i did the math
your method, average roll is 11.8
mine is 13.
so I see your point. though is it really that intense of a change?
It's fairly marginal; I just prefer my side of the margin. Your method would represent a small increase in power that would only be noticeable on a macro level, in all likelihood. Hardly the end of the world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a tradeoff...a bit of customization is sacrificed in exchange for playing in a world full of believable people.
What you find believable and what I find believable evidently differs dramatically.
I don't find it at all surprising that the people you see in Google's labs tend to be intelligent but not athletic, or that the people you see on the football field tend to be athletic but of average intelligence or below. I don't find it difficult to believe that pilots tend to have good eyesight and that musicians tend to have good hearing, or that dancers tend to have good balance and salespeople tend to have good people skills.
Evidently you find these difficult to believe despite the fact that they're all well documented.
It's a tradeoff...a bit of customization is sacrificed in exchange for playing in a world full of believable people.What you find believable and what I find believable evidently differs dramatically.
I don't find it at all surprising that the people you see in Google's labs tend to be intelligent but not athletic, or that the people you see on the football field tend to be athletic but of average intelligence or below. I don't find it difficult to believe that pilots tend to have good eyesight and that musicians tend to have good hearing, or that dancers tend to have good balance and salespeople tend to have good people skills.
Evidently you find these difficult to believe despite the fact that they're all well documented.
What part of CHOOSE YOUR PRIMARY STATS is unclear to you? No theoretical pilot in my game would have bad eyesight unless his player wanted it that way. Seriously, this is a dull critique, to include the silly assumptions about where engineers and athletes fall on the bell curve of their respective "secondary" traits.
Hint: being good at something does not have any particular bearing on one's ability to do something else. Some people are specialized to the point of disability, and others are not. Humans span the whole range of values. If you actually think that point-buy and stat-dumping leads to more believable outcomes, you probably hang out with too many basement-dwellers.
@Bandw2
Say you were in a group and you all decided to roll stats, roll random personality flaws/traits, then decide class and role play the resulting character?
I have found such games to be fun for when you just wanna play around with your friends. Not the type of game you'd write a backstory and character you want to develop, more like a beer and pretzel kind of thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What part of CHOOSE YOUR PRIMARY STATS is unclear to you?
It's a tradeoff...a bit of customization is sacrificed in exchange for playing in a world full of believable people.What you find believable and what I find believable evidently differs dramatically.
I don't find it at all surprising that the people you see in Google's labs tend to be intelligent but not athletic, or that the people you see on the football field tend to be athletic but of average intelligence or below. I don't find it difficult to believe that pilots tend to have good eyesight and that musicians tend to have good hearing, or that dancers tend to have good balance and salespeople tend to have good people skills.
Evidently you find these difficult to believe despite the fact that they're all well documented.
The part where being an engineer doesn't take away from the time you spend in the gymnasium.
Hint: being good at something does not have any particular bearing on one's ability to do something else.
Wrong. The reason professional athletes are as athletic as they are is because of the time and effort they spend practicing. The NCAA has does surveys showing that varsity athletes average forty hours a week at athletic-related activities. (For example, football players in major college programs spend 44.8 hours per week in football-related activity, on average, according to a 2009 survey.)
That's time they're not spending in class, in lab, and in the library. The NCAA recognizes this, and actually has an official rule forbidding students from being required to spend 20 or more hours per week in athletic-related activity, but of course, students can "voluntarily" spend as much time as they want in the weight room after practice is over, and the students who are hoping for an NFL career will do so, at the expense of chemistry class.
Similarly, the academic underperformance of varsity athletes, especially in major sports programs, is well-documented. Football players at major programs average more than 200 points lower on their SAT scores than their classmates. We can argue about whether this is because football players simply lack SAT-level intelligence, or have not practiced any skills demanding they develop/retain it, but the strong/dumb football player is far from a groundless stereotype.
