I agree.
First off, thank you all for your input. It helps put things into perspective.
To shed some more light on our debate it was two people against the 10 point buy while it was myself and the DM on the other side saying a 10 point buy "ain't bad at all".
The two people against it actually did say that they were going to switch classes because it made their characters bland/boring/not deep/dull as dirt(one was playing a fighter the other was a ranger) and even said they would all make bards(the class I had decided on) if the DM stuck to the 10 point buy because "why bother with non-casters?" which to that I said "regardless of the amount of points given to build our characters casters will always have an edge on the martial classes".
Their concern was that they would have to choose between being effective in combat while still being useful outside of combat, saying that having low int/cha/wis makes their characters un-fun to play outside of combat.And I don't think a monk in a 10 point buy is impossible.
STR: 16
DEX: 14
CON: 13
INT: 7
WIS: 14
CHA: 7
That's what I came up with using a 10 point buy. +2 str for being human, gaining bare minimum 2 skill points per level.
So if you truly believe that your stats don't affect your ability to role play outside of combat then I think this monk will do just fine in and out of combat scenarios.
I still agree with that. Though the Ranger swapping to Bard because "Why bother with non-casters?" baffles me since Rangers ARE casters (only barely, but still).
But yeah, having low Int/Wis/Cha doesn't make you boring. You don't have to roleplay the idiot, ditz, or antisocial loner (though that can be fun, to be sure), it'll just cripple your mechanical contributions in some ways (though really, does that -2 really matter in the grand scheme when you can just pump skill points into it?)
Though BBT does have a point, if half the players disagree with the idea maybe it should be reconsidered and see if you can come to some sort of agreement.
Hmm, low stat game? Give everyone the open-minded feat for free. Woot.
With a 50% disagreement on the point buy method, perhaps both sides should consider a compromise.
That's what I was trying to shoot for but ultimately the DM chose to stand his ground as he felt that it could ruin the story he was trying to tell in his campaign.
Hmm, low stat game? Give everyone the open-minded feat for free. Woot.
This sounds like a great middle ground as 1 extra skill point can give a character more depth without increasing their power too much. I'll shoot this idea at my DM. Thanks!
And I don't think a monk in a 10 point buy is impossible.
STR: 16
DEX: 14
CON: 13
INT: 7
WIS: 14
CHA: 7So if you truly believe that your stats don't affect your ability to role play outside of combat then I think this monk will do just fine in and out of combat scenarios.
But I do believe that, and I don;t want a monk who is a drooling idiot and would fit in fine in the freak show tent.
You aren't pumping skill points into much with 7 int.
I was speaking more to the 7 Cha/Wis side of things. IMO you should only dump Int if you're pumping Wis or Cha unless you really don't care about out of combat interactions (which is valid).
Dwarf level 1 mobile fighter 10 point build
str 13
dex 14
con 15 (+2 race)
Int 9
Wis 12 (+2 race)
cha 8 (-2 race)
Character will go for TWF eventually after level 4 dex bump.
Why is this so bad?
He's not loaded with 7s.
All this talk about underpowered and worse than the village idiot.
10 point build is low fantasy.
The commoners will be 0 point builds, if they have one stat that's higher, they will have others lower.
Extremely important NPCs might have 15 point builds.
alos bear in mind that classes like Ranger that dont need to make prerequisites (like TWF) become more powerful and unique.
A dwarf TWF that's a ranger could have a 12 dex or even a 9 and still do it.
Challenges will be battling goblins and orcs, not trying to defeat the tarrasque at level 5.
Issues like this stem from hideous power creep.
GMs who want 10 point builds might be trying to run a "middle earth" style game.
IF they are trying to run slay the white dragon at level 5? Yea you might be a little nerfed.
But why would the commoners have high point spreads than you? In a properly run campaign everything would stay relevant.
Pretty sure NPCs have a 6 point buy.
that's not a 'rule' a DM has to follow, in a 10 point buy game, which is low fantasy that would change. 6 point buy is the 'standard' which belongs in standard fantasy game (which would be 15 point buys for pcs)
|
Not everyone who prefers a higher point buy is a "optimizing, power-gaming, munchkining player".
Seriously, the preference for lower, or higher point buy, does not make either a "doody head".
You cannot attach a ton of assumptions on a player playstyle simply because of their point buy preference.
Any of the rather extreme assumptions are simply attacks on those whose prefer a different style.
It is just a "chocolate or vanilla" argument that is simply pointless.
I actually prefer higher point buy because I think its more balanced. Martial classes are able to do more.
