So earlier this week a couple of my friends and I got into a debate about how a 10 point buy campaign limits players to only being able to make bland boring characters. They went on to say that because of the 10 point buy the only decent option left to them is to play casters as they are viable in both combat and out of combat scenarios and generally benefit from having a good int/cha/wis score without losing out elsewhere.
My question to you all is this: How limiting is a 10 point buy in regards to how deep a character can be? Is it possible to be both well rounded and effective in combat? Are fighter types really hurt more than casters are? And would a 15 point buy really change any of these issues? Your advice is needed!
|
The subject of this thread and the question you are asking are completely separate things.
1) 7 in a stat means you're pretty clumsy at the things relevant to that stat.
2) 10 point buy is STUPID painful for pretty much everybody, but classes like Witches, Wizards and Sorcerers (read: any pure spellcaster) can just dump all their points into their primary casting stat and effectively ignore everything else, and still be perfectly viable characters.
15PB is much less restrictive in this case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I look at the different levels of points as different styles of play or difficulty levels. Your character is only going to be boring if you play them in a boring way. A 10 point limit will make a really gritty game with players having to more clever and careful. To me, that sounds more interesting than a character that has awesome stats and crushes everything head on as their "go to" solution. To answer your question more directly... it's only limiting if you don't want things to be tougher than they already are when it comes to random rolls. You can have a character that has awesome stats rolling all 1's while a character with 10 Str is rolling a crit every turn. The odds make it harder for the low stat character to succeed, but doesn't change their options.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone finds the same things fun.
When the PCs have lower stats than the average commoner, some may find it fun, but others will not.
I have a player amongst one of my groups who finds any option that is not nearly crippling, to be "broken and overpowered".
I find I like my PC to actually be good at the thing they are flavored to good at.
Note, this thread is in the wrong forum.
The subject of this thread and the question you are asking are completely separate things.
You're right. I ended up asking a lot more questions than just one. Once I started typing this out more and more questions kept popping in my head. Thanks for your answers! It really helps.
I find I like my PC to actually be good at the thing they are flavored to good at.
Now in order to achieve this do you have to alter something in order to do it? For example, let's say you're playing a wizard and in typical wizard fashion he tends to read a lot and study late into the nights but decides to do some form of exercise every morning to stay in shape. Do you then increase his strength(or con) to show this part of your character and lower stats elsewhere? Or you just say he's fit but leave the stats unchanged, choosing to instead optimize your stats to better suit a wizard?
Note, this thread is in the wrong forum.
Sorry, I must have clicked the wrong section and didn't notice. This was supposed to go into the advice section.
Nope.
You can have Muscles McBuff Pants the Wizard with 7 Str if you want. As long as it doesn't have an in-game effect you can flavor it however you want. Sometimes it's fun to play up negative stats, but in the case of a 10-15 Point Buy, it seems like it'd get boring REAL damn quick to play the dumb Fighter or the puny weakling Wizard every time, since that's what your stats would always reflect if you wanted to even vaguely optimize.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orc Fighter, point buy 10
STR: 16
DEX: 12
CON: 12
INT: 10
WIS: 10
CHA: 8
Orc Fighter, point by 15
STR: 17
DEX: 13
CON: 14
INT: 10
WIS: 10
CHA: 8
Is this realy a huge differnece ?
5 % less to hit at level 4, 1 HP per level, a bit damage and some day (8 level) 1 AC. With some smart feat choises this figther can play in a 15 point buy game without the other players realy noticing the lower point buy...
Paladin or Monk with this low point buy will get tricky and at 10 point by players are more likly to be forces in race/class choises. At 10 point by you will likly never see a orc wizard ;)
The real problem is at 10 point by you will always see some players that select a "pet class" summoner, druid etc. A 11 in the primary caster attibute of this class to cast first level spells and you will have a pet that will overshadow the entire party with a few buffs. In fact it is possible to build a summoner at point buy 5 without dump stat and at point buy 0 with some state dumping ....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've found characters are only interesting with a 50 point buy.
Oh, and they need to have just the right magic gear.
Otherwise the game is no fun. None at all.
