I would have to disagree about the "Goblin's aren't dumb" statement.
They are pretty dumb.
I digress however.
My group seems to love having the large number of items type approach.
I think I will stick with it.
Buying and selling magic items turns them mundane. Ordinary. They destroy the sense of wonder and magic behind them. Sting becomes a +1 short sword rather than an elvish blade that glows in the presence of goblins and orcs and was named after its wielder slew his first giant spider. What's so special about a +1 sword... compared to Sting?
Well, consider that The Lord of the Rings is an adventure for roughly lvl 3 to 5 charcters, using D&D. They start running from a village, they fight orcs, goblins, wolves, a cave troll with the Young Template that almost kill them. They needed high level NPC to defeat a barrow wight, They fight wraiths (CR 4), which give them a major headache until they get magic weapons. Then they kill a Giant Spider (which also have CR about 4). When they see really high level threats, such as the Balrog, it's a gimmick fight where they just run, guided/helped by the GMPC Gandalf. They lack any access to high level stuff like flying, teleport, etc.
In that low level setting, the PC finish the adventure having found: several magic (westernesse) swords, in a Wight's Barrow. They are given magical cloaks to hide themselves, some brooches that gave them luck (protection?), Sting, a mithril chain shirt, magical elven rope that never unties, a protective bottle with light from the stars (which sheds light and some circle of proction stuff), a magical necklace (which Arwen gave to Frodo at the end of the adventure, to " aid him when the darkness of his injuries troubled him", an Elven magical scabbard that made swords unbreakable, Elessar (an elfstone with magical properties), a magical bow with a string made of elven hair, some magic elven dirt where flowers blossomed instantly (for Samwise), and a magical powerful sword, reforged for one of the main charcters.
I count about 2-3 magic items per character. Which is on par with Pathfinder wealth by level for characters who are 3 to 5th level at best. Would had the fellowship gone to high level campaigns in DnD terms (such as planeshifting to fight several Balors, defeat Dragons, pursue Sauron real incarnation, and maybe fight Morgoth), I'm quite sure they'd have got much better magical gear
For most of my builds, a 25 point buy would basically mean a 14 con, 14 dex and slightly higher dump stat.
So +1 hp per level, +1 to ac, reflex saves, fort saves, range attacks and I'm less terrible at some stuff I don't do.
That's roughly worth 4-5 extra feats (toughness, dodge, a feat which gives you +1 to two saves, instead of +2 to one, the equivalent of weapon focus for ranged attacks, plus +1 to initiative, and +1 to dex-based skills such as stealth or acrobatics)
So yes, the difference between starting at 15 point buy, or starting at 25, is being given 4-5 extra feats
Only if you're buying up Dex and Con.
Of course if you HAVE a decent Dex and Con already, say because you're running a Ranger going for an Archery Build, then you might spend that extra 10 points on Intelligence and Charisma.
And for that matter, you might instead spread those 10 points out, say adding +1 or +2 to a couple of stats because you want one higher stat but don't want the rest to go to waste (say an 18, a 13, two 12s, an 11 and a 10). And this would be a viable build for a Wizard or a Cleric.
That said, when I run my tabletop group through Wrath of the Righteous eventually, I'll either offer a 20-point build, or 4d6 with no rerolls for any reason (your dice rolled all 1s and didn't roll but slid across the smooth wood table? Too bad... (and yes, I saw this happen and allowed a reroll on a rougher surface)). If the rolls completely suck? Or if you don't like the low stats you got in addition to the high? Then you can do a 15-point build instead.
Only if you're buying up Dex and Con.
Of course if you HAVE a decent Dex and Con already, say because you're running a Ranger going for an Archery Build, then you might spend that extra 10 points on Intelligence and Charisma.
Then you would have the equivalent of 4-5 feats, but in other things. If you raise your Charisma from 10 to 14, that's the equivalent of having +2 to bluff and disguise (worth a feat), +2 to Intimidate and Handle animal (worth a feat), +2 to UMD and diplomacy (also worth a feat). You also get a +2 to charisma checks, such as to convince Charmed persons or to make a deal with a called creature through Planar Binding, +2 to DC for Channel Energy, etc. If you go through Intelligence, you gain extra skill points, languages, bonus to all knowledges, and such. If you go with wisdom, you get extra perception, Will save, etc.
Your archer ranger could take a few extra points in STR, which raise his damage, his CMD, and his weight load.
And for that matter, you might instead spread those 10 points out, say adding +1 or +2 to a couple of stats because you want one higher stat but don't want the rest to go to waste (say an 18, a 13, two 12s, an 11 and a 10). And this would be a viable build for a Wizard or a Cleric.