There is also less variance between the player who went 5/7/7/7/20/20 and someone who wanted more balanced numbers.
I'm the guy who went 5/7/7/8/20/20.
It must be noted that if I had a higher point-buy it would not have made my 20s higher, it must make my dump stats less dismal and more normal. A low point-buy encourages dump stats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why rolled stats are infinitely superior.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why rolled stats are infinitely superior.
A truer word was never typed!
In fact, in my entire 30+ years of playing all the D&D family of games, I never used point-buy until I played 4th ed; that is one of the reasons I prefer PF!
The only time I've used point-buy in PF is for PFS (two PCs); I understand the need for point-buy in PFS, but that doesn't stop me hating it!
IF we point buy, we ONLY use 10 pt. ....which encourages dice rolled, which I/we prefer.
Reason being, ALL character stats were eventually coming out EXACTLY the same, based on character types (wizards, fighters etc)
As a player, I have no issue with lower purchase limits, especially if it suits the flavour of the game. I trust that the GM will know when fights need to be nerfed, and that he/she may need to adjust CR ratings to better suit our ability scores.
I'm not sure where all this angry "GM against the players, players against the GM" attitude comes from. Aren't you playing a home game? With friends? Haven't you all agreed to play by these rules together?
Some find 15 to be too limiting and want 20, or else!
I just dropped out of a campaign because other players had spent the beginning first whining about having to use a 15 pt buy, 6 PCs going through an AP. Then just continuing to make snide remarks about the characters being crippled.
On the subject of low stats though, I've played a Cleric, we nicknamed "Stump" as in dumb as a stump. He had a 6 INT, there were several times that I had to remind myself that Stump was dumb, and not point out solutions to INT based things the others hadn't seen.
|
In one 3.5 Ebberon game that I played (dice roll none the less), I ended up with the following stats:
STR 11
DEX 10
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 9
CHA 11
Since this was 3.5 and we where using the "action point" system that allows the spending of action points for re-rolls, I got every action point feat I could. He was roll-played as just a lucky as hell commoner who took up arms. He even had every luck charm he could get attached to his armor and backpack.
Dice roll does not always create good characters. One of the other characters in that same game had 3 18's and 2 16's in their stats. In low levels this makes for a tough game to balance.
In a recent PF game I had a dialog with my players on what kind of PB they wanted to play (we were swinging between 15 and 20). In the end we settled on 20 specifically because it makes it less frustrating to play characters that rely on multiple stats - monks and paladins thrive if they can put 15 or 16s in multiple stats, whereas casters are usually happy as long as they can fit one 18.
Is it possible to play with low PBs? Absolutely. The fact that it's possible doesn't necessarily make it a good idea though - I'd suggest exploring other avenues if you're trying to get a particular feel in your campaign.
|
|
In a recent PF game I had a dialog with my players on what kind of PB they wanted to play (we were swinging between 15 and 20). In the end we settled on 20 specifically because it makes it less frustrating to play characters that rely on multiple stats - monks and paladins thrive if they can put 15 or 16s in multiple stats, whereas casters are usually happy as long as they can fit one 18.
Is it possible to play with low PBs? Absolutely. The fact that it's possible doesn't necessarily make it a good idea though - I'd suggest exploring other avenues if you're trying to get a particular feel in your campaign.
Observe, this fellow is doing it correctly.
So, who wants to show how much better a roleplayer they are by making a negative point buy character?
|
So, who wants to show how much better a roleplayer they are by making a negative point buy character?
Ah.
So it is no longer a "Chocolate or Vanilla" debate, but a "mine's bigger than yours" argument.This is of course, silly, to say the least.
Think about it. This is like arguing who is the better writer, the guy with a missing foot, or the guy who isn't missing a foot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have the opposite problem, the next game I actually get to play in is PB 25. Too high for my taste, but I guess I will have to make do!
|
|
On the subject of low stats.
I have a 5 Int Paladin Nagaji in PFS that I roleplay as academically inept, she reads at about a kindergardener level and can't really count but is wise enough to know that she isn't really good at those types of things and sticks to her strengths.
I also have a 'Mystic Therge' wand using rogue with only 8 Con. He simply stays in the back of the party doing buff-ish things until he can sneak in some sneak attacks; he's intelligent and crafty enough to know he's a 'Squishy Wizard' and hides- I mean, tactically places himself near the middle of the party.
On the other hand, I also have a Gnome Cleric of Torag whose lowest stat is a 12; he simply runs around in Adamantine Full Plate laying down healing, buffing, and debuffing as needed with impunity. He also has a 10 Ft. per round movement... thus carries both a wand of long-strider and a wand of expeditious retreat.