How come druid animal companion higher point buy than barbarian?
|
People will adapt to the character creation rules that they've been given, and follow the path of least resistence to get the character they want, whatever those rules are.
The second of my two PFS characters was, in part, a design experiment; could I build an effective, interesting and playable PC while taking the point-buy (which I hate!) to its limits?
Stats from 20-point buy:- 7,7,7,8,18,18.
Next step, find a melee warrior-type class/archetype and make it effective and have it all make sense role-play wise.
I chose a dawnflower dervish bard, and decided to make her female and small so that dumping Str and Con made sense, and I chose halfling for both the penalty to Str and the bonuses to Dex and Con. The result:-
Str 5, Dex 20, Con 8, Int 7, Wis 7, Cha 20.
I won't bore you with the details, but I then put in a lot of work into her character and background, paying attention to how her stats would have affected her entire life. I've played Niamh Snowmane in PFS and had a blast; there was more role-play than roll-play, and I look forward to playing her again.
The point is, even if it was a 10-point buy instead, I'd have made similar decisions. Perhaps 7,7,7,8,15,18.
So the title of this thread is on the money. The lower the point-buy, the more sevens and eights there will be, to 'pay' for the good scores, and there will be more SAD classes than MAD classes.
If you are looking for a campaign in which the PCs have stats much closer to 10, then try rolling stats! Instead of '4d6 drop the lowest' try '3d6 12 times keep the six scores you want'. It could be fewer than 12 times, but I recommend no fewer than 6. : )
An alternative is 'average dice'. For each d6 you roll, count '1' as '3' and count '6' as '4'. This results in each die having results of 2,3,3,4,4 and 5. Min of 6 and max of 15, but only a one in 216 chance of either; the stats are much more likely to be between 9-12. Make them roll while you are watching, then they can take those stats home and make their character. I think that this has a few advantages over the 10-point buy: no dumping stats to 'pay' for an 18, even non-essential stats should be closer to 10 so stats will be more rounded on average, more chance of a MAD class being a reasonable option, more fun and engaging than a dry point-buy.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
and decided to make her female and small so that dumping Str and Con made sense
oink
and decided to make her female and small so that dumping Str and Con made senseoink
Is it not true that a small character has a lower strength? Gnomes and halflings have a -2 to strength. In addition, a dervish, like the one he is describing, would clearly be more focused on grace and speed rather than durability and strength.
A burly half-orc or dwarf dervish would make little sense as a dervish.
[/end rant]
10 point buy isn't so bad. I once read an article on a D&D 8 point buy game. It seemed fun, designed as a "uber-hard" experience, where characters were more akin to peasants than heroes. My advice is to just play a sub-optimal character. Treat 14 or 16 as your cap, and don't dump all of your "non-important" scores.
|
|
and decided to make her female and small so that dumping Str and Con made senseoink
Roberta, is pointing out the fact that female humans (and halflings) are generally smaller than males sexist?
All creatures are individuals, but having a PC be within the norms of her species for height/weight, and reflecting that in choosing a low Str/Con, is not sexist.
Nor is my 6'4'' hand-and-a-half elf female ranger/paladin with Str 18 and Con 14.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roberta, is pointing out the fact that female humans (and halflings) are generally smaller than males sexist?
All creatures are individuals, but having a PC be within the norms of her species for height/weight, and reflecting that in choosing a low Str/Con, is not sexist.
oink
|
|
oinkRoberta, is pointing out the fact that female humans (and halflings) are generally smaller than males sexist?
All creatures are individuals, but having a PC be within the norms of her species for height/weight, and reflecting that in choosing a low Str/Con, is not sexist.
There may well be a rational counter to my assertion, but 'oink' isn't it.
If this is a debate, then I have been presented with no case to answer, and 'oink' is an admission of a failure to phrase such a rebuttal, especially from someone who has shown herself to be so articulate in spite of priding herself on turning sarcasm into an artform.
It is SO very heroic playing a “hero” who the village fool thinks is a ‘stupidhead’, whose ideas of tactics is “Charge!?!” (and has to think about that), and who is so ugly and uncouth that flatulent warthogs avoid him.
