Point Buy - Down to 7


Advice

451 to 500 of 978 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
But Jiggy is claiming that really fine-grained ordering is easy to do. I mean, do you have a list in your head of all your acquaintances ordered by how intelligent you think they are?

Well, that's something I have to do on a routine basis for my students. Come graduation time, a lot of them are asking for letters of recommendations, and they want me to order the students ("Susie is the top students this year, but not one of the top few I've ever taught") in terms not merely of skills, but also in terms of aptitude and reasoning ability. (I.e., they specifically want me to tell them not merely what grades they got in classes here, but they want to know how successful they will be at learning novel material in new classes.)

I'm even supposed to distinguish between attributes and skill ranks. ("Jason has an extraordinary mastery of course material due to an exceptional work ethic, but has difficulty applying this material in novel contexts.") ("Judy has among the highest aptitude for this material of any student I've ever seen, but her class performance has been limited due to her attendance and work habits.")

Heck, this is something that sports scouts also do on a regular basis. You don't draft a player based on who he is, but upon who you believe he can become with appropriate training. ("Strong, but does not have good technique.")

Ah, I had a response in there but this is a far better post than mine was going to be.

In any case, we're nitpicking and trying to pull monsters out of the book to somehow prove a point. I am pretty sure that the sides in the disagreement are not going to see eye to eye. There are those that dislike dumpstatting .. or at least not role playing said dumping .. while others see nothing wrong with it and/or don't want to be told what to do or how to represent themselves.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:


In any case, we're nitpicking and trying to pull monsters out of the book to somehow prove a point. I am pretty sure that the sides in the disagreement are not going to see eye to eye. There are those that dislike dumpstatting .. or at least not role playing said dumping .. while others see nothing wrong with it and/or don't want to be told what to do or how to represent themselves.

Put me in the group that feels as follows:

* Dumpstatting is fine
* Dumpstatting without role-playing it is not fine
* Not dumpstatting it is also fine.

Not everyone is going to be good at everything. But people who aren't good at things should not be good at things. People with low stats should not be good at the thing the stats represent.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
People with low stats should not be good at the thing the stats represent.

Unless of course they have the training, tools, and/or magic to compensate. :)


Sarcasmancer wrote:
So this kept coming up in another thread but I never got a good answer and it was slightly off-topic anyway. Many many people say that they would disallow stats to be dumped down to 7 under a point-buy system. If you're one of those people - why? What's so bad about dumping to 7 vs dumping to 8? I await your reply.

For clarification:

One of the other threads was a rules question, namely, "Is it legal under the point buy system to buy a racially-boosted stat down to 5 and let my race bonus bring it up to 7?"

Under the point buy system, the CRB states "No score can be reduced below 7 or raised above 18 using this method. See Table: Ability Score Costs for the costs of each score. After all the points are spent, apply any racial modifiers the character might have."

So the answer is no: your Halfling or Gnome cannot start out with a 7 Charisma. You have to buy your Charisma down to 7, then apply the racial boost back up to 9. (Since the racial modifier applies after the point buy, you can buy your Dwarf's charisma down to 7 and then let the racial penalty take it down to 5.)

Of course, GMs can home rule however they want, as always.

Shadow Lodge

Knowledges and training dont change who you are, just how much you know. Learning compared to reasoning in the intelligence ability score. Now if you give that person a magic item to increase his ability score, then yes it will noticable change things.

Jacob Saltband wrote:

I'm gonna use Forrest again because, to me, he fits.

Forrest went to collage, spent time in the military,and even owned a shrimping boat.

All these skills learned from these life experiences didnt change 'who' he was but he had alot of knowledges and skills to draw on. All in all he was still Forrest Gump. He was still noticably lower then average int.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People who punish bad stats by forcing poor roleplay are both hypocrites (since they don't FORCE high stat people to play like captain charisma, Einstein, or the guy who can plan 12 moves ahead of any enemy.) AND hurting the hobby as a whole by driving away people who might have actually have enjoyed the game if it weren't for being told you HAVE to act stupid all the time.

If you HATE dumpstats THAT MUCH, just don't allow them. DONE and fixed without hurting the game.


Aranna wrote:

People who punish bad stats by forcing poor roleplay are both hypocrites (since they don't FORCE high stat people to play like captain charisma, Einstein, or the guy who can plan 12 moves ahead of any enemy.) AND hurting the hobby as a whole by driving away people who might have actually have enjoyed the game if it weren't for being told you HAVE to act stupid all the time.

If you HATE dumpstats THAT MUCH, just don't allow them. DONE and fixed without hurting the game.

A bit hyperbolic.

One could counter with the obvious "people who cannot bother to role play the low stats as well as the high stats are hurting the hobby and driving away players who dislike minimaxing without role playing."

That would be equally hyperbolic.

As for the rest of your commentary, as an example I can say that I do require people that are playing someone social/charismatic to actually play that out. No "I use diplomacy .. what's up Duke?" If people aren't interested in actually role playing someone social, in this game or others (think Fixer in Shadowrun for example) then they shouldn't go that route.