(The numbers for basketball players at major programs, by the way, are even worse than for football players.)
Possibly, but you should still be able to pick which structure you want to build around.
The fact of the matter is, while I might be willing to play whatever and whenever (in fact that's been one of my bigger problems as a D&D player), not everyone will and I just can't see how it's a good thing to have a player walk up to you, tell you he really is in the mood to play a sorcerer, only for you to say "Nope, only giving you 5 charisma today" and sending him off.
Now, that's just not fair. To re-iterate, my stat generation process follows. Players can choose one of the following:
1) Any stat 18, the rest rolled 3D6, in order [minimum 8 before racial adjustment]
2) Any two stats 16, the rest rolled 3D6, in order [minimum 8 before racial adjustment]
3) Any three stats 14, the rest rolled 3D6, in order [minimum 8 before racial adjustment]
4) 4D6, drop lowest, in order [minimum 8 before racial adjustment]My players are never put in the position of being unable to build characters who can excel in their roles. If you want to play a sorcerer, you can start with a 20 CHA. The other stats are a matter of luck, but the 8 lower bound means that they will average about 12 (up from 10.5), so you're not that bad off with randomness. This is about the equivalent of a 25 point-buy, on average.
If the charismatic fighter is really what you want to play, then take 14s in STR, CON and CHA. The players still have plenty of agency in character creation, but just not quite enough to fully optimize.
What if a player asked if he could just take a 20 point buy which is 5 points lower than your average and agreed not to dump stats. I would much rather do that. Normally I roll really well for stats, but I dont want to depend on luck when making character.
How well do I normally roll? My low roll is normally a 14, and I don't tend to get more than 2.
Wrong. The reason professional athletes are as athletic as they are is because of the time and effort they spend practicing.
A lot of it is trained, but much of it is natural also. When it comes to RAW ability many people can be really strong, but speed is mostly a gift. Now some people are naturally really strong + they train.
As for the ability to play a sport a lot of that can be natural depending on the sport, not that practice(training) hurts anything.
Like I said earlier, this is a style that works best over time. The vicissitudes of dice rolling always even out eventually, and if you play a few toons, you'll get some mix of strong, weak and average (which is pretty strong to begin with). I wouldn't recommend my style for one-off adventures, and it would be a bloodbath for something like PFS, but it works quite well if you stick with it.I really think the whole "play a few toons" thing is the core of my issue with all of this.
I like my characters. I don't want to play something weird that might be fun for a session or two...
That "something weird" is going to be a lot less "weird" by any standard definition of the word than your typical point buy monstrosity. It will be, unless you intentionally make perverse decisions, quite good in its primary role, and have some undetermined degree of strength and/or weakness in its other qualities...like pretty much everybody you find in specialized jobs.
It's a tradeoff...a bit of customization is sacrificed in exchange for playing in a world full of believable people.
I'm guessing you missed the part about my players generally running 2-3 PCs at any given time, who are played based on where the action is in the world during a particular session. This helps address your concerns, as does, perhaps, the setting's general lethality.
they're only unbelievable if you require stats or use stats for what the character does. I don't even require people with 18 strength need to be particularly buff either. the only problem with this is carry capacity, which I simply write off at them being naturally good at organizing their inventory.
i feel like mentioning a story(this is only tangentially related but i feel it offers substance to how i play) and the character I'm currently playing is a dragon. We were in an elven town, and the world we were on didn't have many dragons, so the elves just considered me an unusually intelligent animal. My dragon was a cartographer of the lost isles, offering details maps in exchange for protection and the ability to wandering other dragon's lands freely. well, when being forceably teleported to another plane by a god-wizard he didn't bring along all my stuff, why is this relevant? my class is investigator, so i spent the first 2 sessions attempting to gain alchemical supplies and a book to rerecord my formulae in. when i finally, managed to get a party member (with hatchling-dragon eyes) to buy me a book and some pockets and straps to hold supplies on me (i was an adventurous dragon so i'm used to dragging my hoard around with me) . another player asked where i was storing my book. and I blank faced looked at him and said "in my inventory" and left it at that.