There are several ways to spend the points, just like there are several ways to spend feats. A character who take premier feats, such as improved initiative, is going to be more valuable than a character who spend his feats in Skill focus:Craft(Basketweaving), but that's just how the game is designed. The fact you can spend those 10 extra points in certain ways, doesn't change the face value of those 10 points, in the same way that a 100 dollar bill is worth 100 dollars, even if you could decide to waste them betting that the 76ers are going to win the NBA in 2013-2014.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would just like to say;
to the people who believe a 25 pb is not that big a difference from a 15 pb, If you were playing at my table, I might become inclined to use your logic and force you a 5 pb, its the same 10 point difference, so it shouldn't matter al that much right?
Have fun
Actually, no, it doesn't have that big a difference. Forcing a player to have all 10s just means the character is average. No bonuses. No penalties.
Mind you, I allow 4d6 for stats and most of the group has what would be a 35 point build. I reduced the stats for the NPCs to 25 point-equivalents as I feel NPCs shouldn't have a central spotlight in the game.
Or are you saying that I should do away with the Pathfinder-allowed 4d6 stat rolling? Or, for that matter, the allowed 24d6 method where players select how many dice to roll for each stat... or even the 2d6+6 method? ALL of these are allowed.
But then, I also don't think a Goblin warrior should have 6 hit points. An enemy should have some beef to their bones, not just crumple when you breathe on them hard. So you might be disdainful because my players have higher-than-normal stats, but my monsters do as well. And I've done this for monsters since 1st edition AD&D.
Mind you, I allow 4d6 for stats and most of the group has what would be a 35 point build. I reduced the stats for the NPCs to 25 point-equivalents as I feel NPCs shouldn't have a central spotlight in the game.
On average, 4d6, drop lowest, roll 6 times, and no sheanigans (no "reroll the all 1s because the dice slided, but if it were all 5s, then keep it", no "please let me reroll cause I have 2 6s, but allow me to keep my 2 18s even if they have the same chance to happen", and no "you can roll to see if you beat point buy, but if you roll too low, then use point buy"), means roughly 15 point buy on average. No more, no less. Of course, changing this in anyway, tilt the results and it's no longer an average. Just like flipping coins, but re-rolling when you get heads for first time, will lead to a higher number of tails.
But then, I also don't think a Goblin warrior should have 6 hit points. An enemy should have some beef to their bones, not just crumple when you breathe on them hard. So you might be disdainful because my players have higher-than-normal stats, but my monsters do as well. And I've done this for monsters since 1st edition AD&D.
A goblin with 6 hp have roughly 66% chances to survive a direct hit with a hand axe made by a stronger than average human. Around 43% to survive two of those hits. That's some beef for a child-sized guy. I'm pretty sure I could kill most toedlers with 2 hand-axe chops, with more than 57% chance of success.
It's your playstyle, so if you find it fun, fine for you. But the thread is asking about the how much impact it would be, and the difference is big, specially in a Path which already count with Mythic tiers. The fact you have to increase your monster hp to keep with the damage of your party seem to indicate that the 25 point buy leads to inflation
Gustavo, why should a 1st level PC fighter have 10 hit points before Constitution bonuses, but a 1st level Goblin warrior only have 6? Why should not the first hit die or level of ANY critter be maximized? "Because that is how it's done" is not an answer, by the way.
Gustavo, why should a 1st level PC fighter have 10 hit points before Constitution bonuses, but a 1st level Goblin warrior only have 6? Why should not the first hit die or level of ANY critter be maximized? "Because that is how it's done" is not an answer, by the way.
Because PC are heroes, and Goblins are not. That's why the goblin is a warrior, and have one feat less, while the PC is a fighter, and have one extra feat, for example.
Same reason you see first level Frodo surviving a hit with a dangerous magical sword from a Nazgul, while the Uruk Hai drop like flies when Aragorn, Gimli, Boromir or Legolas sneeze in their general direction. Because this is D&D, a game of heroic adventures.
So what you're saying is that PCs are heroes and thus should have better-than-normal abilities, hit points, and the like. Like, say, a 25-point-build.
All those basic +1's do stack a lot. At 15 point buy, you can try and get some balanced stats, with 1 16 or even a 15 and higher other stats. Or you can try and maximise other stats, but then you'd get some at 7-8-9.
In a game of mine, we used 25 point buy, and the alchemist has 18 dex and int while his con and wis are at 10. Amusing character, stupidly strong but very weak to Will saves along with low hp.
