You HAVE taken a look at Pathfinder, haven't you?
Statistics are at the heart of most non-diceless roleplaying games.
Tangent,
The reason you have to increase monster hit points by 50% is because you are giving your players ridiculous stats. Please take the advice given to you and grow as a DM.
As someone who has been a DM for a long time trust me, the stats are at the heart of everything. You don't need 3 18's to have fun, just as you as the DM don't need to max monster hit points and "fudge rolls like crazy" which you are doing whether you realize it or not to counteract overpowered players.
If you run things by the baseline than many of these problems go away.
You're reading this backward.
I increase the hit points of monsters by 50% because I feel average hit points is too low. I would do this whether the players had a 0-point-build or a 50-point-build. I then further fudge hit points and the like on the fly to ensure I don't kill off players or that the monsters don't die off quickly.
You know something? My players don't complain about it. So obviously I'm doing something right.
And I don't "give" my players ridiculous stats. They rolled legitimately for their stats. Are you saying I should turn around and say "I don't like those rolls because they're too high, I'm going to strip away your stats instead because you're too powerful" or something to that effect? That sounds about as fun as having your characters forced to do certain things because the game insists.
Well what works for your game, works for your game. I wouldn't take stats away per se but I wouldn't use rolled stats in the first place since it produces overpowered characters (in my opinion) the stat rolling didn't matter much back in 2nd edition Ad&d or whatever because even an 18 str only gave a +1 to hit, nowadays stats affect alot more and are very powerful.
In a system where players are super powerful from the beginning reigning back the stats I found was one way to help maintain balance. Besides the monitoring of wealth by level. At least in my experience.
My first pathfinder AP was Legacy Of Fire (made it to book 4 so far before switching to Runelords) and I did the whole rolled stats things and massively regretted it. In that game I have to give double advance template, near max hit points and usually an extra level or 2 just to compensate for high stats (like 3 18's a 16 and 2 14s kind of high stats uuugh)
Going on normal point buy in the new campaign I am running is soooo much more smooth sailing and less work, and I rarely have to tinker with things. It makes the game a lot smoother.
I mean when you go from running one game to the other, the difference is immense. The entire power level of the game shrinks and is a lot more manageable and DM friendly.
Poker relies on more than randomness, after all.
DnD too. Even much more than poker, as you get dealt random cards, but you choose which feats, spells and abilities you get. I can't avoid having bad cards, but I can avoid having an awful Will save. I can't choose to flank in poker, nor I can't decide to take cover when it's the smart thing to do. I can't focus fire in the right targets, nor I can use battlefield altering spells such as stinking cloud or wall of stone to tilt the odds in my favor.
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.
It's not me the one who is trying to point out that
I want to see fun and interesting concepts brought to life and played out.
So do I. Why do you suggest that people who play with 15 point buys don't play fun and intersting concepts brought to life? They do. They are just fun and interesting concepts without several 16s flying around. You can play whatever you like. But stop implying those who don't need to have several 16s in the character sheet aren't playing fun characters, or are about optimizing and not about having fun.
And I don't "give" my players ridiculous stats. They rolled legitimately for their stats
Well, as you have admited, when someone rolls and the dice slides and get a lot of 1s, you let him to reroll.
Rolling 4d6, six times, no funky business, and the average rolls are roughly around the 15 point buy . The expected value is about 15.6, 14.1, 12.9, 11.7, 10.4, 8.5http://catlikecoding.com/blog/images/posts/anydice/dice_mechanics/4d6_drop_ lowest/6_abilities.png
You do realize even with the "uber-stats" I've still nearly killed these characters more than once. If the game is not a cakewalk for them, then why do high stats matter? Seriously.
And gustavo, you are missing the point. With poker you have to have control over your facial expressions and body language. It doesn't matter how poor your cards are, or how good, without body language control you will lose. Thus the randomness of the game doesn't matter and comparing poker to Pathfinder and AD&D fails significantly.
As for Will saves and the like? If the player fails to hit a high-level Will save because a Succubus hits him or her with Dominate Person, it doesn't matter if that 10 he or she rolled fails by 1 or fails by 10 because of other bonuses. It still failed.
And you can claim all you want that tactics prevail over luck, but if an outlier happens with dice rolls and an Ogre criticals twice with an Ogre Hook and rolls really good damage and your Fighter goes down, dead, before the cleric can heal him? Your tactical situation just went FUBAR. Especially as then the next Ogre can close on the Cleric and hit him (and just hope that the dice aren't hot and a third critical happens to royally screw with the players).
The 1s were an example tossed out of thin air. The real example was a girl in my group who used defective dice that kept rolling 2s. As in I took the dice, rolled them five times in a row, and double 2s came up. Obviously it was a defect from having the dice in the tumbler too long (transparent dice aren't easily weighed). Am I to hold a person to die-rolls from defective equipment?
Finally, I stand by my statement. You talk about optimizing characters. You say optimized characters can prevail in these games. I don't give a damn about "optimized" characters. This is how you end up with gunslingers and bow-using monks that wipe the floor with everything unless the GM compensates by throwing a swarm of mooks to overwhelm the optimized characters (which means modifying the adventure which you seem to have issues against).
Nothing you say is changing my mind here. You can cry all you want about how I'm not doing it right. And when you consider this campaign will go to Level 20, with 10 Mythic Tiers, +15 to stats as a result of both Mythic and regular stat increases, another +2 potentially there in the very first game, and who-knows-what-other-increases?
And you're complaining about a 25 point build being "too powerful" for the game. Right. Pull the other one, it's got bells attached.
As for Will saves and the like? If the player fails to hit a high-level Will save because a Succubus hits him or her with Dominate Person, it doesn't matter if that 10 he or she rolled fails by 1 or fails by 10 because of other bonuses. It still failed.
If the player spent very little resources to get Protection from evil, he doesn't even have to roll.
Tactics > luck.
With poker you have to have control over your facial expressions and body language. It doesn't matter how poor your cards are, or how good, without body language control you will lose. Thus the randomness of the game doesn't matter and comparing poker to Pathfinder and AD&D fails significantly.
You are missing the point. Phil Ivey will take your money playing in internet too, with no facial expression or body language. And that's so, because even if the randomness of the game gives you 4 aces for some reason, it's only going to happen so often. Just like an ogre hitting 2 20s in a row. When that happens (once every 400 pairs of attacks on average, not counting the confirming critical roll, so it's bound to happen... once in the campaign, maybe), then the rest of the team takes care of the ogre, and heal/raise you.
