roll or points buy which is better


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 576 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Umbranus wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:


Re: Methodology, I personally allow player's choice: each player can roll stats, or use an equivalent point-buy, or use a set array, at their option.

Do you mean all players agree on one version or each player can use whatever he likes best? Because mixing sounds strange.

@Whining: I can only talk for my self but I would try to get every game to either use point buy or a set array and if that doesn't work leave without hard feelings. No whining from my side, I just don't play d20 games with rolled stats.

I actually was in a home game were each player choose whether to roll or point buy. We got some surprises that way, but no drama.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's always roll for us. 4d6-L. Reroll if the total modifier is less than +1. If someone doesn't like their stats, suck it up. No 'suiciding'. Find a way to be a hero despite your deficiencies.


Umbranus wrote:
@Whining: I can only talk for my self but I would try to get every game to either use point buy or a set array and if that doesn't work leave without hard feelings. No whining from my side, I just don't play d20 games with rolled stats.

Everyone who uses point buy is by default a whiner. Even if your voice never approaches that trembling pitch, you are rebelling against the tradition of uncertainty that was laid down by the great Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Because you can't handle real characters.

You can't handle the dice!

;)

MichaelSandar wrote:
It's always roll for us. 4d6-L. Reroll if the total modifier is less than +1. If someone doesn't like their stats, suck it up. No 'suiciding'. Find a way to be a hero despite your deficiencies.

That's right, suicide is the coward's way out. But there are many unfortunate tragedies among individuals who attempt the adventurer's lifestyle without being quite cut out for it.

*wink*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:

Its odd that in all the years I've been gaming (which is 30+ ) I've only ever seen two characters with mega stats as we've always insisted that they are rolled in front of the DM .

Strange that

Indeed. I saw games where kids (teenagers) were allowed to roll stats at home and wound up with 3 18s on their sheets each. In this case we didn't care too much, they played stupid and got themselves killed anyways. It was almost expected.

In our normal groups we (almost) always insist we roll stats in front of the group. If you get unlucky and roll really low, it will probably be deemed unplayable and you're allowed a re-roll. But you have to re-roll the whole block.


Why does everyone assume that one lucky bugger who ends up with a 42 point buy when he rolls is cheating? We have one guy in our group who is so lucky he really ought to buy a lottery ticket rather than roll his stats. Doesn't seem to matter whose dice he uses and he rolls in front of us all. In order to keep this guy from unbalancing the game, our group uses a point but system. In order to keep our entire group from being way overpowered, we use a point buy system.

Shadow Lodge

born_of_fire wrote:
Why does everyone assume that one lucky bugged who ends up with a 42 point buy when he rolls is cheating?

Cause it ain't just one bugger.


TOZ wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
Why does everyone assume that one lucky bugged who ends up with a 42 point buy when he rolls is cheating?
Cause it ain't just one bugger.

So because you play with dishonest people that must mean everyone does? Not only that but it also means that everyone who opts for points buy is a whiner and a poor sport? Seems like a perfectly reasonable conclusion >.>


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

How much do you like being reminded every session about the time one of your fellow players rolled 3 20s in a row? Especially when you were there to see it?

Rolling stats forces a similar situation. The problem is balance, not honesty (although any system that rewards dishonesty, as rolled stats not observed by the GM does, should be eliminated on practical moral grounds anyway).


David knott 242 wrote:
The problem is balance

Then you should really check out a different edition, not trying to sound like a dick, but the devs have even said that balance is not the goal and if you want balance to be the goal point buy or any iterative of it is not going to fix the balance issues in the game.


David knott 242 wrote:

The problem is balance, not honesty (although any system that rewards dishonesty, as rolled stats not observed by the GM does, should be eliminated on practical moral grounds anyway).

That's not rewarding dishonesty. That's just a reminder not to play with people you don't trust. Don't play with cheaters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
The problem is balance
Then you should really check out a different edition, not trying to sound like a dick, but the devs have even said that balance is not the goal and if you want balance to be the goal point buy or any iterative of it is not going to fix the balance issues in the game.

This is a silly statement. Point buy isn't to balance the system, it's to balance the party. Having one character with 20 more points worth of stats causes problems within a group of characters compared to that same group of characters all having a similar value of stats. Not one person is contending that point buys will balance fighters and wizards.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MichaelSandar wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

The problem is balance, not honesty (although any system that rewards dishonesty, as rolled stats not observed by the GM does, should be eliminated on practical moral grounds anyway).

