1) I can see why a person would ditch a whole game because of the idea of stat rolling in order. I would probably pass the game too. Why? Because I hate playing anything that has his turn consist of "I charge. Now I full attack" I prefer playing classes like Alchemists, Inquisitors, rogues, and mages (usually sorcerer and oracle). With classes like that, you need a very specific set of attributes (high Dex, high cha, high int). With rolls like roll in line, you can very easily end up with "fighter" stats, which i hate because I just do not find enjoyment in classes like the Paladin, Barbarian, and fighter.
Oh and Fluttershy is still best pony. RD is second :P
What are "fighter" stats? A fighter benefits from a few good scores. So do rogues, alchemists, and inquisitors.
And what's wrong with playing a wizard with his "points" somewhat spread out? Not everyone should have to be invincible to enjoy the group, which comes back to my "this is only a problem in a crappy group" belief.
Fighter stats would be:
High Str, mid dex, High con, decent wis (for the actual fighter class) or decent cha (for paladins).
It has nothing to do with being invincible. It has to do with being even remotely viable. If you rolled 16, 14, 14, 10, 8, 12 you are pretty much pigeon-holed into being a martial (with stats like that you can't be any of the "caster" classes). And again, I HATE playing martials (unless it is a Magus because you can do some fun stuff with Spell combat... like Bladed Dash or Darkness spells).
Oh and do note how i said:
IN ORDER...
Regular dice roll i don't mind since it helps with monks sometimes (I enjoy monks for some reason or another. But mainly Qinggong Monks that play like "benders" from Avatar aka, high Ki Points)
Oh and do note how i said:
IN ORDER...
Regular dice roll i don't mind since it helps with monks sometimes (I enjoy monks for some reason or another. But mainly Qinggong Monks that play like "benders" from Avatar aka, high Ki Points)
well yeah, if you stipulate rolling ironman style then you are stuck playing a martial.
Hell my groups haven't played like that in ages...Come to think of it roll 3d6 place to taste was the first house rule I ever encountered.
1) I can see why a person would ditch a whole game because of the idea of stat rolling in order. I would probably pass the game too. Why? Because I hate playing anything that has his turn consist of "I charge. Now I full attack" I prefer playing classes like Alchemists, Inquisitors, rogues, and mages (usually sorcerer and oracle). With classes like that, you need a very specific set of attributes (high Dex, high cha, high int). With rolls like roll in line, you can very easily end up with "fighter" stats, which i hate because I just do not find enjoyment in classes like the Paladin, Barbarian, and fighter.
Oh and Fluttershy is still best pony. RD is second :P
What are "fighter" stats? A fighter benefits from a few good scores. So do rogues, alchemists, and inquisitors.
And what's wrong with playing a wizard with his "points" somewhat spread out? Not everyone should have to be invincible to enjoy the group, which comes back to my "this is only a problem in a crappy group" belief.
Fighter stats would be:
High Str, mid dex, High con, decent wis (for the actual fighter class) or decent cha (for paladins).
It has nothing to do with being invincible. It has to do with being even remotely viable. If you rolled 16, 14, 14, 10, 8, 12 you are pretty much pigeon-holed into being a martial (with stats like that you can't be any of the "caster" classes). And again, I HATE playing martials (unless it is a Magus because you can do some fun stuff with Spell combat... like Bladed Dash or Darkness spells).
Ah, you're assuming the rolls were in order. It was Standard rolling.
EDIT: In Order rolling is a whole other potato and not relevant to my statement.
There's a non missing in there.My experience is that 2d6+6 should be the standard for rolling, it sets the minimum stat at 8, which is about as low as non minmaxers are willing to go anyway.Er, not that I have issue with all of the insightful and convincing arguments you've made, but...
I don't think that means what you think it means.
My bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So roleplayers don't like scores below eight?
Huh. I'll go tell them that.
1) I can see why a person would ditch a whole game because of the idea of stat rolling in order. I would probably pass the game too. Why? Because I hate playing anything that has his turn consist of "I charge. Now I full attack" I prefer playing classes like Alchemists, Inquisitors, rogues, and mages (usually sorcerer and oracle). With classes like that, you need a very specific set of attributes (high Dex, high cha, high int). With rolls like roll in line, you can very easily end up with "fighter" stats, which i hate because I just do not find enjoyment in classes like the Paladin, Barbarian, and fighter.
Oh and Fluttershy is still best pony. RD is second :P
What are "fighter" stats? A fighter benefits from a few good scores. So do rogues, alchemists, and inquisitors.
And what's wrong with playing a wizard with his "points" somewhat spread out? Not everyone should have to be invincible to enjoy the group, which comes back to my "this is only a problem in a crappy group" belief.