No one -- or at least not me -- is saying that you have to play stupid or weak or clumsy all the time. But that low score is as much your character as the high score or the feats you took or your class itself. Your character is an amalgamation of everything; ignoring one part of it or trying to spin things so that your weakness isn't actually a weakness is a disservice to your character and the game, doing as much damage as you propose those evil, evil people who force people to actually play their scores.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
As for the rest of your commentary, as an example I can say that I do require people that are playing someone social/charismatic to actually play that out. No "I use diplomacy .. what's up Duke?" If people aren't interested in actually role playing someone social, in this game or others (think Fixer in Shadowrun for example) then they shouldn't go that route.

Yep, when my wife told me she wouldn't play a Charisma caster because she was afraid she'd be put on the spot for every NPC dialogue and possibly freeze up and turn bright red in front of the whole table, I breathed a sigh of contentment at the knowledge that the game was being played as it should be.


Knightnday, I have yet to see ANY GM force someone playing a wizard to act super smart all the time. In fact I doubt most people could even do it, because how? do you fake higher intelligence?

Get out of the way of good role playing please and let people make their character the way they want to. ALL that 7 or 8 Int means is you have fewer skills and lower Int skill checks than other trained people. PLEASE let people define that any way they want and let creative role play flourish, don't crush it by saying that lower than average Int HAS to be played as Forest Gump.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Knightnday, I have yet to see ANY GM force someone playing a wizard to act super smart all the time. In fact I doubt most people could even do it, because how? do you fake higher intelligence?

Get out of the way of good role playing please and let people make their character the way they want to. ALL that 7 or 8 Int means is you have fewer skills and lower Int skill checks than other trained people. PLEASE let people define that any way they want and let creative role play flourish, don't crush it by saying that lower than average Int HAS to be played as Forest Gump.

I think if you go back and look at my posts I have yet to say that anyone had to play a lower Intelligence as Forest Gump or the village idiot. And I'll gladly get out of the way of good role play, when it happens. That said, when someone refuses to believe that their substandard score is just that then we'll talk about what they want to do with their character.

It isn't creative role play to try to avoid the ramification of your choices. That's just metagaming to avoid any sort of perceived penalty or social stigma.

7 is not the end of the world nor does it make you some sort of freak. But the penalty that everyone likes to point to and beat their breast that they are already being impacted with means something role play wise as well.

No role play is being crushes by suggesting that the 9, 8, 7 or even lower score has as much meaning as the 11, 12, 14 and so on. In fact, it may even inspire some to stop dodging what the scores mean and to embrace their choices.

I've had players in the past that want to have all the bonuses of a race but not actually be that race. It's the same sort of deal; they want the good but not the bad, be it racial prejudice or height or whatever.

As for what either of us have seen a GM force someone to do, well, I imagine there is a lot. I've seen GMs give secret information and hidden clues to someone with higher Intelligence, for example, to emulate what their character might puzzle out. By the same token, I've seen GMs require 'tactical geniuses' to have some idea of how tactics and strategy work.

I imagine if we cast a wide enough net, we'll find a GM who requires any sort of thing. I require some small measure, even a token amount, of role play and consideration of the sheet you're trying to play. If that means I am somehow evil and cruel for requiring such, I'll gladly take that burden.


Put me in the camp of not liking dump stats. I am with the dm that gives a 25 point buy and does not allow negatives. I also prefer more well rounded characters, CNN or no. An 8 after racial negatives is low enough IMHO. Having spent several years working with the Developmentally Disabled I really don't see them viable as characters. Same applies to a wizard that can't carry his spell books. Go min-max if you like in your game but please not in mine. I used to use an array to keep players from min-maxing but found it was too high even to a 25 point buy.


Aranna wrote:

Knightnday, I have yet to see ANY GM force someone playing a wizard to act super smart all the time. In fact I doubt most people could even do it, because how? do you fake higher intelligence?

Get out of the way of good role playing please and let people make their character the way they want to. ALL that 7 or 8 Int means is you have fewer skills and lower Int skill checks than other trained people. PLEASE let people define that any way they want and let creative role play flourish, don't crush it by saying that lower than average Int HAS to be played as Forest Gump.

You're sort of begging the question here. For you (and many others, obviously), the 7 in Charisma or Intelligence or whatever doesn't impact how you role play your character. For other people (and there are many of them, too), the 7 in Charisma should impact how you role play your character.

So for those people, expecting the players who choose to have the 7 in whatever stat to behave accordingly is precisely what constitutes good role playing. Thus, they would not be "getting in the way" of good role playing by believing that a character with a noticeably lower intelligence than the average population should be acting like that character has a noticeably lower intelligence than the average population (or charisma or wisdom or whatever). Now, how that might manifest itself can be different, depending on character. Not every low-charisma character is a boorish jerk. Not every boorish jerk has a low charisma. Maybe that low charisma manifests itself by being an extreme introvert or a wallflower. Maybe it's someone who simply cracks under the pressure of public speaking or interacting with strangers. Similarly There are many ways to demonstrate "less intelligent than average". That's the beauty of role playing.

And again, that doesn't mean such a character can't ever contribute or come up with a clever solution to a problem or actually be the character to charm the NPC for whatever reason.


fretgod99 THAT is all I am asking for LET the player define their own penalties in terms of role play. TOO many times I see people on these forums refer to having a low mental stat like it is mental retardation or similar. NO! The second a GM steps in and says "no you can't role play it the way you want, instead you have to act stupid" then that GM has failed the entire hobby.