Finally, I stand by my statement. You talk about optimizing characters. You say optimized characters can prevail in these games. I don't give a damn about "optimized" characters. This is how you end up with gunslingers and bow-using monks that wipe the floor with everything unless the GM compensates by throwing a swarm of mooks to overwhelm the optimized characters (which means modifying the adventure...
I didn't say optimized characters can prevail. I said common sense made characters can prevail. You don't need gunslingers, six arms eidolons or ooze-based druids to finish an AP with 15 point buy. It's enough with not being too eager or too greedy in your main stat, so you don't have to dump every other. A 15 starting str +2 from human bonus is enough for a fighter, you don't "need" a 20. By the end of the adventure, that starting 15 that costed you 7 points, would be a 26, or more with inherent bonus. In an adventure like this, it'll be closer to 45+.
APs are built with the expectation of low optimized characters with 15 point buy, which is the average customer. A regular fighter-rogue-wizard-cleric set up with 15 point buy can finish an AP. That's exactly Paizo's assumption when they scale the encounters and playtest them.
And you're complaining about a 25 point build being "too powerful" for the game
I'm not complaining. I'm agreeing with James Jacobs (you know, the game designer) in his answer to the OP question:
"There's going to be plenty of opportunities for the PCs to earn a few extra points to their ability scores beyond the norm, though, but starting them out at 25 point buy will still result in characters who are too good for the adventure. "
The whole problem with your view set is that you see the ogre scoring a critical hit as some kind of blasphemy. This is where the real meat of the issue is.
So the ogre scores a critical and drops the fighter, that is life, it happens. Is he dead, well that sucks dude scratch up a new character then that is how it goes. This is the way the game was meant to be played.
The whole notion of why you think its ok for PCs to have uber stats is because you seem to be babying your players to begin with, so its no big deal for you. For others trying to maintain more of a balance in the game it can be campaign ruining.
TLDR; if you baby your pcs you are not in a good position to give advice in a thread asking about the impact of high stats on a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between not allowing bad luck in dice rolls to kill a character that took hours to craft and allowing characters to die. If a player does something stupid then yes, he or she will die. If someone decides to take their long sword and set for charge against a flying Bulette which has been reworked to have four claw attacks while flying, then that's stupid. If a fighter is at full hit points and two die rolls result in his dying? That's bad luck and a good GM fudges the result.
It goes both ways. When fighting the Big Bad at the end of an AP, if the players get two or three criticals in a row and kill the Big Bad before he can act? A good GM will lie about the number of hit points. I already hear the cries of "blasphemy!" and "but that's what good tactics are about!" but you are ignoring the most important aspect of the game: a good time. Pathfinder is about the Heroic Journey. Frodo didn't sneak up on Sauron and shiv him in his disembodied eye. Sparhawk didn't cast a spell to kill Martel before the latter could act. And on down the line. I've seen several accounts of players feeling let down because the end fight was too easy. It's the GM's job to ensure it is not too easy and that it's not too hard.
And gustov? You are fixated on poker. Perhaps you should play that game instead of Pathfinder? Dice rolls are not the same as cards. There is an entirely different mechanic involved because as the deck of card gets used, the randomness declines. If I roll a d20, there is a 5% chance of a 20 each and every time. If I use cards, the chances of a King appearing is NOT the same for every single draw. Your analogy is flawed and should not be used. Sheesh you'd think you owe that guy money or something with how you keep harping about him.
Edit: As for the Succubus situation? If you have no idea you're going up against a succubus, why memorize it? And if you're new to the game you might not memorize rules and realize PfE is the most powerful spell in the system in that it can ignore spells much higher level than it.
if it helps tangent i agree with your side of things, when i run WotR i fully intend to try the 15 point buy* method, tho i love rolling dice for stats i agree that this AP is one that doesnt need them, plus with mythic being a huge part of it and the corresponding jumps in stats, coupled with the normal progression it should be pretty fun even without a couple 18s here 0r a few 16s there:)
*a big step for me cause i've never ever done a point buy ever!
Actually Cap, when I run WotR I'm going to do a 20-point build. Apparently it is used for some society thing or other, so 20-points allow them to register the game. (Assuming I hear back from the guy about it, I should head back to Harrison's to find him.) I was fully ready to do 15-point builds for it as I thought that was what was required, but the chap said otehrwise.
Of course, these are also people who play Pathfinder regularly and do those Pathfinder Society mini-games rather than a group of novice gamers who've not memorized the rules. And that's the other thing. If you have people fairly new to the game, then are you honestly going to force them to juggle math while building stats, or are you going to give them four six-sided dice and say "roll these, drop the lowest, and add them up." There's a reason the die-rolls are used still, and it's not because of old-guard 1st edition AD&D players like myself.
Mostly I find it annoying when someone blithely walks around dismissive of others because "tactics rule" when the game relies heavily on luck and refuses to admit I'm correct about tactical failures that happen when dice go sour on players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
okay i'll try 20 points,
and yes it is a point buy for PFS, i've never tried out PFS, tho i have been thinking about doing it or some sort of pathfinder game at my daughters school (i believe somewhere there is a free download on how to do that) its a pretty open minded "progressive"* type school district and i already passed their background check (and one from the FBI when i worked briefly for the state) so i dont think it'll be a problem, now i just gotta commit to a regular day (which is the hard part for me, i like to keep my scheduling loose, which is why i almost entirely play with my family.
*i hate political labels, hence the quotation marks, dont box me in, i always say:)
Yeah. I had the full check run on me as well when I used to substitute teach. Let me tell you, they should force any person who wants to go into teaching to, before they waste their time taking Education courses, to substitute teach full-time for one semester for high school. If they survive then lock them in an insane asylum as they're secretly working to bring back Cthulhu and are going to use the students to do so... er, I mean then they know they're suited for education and won't waste their own time and money. ;)
One thing I've been learning as I get back into gaming (I went on a several-year-hiatus after the old group broke up due to divorce and my own burning out after a decade of running eight-hour games weekly) is to triple-check the monsters and their abilities. Likewise... reminding people about things like "Aid Other" and the like can be quite handy... as is the electronic resources that are appearing like roll20.net and Hero Labs. I can't even remember now how I used to handle it; scribbled notes in the sides of modules and winging it mostly, I think.