Mind you, it is common for heroes to have a “flaw’ but why is the flaw never a low CON, like Elric or Doc Holiday?
If the DM want to limit super characters, it would be better to allow a higher point buy, but require that no stat be below 10 (unless racial). Or, here’s a fun idea- everyone starts with 12s in every stat, then add 10 points as needed.
|
|
and decided to make her female and small so that dumping Str and Con made sense,
Um, Imrijka? Seelah? Amiri?
Your assumption of sexual dimorphism amongst all of Golarion's races is not supported.
I give no opinion of real world humans, but it seems only monstrous and evil humanoid races have such extreme gender role and physical differences.
Though seemingly unintentional, your comments do border on sexist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it seems only monstrous and evil humanoid races have such extreme gender role and physical differences.
The Lashunta from the inner sea bestiary have a Sexual Dimorphism racial trait.
"Male and female lashunta have very different body and personality types, more so than most humanoid species. Male lashunta are muscular (+2 Strength) and often brash and unobservant (–2 Wisdom). Female lashunta, though beautiful and commanding (+2 Charisma), lack the males' rugged builds (–2 Constitution)."
(Almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion, I just thought it was super neat)
|
|
I can't believe you guys are seriously making this argument, especially considering the fact it's hilariously irrelevant to the topic of the thread.
If you'd like to defend the rights of fictional people in a fictional world, that's fine and well, but this ain't the place for it.
When someone borders on breaking forum rules, then it is relevant.
I do think the point has been made, and we should all move on though.
|
|
and decided to make her female and small so that dumping Str and Con made sense,Um, Imrijka? Seelah? Amiri?
Your assumption of sexual dimorphism amongst all of Golarion's races is not supported.
I give no opinion of real world humans, but it seems only monstrous and evil humanoid races have such extreme gender role and physical differences.
Though seemingly unintentional, your comments do border on sexist.
This is a rational argument. I will simply refer you to p.170 of the CRB; table 7-3: Random Height and Weight.
It has separate entries for males and females of each race; in every case females are statistically shorter and lighter than males of the same race.
Does this make Paizo sexist? Does this make players who make a low Str PC 'female' sexist? If I have a PC with Str 7, would choosing to make that PC female make me sexist?
After some quick research, out of the last 23 PCs I've played in all systems (most of them in 3.5 and PF), 11 of them have been female; as near to 50% as you can get with an odd number. Some are within the 'normal' height/weight range for their race and gender, some are not. A lot of them focus on melee combat (male and female), but that is because I like to play melee focussed PCs.
Are all my female PCs beautiful? I think in over 30 years of playing I've only played one ugly female PC (a pit fighter in WHFR). But I think my male PCs are all handsome! The quality of physical attractiveness is a default assumption for a hero (of either gender), unless there is a role-playing reason to be otherwise.
Several of my female warriors are very strong. When visualising her I have to rationalise her appearance with her stat. I sometimes decide that she's tall and muscular, and sometimes imagine her as smaller but have a magical explanation for strength greater than seems possible for such a small frame. Is this sexist? Well, I go through exactly the same process when creating a male PC! Visualising a character is simply part of the creative process, not a way to discriminate against females!
That said, the very fact that my post came across as sexist to some both surprises and saddens me. I certainly don't intend to offend, and shocked that pointing out the obvious apparently did.
I'm aware that people can lie, or deceive themselves. What people actually choose to do is much more revealing of their actual attitudes. The reality of my role-playing is that I choose the gender of my characters based on my idea for that character, and my history has about as many female as male PCs. My females aren't played like stereotypical sluts OR virgins, if they wear armour it is functional, not 'chainmail bikini', and display a somewhat anachronistic attitude to gender equality, given that we usually play in a pseudo-medieval world. I've even created reasons WHY the gender roles are less restrictive in the game than in our real-life history.
In short, it's easy to throw around accusations of sexism, but that doesn't make those accusations true.
It's worth noting that a 7 isn't extremely low; it's below average, certainly, but traits can be as low as 3 (1 for races with a -2 modifier), in principle!