Aranna wrote:

fretgod99 THAT is all I am asking for LET the player define their own penalties in terms of role play. TOO many times I see people on these forums refer to having a low mental stat like it is mental retardation or similar. NO! The second a GM steps in and says "no you can't role play it the way you want, instead you have to act stupid" then that GM has failed the entire hobby.

They may have failed in communicating and working with the player to find a good solution. They have not failed the entire hobby, or even their local game.

This thread needs to ramp back on the hysteria and weird examples. It isn't helping the conversation and just makes everyone look bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
fretgod99 THAT is all I am asking for LET the player define their own penalties in terms of role play. TOO many times I see people on these forums refer to having a low mental stat like it is mental retardation or similar. NO! The second a GM steps in and says "no you can't role play it the way you want, instead you have to act stupid" then that GM has failed the entire hobby.

Each GM is always free to make house rules and apply personal interpretations of the rules. GMs who choose to impose that restriction on their group certainly do not "fail the entire hobby" any more than the GM who says "I don't want any Halflings in my game" or "No Gunslingers!" As long as the GM told the players what to expect when they built the character, then it's each player's choice to make and each player's responsibility to abide by the group's rules.

Since there's nothing in the rules that dictates how players role play their characters, all role play "rules"--even alignment restrictions--are a constant negotiation between the players and the GM. As long as the GM and the players are happy with each other and their role playing style, it's none of our business.

Shadow Lodge

Why is it, when use what you think is a go example of a low ability score for roleplay, those who disagree with you say your demanding everyone play their characters that specific way and only that way.

Silver Crusade

Jiggy wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
According to the 3d6 bell curve upon which the distribution of ability scores is modelled,
Please note that I'm talking about Pathfinder. I'm sure some past version of D&D probably assumed a 3d6 bell curve, but that's not the case in Pathfinder. The "standard" rolling method in Pathfinder is 4d6-drop-lowest, and even that is intended for PCs. As I already cited, the bulk of the in-world population in Pathfinder has stats ranging from 8-13, with a superior minority instead ranging from 8-15.

Please note that I'm talking about Pathfinder!

The Pathfinder Core Rulebook, under Ability Scores wrote:
Each ability score generally ranges from 3 to 18, although racial bonuses and penalties can alter this; an average ability score is 10.
Quote:
If you prefer to apply older methods of stat generation to your game world's population, great! Just understand that it's outside the scope of what I was talking about; I don't need to defend why my claims don't match your houserules or other game systems.

The population is measured against the 3d6 bell curve in Pathfinder just as in previous editions.

The various methods used to generate PCs create heroes that are still measured against the 3d6 bell curve. If they didn't, then if you rolled 1d6+12 for truly heroic PCs then the average for the entire of humanity is suddenly 15.5.

The NPC array is simply a quick way of generating NPCs, not a switch away from the 3d6 norm. If you decided as DM to assume that any stat you need for any unimportant NPC is 10 for the sake of convenience, this doesn't mean that every human is assumed to actually have 10 in every ability! It's just a convenient shortcut so you don't have to roll up every NPC on the planet.

In short, any way of generating ability scores (point-buy, array, 4d4+6, whatever) doesn't change what the generated score means. It is still compared to the bell curve. Just because you use a way of generating heroic or unimportant characters that has a minimum above 3, this doesn't mean that no such creatures exist or that such creatures are strange. It is absurd to imagine that the mass of humanity has exactly one 13, one 12, one 11, one 10, one 9 and one 8.

So when Paizo statted up the Village Idiot his Int of 4 puts him at the low end of the 3-18 range.

If your argument is that a score below 8 is noticeable on the grounds that NPCs have no stat below 8 according to the rules(!), well according to 'the rules' PCs can have a score of 7 so it's no more noticeable than an adventurer already is.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
The old Marvel TSR game and various other systems I played told you exactly WHAT each 'stat' meant and at what level... Pathfinder/D&D does not. The difference between a stat of 10, 8, 7, or 3 are based on the penalties it's mechanically assigned.
Another place you see this is if you look at statblocks from the Bestiary. Charisma is the obvious offender here---the charisma assigned to monsters has nothing to do with how the stat is described in the CRB. A corpse orgy apparently is pretty, has a strong personality, and is talented at leading

That may well just be the Pathfinder writers TWISTED sense of 'beauty.'

Seriously, there have been WAY too many descriptions in these APs that describe a lovely statue or beautiful woman.... who while YES, the picture DOES have larger breasts... also has hooves, horns and the occassional scales ;)

Our group has made a joke over what the term 'beautiful' means in this game :P

for some people.... corpse orgy MAY fit that bill ;)

Shadow Lodge

A Gibbering Mouther has a cha of 12.
A Skeleton has a cha of 10.
A Zombie has a cha of 10.
A Ooze has a cha of 1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

when the CRB states that Charisma represents, among other things, your "appearance", it's not talking about the quality of your appearance but rather the quantity of your appearance; it's a numeric value, it tells how much you have, not whether it's pretty, ugly, imposing, or whatnot.

If you're ugly, having 10 cha means you're averagely ugly. If you're pretty, having 10 cha means you're averagely pretty. If you're imposing, 10 Cha means you're averagely imposing.