Ah well. The thing about GMing is it gets in your blood. Thus my having two monthly (if I'm lucky) groups and looking for a group for every other week. ^^;; Though I did cut down the hours of my games to four. That also helps....
And gustov? You are fixated on poker. Perhaps you should play that game instead of Pathfinder? Dice rolls are not the same as cards. There is an entirely different mechanic involved because as the deck of card gets used, the randomness declines.
Once again, internet poker makes absolutely random shuffles, and even then, good players beat bad player all the time.
And I'm not talking about random die rolls. If you just play craps, where the player can't take any decision besides rolling dice, yes, it's purelly random. If you are playing a wargame, even if it has dice rolls, it's no longer random, because skill plays a larger role. That's why good battletech or warhammer players beat bad battletech or warhammer players, even when those are "lucky". I know, because I used to win both battletech and warhammer tournaments back in the old days. And it was *never* a matter of luck.
Edit: As for the Succubus situation? If you have no idea you're going up against a succubus, why memorize it? And if you're new to the game you might not memorize rules and realize PfE is the most powerful spell in the system in that it can ignore spells...
Who says I'll memorize it? There are wands, scrolls, and even ioun stones that give you permanent protection from evil. And Protection from Evil is a damn first level spell from the core book, accesible to most spellcasters. It's not like we are talking about some dirty, obscure, poorly known spell buried in a softcover book like emergency force sphere.
Actually, unless the game is broken and cheating, online poker still makes use of the same deck for all players. Thus if you can see discards and what other people have, you can count the cards and determine which cards are more likely to be still available. Counting cards is a method used by smart players. And to put it in gaming terms, it's as if instead of a d20, you have a hat with tags numbered 1-20 in it, and don't put the number back in once you draw it until either you run out of numbers or the combat ends. At which point, while you have a 5% chance of drawing a 1 on the first draw, if a 1 was not drawn after ten tries you have a 10% chance of drawing a 1... and if it's not showed up by 18 tries, it's a 50% chance.
This is what cards are about. This is why your argument is flawed and fails. If the cards are truly random and shuffled for every single draw then you could get five Kings of Hearts. Tell me, with online poker, can you get five Kings of Hearts with one deck? No? You can't? Then die-rolls are not the same as cards.
Face the facts. Your analogy is wrong and flawed.
As for the Wand or Scroll of Protection from Evil... who has the scroll? What happens if the cleric or wizard is Charmed first and failed the save because of a random bad roll?
And wait, are you saying the party just has enough spare money lying around they can buy scrolls and ion stones and the like "just in case" it is needed? That seems rather... Monty Haul to me. Power Gaming. Besides, the Succubus in question can hit you with a Dispel Magic first and then with Dominate. And hey, if you can buy wands of Protection from Evil, she can buy Wands of Dispel Magic (or acquire one from a wizard who didn't have his protections up 24 hours a day).
Your argument is flawed. Your claims of "tactics rule" are also flawed. Die rolls control the game. Your stats can "adjust" the chances but if you roll poorly enough you will not hit or fail your save. I've seen fighters who need a 5 to hit, and rolled four times of 4s or less. I've seen players who need a 20 to hit... and make that lucky roll at that one moment it's needed. These stories abound out there. You cannot claim luck has no place in the game. And all your cries of tactics fail to account for luck - both good and bad.
Well Tangent we will have to agree to disagree because you are playing an entirely different game than I am. If a pc got a couple lucky critical hits on the big bad guy and slaughtered him I would let it stand, same as I would let him get killed by a failed saving throw vs a PC finger of death or whatever.
The same thing goes the other way. So whatever variant of the game you are playing works for you that is fine, but it is not the actual game, and the advice of don't give players that high of point buy still stands.
No, it doesn't. It depends on the players and the GM. If you have new players who haven't memorized the rules and are into optimizing everything so they can cakewalk with a 10-point character, then a 25-point build could in fact be useful for the game and ensuring those players survive the campaign.
And no one plays "pure" Pathfinder. We ALL modify things... forget things... and so on. Claiming "you don't play Pathfinder" (if that is what you are saying - if not, I apologize) ignores the fact we ALL play the game differently.
Your argument is flawed. Your claims of "tactics rule" are also flawed. Die rolls control the game.
Those three statements are false. And the fact you "bless" dice to "dispel" bad luck might have a relation to it.
In a wargame, dice don't control the game. Tactics do. That's why good warhammer/battletech players win , and bad warhammer/battletech players lose. "Luck" is just the excuse that bad warhammer/battletech players with lousey tactics and weak strategy use when they get their asses whopped. I've seen several times players being hit by a critical hit in Battletech, and then claiming "luck" as their doom, when they fail to account that they also got a crit sooner. Just that their tactical positioning was worse, their weapons were not as good, and the target they were focusing was not the right one. That's why they lose. Same goes with Warhammer, and same goes with any other game where the players take decissions. That includes Risk, Pathfinder, and even Backgammon. You are not going to win against a proffesional backgammon player, no matter how much you bless your dice.
It's obvious we have a flagrant disagreement here, as I would NEVER bless dice, not even as a joke. I would never blame dice, or luck. Not even when I get a 1 or a 20, that's not luck that's statistical variance. It happens all the time. It's your job to get the most when it benefits you, and to minimize the worse aspects of it when you are in the receiving end. So there's no point to continue the argument, as we see the game (and probably more than the game) radically different.
Just to repeat, to the OP question (which is what this thread should be about), my opinion is better explained by James Jacobs himself:
"There's going to be plenty of opportunities for the PCs to earn a few extra points to their ability scores beyond the norm, though, but starting them out at 25 point buy will still result in characters who are too good for the adventure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, man, but you can't tell me that an early headshot with a Gauss Rifle/ER PPC to the dominating mech in a small engagement means that "good tactics" won the game. ^^
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I don't think anyone is actually claiming that Pathfinder is a purely deterministic game like chess or Amber. What those of us who are "pro-tactics" are saying is that good planning, tactics, and decision making can dramatically decrease the influence of luck in the game. Yes, sometimes your plan is FUBARed by a first turn double 20 x3 crit, and no reasonable tactical plan accounts for such freak occurences. Where good tactics have their place is the much more common situations - is 16 a good roll? Well that depends on whether it is high ebough to save/hit/make the skill check - and those types of numbers are much more in a player's influence.