It's all a mater of taste, but I think the entire bestiary is balanced for 15 point buy characters anyway. Dice rolling is something else, my group regularly gets point buy 40-50+ characters from dice rolls.
So what you're saying is that PCs are heroes and thus should have better-than-normal abilities, hit points, and the like. Like, say, a 25-point-build.
They already are with a 15 point buy. 25 point buy make them much better. 25 point buy AND mythic abilities make them even better.
It depends on the group. There are players out there who can take a -15 point build and craft a character who is able to go through any encounter with ease and skill. And then you have new players who don't know what they're doing and who end up dying easily even with a 35-point build.
My group is new. They don't have the rules memorized (not even the hardcore gamer who primarily knows the old AD&D rules down pat, not the 3.5 or Pathfinder rules). In fact, both my roleplaying groups are new to Pathfinder... and the one character who IS problematic is a half-orc Barbarian who started with a 19 Strength (17 original with +2 for being a half-orc). Mind you, this would be 13 points for a point-build, so even your oh-so-glorious 15-point-build wouldn't have been safe.
It depends on the group. There are players out there who can take a -15 point build and craft a character who is able to go through any encounter with ease and skill. And then you have new players who don't know what they're doing and who end up dying easily even with a 35-point build.
If your group is new and the players aren't skilled or well versed in the game mechanics, and they can't go through encounters with ease... why are you giving 50% extra hp to NPCs?
For most of my builds, a 25 point buy would basically mean a 14 con, 14 dex and slightly higher dump stat.
So +1 hp per level, +1 to ac, reflex saves, fort saves, range attacks and I'm less terrible at some stuff I don't do.
That's roughly worth 4-5 extra feats (toughness, dodge, a feat which gives you +1 to two saves, instead of +2 to one, the equivalent of weapon focus for ranged attacks, plus +1 to initiative, and +1 to dex-based skills such as stealth or acrobatics)
So yes, the difference between starting at 15 point buy, or starting at 25, is being given 4-5 extra feats
Here's the hysterical thing to me - in your example its equivalent to 4-5 feats. Think about it this way - it's also equivalent to a +1 long sword and a +2 belt of Constitution - what's that, maybe 6,000 gp? So with 6,000 gold I can buy the equivalent of 4-5 feats? All that does is prove my point that the game is grossly slanted towards what you can buy rather than what you can do.
People get up in arms over the point buy adjustment but don't seem to mind characters getting showered with magical gear. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
Here's the hysterical thing to me - in your example its equivalent to 4-5 feats. Think about it this way - it's also equivalent to a +1 long sword and a +2 belt of Constitution - what's that, maybe 6,000 gp? So with 6,000 gold I can buy the equivalent of 4-5 feats? All that does is prove my point that the game is grossly slanted towards what you can buy rather than what you can do.
People get up in arms over the point buy adjustment but don't seem to mind characters getting showered with magical gear. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
I don't get in arms over the point buy adjustment. I'm just answering the OP question, about if 25 point buy would be a big difference, specifically in a AP with Mythic powers.
The game assumes WBL. It doesn't change the amount of WBL with point buy. So if you start with +10 point buy, you'll have the +1 long sword, an +2 belt of constitution, on top of your roughly +4 feats. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter of different playstyles. Like reading a comic book about Superman fighting Darkseid, instead of reading a comic book of Green Arrow defeating some common mafia thugs. The thing is, the AP encounters are already built, if you want to use them "as is", the best suggestion is to stay within the limits of what the AP is balanced for. Otherwise, it'll become too easy for the PC, or will require the GM to adjust heavily, because +10 point buy DOES matter, just like being above WBL does matter too.
BTW: a feat can be bought with 2000 to 4000g.
It depends on the group. There are players out there who can take a -15 point build and craft a character who is able to go through any encounter with ease and skill. And then you have new players who don't know what they're doing and who end up dying easily even with a 35-point build.If your group is new and the players aren't skilled or well versed in the game mechanics, and they can't go through encounters with ease... why are you giving 50% extra hp to NPCs?
Because I don't like weak monsters that drop with one or two swordstrikes, dislike the cult of the average monster, and have done this since 1st edition AD&D.
Mind you, 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D also had stats where in any stat but Charisma, anything below a 15 is a wasted effort. In AD&D, a 12 is a 15 for Constitution or Dexterity (and the latter only insofar as defense is concerned, bonuses with bows started at 16), and Strength you needed a 17 to match a 12 in 3rd edition. Hell, for AD&D, Strength was a dump stat! If you weren't playing a fighter? Then feel free to have a Strength of 8! Because from 8-15, there was NO effect. (I love AD&D, but it had its flaws, and for all the problems 3rd edition created, it also fixed a number of them.)