That's not rewarding dishonesty. That's just a reminder not to play with people you don't trust. Don't play with cheaters.

The temptation is too strong, especially if getting in touch with the GM is too difficult (as it often was back in the days when my group rolled stats). To take an extreme example -- if you rolled nothing higher than an 8 for your ability scores and your DM did not specify rules for throwing out an unsuitable player character, do you wait until you can contact him or go ahead and trash that character and replace it with another? With no set guidelines, one player may show up for the game with a character whoses stats are inferior to those that another player rejected -- and this will happen with even the most trustworthy people.

Still -- if point buy or a fixed array is unsuccessful at achieving balance, rolled stats does not improve matters at all but just throws in yet another random unbalancing factor. If anything, seeing a player roll absurdly high stats makes it more difficult rather than less difficult to bring those stats in line with what other players rolled.

I think my major objection to rolling stats is that it does not model what it purports to model: random generation of a human being from your campaign world. If rolling stats is meant to represent the hand that "fate" dealt you, then why are you allowed to arrange the scores as you like? But if rearranging is not allowed, your highest stat is (for example) strength, and your party is already mostly front line warriors, why are you joining this party and not some other party that lacks muscle?


To throw in another 2cp on the thread's great pile: Analysing just the past year (where I began running games - woo), I have personally come to prefer point-buys both sides of the screen;

As a GM because it gives me an easy bench-mark, pre-optimisation as what to expect out of the game. If everyone has 25 points or anything other integer, even with people who optimise first and those who make the stormwind fallacy at first sight of a competent character, there is still a general expectation I can operate from in the first few sessions.

For playing, I echo everyone who supports point-buy out of certainty. There is a huge gain out of knowing if my image of a two-weapon fighter can work than finding during the first session that I roll a large set of 14s. Sure, it's generally competent, sure I can probably make it work, but the image I had in mind is very very dead. I often find, rolling, that I have to change concept on the fly and that sucks a huge campaign investment out for me. The game mechanics are important in the format in which the character exists. If a character concept is not feasible in the mechanics; I cannot say I can play it in the game because it will very rarely come across.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I prefer rolling for stats simply because all PCs are not, or should not be created equally. People aren't, so why should PCs? I believe the stats should be rolled in front on the GM. If you want big gosh-darn heroes, than use the 7 sets of 4d6 drop one and reroll 1s. If you are more inclined toward 15-20 point buy stats, than you can skip the rerolls and extra set.

One idea that I had, that was unique to me at least at the time I thought of it, is to roll the stats and allow the players to move points around using the point buy values, so if you want to bump that 16 to an 18, you still have to drop other scores enough to come up with the 7 points.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
born_of_fire wrote:
TOZ wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
Why does everyone assume that one lucky bugged who ends up with a 42 point buy when he rolls is cheating?
Cause it ain't just one bugger.
So because you play with dishonest people that must mean everyone does?

Wow straw man much?


David knott 242 wrote:

I think my major objection to rolling stats is that it does not model what it purports to model: random generation of a human being from your campaign world. If rolling stats is meant to represent the hand that "fate" dealt you, then why are you allowed to arrange the scores as you like? But if rearranging is not allowed, your highest stat is (for example) strength, and your party is already mostly front line warriors, why are you joining this party and not some other party that lacks muscle?

It used to. Granted, nowadays it's standard to rearrange, have a minimum, etc. Stats matter a lot more in PF (or recent incarnations of D&D) than they used to. We play a weekly 1e game, and while the stats are important, they're nowhere near as crunchy as in the d20 system.

As for 'why are you joining a party', well there are plenty other reasons than 'this party already has a cleric, I'm not making another one' or what have you. Hell, look at Salvatore's group (off the top of my head). Not all of it has to be about perfect game balance.

Male Drow Ranger
Male Dwarf Fighter
Male Human Barbarian
Female Human Fighter
Halfling Thief

Not exactly a 'balanced' party, but they seemed to get along nicely. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CKorfmann wrote:
I prefer rolling for stats simply because all PCs are not, or should not be created equally. People aren't, so why should PCs? I believe the stats should be rolled in front on the GM. If you want big gosh-darn heroes, than use the 7 sets of 4d6 drop one and reroll 1s. If you are more inclined toward 15-20 point buy stats, than you can skip the rerolls and extra set.