Fighter stats would be:
High Str, mid dex, High con, decent wis (for the actual fighter class) or decent cha (for paladins).
It has nothing to do with being invincible. It has to do with being even remotely viable. If you rolled 16, 14, 14, 10, 8, 12 you are pretty much pigeon-holed into being a martial (with stats like that you can't be any of the "caster" classes). And again, I HATE playing martials (unless it is a Magus because you can do some fun stuff with Spell combat... like Bladed Dash or Darkness spells).
Ah, you're assuming the rolls were in order. It was Standard rolling.
EDIT: In Order rolling is a whole other potato and not relevant to my statement.
oh ok lol. Yeah, My group, when we do rolls, usually do 4d6, reroll 1s and drop lowest
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, never play characters with scores below 8. Stupid characters are just beneath my artistic vision, y'know? And uncharismatic characters...I mean, damn, what a waste of my incredible acting skills. And don't even get me started on reckless, weak-willed or self-absorbed characters. Those, like, aren't even characters, if you ask me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think the only real way to roleplay is to ensure you're playing with at least one eighteen. And fighters and rogues are waaay out—those are, like, the worst roleplaying classes ever. Also, know what's really bad for roleplaying? Only getting one feat at first level. I think all characters should start with four. Plus Toughness as a bonus feat. Otherwise, my character's gonna be flatter than a flea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've done a lot of playing in various online groups and various offline groups. By far the most common method of generation I've found has been point buy. Not even always standard point buy, but some measure of point buy. Point Buy variations I've seen have usually allotted smaller point buys for playing races that should have a level adjustment from 1st level.
My own group was the last group that used rolling that I played with, and we dropped that quite a while back since it was adding nothing to our games. No one in my group has missed it. They like building the character that they want to play, knowing they can make the character even if there are no witnesses around to watch their rolls (which makes preparing for games waaaaaay more convenient since we can just make our mechanical side of our characters mostly in our lonesome, discuss plot/background/personality/other roleplaying stuff before the game through skype or over the phone, and then actually play on the day one of us is going to GM without having to make our characters on the spot).
Anecdotal? You betcha. True experiences? Wholly.
I have no idea which method is the biggest one, but I think PFS players are actually the minority of PF players.
I think you'll have more PF players that do NOT play in PFS games than do.
IMO of course.
You can't base everything off PFS players or games. In addition, I don't think PFS players are necessarily the biggest spenders.
For example, for some reason my wife really insists I buy as second copy for her if she really likes something in PF (double the cost for me...yeah...NOT). I'm definitely not the biggest spender, but I think I've spent a little more than some of the PFS players at the FLGS which basically have a few rulebooks...maybe...and that's it.
We tried something different tonight. We rolled up a new party and I tried a slightly modified version of something someone mentioned in this thread. We did 4d6 pick 3, with the option that if any 1's were rolled, they could reroll ONE roll of a 1 (so a situational 5d6). We actually got some pretty high scores out of it. It's amazing how many times that one rerolls into a 4, 5, or 6.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am overly obsessed with ability score generation methods. Some time back I scoured the internet for characters generated using the 20 Point-Buy method. I got this set of 68 characters before I got tired of searching. I wanted to see if the human element skewed the data away from what the math told me.
I found the full set of all possible ability score arrays that equal 20 points has an average total bonus of about +5. The average total bonus of these 68 Player generated ability score arrays is about +7, but is heavily skewed toward the higher total bonuses of +7 and +8. I expect this because humans are natural optimizers.
I am sharing this because some of you seem to be as obsessed with this subject as I am.
The data below presents the ability score arrays without any racial adjustments arranged in descending order so that identical arrays will be grouped together.