So, while a 7 intelligence is "dull", or "slow on the uptake", it's not really cripplingly stupid.
Of course, caution must be exercised in the case of races with a -2 modifier, since a "1" in a trait is pretty sub-functional!
So earlier this week a couple of my friends and I got into a debate about how a 10 point buy campaign limits players to only being able to make bland boring characters. They went on to say that because of the 10 point buy the only decent option left to them is to play casters as they are viable in both combat and out of combat scenarios and generally benefit from having a good int/cha/wis score without losing out elsewhere.
My question to you all is this: How limiting is a 10 point buy in regards to how deep a character can be? Is it possible to be both well rounded and effective in combat? Are fighter types really hurt more than casters are? And would a 15 point buy really change any of these issues? Your advice is needed!
As for role playing a 7 stat: the answer is any way that makes sense. There is no right answer. Clearly a 7 wis means you will suffer a 2 rank penalty when using wisdom skills. A penalty that can easily be overcome with 2 skill levels or even finding a device that aids the skill in question. And it costs you a -2 to will saves... but one feat counters that. So allow your player to explain why they have a -2 in those skills. Let them get creative and have fun with it.
Oh and characters are only boring and bland if the player makes them that way. At ANY point level. Saying you will make a boring character unless you get your way on starting points is somewhat childish. Like telling your mother you will whine endlessly until she buys you that new toy.
Is 10 pb limiting? Yes that is kind of the whole point of using it. It doesn't make any particular class impossible BUT it does make it harder to buy all the neat new tricky feats and PrCs the character may have their eye on. That is a good thing if you want a more street level game. But that is NOT the same thing as boring... Boring is a wizard who sits in the library all day. Boring is all about your character's story. You can make a super cool and interesting character at any point buy... this is sort of the whole point behind stormwind fallacy.
And SAD classes always have an easier time building power than MAD ones at ANY point level. It's just the way the game was built. Synergy with a single stat allows you to maximize your potential with fewer points. But that boost doesn't stop with a certain point level. If your players want to retreat to all casters then they will have a hard time in melee fights. Melee fights are fairly common in most games.
It sounds like they want to deliberately sabotage your game if you don't allow all the shiny toys they want.
|
|
I can assure you, a 10PB Monk is going to be doing a fat lot of nothing. Let's do a little thought experiment. Here's a 10PB Dwarf Monk who is Dex-focused, to attempt to help with MAD.
Dwarven Monk 1
LN Humanoid (Dwarf)
Str 12 (-2 pts)
Dex 14 (-5 pts)
Con 12
Int 8 (+2 pts)
Wis 16 (-5 pts)
Cha 8
Feats: Imp Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, Dodge, Weapon Finesse
- HP: 9 (or 10, if using FCB)
- Skills: 3 (or 4, if using FCB) per level
- AC: 16 Touch: 16 Flatfooted: 10
- Initiative: +2
- Unarmed Strike +2 (1d6+1/20/x2)
- Flurry of Blows +1/+1 (1d6+1/20/x2)
Now, what we have here is a character that can barely hit things, doesn't do much damage at all, and isn't terribly hard to hit. If he went Strength-based, he'd hit a little harder, but would be even easier to hit. Now, I could have dumped Charisma hard, but then he's not even able to really overcome his Charisma with skill ranks for a few levels.
Really, this poor monk has nothing going for him, and while you absolutely could make a great roleplaying character out of him, he'd be painful to play in any form of combat, being a flanking buddy at best.
It sounds like they want to deliberately sabotage your game if you don't allow all the shiny toys they want.
Is it really so unreasonable to ask, at the LEAST in a heroic fantasy game, that we use the average 15-20 point buy instead of playing Average Joes: The Game?
You sound like you'd be horrible to play with if your response to every reasonable request is "Oh, so am I ruining your fun by not allowing you to do EVERYTHING you want?"
YES. Yes you are ruining my fun by not allowing me to do anything I want to do. I think most people would be with me if I said I was going to go find a GM who wasn't such a restrictive control freak.
Blackblood troll is correct, EVEN the GM needs to have fun.
If the players can't handle letting the GM have fun they shouldn't be playing.