Bah, you're talking pansy anime storygaming nonsense. Roll 3d6 in front of your DM, right down the line, no rerolls, no rearrangements, and no complaints. Because life isn't fair! You want to play a Big Damn Hero? Kamikaze your PCs until you roll good scores.

This isn't a game we're playing, people, this is serious stuff.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
TOZ wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
Why does everyone assume that one lucky bugged who ends up with a 42 point buy when he rolls is cheating?
Cause it ain't just one bugger.
So because you play with dishonest people that must mean everyone does?
Wow straw man much?

Repeating your argument back to you is a straw man argument? I think you need to review your logical fallacies if you believe that is the case. Add to that the fact that I asked a question rather than stating any kind of argument at all...

If what I stated is not what you believe, then answer my question to clarify your position. Your response to my first question indicated that you believe there are many cheaters out there and your bridling at my second question does not make me believe I misunderstood you.

My point is that point buy is not used in my group to control cheating, it's to level the playing field between our one ridiculously lucky player and the rest of us schmucks. What is your point?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MichaelSandar wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

I think my major objection to rolling stats is that it does not model what it purports to model: random generation of a human being from your campaign world. If rolling stats is meant to represent the hand that "fate" dealt you, then why are you allowed to arrange the scores as you like? But if rearranging is not allowed, your highest stat is (for example) strength, and your party is already mostly front line warriors, why are you joining this party and not some other party that lacks muscle?

It used to. Granted, nowadays it's standard to rearrange, have a minimum, etc. Stats matter a lot more in PF (or recent incarnations of D&D) than they used to. We play a weekly 1e game, and while the stats are important, they're nowhere near as crunchy as in the d20 system.

As for 'why are you joining a party', well there are plenty other reasons than 'this party already has a cleric, I'm not making another one' or what have you. Hell, look at Salvatore's group (off the top of my head). Not all of it has to be about perfect game balance.

Male Drow Ranger
Male Dwarf Fighter
Male Human Barbarian
Female Human Fighter
Halfling Thief

Not exactly a 'balanced' party, but they seemed to get along nicely. :)

Novels work differently from games, though. The only way you would have a group like that in a real game would be if the GM imposed heavy restrictions on spellcasters (since the drow ranger has spells and spell-like abilities, the game isn't quite "no magic"). Otherwise, if you were going to join a group that included these characters, would you want to play yet another warrior?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could always roll randomly to determine what point buy is used...

Personally I like the rolled stats, since for me its fun to see the possibilities, not just break out the shopping list.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
born_of_fire wrote:
Repeating your argument back to you is a straw man argument?

When you repeat the wrong argument, yes it is.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
born_of_fire wrote:
Why does everyone assume that one lucky bugger who ends up with a 42 point buy when he rolls is cheating?

Once? I dont assume he's cheating. If it happens all the time? Because that's far more likely than the alternative.


I have great luck with D6s...

Unless I'm playing GURPS or Champions...

The Exchange

christos gurd wrote:
My new thing im on, rolling 1d8+10 or using the following array 16,15,14,13,12,11. Yep

That's 28 point buy. I would use that as a baseline and adjust it to the powerlevel I want from the game...like I would probably replace the 14 with an 8. Brings it down to a 21 point buy, still gives a good array and is more interesting to me. I may also allow the Player to reduce any stat except the lowest by 2 to raise any stat except the highest by 1.


Point buy and here's why:

1)Large attribute discrepancies can make the player who got shafted feel not as useful because attributes influence nearly every aspect of the game. A player with a thirty point buy and a ten point buy can be a huge difference in their ability to contribute to the party. I've seen it happen time and time again where the high-roller(normally myself) has significantly more skills, abilities, and access to feats due to how I rolled than a couple other players solely because my stats were better.

2)Rolling isn't as random and organic as people claim it to be. Every DM I've met will let you reroll if you get terrible rolls, most of them will allow you to place them where ever you'd like. This is hardly random, or organic character generation.

3)People that intend to optimize will always put their lowest points in the stat that means the least to their character, regardless if they use an array, roll stats, or use point buy.

4)I want the players to feel as if they have the same ability to pull off certain builds as anyone else in the group.
e.g.
It's not fair to player A if he doesn't have high enough stats to make a tripping fighter like Player B does just because he can't afford to spread his stats to strength, dex, etc.