You say that a 25 Stat is the equivalent to 4-5 Feats (or 6,000 gp of magic items as another player pointed out). But you fail to account for the fact you need to be a Rules Lawyer in order to find the most effective stats for a character.
Or to put it another way, I SAW a player roll on 4d6 a character who'd be a 54 point build. She runs around as a Rogue with her preferred weapon being a blowgun. She sold a mithral (but otherwise unenchanted) dagger to acquire several doses of Drow sleep poison. The character is most definitely not optimized and I've nearly killed that character more than once, despite having stats you will likely consider blasphemous.
It's not the stats. It's the players. And the most important aspect of the game is this: it should be fun. Forcing new players to run 15-point characters and having them die because they don't know how to optimize their characters or sending them to online "guides" designed to cookiecutter characters to be perfect optimized drones is not fun. If they wanted to do that, they'd go play Diablo or the like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mind you, 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D also had stats where in any stat but Charisma, anything below a 15 is a wasted effort. In AD&D, a 12 is a 15 for Constitution or Dexterity (and the latter only insofar as defense is concerned, bonuses with bows started at 16),
But Pathfinder isn't AD&D. Here, a 12 is a good stat. A 14 is a great stat, and a 16 is more than enough to be great. In AD&D, a character who starts with an INT of 16, will likely finish his career with an INT of 16. In Pathfinder, he'll likely start with 16, and finishes with 26, including stat boosting items and leveling. With inherent bonus (like tomes), that's a 30. I think INT 30 is decent enough to "keep the pace"
The problem here lies with the player perceptions. Some players "need" to see their character have a lot of 18 flying around, or it would not "be good". So they spend a ton of points to have one, or two, starting 18s. As that would leave them with several 7s, then they ask for more points, to balance out and finish with the rest of the stats being good. The problem here, is that they "feel" they need starting 18s
But you fail to account for the fact you need to be a Rules Lawyer in order to find the most effective stats for a character.
You don't need to be a "Rules Lawyer" to find a balanced way to spend 15 point buy. You don't need the *most* effective stats, just common sense, and not "feeling" that you "need" an 19+ to be "decent".
A human character with 15 point buy could have, after racials, a 16-12-14-10-12-10 stat line. That's ok to be competent, with no dumpstats. Some players, though, can't stand the idea that they are going to play a character who doesn't have a few 18+ in their starting attributes, and that's ok too. Unsurprisingly, they'll plow through APs if played as writen, because AP are writen with the assumption of 15 point buys. Yhere's nothing wrong with that, it just mean the GM will *need* to change the encounters acordingly. If he doesn't mind, or if he is going to do it regardless, then it's ok.
But, again, to the question of the OP, yes, it's a big difference playing with 25 point buy or 15 point buy, specially if you also have mythic tiers. That's something that the developers have already stated in this thread.
I wonder how people will react when I say that the WotR we started several weeks ago had our DM giving us epic stats right from the get go.
When I say epic, I mean everyone starts with: 18, 16, 16, 14, 14, 12 before racial modifiers (51 point buy equivalent), maximum hit points every level, way above average gear (my dwarven inquisitor already has a +3 equivalent greataxe heirloom)!
We won't use XPs. Since the path is already planned to take us all the way to level 20, when the adventure calls for us to be of a certain level at particular points, we'll level up as a group.
The downside of all the additional power is that our GM is very fond of adapting the challenges and adding more baddies (the strong kind) when required.
He wants the mythic game to be over the top in all ways possible.
Sounds fine to me. I think it sounds like it'll be a fun game. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because I don't like weak monsters that drop with one or two swordstrikes, dislike the cult of the average monster, and have done this since 1st edition AD&D.
I DM'd a campaign like this once. Battles went on for much longer. It was tedious and boring to 2 of the 5 people at the table. The tactical combat leader loved it though. Hitting one or two swordstrikes at 1st level... can take forever. Higher levels things would be quicker, but only because the casters are obliterating everything regardless of their HP totals.
Mind you, 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D also had stats where in any stat but Charisma, anything below a 15 is a wasted effort. In AD&D, a 12 is a 15 for Constitution or Dexterity (and the latter only insofar as defense is concerned, bonuses with bows started at 16), and Strength you needed a 17 to match a 12 in 3rd edition. Hell, for AD&D, Strength was a dump stat! If you weren't playing a fighter? Then feel free to have a Strength of 8! Because from 8-15, there was NO effect. (I love AD&D, but it had its flaws, and for all the problems 3rd edition created, it also fixed a number of them.)