I'd maybe, consider it believable(that his rules make sense) from his perspective if he had people choose class and race FIRST, then rolled in order.
To further the point: Practice is vital for technique. But you really can't convince me that the reason virtually all NBA stars are tall because they practiced being tall, not because they're naturally tall.Wrong. The reason professional athletes are as athletic as they are is because of the time and effort they spend practicing.
A lot of it is trained, but much of it is natural also. When it comes to RAW ability many people can be really strong, but speed is mostly a gift. Now some people are naturally really strong + they train.
As for the ability to play a sport a lot of that can be natural depending on the sport, not that practice(training) hurts anything.
I never said that. But I will say -- and do say -- that the reason they can run continuously for 60 minutes is because they spend so much time running (training Constitution), and the reason they can bench 225 pounds 40 times is because they spend so much time in the weight room (training Strength).
Stats in the real world aren't purely genetic, and we don't know what they are in Pathfinder. If you want to be stronger, lift weights. If you want to be smarter, read and take classes, and if you want to be more charismatic, join Toastmasters. But if you spend all your time lifting weights, you're not going to spend that time in the library.
To further the point: Practice is vital for technique. But you really can't convince me that the reason virtually all NBA stars are tall because they practiced being tall, not because they're naturally tall.Wrong. The reason professional athletes are as athletic as they are is because of the time and effort they spend practicing.
A lot of it is trained, but much of it is natural also. When it comes to RAW ability many people can be really strong, but speed is mostly a gift. Now some people are naturally really strong + they train.
As for the ability to play a sport a lot of that can be natural depending on the sport, not that practice(training) hurts anything.
I never said that. But I will say -- and do say -- that the reason they can run continuously for 60 minutes is because they spend so much time running (training Constitution), and the reason they can bench 225 pounds 40 times is because they spend so much time in the weight room (training Strength).
Stats in the real world aren't purely genetic, and we don't know what they are in Pathfinder. If you want to be stronger, lift weights. If you want to be smarter, read and take classes, and if you want to be more charismatic, join Toastmasters. But if you spend all your time lifting weights, you're not going to spend that time in the library.
If you are intelligent which is something you are born with the library time allows you to learn more facts. PF however is an abstraction so it is hard to differentiate between someone who can figure things out, and someone who just reads a lot.
You can certainly be a pro athlete and a scholar. A member of the Chicago Bears started his own company based on engineering. Being charasmatic is mostly natural, even though people can learn to pick up on certain cues. It just so happens that in real life people are not born being able to excel in everything, but there is no reason to say it can't be done by anyone.
Master P(a rapper) is fairly intelligent(started his own company and made a few movies to extend his money), charismatic, was a good athletic(almost made the NBA despite not seriously playing basketball for a long time). I am sure others could do this, but they dont have the drive(ambition, which is not a PF stat) to do all of these things because they become complacent. If I had millions of dollars I doubt I would never get to be billionaire because I would be happy enough with my millions.
I pretty much believe the stats only represent physical limitations, such as how much education you received, how much you can bench, and how many spells you can will into existence at maximum.
[url=http://www.wikihow.com/Improve-Your-IQ]No, but that's taking us far afield.If you are intelligent which is something you are born with the library time allows you to learn more facts.I never said that. But I will say -- and do say -- that the reason they can run continuously for 60 minutes is because they spend so much time running (training Constitution), and the reason they can bench 225 pounds 40 times is because they spend so much time in the weight room (training Strength).
Stats in the real world aren't purely genetic, and we don't know what they are in Pathfinder. If you want to be stronger, lift weights. If you want to be smarter, read and take classes, and if you want to be more charismatic, join Toastmasters. But if you spend all your time lifting weights, you're not going to spend that time in the library.