In most cases if some player wants to try out a low powered street level game they are shut down and told they will have to be a GM to have any say in deciding power levels that low. But when they do step behind the screen and make that low powered game they always wanted to try some players throw tantrums anyway and try to ruin everyone's fun.
|
|
Pathfinder is not really a game for low-magic, low-power storytelling, though. There are plenty of systems that can do that, but the default assumptions of PF revolve around 15-20 point buys, normal WBL and things like that.
Realize, there's a difference between players not wanting to play with 10 PB and players wanting their DM to be unhappy. If you feel you cannot play PF with higher than 10 PB, I think the problem is likely you are trying to shoehorn people into what you want, instead of figuring out what everyone wants and making a compromise.
While at your table everything you say may hold true, you have no right to claim that everyone else should believe and/or follow your example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seranov you are wrong. Pathfinder works beautifully for low powered story telling. I have tried it and had great success once you get past people's prejudice that having slightly lower stats will kill them. All 10pb means is you will have fewer power feats and less combos. NOT that you are worthless waste of space...
I am also NOT claiming everyone has to play low powered games. I am SAYING it is still fun to do so and you have a right NOT to be bullied by immature players away from it if that's what you wish to try.
If it is a 10 point buy, adjust the monsters and threats accordingly.
Take down the mega stats (average 17 monsters I am looking at you, or give monsters one weakness (-4 to one ability score) and shock horror, they will have a vulnerability exploitable by the pcs.
Seranov you are wrong. Pathfinder works beautifully for low powered story telling. I have tried it and had great success once you get past people's prejudice that having slightly lower stats will kill them. All 10pb means is you will have fewer power feats and less combos. NOT that you are worthless waste of space...
I am also NOT claiming everyone has to play low powered games. I am SAYING it is still fun to do so and you have a right NOT to be bullied by immature players away from it if that's what you wish to try.
And I am SAYING it's not fun for everyone, not by a long shot, and you claiming that anyone who doesn't agree is just whining that you took their toys away didn't help your case.
Seranov you are wrong. Pathfinder works beautifully for low powered story telling. I have tried it and had great success once you get past people's prejudice that having slightly lower stats will kill them. All 10pb means is you will have fewer power feats and less combos. NOT that you are worthless waste of space...
I am also NOT claiming everyone has to play low powered games. I am SAYING it is still fun to do so and you have a right NOT to be bullied by immature players away from it if that's what you wish to try.
Exactly, yes, yes and yes (oh yes! Too far).
I ran a game with the players starting as Isgerian peasant commoners with very low ability scores. How did it turn out?Well it was a lot of fun, they actually had to develop strongly as characters and survive their first winter/leave their old lives partially behind (but had dependents) and become adventurers.
Significant for many of the posts above, one guy was furious about being a peasant (and the things he said attacking it, whew) and starting with lowish stats. He only came in when they had got a "real" level, and was angry the whole time. He eventually quit peasant quest. The others did great things, fought so many foes and became tough hardy adventurers. They never forgot their humble beginnings (or their dependents that grounded them, lol).
And I am SAYING it's not fun for everyone, not by a long shot, and you claiming that anyone who doesn't agree is just whining that you took their toys away didn't help your case.Seranov you are wrong. Pathfinder works beautifully for low powered story telling. I have tried it and had great success once you get past people's prejudice that having slightly lower stats will kill them. All 10pb means is you will have fewer power feats and less combos. NOT that you are worthless waste of space...
I am also NOT claiming everyone has to play low powered games. I am SAYING it is still fun to do so and you have a right NOT to be bullied by immature players away from it if that's what you wish to try.
Explain to me Rynjin how players saying they will deliberately make boring lifeless characters if they don't get their way is anything other than whining. It doesn't even have anything to do with 10pb... the same situation could pop up at any point level. Are you saying the whiner should get his way if he refuses to start with anything less than a +20 hackmaster sword and a 60 point buy build? You sound silly if you stick to this argument.
Some find 15 to be too limiting and want 20, or else!
|
|
Not everyone displeased with some styles of games are whiny and immature.