I'm for rolling in a actual sequential order.

Yes, some players don't like that, but I don't play with them. It works for my game because I work damn hard to make my game enjoyable and my players respond well to the challenges presented, NOT because the players had absolute control of their stat array.

Play for long enough and you will welcome a degree of randomness when you get bored with predictable statistical variations on a theme.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
Repeating your argument back to you is a straw man argument?
When you repeat the wrong argument, yes it is.

So clarify your argument or go away already. I was not arguing with you, I was looking for clarity. This is the second time I have said as much. WTF is your point here? Do you have anything at all to add on the subject of point buy vs. rolling or are you just stirring the pot to show everyone on the internet how awesome you are?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
born_of_fire wrote:
So clarify your argument or go away already.

I wasn't making an argument, I was answering a question. And I'll go away when you stop replying.


I've been experimenting with the Advanced Dice Point system, a combination of Point-Buy and Rolling. It generates random scores for each individual ability in sequence, thus avoiding dump scores. It also allows the player to control which abilities will have high scores and which will not have low scores.

It's not perfect, but it gives me what I like from both methods. It gives players the control to create the character the want, yet it allows for any combination of scores under the sun. Plus it prevents players from dumping scores.

It doesn't eliminate disparity , but in my experience that is just not an issue.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I find the best way to avoid stat dumps is to not allow extra points for lowering scores. You can have that 8 Cha, but you aren't buffing anything else for it. Seems a simple way to reduce the incentive.

It would reduce the incentive but punish roleplaying. The game has a series of checks and balances so that if you're weak in one place you can be stronger in another. If you're just making yourself weaker for the hell of it you can but the party will need you and you're reducing your value. To make a flawed character you get nothing to make up the difference, so you stop seeing flawed characters because there's nothing to be gained from it.

Honestly, I don't understand this extreme aversion to having low stats to the point that people want every PC to be perfect little snowflakes with nothing that they aren't at least average at.


Lakesidefantasy wrote:

I've been experimenting with the Advanced Dice Point system, a combination of Point-Buy and Rolling. It generates random scores for each individual ability in sequence, thus avoiding dump scores. It also allows the player to control which abilities will have high scores and which will not have low scores.

It's not perfect, but it gives me what I like from both methods. It gives players the control to create the character the want, yet it allows for any combination of scores under the sun. Plus it prevents players from dumping scores.

It doesn't eliminate disparity , but in my experience that is just not an issue.

Focus and foible or something of your own? I've seen F&F used a few different ways and got a disgustingly high array out of it in one case but, had I got into the pbp game, I would have been on par with the rest of the party. It was for a Way of the Wicked game and I guess it is intended that characters be pretty über for that particular AP

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
It would reduce the incentive but punish roleplaying.

I don't find that argument compelling.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
It would reduce the incentive but punish roleplaying.
I don't find that argument compelling.

What's the counter-argument? :P

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Who needs one? I'm not trying to convince you of anything.


I prefer a method one of my DMs used for rolling: roll 3 stat blocks and pick your favorite. In most cases, this lead to at least one respectable stat spread, and if all 3 were bad, you still have the chance to reroll them. I find it's easier to make MAD classes with rolling, although that might just be the dice gods giving me a nice amount of decent rolls. SAD classes tend to more or less be about as good as I can get them in point buy, so all in all, my experiences make me favor rolling.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Re: Good rolls only occurring away from the DM: Who are you playing with -- 10-year-olds? Presumably you need to carefully audit the point-buy stats they come up with, too? I can't imagine playing with a group of people who are totally untrustworthy.

Re: Methodology, I personally allow player's choice: each player can roll stats, or use an equivalent point-buy, or use a set array, at their option. This would, I assume, tend to keep any whining and arguments to a minimum (in my case, I wouldn't expect anyone at the table to be whiny and argumentative to begin with, so it's probably moot).

That's fair. As long as I have the ability to choose my stats to match the build I want then I don't mind much if others roll. I don't think you could get a roll that would significantly outmatch a point buy without it being so extreme any rational GM would request a reroll.


born_of_fire wrote:
Lakesidefantasy wrote:

I've been experimenting with the Advanced Dice Point system, a combination of Point-Buy and Rolling. It generates random scores for each individual ability in sequence, thus avoiding dump scores. It also allows the player to control which abilities will have high scores and which will not have low scores.