18, 16, 14, 7, 7, 7, Elf, Wizard
18, 16, 13, 8, 7, 7, Human, Fighter
18, 14, 13, 13, 7, 7, Half-Orc, Sorcerer
18, 14, 12, 12, 8, 7, Human, Fighter
18, 14, 12, 12, 8, 7, Human, Witch
18, 14, 12, 12, 8, 7, Human, Summoner
18, 14, 12, 10, 10, 7, Elf, Wizard
18, 14, 12, 10, 8, 8, Halfling, Monk
18, 13, 12, 12, 10, 7, Human, Wizard
17, 16, 12, 12, 7, 7, Human, Monk
17, 14, 13, 12, 11, 7, Aasimar, Summoner
17, 14, 12, 12, 10, 8, Halfling, Bard
17, 14, 12, 12, 10, 8, Half-Elf, Fighter
17, 14, 12, 12, 10, 8, Aasimar, Oracle
17, 13, 13, 13, 12, 7, Gnome, Druid, Fighter
16, 16, 14, 10, 9, 7, Elf, Wizard
16, 16, 14, 10, 9, 7, Elf, Rogue
16, 16, 12, 10, 10, 8, Aasimar, Oracle
16, 16, 10, 10, 10, 10, Tiefling, Alchemist
16, 15, 14, 10, 10, 8, Human, Witch
16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8, Human, Monk
16, 15, 13, 10, 10, 10, Human, Figther
16, 15, 12, 11, 10, 10, Dwarf, Fighter
16, 14, 14, 13, 11, 7, Half Orc, Monk
16, 14, 14, 13, 11, 7, Dwarf, Barbarian
16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 7, Half Elf, Druid
16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 7, Human, Fighter
16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 7, Human, Ranger
16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 7, Human, Inquisitor
16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 7, Elf, Bard
16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8, Tengu, Witch
16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8, Halfling, Summoner
16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8, Human, Paladin
16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8, Half Elf, Rogue
16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8, Human, Monk
16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10, Elf, Bard
16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10, Human, Paladin
16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10, Dwarf, Ranger
16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10, Tengu, Fighter
16, 14, 13, 12, 12, 8, Tengu, Inquisitor
16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10, Human, Wizard
16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10, Human, Rogue
16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10, Human, Fighter
16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10, Half elf, Sorcerer
16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10, Human, Sorcerer
16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10, Halfling, Summoner
16, 14, 12, 12, 11, 10, Dwarf, Fighter
16, 14, 12, 12, 11, 10, Human, Barbarian
15, 15, 14, 13, 10, 8, Half-Orc, Druid
15, 15, 14, 13, 10, 8, Tiefling, Barbarian
15, 15, 13, 13, 12, 8, Human, Fighter
15, 15, 12, 12, 12, 10, Aasimar, Druid
15, 14, 14, 14, 10, 8, Human, Ranger
15, 14, 14, 14, 10, 8, Tengu, Rogue
15, 14, 14, 13, 12, 8, Elf, Bard
15, 14, 13, 12, 12, 11, Human, Fighter
15, 14, 12, 12, 12, 12, Halfling, Clerc
15, 14, 12, 12, 12, 12, Gnome, Cleric Bard
14, 14, 14, 14, 12, 8, Human, Fighter
14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, Aasimar, Paladin
14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, Half Orc, Oracle
14, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, Human, Summoner
14, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, Human, Cavalier
14, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, Half-Elf, Cleric
14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11, Aasimar, Cleric
14, 14, 13, 13, 12, 12, Human, Sorcerer
14, 14, 13, 13, 12, 12, Aasimar, Cleric
14, 14, 13, 13, 12, 12, Human, Fighter
Sure there can be rude ways to do this. But imagine the following and tell me if it is rude and what about it is.
GM: I'm going to make a game of pathfinder, care to join in?
Me: Pathfinder sounds nice, how are you going to generate stats?
GM: We will be rolling them standard.
Me: Hmm.. you're sat on this? I really don't like rolling. Couldn't you just give us stat arrays? Like you roll some stats and we use them, allocating them as we see fit? Or perhaps point buy?
GM: No, I'm really set on having them rolled individually.
Me: Sorry, but then I'll have to pass. Happy gaming to you. *sadface*
Happy gaming?
It's easy to vilify the Dungeon Master, but what if the other players want to use the Standard method for rolling stats too? And, they really need you to play or else nobody can play. Should they all just acquiesce and play your way?
I guess so, if they want to play at all.
If you have a problem with the wording: I'm not a native speaker in English, nor are the people I game with. I just guessed that happy gaming comes close to what I'd tell them. What I meant was to sincerely wish them fun with their game even if I do not take part in it.
Not sarcastic or snidely in any way.
I have not done that yet (pass a game because of rolling stats. We always use point buy now) but I did for other reasons. And I tried to do it in a way that left me the option to join again for another game.
It's not really rude, just sort of childish. I get that some people prefer one or the other, but ditching a whole game because of it?
I often roll bad when rolling for stats. Having bad stats and not being able to contribute in a meaningful way is not fun for me. Would it be less childish to play along but constantly whine about my stats, ruining other player's and the GM's fun?
Or trying to get killed so I can try again?I think not playing at all is the most grown up way to handle this.
Friends ask me to join a game because we are friends, if I don't like something about this game a politely decline, we remain friends and they ask someone else in my stead.
It's not like there are too few roleplayers to get a game going if one doesn't want to play.