Those traits and actions are simply relative to the player's/DM's personality.
I have never been accused of being whiny, or immature, and recently I was quite against a recent game in which all players were to be Gnomes.
I was displeased with the idea of playing a Gnome, and in the end, the DM and I came to a compromise, and I chose a Gnome-raised Half-Orc.
This displeasure can be for 10 point buy PCs, and there is no reason for the person displeased to be ashamed.
For those for, or against, such a low point buy, neither is "wrong" in being so.
It is simply a matter of taste, and none should be persecuted for it.
Explain to me Rynjin how players saying they will deliberately make boring lifeless characters if they don't get their way is anything other than whining. It doesn't even have anything to do with 10pb... the same situation could pop up at any point level.
Who said that they were going to "deliberately make bland and lifeless characters if they don't get their way"?
Last I checked the OP, he was asking whether it was acceptable to RP contrary to stats ("How limiting is a 10 point buy in regards to how deep a character can be?"), not whining that the stats weren't high enough or that he was going to make a boring character just to spite someone.
Are you saying the whiner should get his way if he refuses to start with anything less than a +20 hackmaster sword and a 60 point buy build? You sound silly if you stick to this argument.
I sound silly? I said, and I quote:
Is it really so unreasonable to ask, at the LEAST in a heroic fantasy game, that we use the average 15-20 point buy
My argument is asking what's so unreasonable about expecting the GM to use the standard point buy instead of dropping the power level to sub-normal for the game?
I have never said anything about how a player should get everything he wants and neither has anyone else. Please at least ATTEMPT to read my posts before you respond with nonsense in an attempt to invalidate my question.
The "ROM-Hack" game concept is always fun. Just realize that you can't munchkin as well with 10 point buy. If optimizing, power-gaming, munchkining and being "OP" is your concept of fun, you may not like 10 point buy.
On the other hand, if you're so **** good at the game, why not try to work with less, and make something more? I find it enjoyable to be given restrictions, and then power myself up, even under those restrictions.
Another thing to realize is that the DM probably has something in mind if he is giving you 10 PB. Either this will be a "think, don't chop" game, an uber-hard game, or a game that accounts for your terrible scores. Give yourself some sub-optimal scores, think of 16 as being your "cap," instead of 18, and boom! You're good to go.
Even monks and paladins could be played with 10 PB, although they would obviously be less optimal. Stop whining and actually try to play the game and make a character. Once you start, you'll probably have fun. Unless you are an uber-munchkin who needs at least 25 PB to have fun, in which case you should find a new group.
I think 10 point buys have balance issues more than anything else. A wizard or a druid will be even more powerful relative to a fighter or a rogue. And monk is completely screwed. This is even worse if you are limiting magical gear.
Ironically, a commoner wizard is much more effective than a commoner fighter.
I doubt the DM will toss anything overpowered at them. If he is using 10 PB, he is probably doing it for a reason. 10 PB is entirely possible, and can be fun if the players are willing and the DM is a good one who understands the concept of monster balance.
A 10 PB game with no change to monster balance, no reduction of enemy power, etc., is still possible, just a bit more challenging.
|
|
Not everyone who prefers a higher point buy is a "optimizing, power-gaming, munchkining player".
Seriously, the preference for lower, or higher point buy, does not make either a "doody head".
You cannot attach a ton of assumptions on a player playstyle simply because of their point buy preference.
Any of the rather extreme assumptions are simply attacks on those whose prefer a different style.
It is just a "chocolate or vanilla" argument that is simply pointless.
I completely disagree. You can munchkin very hard with a 10 point buy. The key is to do things that aren't ability score dependent. In fact, I would argue the biggest issue with munchkins is when it results in one party member who is significantly stronger than anyone else, and that can be even worse at 10 point buy.For instance, animal companions and summons aren't affected by this. So a summoner, druid or wizard can still create summons with no effect. Combine with battlefield control spells with no saves and you have a very powerful player.
If we are comparing spellcasting classes and warrior classes, then this is a different ballpark. My point is that 10 PB is possible and potentially fun depending upon the players willingness to give it a try.