If you're ugly, 7 cha means you're tough to look at. 7 Cha pretty means you're easy on the eyes, but not memorable. 7 Cha imposing means you look kinda tough, but I think I could take you anyway.

If you're ugly, 30 Cha means you're mind-breakingly horrifying and creatures gazing upon you cannot look away as your appearance rapes their senses. If you're pretty, 30 Cha means you're the most beautiful thing someone could lay eyes on. If you're imposing, 30 Cha means you give off the impression that trying to beat up a mountain with your face would be more productive than trying to oppose you.


Idylykin aasimar sorcerer: STR: 7 DEX: 7 CON: 20 INT: 7 WIS: 8 CHA: 20


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Idylykin aasimar sorcerer: STR: 7 DEX: 7 CON: 20 INT: 7 WIS: 8 CHA: 20

To be fair, that looks reaaaally dangerous. Low initiative, reflex and AC means you'll be at a big risk against enemy spellcasters, and at low levels, against anyone at all. But just taking a -2 on the con means you could have Dex 13, which is a lot more playable.

EDIT: Though you could also consider a scarred witch doctor, Str 7 Dex 18 Con 20 Int 7 Wis 8 Cha 7 for ultimate SADness.

Silver Crusade

My second PFS character is a halfling Dawnflower Dervish: 5 20 8 7 7 20.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
My second PFS character is a halfling Dawnflower Dervish: 5 20 8 7 7 20.

Was your first prestige purchase a porter to carry all your stuff around? :-)

Silver Crusade

Gwen Smith wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
My second PFS character is a halfling Dawnflower Dervish: 5 20 8 7 7 20.
Was your first prestige purchase a porter to carry all your stuff around? :-)

It was a small mithral scimitar, weight 1lb. : )


Ilja wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Idylykin aasimar sorcerer: STR: 7 DEX: 7 CON: 20 INT: 7 WIS: 8 CHA: 20

To be fair, that looks reaaaally dangerous. Low initiative, reflex and AC means you'll be at a big risk against enemy spellcasters, and at low levels, against anyone at all. But just taking a -2 on the con means you could have Dex 13, which is a lot more playable.

EDIT: Though you could also consider a scarred witch doctor, Str 7 Dex 18 Con 20 Int 7 Wis 8 Cha 7 for ultimate SADness.

If you bump the Dex and Wis up to 10 and took Nature Oracle for Nature's Whispers and 2 levels of Paladin for Divine Grace, along with Scion of War, that replaces Dex for AC, CMD, and Initiative and adds Cha to all your saves. Throw 4 levels of Bard on there and you get Versatile Performance which subs out Acrobatics and Fly for Perform:Dance and throw on Pageant of the Peacock Masterpiece to sub Bluff for all Int skills and ability checks. I'd also suggest leaving the Int at 10 as well so you're not short on skill points.


Kazaan wrote:
What if, as a player, you're not really a smart person and can't come up with all the answers... but you're playing a high-Int character? Is that also bad RP, that your supposedly high-Int character isn't coming up with all the answers and strategies just because you, as the player, can't think of them? You can't criticize "bad roleplay" of a low stat unless you also criticize "bad roleplay" of a high stat.

This is me. My characters are invariably much smarter and more competent than me. They probably roll their eyes a lot at having such a dunce for a player. So my "roleplaying as smart" consists mostly of nodding sagely and agreeing when somebody else has a much better idea...


Shar Tahl wrote:
Sarcasmancer wrote:
So this kept coming up in another thread but I never got a good answer and it was slightly off-topic anyway. Many many people say that they would disallow stats to be dumped down to 7 under a point-buy system. If you're one of those people - why? What's so bad about dumping to 7 vs dumping to 8? I await your reply.
It may help if folks actually focused on the thread topic(quoted post) and moved their off topic stuff to another thread ("I hate that 7 int described as stupid", and such). That is not helping at all. The last couple hundred strayed way off.

This is one of my pet peeves, and I am as responsible as anybody for indulging in thread derails. I just want the attention :(


Jiggy wrote:

An 8 is within the realm of "normal" in the game world. The teeming masses have (pre-racial) stats ranging from 8-13 (also including a 9). Even the heroic, PC-classed NPCs include an 8.

...

So based on what's in the books, that's the difference between 7 and 8: humanoid norms versus "Seriously, do you have a nagaji uncle or something?"

Interesting! Hadn't thought about it this way before.

Shadow Lodge

As Rynjin had posted a couple pages back.

Rynjin wrote:

10 is the average stat.

However, nobody is perfectly average.

So we have an array of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. That doesnt mean that the 8 and 9 arent low average but could still be considered on the low end of 'normal'.

On the original topic...

I dont see how a 7 is 'more worse' then an 8, other then obvious penalties.


Some form of this game has been around for decades now, and I don't think there's a consensus on what Charisma really means yet. For a while there was even a separate Comeliness score. One DM I know still uses it but only allows a single 3d6 roll which you're stuck with. I think the idea is that it is "funny" if your PC is ugly. I'm sure there's a similar idea at work with the guys who like roll 3d4 to determine penis size. Anyhow, I think the easiest answer might be that a high or low Charisma could mean a lot of things.