Strength still dictated the amount you could carry in 1st edition, and given that gold = xp back then, strength was never completely a dump stat for a majority of the group. (Yeah, the wizard still dumped it) Granted, a LOT more characters had a 15 or 16 Con back then too over a high Str, given how deadly the game could be combined with how long you spent in a level with the same lowish HP total.
You say that a 25 Stat is the equivalent to 4-5 Feats (or 6,000 gp of magic items as another player pointed out). But you fail to account for the fact you need to be a Rules Lawyer in order to find the most effective stats for a character.
Rules Lawyer? Really? I've gamed with the very young, the very stupid, and the very disinterested (long story that one) in my time. But in all cases, no one ever had a problem figuring out which stats benefitted them most for most classes. The 1st edition bard was a bit of a learning curve, and early psionics characters could be a pain, but everything else was pretty straight-forward. Choosing Feats or Spells? Now that's where I witnessed some pretty strange choices and got the most questions. System mastery is a fact of life in 3.5/PF. Eventually "new players" become "experienced players" and they'll make better choices, but at no point would I say you need to be a Rules Lawyer to build an effective character... note, effective, not optimized. Adventure Paths are designed for effective characters, not optimized ones.
Or to put it another way, I SAW a player roll on 4d6 a character who'd be a 54 point build. She runs around as a Rogue with her preferred weapon being a blowgun. She sold a mithral (but otherwise unenchanted) dagger to acquire several doses of Drow sleep poison. The character is most definitely not optimized and I've nearly killed that character more than once, despite having stats you will likely consider blasphemous.
I'm curious how the rest of the group (presuming they fall more in the 25-35pt range) survive the things that are nearly killing that rogue. I guess it's good that the character with the worst class got the best stats... it's almost poetic. I guess it isn't as hard balancing for that wide of a stat-point spread if the players are new and/or inexperienced or more focused on the role playing.
It's not the stats. It's the players. And the most important aspect of the game is this: it should be fun. Forcing new players to run 15-point characters and having them die because they don't know how to optimize their characters or sending them to online "guides" designed to cookiecutter characters to be perfect optimized drones is not fun. If they wanted to do that, they'd go play Diablo or the like
That highlighted part I agree with completely. Every group is different, but that quote is the bottom line for players AND the DM. However, I would point out that while 15 point builds are the standard (and something I agree with the reasoning for), "new players" has been pointed out repeatedly (even by Mr. Jacobs if I recall correctly) as a very good reason for allowing a higher point buy. It's a cushion for mistakes. Mistakes that WILL be made by the inexperienced.
A 25 point buy for new/inexperienced players might not be bad, even for an AP like this that is turned up to 11. But for any player that knows what they are doing in building their character, even if it isn't full on optimization, it's a step or three toward trivializing (unadjusted) encounters.
I actually did a write-up of that combat on the forums. The usually-smart wizard/priest and the rogue ended up triggering a sonic trap that left them stunned for a round and then became punching bags for the Elementals. The Fighter/Wizard in Full Plate nearly died when I realized I should use Power Attack. The people who remained back and peppered the enemy with missile fire were untouched.
There's one reason the rogue survived. I switched targets. It made tactical sense as the fighter/wizard had hit hard with two attacks and done far more damage than a squishy little rogue (no matter how good her stats). And that nearly killed HIM.
I'm just glad I'd not switched out for a Large Elemental instead of three Mediums (the group is higher level than normal for RoW as I switched from a different campaign).
And sure, players eventually master the game... after a campaign or two. But when you play once a month (if you're lucky) then it takes a while for players to level up. And if you're not leveling up, you're not learning the rules needed to most effectively build your character.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
So what you're saying is that PCs are heroes and thus should have better-than-normal abilities, hit points, and the like. Like, say, a 25-point-build.
Considering that the "average" person has a 3 point buy, even a 10 PB game fits that bill.
But, Tangent101, I think some people are interpreting your reasoning backwards. It's not that you escalate the monsters because your PCs are stronger - you like stronger monsters, and you escalate the PCs to match them. Which is fine - if your group is having fun, go for it. My group would feel like everything was boringly easy at 25 point buy, unless the AP was deliberatly also jacked up in threat.
The whole point of having different values to choose from is so groups can go with what works best for them.