Compare a wizard and a fighter at 10 PB, and it is the same as 20 PB. The point remains that wizards > fighters, and not even Pathfinder changed that. Wizards are a SAD class, fighters are more MAD. Wizards can teleport, fly, buff, debuff, control the battlefield, raise undead, heal, nuke areas, trap souls, polymorph, charm people, create illusions, and much, much more.
Fighters can hit things.
So we cannot compare Fighters and Wizards at any power level. That however, is a for a different thread. The point remains that 10 PB is possible, and makes munchkining for "normal classes" more difficult. It does serve to increase the power curve between classes though, which is what I think you were driving at.
I have never said anything about how a player should get everything he wants and neither has anyone else. Please at least ATTEMPT to read my posts before you respond with nonsense in an attempt to invalidate my question.
"a 10 point buy campaign limits players to only being able to make bland boring characters" This is what those players in the OP's post are saying. And you accuse me of not reading posts?! Obviously it is you who don't read them.
As Blackbloodtroll says NOT everyone who disagrees is a whiner. My concerns are targeted to the whiners NOT those who behave civilly. YOU Rynjin are the one making personal attacks. I never even responded to the post of yours you are quoting. I flagged it and moved on. You can't argue I am responding incorrectly to a post I never responded to, that is absurd.
Flagged it for what? Calling you out on your comment that "It sounds like they want to deliberately sabotage your game if you don't allow all the shiny toys they want." when they don't want to play the kind of game you do?
Flag all you like, my point still stands that that is an absurd statement to make.
And sorry, I ignored the players lumped together statements from the OP. None of them had posted here and that's not what the thread was about, and no one in this thread has even touched on it (and by the by, the players in the OP were not saying they were going to deliberately make boring characters just to spite the GM like you implied). So why are you so hung up on attacking everyone who doesn't play how you like? You and Delthyn seem to believe that everyone who wants to play a normal, standard point buy game is a power gaming munchkin who drains the fun from everything eh touches because he's not l3g1t pr0 enough to play a game with sub-par stat buys.
Now explain, what personal attacks I have made? I have attacked your ARGUMENT and your OPINION but I have never attacked YOU PERSONALLY. This is what forums are for, debate and conversation, in this case, I am debating your standpoint that anyone who doesn't like a 10 point buy is a whiny entitled brat, and you have done nothing to convince me otherwise except to constantly shift the focus of the argument to some nonsensical extreme view of what I can only assume you think my fairly innocuous question of "what's wrong with wanting the standard point buy?" is.
I think 10 point buys have balance issues more than anything else. A wizard or a druid will be even more powerful relative to a fighter or a rogue. And monk is completely screwed. This is even worse if you are limiting magical gear.
Ironically, a commoner wizard is much more effective than a commoner fighter.
The 10 point buy orc fighter above, was pretty good though.
The 10 point buy spellcaster cannot hide behind a high dex and wis with a 14 con. They have real weaknesses. Their spells may lay their opponents low, but 1 crit may take them out of the fight. If they go spellcasting stat and con, then their initiative is poor.
Be cool people, everybody be cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, thank you all for your input. It helps put things into perspective.
To shed some more light on our debate it was two people against the 10 point buy while it was myself and the DM on the other side saying a 10 point buy "ain't bad at all".
The two people against it actually did say that they were going to switch classes because it made their characters bland/boring/not deep/dull as dirt(one was playing a fighter the other was a ranger) and even said they would all make bards(the class I had decided on) if the DM stuck to the 10 point buy because "why bother with non-casters?" which to that I said "regardless of the amount of points given to build our characters casters will always have an edge on the martial classes".
Their concern was that they would have to choose between being effective in combat while still being useful outside of combat, saying that having low int/cha/wis makes their characters un-fun to play outside of combat.
And I don't think a monk in a 10 point buy is impossible.
STR: 16
DEX: 14
CON: 13
INT: 7
WIS: 14
CHA: 7
That's what I came up with using a 10 point buy. +2 str for being human, gaining bare minimum 2 skill points per level.
So if you truly believe that your stats don't affect your ability to role play outside of combat then I think this monk will do just fine in and out of combat scenarios.