I think the same is true to a lesser extent for most of the ability scores. Is a guy with a moderately low Wis oblivious or just a little brash? Low Con might mean that your PC is out of shape and wheezing. On the other hand, maybe the PC is in shape but just a little frail. Looking at the PC's ability scores as a whole and using your imagination might help in sorting out this kind of thing. Some players will do a great job of RPing this stuff. Others will do a miserable job. Some folks will also name their PC Jack Noff or Kotex Bloodshield. The hobby has its flaws (and some people seem to enjoy them)


Well, if you switch the stat to a physical one, it's a lot easier to visualize the differences.

Take Con, for example. A Fighter with 14 Con gets 1d10+2 HP per level as a base. That's an automatic 12 HP to start, plus between 3 and 12 (av: 7.5) per level. Compare with a Wizard with 14 HP and a d6 hit-dice getting 8 Hp to start and averaging 5.5 per level. The average level 2, 14 Con Fighter has between 15 and 24 HP while the average level 2, 14 Con Wizard has between 11 and 16. The ambitious Wizard in this example who was able to find the most time to work out between studies has just barely more endurance than the Fighter who slacked off the most both in his training and in his spare time, putting forth the bare minimum effort to physical endurance training. Despite having the very same Constitution, the result is incredibly different ranges of developed physical endurance.

Or, to put it another way, both an acrobat and a sleight-of-hand magician use a high Dex stat, but the magician isn't necessarily good at backflips and the acrobat isn't necessarily good at card tricks. Likewise, a character of any particular level of Intelligence will excel in what he trains in; it's just that things like strategic thinking, walking normally, and talking normally aren't governed by any particular stat or skill. There's no stat or skill that governs the number of associates and friends you can have. You don't say, "Oh, your Charisma is only 7? That means you're only allowed to know up to 6 people on a personal level. If you had pumped it up to 20, you could have 35 close friends." You don't say, "Oh, well, that was deep and moving and all, but you can't say that because your Wisdom score is only 10. Tone it down a bit; you have to be exceptionally wise to say wise things like that." Now, when it comes down to determining the value of something or noticing an ambush or defending against a Demoralize attempt, sure, you're at a clear mechanical disadvantage. But for things not mechanically governed, there's no reason you can't be capable and competent. Even the rules say that there's a significant difference between a Humanoid or other sentient creature with 3 Intelligence and an Animal with 3 Intelligence.

UCamp wrote:
Even if an animal's Intelligence increases to 3 or higher, you must still use the Handle Animal skill to direct the animal, as it is a smart animal rather than a low-intelligence person (using awaken is an exception—an awakened animal takes orders like a person). The GM should take the animal's Intelligence into account when determining its response to commands or its behavior when it doesn't have specific instructions. For example, an intelligent wolf companion can pick the weakest-looking target if directed to do so, and that same wolf trapped in a burning building might push open a door or window without being told.

Even a sentient creature of 3 intelligence can have its responses changed via Diplomacy whereas an Animal of 3 intelligence cannot. The only clear distinction is that Handle Animal can be used to direct any creature of 1-2 Intelligence, even if they're not an animal. So the cutoff for significant difference of intelligence for any otherwise sentient creature is between 2 and 3 Int; the threshold at which you can no longer use Diplomacy on them and must resort to Handle Animal.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Why does this character's IQ jump up when she reaches 4th level?

How is this any different from having an INT score jump up by 1 point? I don't think this is a good argument against the IQ/INT score analogy, since that's precisely what does happen in game. There are exercises that you can do IRL to increase your memory, ability to learn, and general reasoning skill. Why CAN'T your IQ go up, just like your INT score?

Highest IQ I can quickly find on the 'net is 300. There's your 30 Intelligence right there. Given that PCs are heroes and supposed to be spectacular, I don't think one of the best IQ in the world is so crazy. Heck, another character in the group can be walking around carrying 1600 lbs as a heavy load; I certainly don't see that every day IRL.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Ah yes, but in a party, why not dump to increase the effectiveness of the role you do have in the party. Essentially this comes down to why not take stats away from what you're already not doing to boost what you are doing.

Because it's one thing for A wizard to have pitiful Str, A fighter to have a low Int, A cleric to have a low Dex, etc. It's quite another thing for ALL Wizards to have a pitiful Str, ALL fighters to have a low Int, etc. It shatters versimilitude, for me anyway. I want an RP world to be immersive; if everyone running around is a stereotype because it makes them more effective, that takes my well-rounded immersive experience and turns it into a boardgame.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rando1000 wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Ah yes, but in a party, why not dump to increase the effectiveness of the role you do have in the party. Essentially this comes down to why not take stats away from what you're already not doing to boost what you are doing.

Because it's one thing for A wizard to have pitiful Str, A fighter to have a low Int, A cleric to have a low Dex, etc. It's quite another thing for ALL Wizards to have a pitiful Str, ALL fighters to have a low Int, etc. It shatters versimilitude, for me anyway. I want an RP world to be immersive; if everyone running around is a stereotype because it makes them more effective, that takes my well-rounded immersive experience and turns it into a boardgame.

This is one reason why I hate point-buy.


rando1000 wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Ah yes, but in a party, why not dump to increase the effectiveness of the role you do have in the party. Essentially this comes down to why not take stats away from what you're already not doing to boost what you are doing.

