Agile weapons don't come online until level 4 at the earliest.
This kind of conjecture, while it may be true if following the guidelines of WBL to the tee and assuming the players get access to whatever they want, might hold true.
But Agile Weapons and DD should not be benchmarks upon which the devs make game design choices, this became increasingly relevant during the Swashbuckler ACG test.
But then again, not making a BDF still doesn't mean needing DEX to damage. That idea of marginalizing stats as if it was the only way to realize your concept is fallacious at best, and absolute BS at worst.
In a system, or even in an isolated game, where a player can have a decent STR score and a decent DEX score, could successfully play a concept of 'not a BDF' by way of Finesse, TWF, and Piranha Strike; while still using his STR for his damage rolls without it being affected much if at all by him using said STR score.
I feel your need for such marginalization comes from point buy's impact being institutionalized into the mindset of the gamer, which is exactly what I have declared is 'the problem.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With point buy you always know exactly what you're getting into. You know how much further behind you're going to be next to that caster and you know what you need to do to not get completely overshadowed. There's no compensating for rolling modest/low stats and then having your Wizard roll an effective buy of 30.
Agile weapons don't come online until level 4 at the earliest.This kind of conjecture, while it may be true if following the guidelines of WBL to the tee and assuming the players get access to whatever they want, might hold true.
But Agile Weapons and DD should not be benchmarks upon which the devs make game design choices, this became increasingly relevant during the Swashbuckler ACG test.
But then again, not making a BDF still doesn't mean needing DEX to damage. That idea of marginalizing stats as if it was the only way to realize your concept is fallacious at best, and absolute BS at worst.
In a system, or even in an isolated game, where a player can have a decent STR score and a decent DEX score, could successfully play a concept of 'not a BDF' by way of Finesse, TWF, and Piranha Strike; while still using his STR for his damage rolls without it being affected much if at all by him using said STR score.
I feel your need for such marginalization comes from point buy's impact being institutionalized into the mindset of the gamer, which is exactly what I have declared is 'the problem.'
Well yeah, I could do that, but it would suck and not compete with someone who just focused on Strength and picked up heavy armor to compensate for the low Dexterity.
I love how I'm a mindless point-buy zombie now. Are you just throwing around words to make the other side look bad?
|
A thing we did for a game once was giving dividing a 30 point buy (could be adjusted for) in 20:10 physical/mental for martials, 15:15 for hybrids, and 10:20 for pure casters. While 30 point buy is unbalanced usually, it prevented the casters from having higher Dex/Con from martials, and allowing Martials to still have a decent Will Save.
It could be balanced for a 15 point game (10/5, 8/7 or 7/8, and 5/10), 20 point game(13/7, 10/10 and 7/13) or 25(17/8, 13/12 and 8/17)
I'm not saying that's ideal, but it's just something that worked well, we had a charismatic fighter, an extremely nimble and smart rogue, a tough-as-nails-yet-clumsy witch and an alchemist sharpshooter with a grenade launcher.
There's no compensating for rolling modest/low stats and then having your Wizard roll an effective buy of 30.
Because you must stick with what you roll the first time no second chances!!!
Effective point buys or PBE calculations are really dumb imo.
Comparing PBE to a set of rolled skews information to create the illusion that something is OP when in fact it has exactly the same power as its PBE.
Re: a 15 point buy wizard has the same power level as a 25 point buy wizard has the same power level as a 40 PBE wizard.
The fact that you're arguing with me over it when we've agreed for the most part as a thread that the method of stat generation is pretty much irrelevant kinda proves my whole point about it being a sacred cow.
I am not disputing, criticizing, or down playing the fact that point buy gives you more control over what character concept you make and that it is great when you really need that 18 for a build. But claiming that it is superior for those reasons is not acceptable, as both it and dice rolling are perfectly acceptable play styles.
I am fine with players who say they prefer point buy, I am not fine with players who say it is superior.
As a subset of rules to play the game by, it is fine, only when the other game styles become affected as if they don't exist or are less worthy of playing and the actual design of the game suffers because of it do I really have a problem.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I feel like Marshmellow is grasping at straws....
My take is simple -
Point buy is best for a better prediction of a group's abilities as well as the illusion of fairness. Most groups I GM tend to prefer this route.
If you desire more chaos, rolling stats are better. This is especially true for a very lucky player.
A variation of stat rolling some of my players prefer - Some groups even designate the perceived luckiest member, have that player roll six times in order to set the stat range for all the players. (Each player can take the six numbers and place them on their own PC in whatever order they prefer.).
Either is valid, and best left for the players to decide.
Honestly I feel like Marshmellow is grasping at straws....