I am confused.By me? :o
It was not you Steve. I think it was the entire exchange. If it was a specific person I would have quoted them. :)
With regard to the "fair" argument those supporting point buy or not saying it is the ultimate equalizer. I think most of us are saying it is more fair than rolling. All other things being equal point has a better of giving you an equivalent character than rolling. With rolling we can play the same class with the same basic concept, and the effects can vary widely enough to be noticed just one of us has more options and decided to use them. In point buy both players have the same options so the differences default to the player, not "no choice".
Here's a novel concept, give the players the choice. 4d6 drop the lowest, put them in any order you want, or 20 pt point buy. Choose one, and stick with it.
I have actually had point buy or rolls as choices in a game. I did make the rolls enticing by allowing a reroll of one "1", and taking best 6 out of 7 rolls.
Most games(not just Pathfinder) that I have played or witnessed also used point buy so I think it is the more popular one, not saying that automatically makes it better. I really think stat arrays are best for those choosing PB or rolling based on a negative feature of the other. Actually the GM should present more than one stat array since a stat array that focuses on a high stat at the expense of midling stats is not one everyone would prefer.
If you have a problem with the wording: I'm not a native speaker in English, nor are the people I game with. I just guessed that happy gaming comes close to what I'd tell them. What I meant was to sincerely wish them fun with their game even if I do not take part in it.Sure there can be rude ways to do this. But imagine the following and tell me if it is rude and what about it is.
GM: I'm going to make a game of pathfinder, care to join in?
Me: Pathfinder sounds nice, how are you going to generate stats?
GM: We will be rolling them standard.
Me: Hmm.. you're sat on this? I really don't like rolling. Couldn't you just give us stat arrays? Like you roll some stats and we use them, allocating them as we see fit? Or perhaps point buy?
GM: No, I'm really set on having them rolled individually.
Me: Sorry, but then I'll have to pass. Happy gaming to you. *sadface*
Happy gaming?
It's easy to vilify the Dungeon Master, but what if the other players want to use the Standard method for rolling stats too? And, they really need you to play or else nobody can play. Should they all just acquiesce and play your way?
I guess so, if they want to play at all.
'Happy gaming' is indeed a completely polite expression, and your dialogue reads as totally sincere. Lakesidefantasy is interpreting it in the worst possible way, because doing so supports his claim that turning games down is childish. /serious
I've done a lot of playing in various online groups and various offline groups. By far the most common method of generation I've found has been point buy. Not even always standard point buy, but some measure of point buy. Point Buy variations I've seen have usually allotted smaller point buys for playing races that should have a level adjustment from 1st level.
My own group was the last group that used rolling that I played with, and we dropped that quite a while back since it was adding nothing to our games. No one in my group has missed it. They like building the character that they want to play, knowing they can make the character even if there are no witnesses around to watch their rolls (which makes preparing for games waaaaaay more convenient since we can just make our mechanical side of our characters mostly in our lonesome, discuss plot/background/personality/other roleplaying stuff before the game through skype or over the phone, and then actually play on the day one of us is going to GM without having to make our characters on the spot).
Anecdotal? You betcha. True experiences? Wholly.
I have no idea which method is the biggest one, but I think PFS players are actually the minority of PF players.
I think you'll have more PF players that do NOT play in PFS games than do.
IMO of course.
You can't base everything off PFS players or games. In addition, I don't think PFS players are necessarily the biggest spenders.
For example, for some reason my wife really insists I buy as second copy for her if she really likes something in PF (double the cost for me...yeah...NOT). I'm definitely not the biggest spender, but I think I've spent a little more than some of the PFS players at the FLGS which basically have a few rulebooks...maybe...and that's it.
I have never participated in anything PFS related. Everything I mentioned in my post were either home games, FLGS games, or campaigns organized and played online.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Happy gaming' is indeed a completely polite expression, and your dialogue reads as totally sincere. Lakesidefantasy is interpreting it in the worst possible way, because doing so supports his claim that turning games down is childish. /seriousIf you have a problem with the wording: I'm not a native speaker in English, nor are the people I game with. I just guessed that happy gaming comes close to what I'd tell them. What I meant was to sincerely wish them fun with their game even if I do not take part in it.Sure there can be rude ways to do this. But imagine the following and tell me if it is rude and what about it is.
GM: I'm going to make a game of pathfinder, care to join in?
Me: Pathfinder sounds nice, how are you going to generate stats?
GM: We will be rolling them standard.
Me: Hmm.. you're sat on this? I really don't like rolling. Couldn't you just give us stat arrays? Like you roll some stats and we use them, allocating them as we see fit? Or perhaps point buy?
GM: No, I'm really set on having them rolled individually.
Me: Sorry, but then I'll have to pass. Happy gaming to you. *sadface*
Happy gaming?