Because it's one thing for A wizard to have pitiful Str, A fighter to have a low Int, A cleric to have a low Dex, etc. It's quite another thing for ALL Wizards to have a pitiful Str, ALL fighters to have a low Int, etc. It shatters versimilitude, for me anyway. I want an RP world to be immersive; if everyone running around is a stereotype because it makes them more effective, that takes my well-rounded immersive experience and turns it into a boardgame.

Its what happens in a system like this. Till there are options that benefit characters who don't prioritize their primary stats, the desire to lower the stats worthless to you will be there. A Fighter has no reason to raise Int since Combat Maneuvers are so pitiful at higher levels. A Wizard is fine with having a low Strength since he knows he can avoid strength damage and mitigate his carrying capacity.

Basically the system rewards the player who prioritizes his main stats and dumps his lower ones. I don't believe the solution is to incur a bunch of metagamey roleplaying penalties for doing this.

I believe the solution would be to just offer methods of rewarding characters who are more rounded out.

Shadow Lodge

Scavion wrote:
rando1000 wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Ah yes, but in a party, why not dump to increase the effectiveness of the role you do have in the party. Essentially this comes down to why not take stats away from what you're already not doing to boost what you are doing.

Because it's one thing for A wizard to have pitiful Str, A fighter to have a low Int, A cleric to have a low Dex, etc. It's quite another thing for ALL Wizards to have a pitiful Str, ALL fighters to have a low Int, etc. It shatters versimilitude, for me anyway. I want an RP world to be immersive; if everyone running around is a stereotype because it makes them more effective, that takes my well-rounded immersive experience and turns it into a boardgame.

Its what happens in a system like this. Till there are options that benefit characters who don't prioritize their primary stats, the desire to lower the stats worthless to you will be there. A Fighter has no reason to raise Int since Combat Maneuvers are so pitiful at higher levels. A Wizard is fine with having a low Strength since he knows he can avoid strength damage and mitigate his carrying capacity.

Basically the system rewards the player who prioritizes his main stats and dumps his lower ones. I don't believe the solution is to {b}incur a bunch of metagamey roleplaying penalties for doing this.{/b}

I believe the solution would be to just offer methods of rewarding characters who are more rounded out.

What does the bolded line mean?

Silver Crusade

Jacob Saltband wrote:
Scavion wrote:
rando1000 wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Ah yes, but in a party, why not dump to increase the effectiveness of the role you do have in the party. Essentially this comes down to why not take stats away from what you're already not doing to boost what you are doing.

Because it's one thing for A wizard to have pitiful Str, A fighter to have a low Int, A cleric to have a low Dex, etc. It's quite another thing for ALL Wizards to have a pitiful Str, ALL fighters to have a low Int, etc. It shatters versimilitude, for me anyway. I want an RP world to be immersive; if everyone running around is a stereotype because it makes them more effective, that takes my well-rounded immersive experience and turns it into a boardgame.

Its what happens in a system like this. Till there are options that benefit characters who don't prioritize their primary stats, the desire to lower the stats worthless to you will be there. A Fighter has no reason to raise Int since Combat Maneuvers are so pitiful at higher levels. A Wizard is fine with having a low Strength since he knows he can avoid strength damage and mitigate his carrying capacity.

Basically the system rewards the player who prioritizes his main stats and dumps his lower ones. I don't believe the solution is to {b}incur a bunch of metagamey roleplaying penalties for doing this.{/b}

I believe the solution would be to just offer methods of rewarding characters who are more rounded out.

What does the bolded line mean?

He means the things like: 'If you only have 7 Int then you have to roll a DC 10 Int check to know what a dog is, or what grass is', etc. ad nauseum.

Shadow Lodge

So people constantly use the ONE person who views things this way(admittedly extreme) as an example of everyones view who disagrees with them?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
So people constantly use the ONE person who views things this way(admittedly extreme) as an example of everyones view who disagrees with them?

It's easier to disagree with a straw man than an actual person.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Scavion wrote:
rando1000 wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Ah yes, but in a party, why not dump to increase the effectiveness of the role you do have in the party. Essentially this comes down to why not take stats away from what you're already not doing to boost what you are doing.

Because it's one thing for A wizard to have pitiful Str, A fighter to have a low Int, A cleric to have a low Dex, etc. It's quite another thing for ALL Wizards to have a pitiful Str, ALL fighters to have a low Int, etc. It shatters versimilitude, for me anyway. I want an RP world to be immersive; if everyone running around is a stereotype because it makes them more effective, that takes my well-rounded immersive experience and turns it into a boardgame.

Its what happens in a system like this. Till there are options that benefit characters who don't prioritize their primary stats, the desire to lower the stats worthless to you will be there. A Fighter has no reason to raise Int since Combat Maneuvers are so pitiful at higher levels. A Wizard is fine with having a low Strength since he knows he can avoid strength damage and mitigate his carrying capacity.

Basically the system rewards the player who prioritizes his main stats and dumps his lower ones. I don't believe the solution is to {b}incur a bunch of metagamey roleplaying penalties for doing this.{/b}

I believe the solution would be to just offer methods of rewarding characters who are more rounded out.

What does the bolded line mean?
He means the things like: 'If you only have 7 Int then you have to roll a DC 10 Int check to know what a dog is, or what grass is', etc. ad nauseum.