It's not perfect, but it gives me what I like from both methods. It gives players the control to create the character the want, yet it allows for any combination of scores under the sun. Plus it prevents players from dumping scores.

It doesn't eliminate disparity , but in my experience that is just not an issue.

Focus and foible or something of your own? I've seen F&F used a few different ways and got a disgustingly high array out of it in one case but, had I got into the pbp game, I would have been on par with the rest of the party. It was for a Way of the Wicked game and I guess it is intended that characters be pretty über for that particular AP

The Dice Point system can handle the "focus" part, but the "foible" part is completely up to the dice. You can force higher scores but you cannot force lower scores, thus you cannot choose a dump score--only the dice can do that. You can choose which scores are left completely up to chance and to what degree others aren't.

Given that any combination of scores under the sun is possible, "disgustingly" high arrays are up to the dice. However, the system is adjustable to different types of campaigns from "low" to "epic" fantasy.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Who needs one? I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Well...you don't have to be. I wanted to know. >_>

Like. I don't see what the benefit of...

A. Making it so that all heroes have 10+ in all statistics.
B. Making it so that having a <10 in a statistic is just choosing to be weaker instead of a tradeoff.

I don't really get it. I was kind of hoping you would explain it to me. :\

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Who needs one? I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Well...you don't have to be. I wanted to know. >_>

Like. I don't see what the benefit of...

Personal preference.


Ashiel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I find the best way to avoid stat dumps is to not allow extra points for lowering scores. You can have that 8 Cha, but you aren't buffing anything else for it. Seems a simple way to reduce the incentive.

It would reduce the incentive but punish roleplaying. The game has a series of checks and balances so that if you're weak in one place you can be stronger in another. If you're just making yourself weaker for the hell of it you can but the party will need you and you're reducing your value. To make a flawed character you get nothing to make up the difference, so you stop seeing flawed characters because there's nothing to be gained from it.

Honestly, I don't understand this extreme aversion to having low stats to the point that people want every PC to be perfect little snowflakes with nothing that they aren't at least average at.

I personally enjoy finding a variety of new and interesting ways to play tanked charisma but that may just be me desperately looking for reprieve from how you can't really play a martial with high charisma.

*prays to Arshea for a good swashbuckler*

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
you can't really play a martial with high charisma.

Dump Dex instead.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
you can't really play a martial with high charisma.
Dump Dex instead.

The character concept I'm looking for but Pathfinder in its current state does not allow would be dumping strength. I'm allergic to heavy armor.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Then you're lamenting the lack of a non-Str based martial rather than Cha.


Ever since hearing about something called the "Grid Method" I have wanted to play a game that used it for stat generation. It looks really fun. Too bad my DM likes to keep things strictly point buy.

http://invisiblecastle.com/stats/help/grid/


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Then you're lamenting the lack of a non-Str based martial rather than Cha.

I can make a dex based martial but I cannot create one that also effectively utilizes a high charisma stat. I could sort of make a Paladin like that but that is very feat intensive for a class that doesn't get bonus feats and I'd be way worse than any regular Paladin. Also I have to be Lawful Good.

The Swashbuckler is, if it works as intended, a full martial with high dex and high charisma. And the stat points to use that charisma for talky things. I would think my mention of that class in that first post would be a clue that this is the sort of thing I want.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Who needs one? I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Well...you don't have to be. I wanted to know. >_>

Like. I don't see what the benefit of...

Personal preference.

Well, okay. It's sometimes hard for me to accept things "just because". It's a hangup I have. It probably comes from some sort of deeply-rooted mental issue created by my wanting older people to explain their decrees and then being denied a reason as a youth.

When I explain why I have a preference, I have reasons for those preference which I can explain. Since I find value in reason, I generally assume that other preferences must have reasons as well, and thus value. Value that I might not be able to ascertain because I don't understand the reason.

I figured you would probably be able to explain it. No one thus far has been able to explain it to me but I figured maybe ol' TOZ could. :P

Like, I can explain my understanding of the opposite.

1. Generally speaking, characters in all forms of media are generally encouraged to have some flaws. Whether depicted in movies, books, video games, radio shows, or whatever, most people can identify with characters who aren't perfect. Generally the characters that stick with us are the ones who were flawed gems. The "Mary Sue" archetype being kind of the opposite where they are never truly poor at anything and often above average at most everything.