Now that I've done a couple APs with 15 I don't think I could ever go back to 20. I'd feel like my character was too powerful or I was cheating or something. I do feel that way when I make a new PFS character.
I'm curius about trying 10 but no one else in my area is game for the pain :)
Actually I haven't done point builds before (outside of computer games using 3.5 rules). My players have done 4d6 instead. And while I've had a problem with a Barbarian with a 20 Strength (which was a 17 adjusted to 19 by the half-orc player and then raised to 20 at level 4), that problem would exist even with point builds (and to be honest, a half-orc with an 18 strength at 7th level using Rage, a two-handed weapon with power attack and being buffed by Bull Strength would only do 2-3 damage less per attack and be plowing through the "average" monsters... despite having been built on 7 points put in Strength) that has less to do with the strength and more to do with the Barbarian.
Encounters depend on luck. If the players have it, they could be a -15 point build and still prevail against beefed up monsters. If they don't have it, they could be 50-point builds and lose against mundane critters. I suspect some GMs have forgotten that important element while fixating on the point aspect. I mean, this isn't Amber or another diceless roleplaying game. And really, the most important thing for GMs to do is fudge rolls when needed. If the monster is dying too quickly? Lie about the hit points. Make the encounter memorable. And if the encounter is too tough? Allow a lucky hit to take out the monster before it's too late, or have the PCs rescued because another enemy attacks their foe and distracts them for that vital moment when they're down.
Tactics > Luck
EDIT: or as Matt Damon's character said in Rounders... "if it's about luck, why are the same 7 guys playing the finals in every year poker world series?"
Tactics do nothing when an Ogre gets a critical hit with an Ogre hook and does maximum damage... and then next round repeats that performance and suddenly your front-line fighter is dead and several Ogres are moving in on your guys who aren't as capable in a fight. Tactics do nothing when you fail to hit ten rolls in a row despite only needing a 5 to hit. We roll dice, we don't use actual physical prowess in the game.
|
Tactics do nothing when an Ogre gets a critical hit with an Ogre hook and does maximum damage... and then next round repeats that performance and suddenly your front-line fighter is dead and several Ogres are moving in on your guys who aren't as capable in a fight. Tactics do nothing when you fail to hit ten rolls in a row despite only needing a 5 to hit. We roll dice, we don't use actual physical prowess in the game.
Good tactics and solid builds minimize the randomness of the die rolls. The odds of a monster scoring a critical on every attack while the players roll < 5 on every die is very, very small. Rare enough that it would be remembered and remarked upon for quite some time after the fact.
I tend to allow 25 point buy, because if I don't, I see a lot of 7s. Their main ability scores don't really benefit, because if they wanted that 18, they were gonna dump for it anyway. With 25 point buy, at least their secondary ability scores aren't pathetically low.
Tactics do nothing when an Ogre gets a critical hit with an Ogre hook and does maximum damage... and then next round repeats that performance and suddenly your front-line fighter is dead and several Ogres are moving in on your guys who aren't as capable in a fight. Tactics do nothing when you fail to hit ten rolls in a row despite only needing a 5 to hit. We roll dice, we don't use actual physical prowess in the game.Good tactics and solid builds minimize the randomness of the die rolls. The odds of a monster scoring a critical on every attack while the players roll < 5 on every die is very, very small. Rare enough that it would be remembered and remarked upon for quite some time after the fact.
Should. But they don't. I've seen this on both sides of the equations. I've used monsters with tactics (flanking maneuvers and the like) and had bad die-rolls by the monsters negate the tactics. I've seen players work tactically and end up failing to do anything because the dice abandon them. I've even fudged and had monsters die prematurely because the dice so abandoned the players that they were hitting one time in six and with damage reduction were doing only a couple hit points of damage.
Do not underestimate luck - both good AND bad. Or to put it another way, I don't care how good a knight someone is, if they do a cavalry charge but the field ended up having a couple holes in it at a bad place that were not known of, and the wrong horse goes down at the wrong place, the charge can be disrupted and lose its effectiveness. Similarly, someone playing golf and having tremendous skill could end up having a stray gust of wind blow their ball off-course and ruin their game.
And yes, I've seen die-rolls go bad. After a bit, I "bless" their dice and often that spree of bad luck goes away... and if I don't bless the dice the spree continues. Pure coincidence. But still quite bizarre, and showing that luck is the king of this game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game should not be about optimization. It should be about fun.
It should be about taking a feat because it fits the character concept or because it sounds interesting, not to ensure you maximize your damage and your defenses so to be an uber killing machine.