Care to elaborate?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
Fair enough, figured I'd mention it just in case! Good luck with your playtesting :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I feel like Marshmellow is grasping at straws....Care to elaborate?
I'm not K177Y, but when someone starts claiming that 15 = 25 = 40...well, let's just say that it's really hard to take that person seriously.
Oh, and FYI, 'sacred cow' is a term that refers to a game quirk that exists largely because of tradition. Hence, point buy doesn't qualify, as it's a relatively recent invention with some clear advantages. If you're going to call anything a sacred cow, call rolling for stats a sacred cow.
I, personally, prefer either rolling stats over the standard point buy system. The campaign I'm currently running, I allowed my players to roll 2d6+6, reroll 1's, though that was mainly because we where running a campaign designed for a larger party, and since they was shy a player or 2, felt that allowing them average at worse stats might help. While the PC's are genrally powerful, there is little variation play wise in terms of power between the three, although one has colorspray prepped at all times, and at lvl 2, and bad will saves, the spell itself seems overpowered somewhat.
Honestly I feel like Marshmellow is grasping at straws....Care to elaborate?I'm not K177Y, but when someone starts claiming that 15 = 25 = 40...well, let's just say that it's really hard to take that person seriously.
Oh, and FYI, 'sacred cow' is a term that refers to a game quirk that exists largely because of tradition. Hence, point buy doesn't qualify, as it's a relatively recent invention with some clear advantages. If you're going to call anything a sacred cow, call rolling for stats a sacred cow.
It's been established time over that the classes who optimize their strong stats and minimize their weak ones end up yielding the exact same results in a point buy as they would with rolling stats.
A wizard who ends up with a 13 STR, 12 CHA, and 12 WIS instead of straight 7's is rocking a PBE a full 14 points higher, approaching anywhere from the higher end 20's to higher end 30's and is functionally and frankly not quite different at all from the wizards built with point buy.
I guess if you hit him with ability damage he could die faster, but his strengths are not affected at all, nothing is balanced by limiting the point buy on SAD classes, the only ones that suffer are the ones that need to invest in multiple stats anyway which is functionally the problem with point buy.
Sacred Cow may not be the right term, but it may be a bit too grandiose even for my vernacular to cite it as a 'false prophet' of 'balance at all costs' and the realization of the perfect game.
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.
My preference for PB has more to do with fairness between players, and less work for me as a GM to make the poor roller feel relevant. If a GM is willing to do things to make the poor roller suck less then fine, but most don't. I have been the poor roller once, and I never want to experience that again.
Just to be clear I don't think PB is the "end all be all" of balance or fairness. I do think it does more for it than rolling does however.
PS: Tequila it seems like you agree with me. I was just bouncing off of your post.
There's no compensating for rolling modest/low stats and then having your Wizard roll an effective buy of 30.Because you must stick with what you roll the first time no second chances!!!
Effective point buys or PBE calculations are really dumb imo.
Comparing PBE to a set of rolled skews information to create the illusion that something is OP when in fact it has exactly the same power as its PBE.
Re: a 15 point buy wizard has the same power level as a 25 point buy wizard has the same power level as a 40 PBE wizard.
That is just like saying stats don't matter, and we all know that is now true. No matter if you are a wizard, bard or fighter your stats can be a profound factor in how well you do.
Having 6 more 7th to 9th level spells is no small matter nor is having the DC to resist the spell be 3 points higher.
With a bard(insert other class as needed) you may need to decide if you want to focus more on spells or fighting or ____ with a 15PB. With a 40 PB I don't have to choose or make sacrifices.
That fighter can also afford to pick up more skills, and be a better switch hitter than he would otherwise. He might even pick up some social skills etc...
Honestly I feel like Marshmellow is grasping at straws....Care to elaborate?I'm not K177Y, but when someone starts claiming that 15 = 25 = 40...well, let's just say that it's really hard to take that person seriously.
Oh, and FYI, 'sacred cow' is a term that refers to a game quirk that exists largely because of tradition. Hence, point buy doesn't qualify, as it's a relatively recent invention with some clear advantages. If you're going to call anything a sacred cow, call rolling for stats a sacred cow.
It's been established time over that the classes who optimize their strong stats and minimize their weak ones end up yielding the exact same results in a point buy as they would with rolling stats.
Actually that would depend on what they rolled, and whether or not they min maxed.
You can't compare a 12,12,14,10,16,9 with a 25 point buy, and even if the rolls are equal to a 25 point buy the exact numbers matter.
As an example if I have 17, 14, 13, 12, 11, 11, it is not the same as 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11.
For a MAD class it is better to have a decent secondary scores than it is to have the one high score at the expense of your middle scores so you can be more versatile. In short the EXACT numbers matter.