The current system encourages making characters who are at least in some way flawed. With 15 Point buy (the standard issued by the core rulebook) great strength is also tempered by some sort of flaw. The flaw is usually minor (as are most of the flaws of heroes in media) but it's there. Something that makes them not especially suited to certain things. Meanwhile no flaws means that you are conversely less impressive in other areas, so while more well rounded you don't end up being great at everything.

This is the result of the +/- of the point buy scale.

2. Second, point buy encourages players to make characters with flaws. If you want to have that high Intelligence and be able to boast that you are one of the smartest wizards around, you're going to lose out somewhere else. The reverse is also true. If you want to make a character with low Dexterity who is isn't very graceful, you at least know that you're going to get balanced out elsewhere because while you are less graceful maybe you are smarter, or stronger, or tougher.

If you don't provide a compensation for accepting penalties to things you're both providing no incentive for characters to have flaws, and are actively punishing any player who decides on being below average in something is desirable by not reimbursing them for the choice.

The end result being you end up with characters who are no worse than completely average. At anything. Worst case you end up with lots of Mary Sues. >_>

Ideally, I think an RPG should have options or rewards for as many different things as you can. When you decide to have an 8 Dexterity the game gives you another +2 points to place elsewhere, and in a similar but reverse manner excelling higher costs progressively more points, which means that you need to give up to get.

In general the game does this elsewhere. You have to spend feats (a resource) to obtain a new feat. A feat you take is a different feat you didn't take.

In the most ideal cases, being able to choose any option should reward you in some way. If you decide you want to fight with a dagger, I'd like for there to be options for making daggers attractive (there's precious little incentive to actually use them in core). In my own games if a player wants to do something that is usually lesser or weak, I try to work with them to make sure they are rewarded in some other way or ensure that there is an avenue that they can pursue that would work out for them.

For example, I've been working on a rogue revision that grants bonuses to hit and damage when using light and 1-handed weapons, which gives a viable avenue for fighting with light-weapons (and will soon include options for fencing in the 1-hand free sense).

So I have reasons for this personal preference. So I was hoping that you would be able to explain some good reasons for that personal preference. Because I do generally assume people's preferences have value in them, and thus I want to know what they are seeing that it adds that I'm missing.


Solusek wrote:
http://invisiblecastle.com/stats/help/grid/

That does seem interesting. I suppose the main downside is that there is a very real chance that you'll end up with no good rolls for your primary attribute, and good rolls for things you don't particularly need. I suppose that's tolerable if you let everyone agree on their classes as a group after they see their grid. If you allow people to get their hearts set on a specific build they could find it non-viable. Another way might be to have each person roll a grid and then allow them to swap with someone else if they get things better suited to the character the other person wanted.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Ashiel wrote:

If you don't provide a compensation for accepting penalties to things you're both providing no incentive for characters to have flaws, and are actively punishing any player who decides on being below average in something is desirable by not reimbursing them for the choice.

The end result being you end up with characters who are no worse than completely average.

Without speaking for TOZ, this isnt actually true. It assumes people are motivated by a desire for more effectiveness (which I'm not, for one). If I played in a game based around pointbuy where a stat of 7-10 cost zero points, I think there's a good chance I'd have a 7 (though probably not all the time). I'm not being punished for making that choice - my payoff is playing the kind of character I want.

Ultimately all preferences are "just cos". Some might be built on others, but at it's heart it will resolve to just the fundamental kind of thing you enjoy. You might prefer one system over another because you like options - there's no reason "having options" is inherently more desirable though (or if it is, it will be based on some other, more primitive preference).


Steve Geddes wrote:
Without speaking for TOZ, this isnt actually true. It assumes people are motivated by a desire for more effectiveness (which I'm not, for one). If I played in a game based around pointbuy where a stat of 7-10 cost zero points, I think there's a good chance I'd have a 7 (though probably not all the time). I'm not being punished for making that choice - my payoff is playing the kind of character I want.

But D&D/Pathfinder is a cooperative team-based game. Choosing to be weaker affects more than just you. It's a drain in the group as a whole. If you have a 7 Dexterity and nothing to show for it, then you're just making yourself easier to kill with nothing to show for it (not even a little bit). Your friends could end up paying for that. :\

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Your friends could end up paying for that. :\

That's something you need to talk to your GM and fellow players about beforehand.

301 to 350 of 576 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / roll or points buy which is better All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.