PF however is an abstraction so it is hard to differentiate between someone who can figure things out, and someone who just reads a lot.
But it's not hard to figure out the difference between someone who can figure things out and someone who can't, because he's never learned problem-solving skills.
You can certainly be a pro athlete and a scholar. A member of the Chicago Bears started his own company based on engineering.
You can, but it's far from common, and in fact, it's less believable than being a pro athlete and not being a scholar.
If you wanted a realistic way to model human variation, you'd use point buy with a variable number of points (perhaps 3d6+ 5, giving you between 8 points and 23 points), reflecting the fact that some people are born with sufficient talent that they can actually develop multiple attributes and you get people like Danica McKellar or Myron Rolle, and people who have few measureable talents (perhaps due to actual disabilities). Of course, this wouldn't be fun -- point buy persists because people in general like it better.
If you are intelligent which is something you are born with the library time allows you to learn more facts.I never said that. But I will say -- and do say -- that the reason they can run continuously for 60 minutes is because they spend so much time running (training Constitution), and the reason they can bench 225 pounds 40 times is because they spend so much time in the weight room (training Strength).
Stats in the real world aren't purely genetic, and we don't know what they are in Pathfinder. If you want to be stronger, lift weights. If you want to be smarter, read and take classes, and if you want to be more charismatic, join Toastmasters. But if you spend all your time lifting weights, you're not going to spend that time in the library.
No, but that's taking us far afield.
PF however is an abstraction so it is hard to differentiate between someone who can figure things out, and someone who just reads a lot.But it's not hard to figure out the difference between someone who can figure things out and someone who can't, because he's never learned problem-solving skills.
You can certainly be a pro athlete and a scholar. A member of the Chicago Bears started his own company based on engineering.You can, but it's far from common, and in fact, it's less believable than being a pro athlete and not being a scholar.
If you wanted a realistic way to model human variation, you'd use point buy with a variable number of points (perhaps 3d6+ 5, giving you between 8 points and 23 points), reflecting the fact that some people are born with sufficient talent that they can actually develop multiple attributes and you get people like Danica McKellar or Myron Rolle, and people who have few measureable talents (perhaps due to actual disabilities). Of course, this wouldn't be fun -- point buy persists because people[/url]...
The ability scores are about ability with regard to this discussion, not what choices are made. People don't normally pursue athletic and scholarly things because they dont have the time, and reason or will to devote to both. Your argument unless I misunderstand you is that the ability is not there. Not doing something does not mean you cant do it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO Pathfinder does not work well as a roguelike. Even 3.5 was better for that play-style with the way experience was calculated and how XP loss was something that could actually happen.
Random stats and random health work just fine in roguelike games because you are expected to churn through characters regularly to keep the game fresh and interesting. PnP RPGs have long since evolved past depending on this crutch.
Stats in the real world aren't purely genetic, and we don't know what they are in Pathfinder. If you want to be stronger, lift weights. If you want to be smarter, read and take classes, and if you want to be more charismatic, join Toastmasters. But if you spend all your time lifting weights, you're not going to spend that time in the library.
You could always just turn it around, and say that in the real world active maintenance is necessary to avoid maladies that penalize the stats in question.
Stats in the real world aren't purely genetic, and we don't know what they are in Pathfinder. If you want to be stronger, lift weights. If you want to be smarter, read and take classes, and if you want to be more charismatic, join Toastmasters. But if you spend all your time lifting weights, you're not going to spend that time in the library.You could always just turn it around, and say that in the real world active maintenance is necessary to avoid maladies that penalize the stats in question.
You could, but the effect on character stats is still the same. The fighter who spends all his time swinging swords at poles and punching sandbags will be maintaining his strength (while his intelligence and charisma drop), and the alchemist will be spending all his time poring over formularies and maintaining his intelligence (while his strength drops).