No plan eliminates luck, but a good one mitigates it.
Gustavo, you have no idea what you are talking about. I have a friend with horrendous luck with dice. He was in a 40K Rogue Trader Tourney once, and was wiped out to the man. His Chaplain died to power attacks without making a single 4+ save and failed to wound once, his guns were firing nerf bullets, and the enemy ended up with less than 25% casualties.
The person watching the game told the other person "you should have lost. I have never seen such bad die rolls in my life." My friend used tactics, he had flanking units, he didn't leave guys vulnerable. And yet he kept failing armor saves, he'd hit only a third of the time, and most of those hits would fail to wound.
Heck, once he DID fail to account for tactics, his Chaplain was in the front of the group, and my unit of Raptors fired their pistols at his unit. He was the only unit actually in range. I managed two wounds. He rolled snake-eyes for his armor saves. One dead Chappy.
(Ironically when it comes to rolling stats for characters, he'd roll high for that. I guess the dice were waiting for when they'd gift him with 6s and 5s.)
Tactics mean nothing if the combat turns against you.
And no, 25-point-characters are NOT "too good for the game." I know of GMs who'd take 50-point-characters, use the monsters as-listed, and kill half of the PCs, while leaving the other half barely alive. You talk about tactics. I guess you feel GMs shouldn't use tactics back. I know from the sounds of things, many don't. And I know in some situations the game suggests certain tactically unwise courses of action (like Rokhar in the first part of Reign of Winter).
Tangent, lets say the PCs get the 25 point buy in a game where the DM does not auto max monster hit points and fudge like crazy to keep things interesting (Ie a more standard game) and the pcs roflstomp the adventure, do you see how it could be problematic?
For some games it just doesn't work. A closer to the baseline rules game is going to run into big problems.
Gustavo, you have no idea what you are talking about. I have a friend with horrendous luck with dice.
To me, that has the same meaning that "I have a friend with a nice unicorn". And this is why we will never agree.
Tactics mean nothing if the combat turns against you.
That's why they are always the same guys winning the tournaments.
And no, 25-point-characters are NOT "too good for the game."
Don't tell me that, tell it to the guy who design the game. I'm just quoting him
I don't think 25 point buys would swing the power set so much that they will really unbalance a campaign, if the other important parameters (4 players, WBL) are kept as intended.
An increased action economy and buff synergy from having more than the recommended number of players will do more to necessitate extensive rewrites than those measly 10 points could conceivably do. Letting party treasure get out of hand Monty Haul style also can derail a campaign pretty easily.
jahvul, it depends on the players. Some players do NOT curbstomp monsters. They may choose non-standard weapons, they may (despite gustavo's refusal to accept it) have a tendency to roll low, or may even put the points in stats that aren't exactly handy in combat. You can have intelligent fighters or charismatic barbarians. You can have dexterous healer-clerics that have a vow of pacifism. There is far more to Pathfinder than hack-and-slash.
Gustavo, you refuse to accept that there are people that just don't seem to roll well with dice. Now you may be a die-hard believer in the cold hard science universe in which everything is spelled out and explained and thus luck does not exist... and yet there are STILL people who will roll dice and with twelve dice have two above 4 and seven of them rolling 2s and 1s. And they can roll those dice a dozen times and each time those rolls refuse to show up. And then in the ONE instance they need a low roll (Leadership) that's when they get boxcars. But the very next roll is low.
As for your refusal to accept that GMs can have a streak of 20s criticalling the players, you are indulging in a fallacy of statistics: you believe that if you roll a 20-sided die, it won't come up 20 five times in a row. The truth is, there is a 5% chance of a 20 each and every time you throw the dice. It doesn't matter how many times I threw that d20 before, there is STILL a 5% chance of another 20 happening.
This is why, in a game like Pathfinder which uses dice, tactics can fall apart in the face of lucky die-rolls. Because it's a 5% chance, no matter how many times it has happened before. And that's just for a weapon that needs a 20!
I am not forcing you to run a 25-point game. I see no reason why you need to insist I'm doing it all wrong and that my players are overpowered and that all they need is to know the rules and use tactics and powergame their way to victory. Especially when I have, on multiple occasions, almost killed these "overpowered" characters. If the characters are threatened and struggle to survive... then how is the game overpowered?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that sometimes monsters need to die in one hit. It's weird that you don't think that's ok.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gustavo, you refuse to accept that there are people that just don't seem to roll well with dice. Now you may be a die-hard believer in the cold hard science universe in which everything is spelled out and explained and thus luck does not exist... and yet there are STILL people who will roll dice and with twelve dice have two above 4 and seven of them rolling 2s and 1s. And they can roll those dice a dozen times and each time those rolls refuse to show up. And then in the ONE instance they need a low roll (Leadership) that's when they get boxcars. But the very next roll is low.
I have seen a LOT of people claiming to have good luck or bad luck. Roleplaying tables are full of superstitious people, when we talk about dice. I have seen people saying that X player or Y GM always roll high, or low, or that X die rolls high. When I play with them, it's never true. Yes, when they roll high with the die, the say it loud, and they claim "hey look, see how my Chicago's bought die roll higher??". But then in the next roll they roll lower, and they just say nothing, ignore that fact, the fact goes forgotten, and when, 15 rolls later, they roll high again, they claim again "hey look! This dice is soooo lucky!".
I've gone so far as to actually take note of every roll made by said "bad luck player", said "good luck GM", and said "high rolling die". And during the course of a session, I write every time the die is rolled, the player rolls or the GM rolls. You know what? They are average. Absolutelly average. The "lucky Chicago dice" gets a 20, 5% of the time. The "bad luck player" takes his fair shares of crits, like everybody else, and gets as much 1s as everybody else.
So yes, I claim that your "unlucky player" does not exist, that he is as much average as everybody else, and he is just focusing more when he rolls lower and ignoring when he rolls high, because that's the ussual behavior of human perception, and the reason scientists actually measure things, instead of falling into the "eye-test".
Luck exists as much as unicorns. And blessing the dice has so much effect as cursing it.
As for your refusal to accept that GMs can have a streak of 20s criticalling the players, you are indulging in a fallacy of statistics: you believe that if you roll a 20-sided die, it won't come up 20 five times in a row.