Yes, those penalties would be bad. But then, only one person was suggesting that as I recall. Many of the rest were suggesting -- suggesting, mind you -- that it would be nice that if you dump a stat (that sounds like a negative, right?) that something negative should be represented. Or even something not great. Or even average. Instead, it is often seen as bad to be slow, or stupid, or clumsy, and so on.

To be clear, you aren't incurring any extra penalty. You are representing the penalty that you already have.


rando1000 wrote:
Because it's one thing for A wizard to have pitiful Str, A fighter to have a low Int, A cleric to have a low Dex, etc. It's quite another thing for ALL Wizards to have a pitiful Str, ALL fighters to have a low Int, etc. It shatters versimilitude, for me anyway. I want an RP world to be immersive; if everyone running around is a stereotype because it makes them more effective, that takes my well-rounded immersive experience and turns it into a boardgame.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
This is one reason why I hate point-buy.

What in the world are you guys talking about? All wizards don't have pitiful strength. Plenty have average, and some (whether they were built to be an optimized melee-ing wizard or just for RP reasons) have a bonus. It's like if you look at the math majors in college - plenty of them will fit the unathletic nerd stereotype if you go looking for them, plenty will be average, and a few will be your varsity swim team, etc. I think that's pretty true to life, don't see why it would be a verisimilitude problem for anybody. If it was all fighters that had low strength (because, for some reason, the fluff doesn't match the mechanics and it's better not to) then I would see a problem; but it does, so they don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
So people constantly use the ONE person who views things this way(admittedly extreme) as an example of everyones view who disagrees with them?
It's easier to disagree with a straw man than an actual person.

Its a slippery slope that gets out of hand easily. I've seen a table gang up on the Fighter with a low Int. Its not fun. Anything he does is circumspect to "Are you SMART enough to know or do that?"

It starts with, "You're not smart enough to figure that sorta thing out," and "You shouldnt even get to roll for that."

And thats awful. Folks don't want their characters called mentally disabled just because they wanted some extra health to survive the campaign.

I hold PCs to a higher standard than NPCs. They're heroes in my games and I want them to feel as such regardless of the "merit" put in stats.

I consider anything a player comes up with to be luck if their character couldn't conceivably come up with an idea on something. A smart person can reliably solve a Rubix Cube pretty fast. A less intelligent person might take a few weeks or he could solve it on his first try randomly.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
So people constantly use the ONE person who views things this way(admittedly extreme) as an example of everyones view who disagrees with them?
It's easier to disagree with a straw man than an actual person.

Remy's not an actual person?

Remy may be the only one asking for a check to know what grass is, but other people have said things along similar lines. For example, quite a few pulled the "There are no 7's in the basic array so 7 Int makes you literally the stupidest human who has ever lived in the entire world and so you are superhumanly mentally disabled!!" nonsense.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasmancer wrote:
rando1000 wrote:
Because it's one thing for A wizard to have pitiful Str, A fighter to have a low Int, A cleric to have a low Dex, etc. It's quite another thing for ALL Wizards to have a pitiful Str, ALL fighters to have a low Int, etc. It shatters versimilitude, for me anyway. I want an RP world to be immersive; if everyone running around is a stereotype because it makes them more effective, that takes my well-rounded immersive experience and turns it into a boardgame.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
This is one reason why I hate point-buy.
What in the world are you guys talking about? All wizards don't have pitiful strength. Plenty have average, and some (whether they were built to be an optimized melee-ing wizard or just for RP reasons) have a bonus. It's like if you look at the math majors in college - plenty of them will fit the unathletic nerd stereotype if you go looking for them, plenty will be average, and a few will be your varsity swim team, etc. I think that's pretty true to life, don't see why it would be a verisimilitude problem for anybody. If it was all fighters that had low strength (because, for some reason, the fluff doesn't match the mechanics and it's better not to) then I would see a problem; but it does, so they don't.

When the character generation method you employ allows you to alter the abilities point by point, then the player considers if each point would be better spent here or here. Then the answer comes pretty quickly: it's better to have high stats in the abilities your class needs and dump the stats your class doesn't need, than it is to have average stats across the scores. Because you can do this, then you do.

Because the same abilities are important/unimportant for a particular class then each wizard's abilities start to look like every other wizard's, each fighter's look like every other fighter's, and so on.

This doesn't model how it would be! Imagine visiting a wizard college and seeing every student with the same Str, the same Dex, etc.

With rolled stats, some sets of six scores will be better than others, and although the same abilities will be important/unimportant, the vagaries of rolling will mean that interesting possible combinations will crop up.

The only thing going for point-buy is that you can be sure that each player gets the same points. This is seen as more important than all the other factors. I don't like the results.

Shadow Lodge

Roberta Yang wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
So people constantly use the ONE person who views things this way(admittedly extreme) as an example of everyones view who disagrees with them?
It's easier to disagree with a straw man than an actual person.

Remy's not an actual person?

Remy may be the only one asking for a check to know what grass is, but other people have said things along similar lines. For example, quite a few pulled the "There are no 7's in the basic array so 7 Int makes you literally the stupidest human who has ever lived in the entire world and so you are superhumanly mentally disabled!!" nonsense.