Or he will also be doing exercise, because as research shows ... A good exercise session after study helps memory retention.You could, but the effect on character stats is still the same. The fighter who spends all his time swinging swords at poles and punching sandbags will be maintaining his strength (while his intelligence and charisma drop), and the alchemist will be spending all his time poring over formularies and maintaining his intelligence (while his strength drops).
If he chooses, yes. Nothing keeps you from buying a non-optimized ability array, possibly to reflect exactly this sort of character choice. He may even be an avid marathon runner.
The issue is not whether or not a character with well-balanced stats is possible, but whether one with optimized stats is realistic and believable. Does the "dumb jock" exist only in stereotyped fiction? Of course not. Does the weedy chemistry nerd exist only in stereotyped fiction? Of course not.
But for some reason various people think that a weedy wizard and stupid fighter are not credible.
They can be credible.
But for some reason various people think that a weedy wizard and stupid fighter are not credible.
Well, I'm glad you acknowledge that; there are a number of people on this thread who seem to feel that the geek who spends more time in the laboratory than the gym is implausible, that NFL players are all medical students, and that the best qualification for a degree in law is the ability to juggle skillfully, because otherwise you have a person with a dump stat, a person who is better at what he needs to do and does professionally than he is at a hobby he has no interest in.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
i don't understand the point of this back and forth.
|
Also why are we talking about ability score generation in a thread about build specialization? I mean, how you generate them doesn't really matter. Some person's houserules matter even less. What does matter is incredibly simple, is having more of your primary stat better? (yes) Do you need to dump everything else to get it? (not really, no) Are there some stats that just have no use whatever for some classes? (absolutely) If someone wants to build a charismatic wizard, they will. It'd be a terrible guide that advised people to put a bunch of points into charisma if it's only useful for that one single character type unless that's what the guide is all about.How we got here: (at least) one player felt guides being too specialized extended to sample stat spreads, specifically that of Trentmonk's Wizard, and things spiraled out of control from there.
And thus we bring it full circle: when writing a guide, should we specifically balance "a Wizard doesn't need Charisma, dump it!" against "Well you might not want to dump Charisma and just leave it at 10" against "Any Wizard with Cha is a stupid Wizard".
Which is why most guides primarily give stat priorities (X stat is better than Y stat). Sample stat arrays are just supplements for speed/laziness. Understanding a class' stat priority is important, if nothing else so you can chose just how much you want to deviate from the "stereotypical stat array".
EDIT: Really it just comes down to the difference between knowing what is optimal and religiously following it.
I'd maybe, consider it believable(that his rules make sense) from his perspective if he had people choose class and race FIRST, then rolled in order.
This is how I do it, yes. Class, race, and the primary stats (or rather, the stats that the player prioritizes most) are chosen, and then the rest of the stats are rolled. The PCs are always, always statistically strong in their primary roles, but they vary in their secondary statistics.
But for some reason various people think that a weedy wizard and stupid fighter are not credible.
They can be credible.
Well, I'm glad you acknowledge that; there are a number of people on this thread who seem to feel that the geek who spends more time in the laboratory than the gym is implausible, that NFL players are all medical students, and that the best qualification for a degree in law is the ability to juggle skillfully, because otherwise you have a person with a dump stat, a person who is better at what he needs to do and does professionally than he is at a hobby he has no interest in.
No one has actually argued that. I'm not sure if this is a straw man, or if you're genuinely confused about what is being asserted here. I don't know where you get the idea that the above is the argument, but it is not from the actual words of any posts in this thread.
My argument is that the geek is plausible, as is the multi-talented person who can design a database and dunk a basketball. Random rolling of secondary stats will produce both people, not only the all-rounder. There will be marked differences in skills based on job/roles selected (and PF does a fine job of modeling this), but in terms of raw potential, between two people born with big brains, the squirrely geek with thick glasses and no social skills and the all-rounder Tony Stark-type are both equally plausible.