No, I'm not. I know how probability works. I'm not claiming that you can't get 5 20s in a row. I'm claiming it happens once every three millions and two hundred thousands combats (and that's not counting the guy still needs to confirm criticals), so it is absolutelly irrelevant statistically in the long run. If you want to say that once every three million two hundred thousands combats a lucky streak of 5 20s might take a character or two down, fine. I actually rolled that way once: I killed 3 chars in a row in 3.0 with an orc barbarian crits with an axe and great cleave. You know what? The players won regardless. And Raise Dead is a 5th level spell.
This is why, in a game like Pathfinder which uses dice, tactics can fall apart in the face of lucky die-rolls. Because it's a 5% chance, no matter how many times it has happened before. And that's just for a weapon that needs a 20!
And you have 1/36 chances to get a 12 with 2d6 too. Chances are that good pro battletech players will beat you regardless, and I'm quite confident you shouldn't bet a lot of money against a profesional backgammon player either.
Tactics > luck.
I am not forcing you to run a 25-point game. I see no reason why you need to insist I'm doing it all wrong and that my players are overpowered and that all they need is to know the rules and use tactics and powergame their way to victory.
Once again, I'm not saying that you are playing wrong. I'm answering to the OP, who ASKS if this AP would be too easy for 25 point buy characters, to play it as given. And the answer, given by the guy who is the lead designer of it, is that yes, 25 poing buy will make the things too easy for the party, if you play the adventure as writen.
Of course, you can give your players 18 in all stats, and 5 magic items at level 1, and a flying dragon mount, and still make the game challenging, if you increase the encounters in the same fashion. But that's not what the OP is asking for. He is asking if the adventure, as written, would become easier with a 25 point buy group. And the answer is:
"There's going to be plenty of opportunities for the PCs to earn a few extra points to their ability scores beyond the norm, though, but starting them out at 25 point buy will still result in characters who are too good for the adventure"
I don't think 25 point buys would swing the power set so much that they will really unbalance a campaign, if the other important parameters (4 players, WBL) are kept as intended.
An increased action economy and buff synergy from having more than the recommended number of players will do more to necessitate extensive rewrites than those measly 10 points could conceivably do. Letting party treasure get out of hand Monty Haul style also can derail a campaign pretty easily.
I agree that having extra players, or extra WBL, will swing the balance even more. And if the OP were asking if having 6 players or giving away 50% more wealth will unbalance the Campaign, I'd say him that yes, he'll need to change the encounters to balance out the fact the PC are more, or are richer.
That doesn't change the fact that 25 point buy characters are more powerful than 15 point buy characters, and that the AP isn't balanced with 25 point buy characters in mind, so you'll need to change the encounters accordingly
Yeah, if we go by the simple mathematical paradigm of "25 is more than 15", then of course it is an unbalancing factor. The question should rather be "Are 25 points too much to (mostly) work with the AP as written?" and I think the answer to that is likely to be "No".
They will either add to a single attribute a +3 or another +1 to a very high attribute and another +1 to a low one. Or something in-between. Compared to another one or two additional characters, that is nothing. Rewrites for 25 points would be much less extensive than for more than four characters. Maybe add another +1 to save DC's and attack rolls for the opposition, simple stuff.
Luck exists as much as unicorns.
Except unicorns do exist. They're not svelt white animals (well, not white unless suffering from albinoism) and we call them rhinoceroses normally, but they are a four-legged critter with a long horn on its head. ;)
You calling my friend a unicorn is amusing, but does not negate the fact that when he plays Warhammer 40K he inevitably loses because of bad die rolls despite being in a better tactical position. (Mind you, he did tell me recently he played someone who is worse with dice than him; apparently he had to roll five armor saves. He tossed five dice and every single one came up as a 1. Admittedly, it's a 16% chance of a 1 showing up on a d6 but you're the one calling for statistical improbabilities.
And yes, statistically speaking a series of 20s is very improbable. Just as are five 1s when you roll five dice, either all at the same time or one at a time. However, the chances of me rolling a 20 after rolling five 20s in a row is... 5%. And if an ogre has more than one attack? Then it has a greater chance of rolling 20s in any event. A horde of 10 ogres attacking a fighter wearing full plate and a shield will likely not often... but if the ogres need 15s to hit and 20s to critical then the few hits that DO hit are much more likely to critical.
In a game in which dice rolls are used as a gaming mechanic, tactics will inevitably succeed only if random chance doesn't result in an unexpected death or two which throws your entire battleline into question. And given that Paizo not only states "15-point-builds" for its APs, but "four players" as well (and has unofficially stated that Cohorts throw things off due to their action economy - if you take Leadership at level 7 and recruit a level 5 human fighter then you just, for the price of one feat, gained seven feats that can be used for your group. You cannot dare to claim this is not unbalancing to the game), then the death of even ONE character, especially the one who is the primary combatant (given the usual mix of "arcane caster, divine caster/healer, skill sink/flanker, and front-line unit") because of random chance doesn't result in the tactics being tossed out the window.
And what do you do? Retreat? What about your dead fighter? If you don't retrieve his body now (which means winning the fight) then you lose all his equipment and can't raise him (assuming you can - before I ran Pathfinder, my campaigns had a "No Raise Dead" policy. You die? You can't just cast a quick spell to bring someone back. If you're lucky you might go on a long quest to be able to bring him or her back. Otherwise, roll up a new character. There were thematic reasons for this in my game so please don't complain about that policy). This also means that unless the GM doesn't give a damn about story, you're NOT getting a front-line fighter unless you retreat, probably while being attacked by the enemy unless you could use Teleport.
As magnuskn has stated, a 25-point build is not overpowering for an AP. It depends on the group. A group that can prevail on a 0-point-build with ease would very likely find both 15 and 25 points to become a cakewalk. And a group of casual gamers who get together once a month and don't have the rules memorized and are not going to memorize the rules may very well find 25 points to be better suited for them. Tossing out a blanket "it's too powerful!" ignores far too many factors. For you it may be. For others? It may be needed.
Ultimately, it's the GM's job to ensure that if a 0-point-build is too powerful for the AP to find methods of increasing the difficulty of the encounters. APs are not written in stone. GMs are supposed to adjust them as they see fit to ensure the game is fun for the players. If this means eliminating sexual or horror content from Runelords because of several pre-teen players? So be it. If that means increasing the hit points of monsters and adding a couple extras because the players are skilled? Good. It's a poor or lazy GM who can't adjust encounters for his or her players.