I don't want to see optimized characters. If I wanted that I'd play Diablo III Multiplayer. I want to see fun and interesting concepts brought to life and played out. I want to see the imperfect characters, the oddballs, the ones that try something weird. I want to see the rogues who use blowgun darts predominantly and universalist wizards who took the bastard sword so they could "throw" it with their magic (because of the movie LadyHawke).
Your 15-point characters don't allow that. They force players to go in specific directions instead of creating something unique and interesting. And your claims that not doing a 15-point character is flawed missed the point that my group rolled for their stats in any event.
So please. Keep your optimized 15-point characters who'll walk through the adventures because they take advantage of every loophole and rules quirk so to become uber. I'll keep my group with their oddball characters and interesting designs that are not optimal but are still far more interesting.
A 25 point buy, as opposed to 15, makes that gap just a little wider and tougher to navigate.
Paradoxically, considering the power boost in this particular path that comes from becoming mythic, the gap between 15 and 25 points feels much smaller.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Your 15-point characters don't allow that. They force players to go in specific directions instead of creating something unique and interesting. And your claims that not doing a 15-point character is flawed missed the point that my group rolled for their stats in any event.
So please. Keep your optimized 15-point characters who'll walk through the adventures because they take advantage of every loophole and rules quirk so to become uber. I'll keep my group with their oddball characters and interesting designs that are not optimal but are still far more interesting.
I disagree with this sentiment. You can get through APs perfectly fine with non-optimized 15 Pb characters. Heck you can do just fine building characters who use the 15 14 13 12 10 8 array. I "optimize for concept," which means I come up with a character concept and then try to make the best version of it I can - that's very different than optimizing for DPR or battlefield control or some other normal thing. My last 15 PB concept was "sword and board fighter who doesn't TWF and talks with a bad eastern european accent, and who is very protective of his sister(the party sorcerer)." I built him just fine with no 7s, no shield feats, a mediochre one handed weapon(longsword), basically totally unoptimized from a forumite POV. He did fine in the AP. In that same party we had a summoner whose eidolon was modeled after the Castlevania Grim Reaper, and a gnome trapsmith rogue who thought he was a kobold.
PB values don't restrict what you can play unless you let them.
My group was skeptical about dropping to 15 PB the first time too. Once we tried it though, it wasn't that big of a deal. 15 PB doesn't make my group into ruthless optimizers anymore than 25 PB makes your group into powergaming munchkins.
Your 15-point characters don't allow that. They force players to go in specific directions instead of creating something unique and interesting. And your claims that not doing a 15-point character is flawed missed the point that my group rolled for their stats in any event.
This is exactly the problem.
Stats =/= Character.
You can have an interesting character with ZERO point-buy. Sure, they will have a pretty absurdly difficult time actually surviving an adventure, but that's not really the point. Don't just offhandedly dismiss the 15 point-buy game, I'm running one at the moment that has a party full of very interesting characters.
Frankly, in THIS adventure path specifically I don't think it matters a great deal. The characters are going to be fairly overpowered for the most part in any case and a few extra stat points aren't going to make a big deal.
That said of course, why do it? If it doesn't make a big difference, why not run a game as intended? I just find a stat focused game tends to lead towards constant power creep.
Tactics do nothing when an Ogre gets a critical hit with an Ogre hook and does maximum damage... and then next round repeats that performance and suddenly your front-line fighter is dead and several Ogres are moving in on your guys who aren't as capable in a fight. Tactics do nothing when you fail to hit ten rolls in a row despite only needing a 5 to hit. We roll dice, we don't use actual physical prowess in the game.
This is incorrect. I would suggest that you investigate the concept of statistical variance.
Statistical variance works over a longer run.
For instance, if you flip coins, the average is that you'll have a 50/50 mix of heads to tails. However, if you flip that coin ten times you may have seven or eight heads and two tails. It's only when you get to 1,000+ coin flips that you see the averages coming into play.
Please note, I abstract a variety of journals for a living. This includes various science, social science, economics, and other journals. One of the problems that is talked about in these is sample sizes. The smaller the sample size, the greater the chance of odd data throwing off results.
So yes. In a game I can roll four dice and get two 20s. I've heard tales both on these forums and others of multiple 20s in a row being thrown. Statistical variance allows for this because over the life of the die-throwing you'll have an equal number of 1s to 20s and 10s and all numbers inbetween. But for the short run you can have outliers like multiple 20s tossed in a row.
we had a game where my daughter kept rolling 20s on her perception checks with a +1 mod, however my wife was rolling for our sons dwarven ranger wijh a +9 mod and she kept rolling 1s and 2s it happens. It did crack us up that the only PC with a wisdom higher then 12 was always the last one to see anything LOL his catchphrase after awhile was ''what? Where? I dont see it!'' and yes as tangent pointed out it has started to average out. Still a funny story:)
Statistical variance works over a longer run.