It's easy to vilify the Dungeon Master, but what if the other players want to use the Standard method for rolling stats too? And, they really need you to play or else nobody can play. Should they all just acquiesce and play your way?
I guess so, if they want to play at all.
Not to mention that in a situation like that it is likely the GM would offer some compromise like "if your stats equal less than a 15, 18, 20, whatever point buy(whatever power-level the GM is trying to accomplish) then you can add to scores until they meet the target, or roll again, or something"....
People aren't usually rigid, unfeeling, a$$hats to their friends that they are trying to get to game with them. Part of being part of a group is compromising as a group. If I don't like rolling but there are accommodations in place to minimize negative effects then I can compromise on that.
I'm in a game at the moment where the GM wanted us to roll for stats for old times' sake. The players rolled three sets of 4d6>3, then picked the best set.
Our stats, if translated to pointboy pricing, range from 19 to 40.
...I prefer pb.
Do you only need one ability score to do all your class stuff? Sure. Do you only want one ability score? No. An 18 Int (or anything) costs 17 points by itself. That means that that with the most conservative array I'd be looking at: 18, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8. Sorry, I like things like Hp and saving throws and stuff.
15-point buy wizard:
Str 7 (-4)Dex 13 (3)
Con 13 (3)
Int 18 (+2 racial = 20)(17)
Wis 10 (0)
Cha 7 (-4)
Just because you don't personally like low Str and Cha scores for a wizard doesn't mean those stats are at all valuable to him. I've got equal or better saves, better AC and initiative, more hp, and only took a hit in things that don't really affect me.
Clearly the PBers didn't earn their 18 by rolling and risking that 8.
Well, duh.
Finally, I want a pony. This pony will be from the show "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic", and her name will be Fluttershy, because Fluttershy is the best pony—just as I think we can all agree that "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" is the best television program since Citizen Kane.Nu-uh. Since April 5, 2014, Pinkie Pie is.
Maud Pie is a close second.
Pie family rocks!
PINKIE PIE 4 LIFE, YO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Both methods have advantages and disadvantages, and there are several independent issues that each does or does not address. An incomplete list of these issues include party disparity, lack of array diversity, dump scores, cliche characters, hopeless characters, etc.; and neither of the two methods is perfect with regards to these many separate issues.
That's why I advocate methods that combine the two, in order to address more issues. There was a thread some time ago where we explored various methods to achieve this.
One of the simplest methods is to roll 3d6 in order then assign 10 points on the point-buy scale to INCREASE scores.
I have been experimenting with the Dice Point method.
Basic
Each player has 5 points to spend on their ability scores. They can spend no more than 2 points on any one score.
After they have distributed their points they roll for each individual score. For each point spent on a score they disregard one die, consider it a 6, and roll any remaining dice.
So, spending 1 point on a score means you roll two dice and add that to 6, and spending 2 points means you roll one die and add that to 12.
Advanced
The advanced method is just like the basic method except you roll a d8, a d6, and a d4 to generate scores.
So, spending 1 point on a score means you roll a d6 and a d4 and add that to 8, and spending 2 points means you roll a d4 and add that to 14.
Options
One option is to allow spending up to 3 points on a score. This just means that score equals an 18.
Another option is to adjust the total number of points to reflect the power level of the game.
The Dice Point method still does not address the party disparity issue, but it absolutely eliminates dump scores while still allowing a large degree of control.
With any rolling method I would always advocate maintaining the Rerolling rule from Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 wherein you can reroll if the sum of your modifiers is less than +1, or if your highest score is less than 14. This rule happens to address the disparity issue by bringing ability score arrays closer together.
'Happy gaming' is indeed a completely polite expression, and your dialogue reads as totally sincere. Lakesidefantasy is interpreting it in the worst possible way, because doing so supports his claim that turning games down is childish. /seriousIf you have a problem with the wording: I'm not a native speaker in English, nor are the people I game with. I just guessed that happy gaming comes close to what I'd tell them. What I meant was to sincerely wish them fun with their game even if I do not take part in it.Sure there can be rude ways to do this. But imagine the following and tell me if it is rude and what about it is.
GM: I'm going to make a game of pathfinder, care to join in?
Me: Pathfinder sounds nice, how are you going to generate stats?
GM: We will be rolling them standard.
Me: Hmm.. you're sat on this? I really don't like rolling. Couldn't you just give us stat arrays? Like you roll some stats and we use them, allocating them as we see fit? Or perhaps point buy?
GM: No, I'm really set on having them rolled individually.
Me: Sorry, but then I'll have to pass. Happy gaming to you. *sadface*
Happy gaming?
It's easy to vilify the Dungeon Master, but what if the other players want to use the Standard method for rolling stats too? And, they really need you to play or else nobody can play. Should they all just acquiesce and play your way?