Tangent, when you are asked your religion on forms do you put down 'Dice Gods'?
Agnostic actually. I've just played these games for 30+ years. I'm well familiar with the vagaries of dice.
When I say I "bless" dice, do you honestly think I believe it works? There is a 5% chance of any specific result coming up with a d20 for each roll. That includes higher rolls. Any higher rolls that come up after I "bless" their dice is coincidental. It's done for humor. Just as my friend asking his fiancee to kiss his dice isn't for real "luck" in die-rolling but as part of his flirtation with his fiancee.
Despite that, I have noticed patterns. You see, there is a 16% chance of a d6 roll coming up as a 1. That my friend rolls a lot of 1s when rolling d6s for Warhammer 40K is just percentages. The "fact" that rolling 20 d6s shouldn't have 15 of the die-rolls consistently being in the 1-3 range does not mean luck is involved. Because just because there is a 16% chance of any result coming up doesn't mean that one specific person will get the full range over time. It's ALL the people using dice over time where statistically you see things average out.
In a game in which dice rolls are used as a gaming mechanic, tactics will inevitably succeed only if random chance doesn't result in an unexpected death or two which throws your entire battleline into question.
If you want to believe so, fine. I'd still bet against you if you play vs a proffesional backgammon player. And backgammon has probably more random variance involved that, say, Warhammer, because you don't get to build your starting backgammon pieces, as you do with your army list.
You calling my friend a unicorn is amusing, but does not negate the fact that when he plays Warhammer 40K he inevitably loses because of bad die rolls
As I said, I've seen a lot of people before claiming that, (or the oppositte). Whenever I went and noted the die rolls, they were average. All of them. I'm absolutelly confident it will work the same for your friend. It's just how perception works, he remembers and speaks aloud when he rolls several 1s, but he forgets when he rolls several 6s. It happens in the opposite way for those claiming to be luckier. It's absolutelly normal, human beings have selective attention
And yes, statistically speaking a series of 20s is very improbable. Just as are five 1s when you roll five dice
5 ones in 5d6 is 1/7776. It happens here and there. Five 20s in 5d20 is one chance vs three million two hundred thousand. It's not even close to be in the same league.
For that mmatter, I once saw 7 one hundred rolls in 1d100 in a row. I still don't think luck had nothing to do with it.
As magnuskn has stated, a 25-point build is not overpowering for an AP.
It's fine, I respect magnuskin's opinion. I'd stand by James Jacob's opinion though.
It depends on the group.
Quite probable. However, nothing you have said so far suggests me that your group couldn't defeat the adventure path with the average point buy. Yes, they struggle to survive with higher-than-average points. But that's also because you play harder-than-average encounters. You are giving your party encounters that are stronger than designed (extra health, etc), and then you give them extra point-buy, and conclude they need the extra point to survive. If you weren't playing harder-than-average encounters, your newbie players that don't memorize the book wouldn't need 35+ point buys rolled just to barely survive. They need artificially higher buffs to beat artificially higher difficulties. It's a matter of playstyle, sure, and if you and your party are happy with it, go for it.
However... this is a thread with a poster asking for advice about the *standard* adventure path. We shouldn't advice him to do X or Y, based in our own experience with a non-standard version of the adventure path (like one with 50% extra health or whatever)
My first group pre-dated my playing Pathfinder. You would honestly tell me I should have my players redo their characters to compensate for shifting my campaign from Night Below to Reign of Winter? No, sorry. You'd probably say "they should roll up new characters at 1st level" rather than my adjusting the campaign for their higher levels, wouldn't you. You know something? My players are perfectly happy with their characters and didn't want new ones. And as I said, I've already nearly killed these characters more than once. Their uber-stats are not proving overpowered.
The second group I'm doing also did 4d6 rolls for their characters (and one rolled a below-15-point character; I ended up giving her a few extra points to spend on stats so she'd be closer to the rest of the group). I had THEM start off at 2nd level too (though no extra gold), which I am fairly certain you'd consider absolutely wrong and horrific because I'm not blindly following Paizo's instructions.
Again, I've on more than one occasion nearly killed several characters (it's amazing how useless a modified strength of 24 and using a two-handed weapon is when Blink results in your attacks not hitting five times in a row - 50/50 shot, mind you so those odds weren't horrifically high, especially given that another player's Spiritual Weapon WAS hitting as she had See Invisible up, giving her an 80% success ratio). And THAT was just giving Mal an Advanced Creature build to compensate for them being one level higher.
If my players are enjoying themselves and if they are finding themselves challenged by the game then why do you say they are overpowered?
(For that matter, I suspect you'd cry foul at the fact I consider the treasure found in the AP to be too high, the magic-creation feats to be ill-considered, and the general "you can buy most magic items without any difficulty" concept to be Monty Haul.)
Do note that James said this: Same goes for character creation. Some parties can build super powerful characters with 15 points, other parties can't fight their way out of a TPK in the first encounter in the dungeon with 25 point buys....You as the GM are the only one qualified to know what's too good or not good enough for your particular players.
So James, who you are insisting said the game should be a 15-point-build, also said the GM is the one qualified to know what points are best suited for your players. If this is the sole qualifier for your points-argument? I think your argument is now at an end as he said the GM should use the points best-suited for his group.
This is something more GMs should be aware of, by the way, given that several Total Party Kills appear in the Obit threads for various APs. To me, the time spent crafting characters and getting into his or her skin multiplied by however many players you have shouldn't be squandered with a TPK. That GMs not only report this but are gleeful about it suggests they're not very good GMs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My first group pre-dated my playing Pathfinder. You would honestly tell me I should have my players redo their characters to compensate for shifting my campaign from Night Below to Reign of Winter? No, sorry. You'd probably say "they should roll up new characters at 1st level" rather than my adjusting the campaign for their higher levels, wouldn't you. You know something? My players are perfectly happy with their characters and didn't want new ones. And as I said, I've already nearly killed these characters more than once. Their uber-stats are not proving overpowered.