All of these characters are fun to play, no matter the stat-array, and they all have their own weaknesses. The important thing with low-stat scores is that, as in real life, known weaknesses can be worked around and dealt with: you don't have a low Int barbarian do bookwork, you don't have the 0 rank Diplomacy fighter talk to the important NPC without good reason, and you don't place the wizard in front of the party full of paladins without good life insurance.
With a 50% disagreement on the point buy method, perhaps both sides should consider a compromise.That's what I was trying to shoot for but ultimately the DM chose to stand his ground as he felt that it could ruin the story he was trying to tell in his campaign.
Hmm, low stat game? Give everyone the open-minded feat for free. Woot.This sounds like a great middle ground as 1 extra skill point can give a character more depth without increasing their power too much. I'll shoot this idea at my DM. Thanks!
I agree with 3.5 Loyalist as well. That is an excellent compromise.
If the GM feels they can do a good job at 10 point buy then have a little faith that the game will be good. I am with the GM on this. He shouldn't have to compromise on stats. Let him have some fun with this lower powered game. Maybe your high stat players will learn to love it... maybe the GM will decide higher stats are better for next campaign... who knows. But a little trust in your GM makes the game go so much funner.
This is why rolled stats are infinitely superior.
Rolled stats are randomly superior.
They are frequently better but not always. Because there is always the danger of creating a wildly imbalanced party. Not that I am against rolling I actually love rolling. But since more people love point buy it's good to learn to live with point buy.
I like the way we do it. I've learned since that it seems to be not the standard, but we allow you to drop the stats anywhere.
So say your Wizard rolls 18 12 13 16 8 10 he doesn't have to stick with 8 Int, he can shift that 18 into Int and call it a day.
You have to have an astronomically bad day to roll a character that couldn't be anything, and if that ever happens (hasn't yet) the GM says he'll roll for them as a re-do.
Not quite standard, yeah, but leads to generally equal parties as long as everyone puts their stats in the right place.
Flagged it for what? Calling you out on your comment that "It sounds like they want to deliberately sabotage your game if you don't allow all the shiny toys they want." when they don't want to play the kind of game you do?
Flag all you like, my point still stands that that is an absurd statement to make.
And sorry, I ignored the players lumped together statements from the OP. None of them had posted here and that's not what the thread was about, and no one in this thread has even touched on it (and by the by, the players in the OP were not saying they were going to deliberately make boring characters just to spite the GM like you implied). So why are you so hung up on attacking everyone who doesn't play how you like? You and Delthyn seem to believe that everyone who wants to play a normal, standard point buy game is a power gaming munchkin who drains the fun from everything eh touches because he's not l3g1t pr0 enough to play a game with sub-par stat buys.
Now explain, what personal attacks I have made? I have attacked your ARGUMENT and your OPINION but I have never attacked YOU PERSONALLY. This is what forums are for, debate and conversation, in this case, I am debating your standpoint that anyone who doesn't like a 10 point buy is a whiny entitled brat, and you have done nothing to convince me otherwise except to constantly shift the focus of the argument to some nonsensical extreme view of what I can only assume you think my fairly innocuous question of "what's wrong with wanting the standard point buy?" is.
You called me a "restrictive control freak" THAT is a personal attack and untrue as well. So YES I flagged it and ignored that post. What is your problem!? I have never said anyone not wanting 10pb is whiny... Learn to read please. Since you seem to be the only one not understanding me. I am saying anyone who says "I will only make a boring character if I have to play under rule X" is whiny.
NOTHING is wrong with ANY level of point buy. It is a perfectly valid method of making characters. Why are you determined to claim I am saying things I am NOT saying?
Because nobody said they were going to specifically make a boring character because they were pissed at the 10 PB. They said they didn't know HOW they could make an interesting character with a 10 PB.
HUUUGE difference there.
Your entire explosion was based on something no one ever said at all, and please don't try to pass it off as something you never said, since I've QUOTED you at least twice now, it's all there on the page for anyone to see.
And here Rynjin goes again...
Adding a "I don't know how" to what I said is simply more passive aggressive. We all know mechanics are completely separate from building an interesting character. Stormwind Fallacy has been around for ages. So YES I disagreed with the stance those specific players were talking. I didn't explode till you started trolling me.
Now show me these imaginary quotes where I am saying what you claim I am saying. Can't can you. Case closed.
Oh and characters are only boring and bland if the player makes them that way. At ANY point level. Saying you will make a boring character unless you get your way on starting points is somewhat childish. Like telling your mother you will whine endlessly until she buys you that new toy.