17's and 18's are highly over rated and not worth the cost. If I get a 20 it is because of rolling to be honest, and even then I find it better to use my racial bonus to shore up a weaker stat than to max out the top stat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't compare a 12,12,14,10,16,9 with a 25 point buy, and even if the rolls are equal to a 25 point buy the exact numbers matter.
Then it is not fair, it's that simple.
Also I said the exact same thing earlier when I retorted about wizard stats, ultimately the numbers that don't fall into the primary stat categories really end up not mattering.
The problem is certain classes have multiple primary stats, which is a gaming system that point buy does not hold up to.
Again, I never said rolling was better, but I will say that in my own personal games, I have found 2d6+6 to be the best facilitator of what my players want to play.
Point buy. It's fair and avoided power gaps between players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Somewhere beyond the scorched gable end and the burnt-out buses
there is a poet indulging
his wretched rage for order-"Derek Mahon
The 'wretched rage for order', the 'I must have control in order to express myself', the 'I am in competition with my fellow gamers', the 'a low stat I did not design is a sleight', etc, etc, etc...
Some like 'free verse' whereas some prefer 'formal structures', I just wish there was a common definition of fun.
Wish granted
World English Dictionary
fun (fʌn)
— n
1. a source of enjoyment, amusement, diversion, etc
2. pleasure, gaiety, or merriment
3. jest or sport (esp in the phrases in or for fun )
4. facetious , ironic fun and games amusement; frivolous activity
5. informal like fun
a. ( adverb ) quickly; vigorously
b. ( interjection ) not at all! certainly not!
6. make fun of , poke fun at to ridicule or deride
7. ( modifier ) full of amusement, diversion, gaiety, etc: a fun sport
— vb , funs , funning , funned
8. informal ( intr ) to act in a joking or sporting manner
You can't compare a 12,12,14,10,16,9 with a 25 point buy, and even if the rolls are equal to a 25 point buy the exact numbers matter.
Then it is not fair, it's that simple.
Also I said the exact same thing earlier when I retorted about wizard stats, ultimately the numbers that don't fall into the primary stat categories really end up not mattering.
The problem is certain classes have multiple primary stats, which is a gaming system that point buy does not hold up to.
Again, I never said rolling was better, but I will say that in my own personal games, I have found 2d6+6 to be the best facilitator of what my players want to play.
I already said PB is not perfectly fair, but it is normally closer than rolling stats especially if you dont allow for rerolls.
2d6+6 is not normally bad because you will end up with an 8 minimum, but there can still be a big variance.
Actually I don't think anyone is saying PB is perfectly fair. Most of us likely think it is closer to being fair than random rolls are however.
I really enjoy the good ol' die rolls, but the brutal reality is that there can be a wide range of results that affect the game. A character 'point value range' of 35 points means someone is behind the eight-ball. The last game we 'rolled' had characters from 18 points (back in 3.5) all the way to two people with just over 50. As one of the 50+ players, I was happy, but I could see the discomfort in the single good stat Sorcerer when game after game her best was sub-par.
I go with a 15 point buy to start with. Characters get 1 additional build point each level to a total of 35 by level 20. It seems to be working so far.
I have used a 1 for 1 point buy in the past. Basically everyone starts at all 0's and they have 75(number used for this example) to buy points.
By 1 for 1 I mean there is no scaling value for ability scores.
Example using 75
str 16
dex 14
con 14
int 12
wis 9
cha 10
Adding these up gets you 75.
I recall that from the old 2nd ed days.
I recall that from the old 2nd ed days.
That may have been where my old GM got it from. I did play 2nd edition but we always rolled, and I never really got a good feel for the rules.
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.
Except that in your analogy rolling stats would mean that there's is a chance, small as it may be, that Bob is earning a 100,000 a year while I'm earning 10,000 a year and that chance is based on pure luck. There is no way at all, that that is fair. There is a chance that I'm getting the 100,000 and he is getting 10,000? Sure. There is also a chance that we're both getting 70,000 or 50,000 or 100,000. In any way it's the fault of the job(class) and not of the base salary(point buy). Having a random salary chosen when I enter the job just exarcebates he chance that Bob is going to become even richr than me.
And if we both have the same base salary and Bob gets all the benefits, but Bob spends money like water (is a pooor optiizer) and I'm smart with my savings and investments (better optimizer) I might end up richer than him. But no matter what financial genius I might be if he has those bonus and a base salary two times higher than me there is nothing I can do to bridge the gap.Or in game terms:
With point buy you always know exactly what you're getting into. You know how much further behind you're going to be next to that caster and you know what you need to do to not get completely overshadowed. There's no compensating for rolling modest/low stats and then having your Wizard roll an effective buy of 30.