I guess so, if they want to play at all.
Yes, Umbranus there is nothing wrong with the expression, and I don't doubt your sincerity. I just found it ironic to call it "happy gaming" right after we made it harder to game by not participating.
My overall point is that among supporters of Point-Buy there is a vociferous minority that allegedly will refuse to play in a game where ability scores are rolled. Although I have to question whether they are so vehement and really would turn own a game where the Standard method is used. Usually their hyperbolic claims have them standing up to some villainous Dungeon Master who wants Players to roll 3d6 "down the line" then beg for mercy.
Conversely, although there may be some, I don't see such vociferous claims coming from the other side. For instance, "I will never play in a game where I am given a 'choice' between 0 Point-Buy and an array of 11-11-11-10-10-10 from some demon-monkey Dungeon Master who wants me to kiss his brown-eyed, faceless mother whenever I roll a natural 20."
Man, I'm totally thinking about 3d4+5 now. Minimum 8, max 17; mean 12.5 with a nicer normal-distribution spread (less variance from the mean, on average) than 2d6+6.
Do you only need one ability score to do all your class stuff? Sure. Do you only want one ability score? No. An 18 Int (or anything) costs 17 points by itself. That means that that with the most conservative array I'd be looking at: 18, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8. Sorry, I like things like Hp and saving throws and stuff.15-point buy wizard:
Str 7 (-4)
Dex 13 (3)
Con 13 (3)
Int 18 (+2 racial = 20)(17)
Wis 10 (0)
Cha 7 (-4)Just because you don't personally like low Str and Cha scores for a wizard doesn't mean those stats are at all valuable to him. I've got equal or better saves, better AC and initiative, more hp, and only took a hit in things that don't really affect me.
EDIT: 7, 12, 12, 18, 12, 7 might be alright. But that's probably the only 18 point build I'd consider for a wizard and even then I'm not sure I care that much about that extra +1. The only difference is that I'd hit Int 36 instead of 34 by 20th level. The only difference between those is +1 5th and 9th level spell. I really only need just so many time stops in a day.
So yeah, like I said, the 18 starting stat 7 Str / 7 Cha wizard is playable. I'd consider playing that. I'm not sure that that extra +1 is really that worthwhile or would even change the potency of the wizard very much. There really is precious little difference between a 16-18 on a caster.
If I was playing a 15 PB Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian and someone sat down with a wizard with 7 / 12 / 12 / 18 / 12 / 7, I wouldn't bat an eyelash because there's virtually no real difference between one with 16 and 18, other than his AC and HP are going to suck more than it they need to.
I'd argue that a difference in all save DCs is better for him than the fighter or monk taking the same bonus to hit with ranged attacks, melee attacks, and maneuvers.
That said, I suppose the 15 PB fighter can be pretty functional with Str 16 [14+2 racial; 5 pts], Dex 12 [2], Con 14 [5], Int 12 [2], Wis 14 [5], Cha 7 [-4], but he's not really even close to the same level of optimization. He desperately needs more Str to do his job, but he can't give up Init, Reflex saves, hp, Will saves (his most glaring weakness), skill points (which he really needs, to do anything outside of combat), etc.
I just found it ironic to call it "happy gaming" right after we made it harder to game by not participating.
Is it really a problem finding enough players where you are from? Here it is more often to find enough GMs for the number of players. Or to keep your games from becoming too big. In one game we're now 6 players and that's after one quit, for example.
But I'm derailing the thread...
Man, I'm totally thinking about 3d4+5 now. Minimum 8, max 17; mean 12.5 with a nicer normal-distribution spread (less variance from the mean, on average) than 2d6+6.
Meh.
That's the fault of the job, not the salary.
That's a fault of the class, not the stat generation.
To clarify, it's the same rule set (emplying company, by analogy) that's making these inconsistencies; it's just pretending not to by sliding the blame to a different department. The hiring manager makes a big show about the exactly equal salary offers, but then HR turns around and lays a bunch of perks on one candidate or witholds them from another. But the hiring manager and the HR department are both following the company's orders. It still means that the two candidates are not being treated fairly, despite all the pretty talk about everything being even-steven.
If wizards were somewhat weaker than martials at higher levels, by the way, I'd be OK with them getting a stat-buy system that favors them. But they're not. By a long shot.
Granted, I totally agree that stat inconsistencies are the very least of the problems there, but still, that doesn't mean we should congratulate ourselves on exacerbating them unnecessarily, even if by such a small degree.
Meh.
Would you care to elaborate?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh.Would you care to elaborate?