Give some quotes from earlier posts on this.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

When the character generation method you employ allows you to alter the abilities point by point, then the player considers if each point would be better spent here or here. Then the answer comes pretty quickly: it's better to have high stats in the abilities your class needs and dump the stats your class doesn't need, than it is to have average stats across the scores. Because you can do this, then you do.

Because the same abilities are important/unimportant for a particular class then each wizard's abilities start to look like every other wizard's, each fighter's look like every other fighter's, and so on.

This doesn't model how it would be! Imagine visiting a wizard college and seeing every student with the same Str, the same Dex, etc.

With rolled stats, some sets of six scores will be better than others, and although the same abilities will be important/unimportant, the vagaries of rolling will mean that interesting possible combinations will crop up.

I just explained in my post that they don't all have the same stats, and that it does in fact model how it would be. I don't see what's so "interesting" about the combinations that emerge from dicerolling. There's only so much shading to be had in the 3-18 point system (or 7-20, as the case). Wizards are still going to put the highest stat in Int, they're not going to deliberately drop Dex or Con (unless thats part of the concept), etc.

I don't see why you seem so offended that, when people have limited resources to allocate, they try to allocate them in such a way as to be advantageous. Like the players only have so much gold to spend too, do you begrudge them for spending it on adventuring equipment and magic items instead of frosty chocolate milkshakes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
So people constantly use the ONE person who views things this way(admittedly extreme) as an example of everyones view who disagrees with them?
It's easier to disagree with a straw man than an actual person.

Remy's not an actual person?

Remy may be the only one asking for a check to know what grass is, but other people have said things along similar lines. For example, quite a few pulled the "There are no 7's in the basic array so 7 Int makes you literally the stupidest human who has ever lived in the entire world and so you are superhumanly mentally disabled!!" nonsense.

Give some quotes from earlier posts on this.

Gladly.

DrDeth wrote:
Yes, but no one has a 7 on that scale, without racial minuses.
Jiggy wrote:
Sarcasmancer wrote:
What's so bad about dumping to 7 vs dumping to 8?

I haven't read the whole thread, but I wanted to reply to this in particular.

An 8 is within the realm of "normal" in the game world. The teeming masses have (pre-racial) stats ranging from 8-13 (also including a 9). Even the heroic, PC-classed NPCs include an 8.

(Of course, some people will label even this representation of a normal person as "min-maxing", but whatever.)

This means that a 7 is something that, among the general populace, is only achievable by members of a race with a penalty to that stat. That is, one-third of the dwarven population has CHA of 7 or less, but a human with 7 CHA is a statistical outlier. (One might then imagine a 7 CHA human's companions making remarks like "Geez, it's like working with a friggin' dwarf!")

Now, to be clear: a 7 in a stat is still an entirely functional individual on the whole. I mean, for any given stat there's a race whose penalty means that a third of that race's population has a 7 or below in that stat, yet they all have functional societies. But it does take you across a threshold from "completely normal" to "noticeably different".

So based on what's in the books, that's the difference between 7 and 8: humanoid norms versus "Seriously, do you have a nagaji uncle or something?"

Nobody has a 7! A 7 makes you so dumb you don't even seem human!

Silver Crusade

Sarcasmancer wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

When the character generation method you employ allows you to alter the abilities point by point, then the player considers if each point would be better spent here or here. Then the answer comes pretty quickly: it's better to have high stats in the abilities your class needs and dump the stats your class doesn't need, than it is to have average stats across the scores. Because you can do this, then you do.

Because the same abilities are important/unimportant for a particular class then each wizard's abilities start to look like every other wizard's, each fighter's look like every other fighter's, and so on.

This doesn't model how it would be! Imagine visiting a wizard college and seeing every student with the same Str, the same Dex, etc.

With rolled stats, some sets of six scores will be better than others, and although the same abilities will be important/unimportant, the vagaries of rolling will mean that interesting possible combinations will crop up.

I just explained in my post that they don't all have the same stats, and that it does in fact model how it would be. I don't see what's so "interesting" about the combinations that emerge from dicerolling. There's only so much shading to be had in the 3-18 point system (or 7-20, as the case). Wizards are still going to put the highest stat in Int, they're not going to deliberately drop Dex or Con (unless thats part of the concept), etc.

I don't see why you seem so offended that, when people have limited resources to allocate, they try to allocate them in such a way as to be advantageous. Like the players only have so much gold to spend too, do you begrudge them for spending it on adventuring equipment and magic items instead of frosty chocolate milkshakes?

Then I'll try to be more precise. Because point-buy allows you to spend a very limited budget on ability scores, then it encourages characters that are, through the pressures of spending those points wisely to get an effective character, more and more similar to all the others of the same class, to the detriment of verisimilitude.

Further, the idea that each person is as 'good' as every other (in terms of how high their ability scores are) is absurd! IRL, some people would have high scores across the board and others would have low scores. Real life is not a zero sum game! If a real person increases their strength they don't suddenly get less intelligent, but point-buy forces players to make those choices!

The standard PC and NPC arrays are intended to be aids to character creation, not the definition of ability scores for each creature on the planet! The idea that every creature has exactly one 13, one 12, one 11, one 10, one 9 and one 8 is absurd! Yet some here misunderstand this game aid as if it were some game-world truth!


Why does this character's IQ jump up when she reaches 4th level?

School of hard knocks.

451 to 500 of 978 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Point Buy - Down to 7 All Messageboards