You get that, right? Random rolling of secondary stats will produce plenty of geeks, but it will not produce the all-geek, all the time world that point-buy optimization strongly encourages.
*Shrug* Sure. But the secret fire does seem to require stats to be role-played. Which is fine, so long as his players are enjoying themselves. But it doesn't answer the baseline question of "what makes a realistically portrayed dump stat nonbelievable".
I have already answered this question, but I will answer it again. Nothing makes it unbelievable for any particular character. What is unbelievable is an entire world full of them, which is what point-buy tends to produce.
What if a player asked if he could just take a 20 point buy which is 5 points lower than your average and agreed not to dump stats
If I trusted the player...sure! I might even let you play a Bard ;)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right. And yet... we have people who are vehemently against the notion of those standard arrays including a dump, as evidenced by the fact that this thread is 300+ posts. So do we include a note for them or write them off?Which is why most guides primarily give stat priorities (X stat is better than Y stat). Sample stat arrays are just supplements for speed/laziness. Understanding a class' stat priority is important, if nothing else so you can chose just how much you want to deviate from the "stereotypical stat array".How we got here: (at least) one player felt guides being too specialized extended to sample stat spreads, specifically that of Trentmonk's Wizard, and things spiraled out of control from there.
And thus we bring it full circle: when writing a guide, should we specifically balance "a Wizard doesn't need Charisma, dump it!" against "Well you might not want to dump Charisma and just leave it at 10" against "Any Wizard with Cha is a stupid Wizard".
Honestly, I think a lot of the people frothing at the mouth about dump stats would still complain if people didn't dump, it would just change from "anyone who dumps a stat to 7 is evil and wrong" to "anyone who keeps a stat at the baseline of 10 is evil and wrong."
I'd maybe, consider it believable(that his rules make sense) from his perspective if he had people choose class and race FIRST, then rolled in order.This is how I do it, yes. Class, race, and the primary stats (or rather, the stats that the player prioritizes most) are chosen, and then the rest of the stats are rolled. The PCs are always, always statistically strong in their primary roles, but they vary in their secondary statistics.
in that case you might be interested in looking up what they did in ADnD to stop people from not being able to play classes with stat restrictions. important stats that needed a stat to be extremely high to match the restriction(I think this was paladin's charisma), got 5d6d2, important stats got 4d6d1, while "dump" stats or stats someone wouldn't train for their class(necessarily), got 3d6.(so maybe instead of straight 4d6d1, give them the option of 2 5d6d2 but with 2 3d6 they could place around)
@the secret fire.
Have you had any issues with players taking classes dependant upon only one statistic? I can imagine most high tier casters maintaining most if not all of their effectiveness. An Oracle would suffer no ill effects from random tertiary stats.
@the secret fire.
Have you had any issues with players taking classes dependant upon only one statistic? I can imagine most high tier casters maintaining most if not all of their effectiveness. An Oracle would suffer no ill effects from random tertiary stats.
The two sixteens method is actually the most common, even for SAD classes. MAD classes like the Paladin or Bloodrager can just take the three fourteens, which seems to work out fine.
It's a difficult question to answer in context, however, as my classes are seriously rebalanced amongst themselves. Full progression casters are still the strongest, but pure martials like Rogue and Fighter are actually pretty strong, and get a lot of play. My rules make succeeding in combat with DEX easier, as well, so the martials end up coming out of stat generation with a lot of options.
I will let players reconsider their class choice after they see the dice if they happen to get a lucky roll in the secondary stats. This has helped the MAD classes somewhat, for obvious reasons.
@the secret fire.
Have you had any issues with players taking classes dependant upon only one statistic? I can imagine most high tier casters maintaining most if not all of their effectiveness. An Oracle would suffer no ill effects from random tertiary stats.The two sixteens method is actually the most common, even for SAD classes. MAD classes like the Paladin or Bloodrager can just take the three fourteens, which seems to work out fine.