I could be wrong, but I think Freehold means "The greater variance of those d6s is why I like rolling stats!"
What Tequila said.
OK. I was responding in light of the hordes of PB people saying that variance was unacceptable.
'Happy gaming' is indeed a completely polite expression, and your dialogue reads as totally sincere. Lakesidefantasy is interpreting it in the worst possible way, because doing so supports his claim that turning games down is childish. /seriousIf you have a problem with the wording: I'm not a native speaker in English, nor are the people I game with. I just guessed that happy gaming comes close to what I'd tell them. What I meant was to sincerely wish them fun with their game even if I do not take part in it.Sure there can be rude ways to do this. But imagine the following and tell me if it is rude and what about it is.
GM: I'm going to make a game of pathfinder, care to join in?
Me: Pathfinder sounds nice, how are you going to generate stats?
GM: We will be rolling them standard.
Me: Hmm.. you're sat on this? I really don't like rolling. Couldn't you just give us stat arrays? Like you roll some stats and we use them, allocating them as we see fit? Or perhaps point buy?
GM: No, I'm really set on having them rolled individually.
Me: Sorry, but then I'll have to pass. Happy gaming to you. *sadface*
Happy gaming?
It's easy to vilify the Dungeon Master, but what if the other players want to use the Standard method for rolling stats too? And, they really need you to play or else nobody can play. Should they all just acquiesce and play your way?
I guess so, if they want to play at all.
Yes, Umbranus there is nothing wrong with the expression, and I don't doubt your sincerity. I just found it ironic to call it "happy gaming" right after we made it harder to game by not participating.
My overall point is that among supporters of Point-Buy there is a vociferous minority that allegedly will refuse to play in a game where ability scores are rolled. Although I have to question whether they are so vehement and really would turn own a game where the Standard method is used. Usually their hyperbolic claims have them standing up to some villainous Dungeon Master who wants Players to roll 3d6 "down the line" then beg for mercy.
Conversely, although there may be some, I don't see such vociferous claims coming from the other side. For instance, "I will never play in a game where I am given a 'choice' between 0 Point-Buy and an array of 11-11-11-10-10-10 from some demon-monkey Dungeon Master who wants me to kiss his brown-eyed, faceless mother whenever I roll a natural 20."
First you accuse Umbranus of vilifying DMs and coercing other gamers to play his way, and now your complaint is that he's too polite when he turns down games.
Forgive me for pointing out that there's some crazy nonsense coming from both sides of this debate.
I just found it ironic to call it "happy gaming" right after we made it harder to game by not participating.Is it really a problem finding enough players where you are from? Here it is more often to find enough GMs for the number of players. Or to keep your games from becoming too big. In one game we're now 6 players and that's after one quit, for example.
Speaking for myself, there are places where gamers are very scarce. I spent most of my life in a very rural area, where I often went years between finding/forming rpg groups, and couldn't keep a group together for more than a year.
That said, I don't think that this fact obligates anyone to play a game they don't really want to play. Just like I don't think my close friends are obligated to table-top role play with me just because I enjoy it so much. Likewise, I don't feel obligated to do things like help fellow students with their math homework just because I can do advanced calculus. And the stakes there are arguably much higher than the fate of a game campaign!
I have other hobbies to occupy myself with, even if ttrping is my favorite.
finding players is a pain for me. Its doubly annoying because I have need of playtesting stuff.
finding players is a pain for me. Its doubly annoying because I have need of playtesting stuff.
Have you tried searching online? Roll20.net has a LFG forum - a GM who's hosting a Pathfinder game typically has a dozen applications in a day or two.
Is it really a problem finding enough players where you are from? Here it is more often to find enough GMs for the number of players. Or to keep your games from becoming too big. In one game we're now 6 players and that's after one quit, for example.
I don't personally know very many people who are up for that sort of thing. I have a hard enough time getting together people for a board or card game, and that's a one time commitment of a few hours. Getting people who are up for something hopelessly nerdy isn't easy, and even people who already do nerdy stuff don't want to be obliged to play the same campaign over a long period of time. Scheduling a regular thing is always a pain.
If I can manage to get a campaign together, it often involves cobbling together a loose group of friend-of-friends and if any drop out there's no guarantee they can be replaced. I've been in several campaigns that have ended due to people getting too busy, and never once from reaching some sort of logical stopping point in the story. The alternative is to go online trying to recruit strangers, but then you never know what you're going to get, and some random strangers are simply not going to be compatible.
|
I've done a lot of playing in various online groups and various offline groups. By far the most common method of generation I've found has been point buy. Not even always standard point buy, but some measure of point buy. Point Buy variations I've seen have usually allotted smaller point buys for playing races that should have a level adjustment from 1st level.