For instance, if you flip coins, the average is that you'll have a 50/50 mix of heads to tails. However, if you flip that coin ten times you may have seven or eight heads and two tails. It's only when you get to 1,000+ coin flips that you see the averages coming into play.
Please note, I abstract a variety of journals for a living. This includes various science, social science, economics, and other journals. One of the problems that is talked about in these is sample sizes. The smaller the sample size, the greater the chance of odd data throwing off results.
So yes. In a game I can roll four dice and get two 20s. I've heard tales both on these forums and others of multiple 20s in a row being thrown. Statistical variance allows for this because over the life of the die-throwing you'll have an equal number of 1s to 20s and 10s and all numbers inbetween. But for the short run you can have outliers like multiple 20s tossed in a row.
Yes, in the short term you will have downswings in your numbers but over the long term (such as in an adventure path) these will average out so I really don't see your point. For every battle that is rough because a character misses ten times in a row there will be a battle that is a cakewalk for the opposite reason.
This actually works out in the adventuring parties interest as monsters tend to roll more dice, so the variance will be lower.
My point is that claims that an Ogre can't roll two 20s with its Ogre Hook to critical twice on a Fighter and end up killing him or her and eliminating the front-line fighter and destroying the tactics of a party are incorrect and that this scenario can and has happened. My point is that tactics can be destroyed by luck - both good and bad. Over the long run, yes, the variance is lower. But a couple "lucky rolls" can destroy any tactical plan (which never survives contact with the enemy).
Speaking as someone running it with a 15 point buy, it has been more than enough and kept it challenging at the right spots. You'd probably have to up the number of creatures in encounters pretty significantly with those sort of stats for any amount of challenge.
An extra +1 to one or two abilities will not turn the game into a cakewalk. I've heard stories of 15-point builds that waltz through the game. I've heard stories of characters who would be easily higher-than-15-point-builds who suffer Total Party Kills even at higher levels. It depends on the players, the GM, and the dice.
Tactics do nothing when an Ogre gets a critical hit with an Ogre hook and does maximum damage... and then next round repeats that performance and suddenly your front-line fighter is dead and several Ogres are moving in on your guys who aren't as capable in a fight. Tactics do nothing when you fail to hit ten rolls in a row despite only needing a 5 to hit. We roll dice, we don't use actual physical prowess in the game.
And knowing how to play poker has nothing to do with some random guy getting 4 aces and winning a pot.
However, I'd bet that Phil Ivey will take all your money in a heads up.
The game should not be about optimization. It should be about fun.
Can't you have fun unless your character packs several stats above 16?
And yes, I've seen die-rolls go bad. After a bit, I "bless" their dice and often that spree of bad luck goes away... and if I don't bless the dice the spree continues. Pure coincidence. But still quite bizarre, and showing that luck is the king of this game.
That's not luck, that's called superstition.
So is switching out your dice because the luck ran out on one set and you have to recharge. We joke about me blessing their dice when I do. As I said, it's pure coincidence that the dice start rolling better.
And yes, in a game of poker Phil Ivey will take my money. But in a game of craps, that is not ensured. Poker relies on more than randomness, after all. But poker is not dice-rolling. Stop trying to claim it is. If we were playing Malifaux then your analogy would be more suited but Pathfinder and the d20 system is akin to craps, not poker.
In short, your example is flawed and should not be used in this situation.
As for fun in the game? My fun is running the game. As such I regularly have encounters which have higher-than-16 stats, and lower-than-16 stats. I play a dozen hats all the time. I have not been a player in a non-computer-game in over a decade and after a very abusive GM have absolutely NO interest in being one.
You are complaining about my players having higher-than-16 stats when I didn't use a damn point-based system for character generation. Well what do you think I should do, tell my players "I'm sorry but Paizo insists on a 15-point-build for your characters. I need you to toss out your stats and use this point-system?" Because that will go over SO big as players have to revamp their entire characters including skills, combat, and so forth. In that case we might as well just start a new campaign, which they don't want to because they are invested in their current characters.
Face it. Some people enjoy higher-than-15-point-characters. Some people don't. You are not going to get me to abandon my campaign because you feel you are right. And you are not going to win this argument by constantly harping on this.