I'm not saying that you should change the way you play the campaign. I'm saying you shouldn't give advice about how powerful is a 25point buy to a poster that is genuinely asking for advice, if your own WotR campaign is completelly different than the writen one. You don't even start at first level, so I guess you change all the encounters, don't you? Then how is your experience anyhow helpful for the OP? I have a friend who is GMing Wrath of the Righteous using D&D 4e rules. Is it fun for him and his group? Yes. Should they change it? No. Is his experience helpful in anyway for the OP question about 25 point buy being too powerful or not for the adventure as writen? It's totally irrelevant.
Yes, you can even play WotR with characters starting at 10 level if you want. I'm sure it'll be a blast for your group, so congratulations. But it's not helpful for OP's question.
Yes, and jacobs also said, answering to you none the less:
"We state exactly that on page 16 of the Core Rulebook where we name the 15 point buy as "Standard Fantasy."
But not everyone wants that. Some want more or less. Just as some folks want fast or slow XP.
We don't want to tell you how to play the game, but we DO need to choose which point buy and which XP track we assume for our publications."
So yes, he is telling you that you can play however you want. But his answer to the OP remains the same:
"There's going to be plenty of opportunities for the PCs to earn a few extra points to their ability scores beyond the norm, though, but starting them out at 25 point buy will still result in characters who are too good for the adventure
Just like you can play the adventure in the XP fast track, or the slow track if you like it more, but if the OP would be asking for advice to use the fast track, Jacobs' answer would be that the AP assumes medium progression, and using the Fast track would mean characters level up faster and therefore would be stronger than the AP expects
If my players are enjoying themselves and if they are finding themselves challenged by the game then why do you say they are overpowered?
I'm not saying your characters are overpowered in your campaign. Sure, if you give them 25+ point buy and make them start at 3rd level, but change the first encounter in a given campaign from 3 goblins to 3 ogres, they are not overpowered. However, that's not what the OP is asking for
Yeah, but we got the right to give our opinions on how a 25 point buy with otherwise standard options would affect his campaign, which, IMO, is not that drastically.
I would really love if you would stop trying to silence other people's opinion.
But the opinion is irrelevant, misleading, and useless to the OP if you are playing some kind of weird non standard game. That is the point.
actually, the point is that the GM knows his group best and if he or she feels a 25-point build suits his or her group then use that point level. You two, on the other hand, are stating that 25-point builds are overpowered when for some groups of gamers, it is not. For some gamers, a 25-point build will still leave the adventure as written to be extremely difficult and risking a TPK.
Further, as gustovo pointed out, die rolls average themselves out, so a 4d6 method could have a player with a 35-point build equivalent and another two players with 10-point builds. All the point system ultimately does is ensure all characters are created equally. Well, outside of starting money.
But the opinion is irrelevant, misleading, and useless to the OP if you are playing some kind of weird non standard game. That is the point.
Only because your own game is non-standard doesn't mean that you can't weigh in on balance issues for standard games. It helps of course if you have played both, so you an internal comparison.
|
To the OP : I saw somewhere on the boards a designer state that Point-buy 20 is CR+1 when compared to Point-buy 15. So I guess Point-buy 25 would be CR+2 ;-)That's wrong. At the very least, it goes against the stated CR boosts in the various statblocks throughout PF.
PC wealth + 25 PB = +2 (Karzoug, Krune, Baba Yaga)
PC wealth + 20 PB = +1 (Elvanna, Kerdak Bonefist)
PC wealth + 15 PB = +1 (Takahiro the Jade Regent, Vyr-Azul, Arazni, Gnargorak, Kortash Khain, Jatembe)A 20 PB doesn't increase CR at all. Giving PC wealth to a character is an automatic +1 (so for a 20th level character, their CR is 19 if they only have NPC wealth), and 25 PB is +1 CR.
Presumably 20 PB + Azlanti race would likely add up to a net +1 CR (since Azlanti is 0.5 of a CR based on the simple advanced template, which itself is +1 CR). However, to reiterate, a 20 PB is not +1 CR.
I guess I misremembered then. Your post does provide the answer to the OP though.
If PC wealth + 15 PB = CR+1 and PC wealth + 25 PB = CR+2, then 25 PB is CR+1 compared to 15 PB :-)
That's actually helpful for my own hopeful WotR game which would be 20-point builds. I was wondering how much to increase foes by to compensate for a possible group of 6 PCs. For the extra two players I was going to increase the minions by 50%. I think I'll also boost monsters by +2 hit points per hit die (or +1 for monsters with a high Con bonus) for the extra five points. It would be like increasing the constitution of foes by a five-point build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait. You guys are DM'ing and you're telling me you don't fudge rolls behind that huge DM screen? I..... You......
BWAHAHAHHHAAAAAAAHAHHHHAHHAAAAAHAHHHAHHHHHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
What was it Khan said? "You can't even break a rule. How can you be expected to break bone?"
I'm sorry, I don't mean any of this in a bad way, its just kind of shocking to see how far things have changed. No wonder you see all this "optimized" stuff. I bet you guys run your Paths without customizing them to your group too.
See, I've always put story and party enjoyment over random rolls, no module can ever cover your group with the options they need. Your group is always unique and if you want to bring the story out you're going to have to customize here and there. And if you see some little twist of luck wipe your party out because the bad guys got a string of good rolls, that's got nothing to do with a good story. Used to be a good DM would fudge things. I dunno, maybe I'm showing my mileage, but my players always have a good time, so I suppose it all works out. Different strokes and what not....
I have seen a LOT of people claiming to have good luck or bad luck. Roleplaying tables are full of superstitious people, when we talk about dice.
Throwing dice is a manual and mostly subconscious skill, like throwing a baseball or throwing a football or throwing a rock. D&D veterans have thrown dice thousands of times, and every time the dice "rolled well" the pleasure centers in their brains lit up. Most people would expect someone pitching a baseball to get better with practice, or someone throwing a football to get better with practice. Why would you think someone throwing dice thousands of times isn't going to get better with practice?
I've gone so far as to actually take note of every roll made by said "bad luck player", said "good luck GM", and said "high rolling die". And during the course of a session, I write every time the die is rolled, the player rolls or the GM rolls. You know what? They are average. Absolutelly average.
I haven't tracked that. The documented stats I have noticed is the stats that people roll. And, in my experience, experienced D&D players consistently roll better stats than would be expected if the rolls were being generated by an RNG.
There are some people I know who I think consistently roll better than average. I don't consider it "luck" though. If it were really important, I'd insist they throw dice from cups. I'm quite sure that would make their "luck" vanish immediately.