It sounds like they want to deliberately sabotage your game if you don't allow all the shiny toys they want.
If the players can't handle letting the GM have fun they shouldn't be playing.
But when they do step behind the screen and make that low powered game they always wanted to try some players throw tantrums anyway and try to ruin everyone's fun.
Case closed.
Right Rynjin... in every case I was talking about the players who "will only make a boring character if they have to play under 10pb". If you read the whole posts that would be clear. Heck the first quote even says as much.
Huuuge difference from claiming I am saying "anyone who doesn't like 10pb is whiny" isn't it?
Case is indeed closed.
Nope, now it's your turn.
Show me where anybody but you mentioned that the players were specifically making boring characters because the point buy was at 10 so they would get their way.
For reference, here's the OP:
So earlier this week a couple of my friends and I got into a debate about how a 10 point buy campaign limits players to only being able to make bland boring characters. They went on to say that because of the 10 point buy the only decent option left to them is to play casters as they are viable in both combat and out of combat scenarios and generally benefit from having a good int/cha/wis score without losing out elsewhere.
My question to you all is this: How limiting is a 10 point buy in regards to how deep a character can be? Is it possible to be both well rounded and effective in combat? Are fighter types really hurt more than casters are? And would a 15 point buy really change any of these issues? Your advice is needed!
And don't be coy, just because you never specifically came out and said it doesn't mean everyone is too dumb to read between the lines.
Key words: "Whine" "shiny toys" "tantrums"
Good grief give it a rest Rynjin.
The FIRST quote of mine you made last post spells out exactly which group I am calling whiners. You don't even have to read between any lines, Just read what I typed.
And why say I am the first to call out players making boring character as a response to 10pb and then amusingly quote the OP who we can all clearly see made the same statement (although the OP used far kinder and far briefer language to describe this sentiment).
The difference being the OP makes a distinction between the people in question being too uncreative and short sighted to make an interesting character with a low PB, and you seemed to lump them into a big group of whiny whiners who whine if they don't get their way who try to sabotage a GMs game if they don't like his decision. They don't come out looking pretty either way, but the way you put it makes them sound like the worst kind of willfully douchey jack offs while the way he put it makes them sound like subconsciously whiny children (ironically).
I'm just trying to wrap my head around why you would mention this supposedly separate group of people in the first place if it had nothing to do with the thread.
But whatever, fine, you didn't mean what you said, it's over.
I still don't like 10 PB, but I don't see why they can't roll with it either.
If the DM wants to try something but the players don't think it sounds fun the game isn't off to a very good start. A couple of the players anyway. Still, that's enough that some kind of compromise is in order. Free open minded feat was a nifty idea.
Why don't you think the game was off to a very good start Grimmy? I am curious why you doubt the game without even knowing the setup past 10pb being used to generate characters. Is it because of the players who took issue with 10pb? I will freely admit Rynjin has a point though he didn't express it well. We DON'T know yet if the players are just being a little passive aggressive to try to convince the GM to allow stronger characters or if they are being willfully problematic. I jumped to the later conclusion but I may well be wrong. Once the GM made up his mind if the players then seemed fine with it and made characters without a stink then all is indeed very good and all of us neigh sayers were wrong.
|
|
Generally if the best compromise being made is "I'm the DM, I want to run this kind of game, shut up an deal with it," and roughly half the party is not okay with that, it doesn't lead to good things.
Of course you're so caught in your crusade for 10PB that you likely didn't even pay attention to that part.
Seranov? Who other than you is saying "shut up and deal with it?"
|
|
Seranov? Who other than you is saying "shut up and deal with it?"
Not those exact words, as it seems, but as you stated earlier, this was your DM's stand on the issue.
So, by your words, 50% of the players were against it, but the DM decided in the end, that he would use a 10 point buy, whether they wanted it or not.
I do hope that clarifies things.
This reminds me of a small telling event I was a part of.
Joining a PF game, genning up a character, opted to roll instead of point buy. The dm was the type that never had a char with low dex, wis or con, I am sure you can understand why esteemed and knowledgeable reader.
Rolled those dice and got a few results. Settled on one. Told the dm I had rolled one set that was higher than the one I choose, but it was too high, the character would have been too good. Dm was stumped, thought I was crazy. Well Skadi the scout didn't need to be superhuman. I ended up taking a lowish con and dex, relying on feats and mobility to stay alive in combat, and having a ball outside of combat. Who knows if I taught the dm something, that not every character has to have the same ability scores (this chap's spellcasters were always the same, high spellcasting stat, good dex, good con, yawn).