My own group was the last group that used rolling that I played with, and we dropped that quite a while back since it was adding nothing to our games. No one in my group has missed it. They like building the character that they want to play, knowing they can make the character even if there are no witnesses around to watch their rolls (which makes preparing for games waaaaaay more convenient since we can just make our mechanical side of our characters mostly in our lonesome, discuss plot/background/personality/other roleplaying stuff before the game through skype or over the phone, and then actually play on the day one of us is going to GM without having to make our characters on the spot).
Anecdotal? You betcha. True experiences? Wholly.
Your experiences resonate with my own. We switched to point buy a long time ago. We have simply found that point buy is both fairer and quicker. I actually do not even know of any game in my area that uses rolling for stats anymore.
I could be wrong, but I think Freehold means "The greater variance of those d6s is why I like rolling stats!"Meh.Would you care to elaborate?
How very concise.
I'm gonna say that I would not mind point buy if it were redone with different purchase methods that would make other choices more viable.
Perhaps if mental stats cost more than physical stats?
The iteration about balance is nonsense. Point Buy is an optional rule set that is tacked on to PFRPG in the CRB, but recent releases are changing the game design because of it, there are no two ways around this.
If the game is changing to where everyone has to use point buy, or at least play classes that were designed for point buy, then it is going to ruin the experience for players who don't like to use point buy, of which there are many.
For me, that is 'the problem' and the idea that 'balance at all costs' is the goal of this or any other thread when it comes to point buy misses the point entirely, and those who actually hold point buy as a sacred cow and a herald of 'balance at all costs' miss the point doubly.
Making mental stats more expensive would be way worse for martials than for casters. Martials have to invest in that will save. Casters have strong will saves to begin with, and some use Wisdom for their casting stat. They can also invest more in Con since it's cheaper now.
I really don't see where you're getting your argument. You've admitted yourself that dice rolling isn't any better. And frankly I think your argument that Dervish Dance is just a hand out to the point buy system rather than a gift to people who want to play Fighters who aren't big and stupid to be bull.
SAD classes benefit more from point buy than MAD classes because they're just better classes. It's not something I'm happy about but it's just the way it is and I wish Paizo had done better to make the physical stats more valuable to casters.
SAD classes benefit more from dice rolling because when they're rolling they don't have to make tough choices to get that one high stat. In point buy if you want to start with 20 INT you're going to have to dump basically everything else and essentially beg your GM who's getting a little tired of your blasting to slam one of those glaring weaknesses you built up for yourself. All a SAD character has to do is roll high and they have their weaknesses covered. If they roll low? Well, I'm sure there's at least one high-ish stat they can put into the one thing they care about. They're certainly no worse off than a martial who rolled low.
finding players is a pain for me. Its doubly annoying because I have need of playtesting stuff.Have you tried searching online? Roll20.net has a LFG forum - a GM who's hosting a Pathfinder game typically has a dozen applications in a day or two.
I've considered it, but the playtesting is for stuff i write for a third party company so im wary of using people i've never met for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making mental stats more expensive would be way worse for martials than for casters. Martials have to invest in that will save. Casters have strong will saves to begin with, and some use Wisdom for their casting stat. They can also invest more in Con since it's cheaper now.
How? In theory they could spend the same amount of points they spend now on the same stats, but the end result is higher physical stats and their mental stats stay the same.
I don't understand how this hurts martials at all, or are you just disagreeing?
There are plenty of ways to play a fighter that isn't a BDF without DD, insinuating that the only way to play such a fighter is with DD is itself bull.
There is no other way as the game currently is to get dex-to-damage that early. Agile weapons don't come online until level 4 at the earliest, so you've spent 3 levels being a total drain to the party. Probably more, because it takes a fairly kind GM to hand you an Agile weapon the moment you have the money for it.
For me, that is 'the problem' and the idea that 'balance at all costs' is the goal of this or any other thread when it comes to point buy misses the point entirely, and those who actually hold point buy as a sacred cow and a herald of 'balance at all costs' miss the point doubly.
Sacred cow? 'Balance at all costs?' This thread's resurrection has resulted in some of the weirdest assertions I've ever read on an internet forum.
I'm pretty sure that most of the D&Ders who're that concerned with balance are playing mostly 4e. Like me! I think that most balance advocates on this forum simply want PF to be a bit more balanced.
But hey, who knows? I could be wrong.
SAD classes benefit more from point buy than MAD classes because they're just better classes. It's not something I'm happy about but it's just the way it is and I wish Paizo had done better to make the physical stats more valuable to casters.
That being the case, I'd suggest that dice rolling vs. point buy is completely irrelevant. There are much bigger fish to fry.