That's actually helpful for my own hopeful WotR game which would be 20-point builds. I was wondering how much to increase foes by to compensate for a possible group of 6 PCs. For the extra two players I was going to increase the minions by 50%. I think I'll also boost monsters by +2 hit points per hit die (or +1 for monsters with a high Con bonus) for the extra five points. It would be like increasing the constitution of foes by a five-point build.
That sounds pretty reasonable.
I'm currently running a (heavily modified Kingmaker) game for a party of characters with 35-point builds, and I'm finding that increasing the CR of the encounters by 1 balances that quite nicely (except that the monsters really could use more hp). However, my players are either new to Pathfinder or deliberately not optimizing. Unless your players are pretty good min-maxers, I wouldn't worry too much about a 20-point buy. Remember that the "advanced" template for monsters is +4 to all ability scores, and only increases the CR of the monster by 1.
The fact that you have 6 PC's is a much bigger deal than the 20 point buy.
@Thorri: I have no idea how this group will be as I've never run for them before and don't know them. I just want to run WotR and there's a comic book store that has a downstairs room where they run games. Heavens knows if I waited for either my tabletop or Skype group to finish up, I'd not run this AP for a couple years.
And yes, I've noticed that statistic rolls tend to be better than normal rolls even though I watch the players roll. As certain parties say, die rolls even out eventually. These players usually do poorly for damage and the like for a while and curse their dice and rotate them out.
(By the way, certain statistical parties fail to account for one other thing which I out-and-out stated: sometimes you have bad dice. As in they were kept in the tumbler for too long and ended up too worn on one side, thus increasing the statistical chance of certain numbers being rolled. I know I've a rather smoothly-polished set of dark red dice in which the d20 often rolls poorly. I don't consider it luck. I consider it a bad polishing job.)
@Vexous: I fudge rolls all the time. I also allow players to occasionally fudge their rolls (in so far that if things are taking too long and someone rolled to miss, I'll say "I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said. Could you roll to hit, please?" - though if they miss a second time, they'll have missed). I'm sure that certain parties here would consider that to be completely blasphemous. I don't care. What matters is my group enjoys themselves.
|
I dun remember if i sounded off in here or not, didnt see anything in the last two pages.
As we played for four sessions before Book I came out. I had them fighting against some small squads of dretches and the like before i could bring them into the adventure path (as they wanted to start the week After i pitched the idea to them all.
All roll are public so no fudging for anyone.
In the vary first combat i forgot my dice so was using random dice from other players sitting next to me. I had one combat that I used a sparkley green gem die. i rolled 12 20's in a row one combat against them with dretches. I was then given three different 20's to use for the next round as that player didnt want me to use all the good juju on his favorite die. For the rest of combat he rolled nothing higher then a 1 with the same dice. With the other players dice i kept rolling 20s. It was a tough combat for them.
After getting the path, Since we were 2 month and three days in the future. I used my GMPC Male Suli-Jann Prince "Zantos the Azure" Who basically summoned hero to bring the PCs to him in the future. Do some quests for him then he sent them back in time to merge with the AP timeline.
I split the Heroes into three groups based on who was there at the time.
A party of 3 who arrived as per the AP Part I of the fight.. they fell under ground and ended things at the crazy egotistical dwarven fungal researcher. PC 4 arriving and taking over horgus.
6 Heroes, who merged into the adventure before part 1 started actually got off a warning, sent some 4000 noncombatants away from Kenabres. ( Though because it was a Day of great import the pop of kenabres had actually swollen to some 50,000 souls, mostly crusaders come to pray before going to their places on the wall of fortresses. of which 200 survived in the Initial future i started the heroes in.)
I forgot that the Wardstone was on the surface, I put it down deep in the bedrock. They defended it against a small army of dretches. litterally killing 200 of them, because the dretches didnt stop summoning in more. up the hallway out of reach of the parties weapons or spells.. That was a fun battle.. I almost surged through their defense but some lucky 20s on their part and many 1s on my part.
Now group 1 and group 2 are in Different timelines still.
Group 1 Failed to bring the warning and are in timeline 1. where Kenebres was destroyed and they started 2 mths ahead.
Group 2 brought the warning and saved Kenabres. They are in a the new Timeline.
Group 3 consists of a half forest giant/half tiefling Barbarian/Priest as a well a Dromite Mindblade/Aegis. None of the players know where these two are at.
But their mission is to convince group 1 to join group 2 in their timeline. Then when group 1 2 3 are reunited. Boom the Kite is destroyed and the silver dragon dies for real.. However none of the below happens. and of the 50000 crusaders that were in kenabres, 10000 died in the first attack so 40k are left. 35k of them die in this final wave of attack. 5000 crusaders are left alive.
Enter part 4. Chief Suleiman (renamed mongrelman leader) is going to present it and the note to the heroes at the start. Heroes go do to do what they need to do in the there. Reclaim the Wardstone before it can be used..
The point of this long ramble is that.. it dont matter if your characters have 13s +1 to a stat or if they happen to have a 22 +6 to something.
Our job before anything else is to know our players and make sure they have a good time playing in our worlds. Not a single one of us GM/DM? storytellers have anything else to do but make sure our players have a good time. Me im both cursed and blessed to have a huge table over a score of us when everyone is in town. But we dont game with that many. 12 is most ive had for wrath to so far and that was before book I even came out.
Even with a party of 12 level 2, True 30 point buy characters. I almost killed 10/12 in 2 rounds of combat against a equal number of Dretches. PL2 vs CR 2 1-1 ratio to start off the battle.
Even underground with 3 of those Heroes and Horgus (NPC Noble 4) fighting with a rock, then rapier. Almost had a TPK again in the dretch maze.
So really stats are secondary to being able to spin a good yarn. The guys and gals at Paizo are great at spinning tales, havnt read or played one that i was unhappy with. I do max HP but otherwise scale the challange to party size.
It soo much more work to adjust for a random party size from 3-10.. usually 8, than to adjust to player having higher stats.
That table earlier CR +1 vs Point buy i do something similar.
I do a CR +1 per PC over 3 basically.
Spoiler for spoilers for the path and a kinda ranmble...
Okay these posts are getting way to long, and people only reiterate their own point with increasingly pointless examples...
so going back to the original post. how much impact will it have to play a 15 point buy campaign with 25 point buy?
Try it, the internet in its infinite arrogance has no consensus for you!