Generally if the best compromise being made is "I'm the DM, I want to run this kind of game, shut up an deal with it," and roughly half the party is not okay with that, it doesn't lead to good things.
Of course you're so caught in your crusade for 10PB that you likely didn't even pay attention to that part.
Alas the game may have to start with an oratory check. "We are used to powerful characters with many high stats, this game is different, let us give it a go and have some fun. No, you don't start with an average stat of 15".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This reminds me of a small telling event I was a part of.
Joining a PF game, genning up a character, opted to roll instead of point buy. The dm was the type that never had a char with low dex, wis or con, I am sure you can understand why esteemed and knowledgeable reader.
Rolled those dice and got a few results. Settled on one. Told the dm I had rolled one set that was higher than the one I choose, but it was too high, the character would have been too good. Dm was stumped, thought I was crazy. Well Skadi the scout didn't need to be superhuman. I ended up taking a lowish con and dex, relying on feats and mobility to stay alive in combat, and having a ball outside of combat. Who knows if I taught the dm something, that not every character has to have the same ability scores (this chap's spellcasters were always the same, high spellcasting stat, good dex, good con, yawn).
Your words seem drenched with narcissistic self righteousness.
You put forth your preferences as though they made you simply a better gamer, roleplayer, and person, than those who do not share them.You seem to gloat, and put forth a feeling of superiority over those whose tastes differ.
Painting a picture of those who prefer higher point buys as cackling neck-beards, focused on only powergaming is not only incorect, but hurtful and not needed.
If I am misreading your words, then I apologize.
In the end, no one's game style preferences that are "wrong".
We all need to just accept it.
|
|
Alas the game may have to start with an oratory check. "We are used to powerful characters with many high stats, this game is different, let us give it a go and have some fun. No, you don't start with an average stat of 15".Generally if the best compromise being made is "I'm the DM, I want to run this kind of game, shut up an deal with it," and roughly half the party is not okay with that, it doesn't lead to good things.
Of course you're so caught in your crusade for 10PB that you likely didn't even pay attention to that part.
That's perfectly well and good. I am running a RotRL game, and WEEKS before we started I sat everybody down and ran through how we wanted to run it. I got everyone's opinion and we all decided on it together.
I did not inform them "these are my rules, if you do not like it, you are free to leave," because they're my friends, and I want them to enjoy the game every bit as much as I am.
We're using 20 point buy, despite having more people than the AP calls for, because most of them are still new to PF. None of us want a gritty game, at all, so we're not playing one. I'm not saying that's an invalid playstyle, but it sure as hell isn't more valid than any other.
Seranov? Who other than you is saying "shut up and deal with it?"
Not those exact words, as it seems, but as you stated earlier, this was your DM's stand on the issue.
So, by your words, 50% of the players were against it, but the DM decided in the end, that he would use a 10 point buy, whether they wanted it or not.
I do hope that clarifies things.
So... the OP stated they had a pre game discussion.
The GM and one player wanted 10pb two players did not.Clearly by anyone's count that's two to two in favor of 10 pb.
Even though this isn't a democracy and the GM does have the right to unilaterally decide the creation rules. This particular GM was a good one and had the discussion with his players about point buy level. The GM settled on 10 pb. Even going so far as to give explanation to the two against it that he felt this would be best for the game he wanted to run. Despite the fact that the two took a somewhat childish tactic to stop the GMs decision, he seems to always treat them nicely.
This is the situation, right?
And so Seranov and now blackbloodtroll are you both going on record as stating that a friendly GM having a discussion and even explaining himself then being the tie breaker that that equates to "shut up and deal with it"? Wow... I think you two have just highlighted the player entitlement crowd in a way I never could.
10 point buy leads to more broken characters rather than less strong with the right build you can get 20 in your main stat whatever but are crippled in other areas (int and cha mostly) the only problem with this is it tends to push the game towards combat as that is the only way the pc's can successfully interact with the game world.
I don't think you are going to find any support that 10 pb "leads to more broken characters" than 15 pb or even 20 pb. The imbalance of stats 20s vs 7s is a feature of point buy at any level. The simple fact that not all players will dump stats often leads to the same sort of party imbalance that rolling is sometimes guilty of.
I also can't disagree more that combat is the "only way" 10 pb characters can interact with the game world. Role play is how most groups interact with the game world and it requires NO minimum stat to do so. This might not be true at your table but even if you go to a purely mechanical gaming approach the difference between 10 pb and 15 pb is very small. Often the difference is -1 to -2 to a specific set of skills. A penalty that pales to insignificance as the character levels higher.