine.
I use 18,16,14,12,10,8That's what a 32 point build (assuming doesn't take into account class attribute bonus)
Assuming you want the smart being SMART and the strong being STRONG, each with a weakness, I'd say just raise the points for the point buy. This allows for things like multiple 14's or 16 so that someone can be equally smart/string and be weak in other aspects. (say House rule 30 point build, must have at least 1 negative stat(lower than 10)
If I was using an array it would probably be 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8... if the character wanted an 18 (theoretically the maximum for a non super-human character) he can pick a race with the appropriate modifier.
I could be talked into 18, 14, 12, 12, 10, 8 but that would be about it - I still like the point buy system better with the caveat of only 1 attribute below 10.
Huh. Most of my characters don't even hit Con 14, and I haven't suffered a spate of deaths from it.
I seldom if ever go above a 14 as well. But, even more seldom do I take it below twelve, and I think I have only made one character that dropped it to a eight.
So, even if it is never a stat that I beef up considerably, I almost always set aside points to beef it up a bit. And based on a recent thread asking about CON for characters, it seems twelve is the usual lowest. Some folk even suggested playing a ten was certain death.
Aerlyth's comments kinda hit spot on concerning they buying of CON for characters, there are other ways of getting HP, but it still makes one vulnerable to have a low CON.
Greg
Con is not integral to the mechanics of ANY class.
It's a requirement to have a survivable character. There are other ways to get hit points. If you are going to take a lot of damage, sure, you'll want Con, but that's not an integral part of any class mechanics, it's a function of role, which is totally seperate. A summoner who likes to tank needs a high Con, a summoner who summons things to tank has much less need for it.
Role, not class.
==Aelryinth
Con is not integral to the mechanics of ANY class.
Except the Scarred Witch Doctor. And to a lesser extent, the Barbarian and the Rage Prophet.
I'll answer relative to the games I've run and played in over the years. Although I doubt it needs saying, these things can be quite different in different groups' games.
Con is an important stat for a melee combatant. For anyone else it's just a bonus.
I don't like point buy. Spanning different editions (and games), rolling for stats is one of the things that feels quintessential to D&D. I use a 4d6 drop lowest, reroll 1 and 2, assign system now. I wouldn't say it makes characters more heroic, that's down to the player and the choices they make. It does however make characters more robust and capable, which I appreciate when I run. If I were pressed for time and decided to use an array, it would probably be 18 17 16 14 13 11.
I don't know that any of my players have ever played a druid. Personally, I find a domain more appealing than an animal companion, but that's because I'm seeing more as a support caster than shapeshifting engine of doom. If one were playing a combat focused druid, the extra claws and flank help of a pet could be useful, so that's completely situational.
I took a quick look at my repertoire of characters for the past several years. Here's what I found for starting con for each one:
Duid - Played level 1 - 9, con: 10
Witch - Played level 1 - 3, con: 10
Ranger (melee/ranged) - Played level 8 - 28 (4e), starting con: 13
Ranger (archer) - Played level 1 - 14, starting con: 10
Fighter - Played level 6 - 9, con: 15
Rogue - Played level 1 - 6, con: 11
Spellthief - Played level 1 -5, con: 8
Sorcerer - Played level 6 - 7: con 12 (great rolls)
Wizard - Played level 1 - 13: con 9
Cleric - Played level 1 - 11: con 12
Illusionist - Played level 1 - 14: con 13 (unbelievable rolls)
Anyay... Con usually means two things, fort save boost and a few extra hit points per level. Otherwise it has had very little effect on any of my characters. In fact I usually consider it to be the second least important stat, better only than charisma (wisdom gives you those all-important save-or-suck will save boosts...)
Update: Of those characters the only ones to die in game were the rogue and the spellthief. And the rogue died last in a TPK.