It's a difficult question to answer in context, however, as my classes are seriously rebalanced amongst themselves. Full progression casters are still the strongest, but pure martials like Rogue and Fighter are actually pretty strong, and get a lot of play. My rules make succeeding in combat with DEX easier, as well, so the martials end up coming out of stat generation with a lot of options.
I will let players reconsider their class choice after they see the dice if they happen to get a lucky roll in the secondary stats. This has helped the MAD classes somewhat, for obvious reasons.
So what I am seeing is that you have a vastly altered game running, and you trying to talk about general Pathfinder by appealing to experiences drawn from this explicitly house-ruled version of it.
Well of course you know what works for your version of a PnP RPG, but assuming your perceptions have any barring on what others are doing in Pathfinder is fallacious.
Perhaps in your version, guides and same stats do lead to the same characters and are a problem. I wouldn't know. So far details of your game do not exist in material I can reference.
One example of the vast difference between the game most of us are playing are your game would be that the Paladin is MAD in your game. Which I can assure you is not the case in the PF class I read.
So what I am seeing is that you have a vastly altered game running, and you trying to talk about general Pathfinder by appealing to experiences drawn from this explicitly house-ruled version of it.
Well of course you know what works for your version of a PnP RPG, but assuming your perceptions have any barring on what others are doing in Pathfinder is fallacious.
Perhaps in your version, guides and same stats do lead to the same characters and are a problem. I wouldn't know. So far details of your game do not exist in material I can reference.
One example of the vast difference between the game most of us are playing are your game would be that the Paladin is MAD in your game. Which I can assure you is not the case in the PF class I read.
You apparently missed the part where I ran point-buy games from, let's see...the beginning of D&D 3rd edition to a few years ago. I have more than enough experience with what pure point-buy leads to on a macro level. Again, the problem is not with any individual character and his dump stats (there are many possible believable archetypes), but with a system which leads to a whole world full of such characters, and almost nothing but.
MAD simply means "multiple attribute dependent". The PF Paladin is not as MAD as the 3.5 version was because he no longer needs Wisdom, but I assure you, the class does not need only a single stat like the Wizard and Oracle, for example. Most of the Paladins I've seen have taken 14s in STR, CON and CHA. Yes, it is still a MAD class in relative terms.
|
|
So what I am seeing is that you have a vastly altered game running, and you trying to talk about general Pathfinder by appealing to experiences drawn from this explicitly house-ruled version of it.
Well of course you know what works for your version of a PnP RPG, but assuming your perceptions have any barring on what others are doing in Pathfinder is fallacious.
Perhaps in your version, guides and same stats do lead to the same characters and are a problem. I wouldn't know. So far details of your game do not exist in material I can reference.
One example of the vast difference between the game most of us are playing are your game would be that the Paladin is MAD in your game. Which I can assure you is not the case in the PF class I read.
You apparently missed the part where I ran point-buy games from, let's see...the beginning of D&D 3rd edition to a few years ago. I have more than enough experience with what pure point-buy leads to on a macro level. Again, the problem is not with any individual character and his dump stats (there are many possible believable archetypes), but with a system which leads to a whole world full of such characters, and almost nothing but.
MAD simply means "multiple attribute dependent". The PF Paladin is not as MAD as the 3.5 version was because he no longer needs Wisdom, but I assure you, the class does not need only a single stat like the Wizard and Oracle, for example. Most of the Paladins I've seen have taken 14s in STR, CON and CHA. Yes, it is still a MAD class in relative terms.
I can't comment on what you're experiences are, but I will say that based on the information given, if I were to play in one of your games I would strongly prefer characters that only needed one "class" stat.
Of the "purchased" options (one 18, two 16s, or three 14s), the two 16s are the best value with a 20 point total value, versus 17 points for the 18 and 15 points for the three 14s. With only two guaranteed high stats, I'm going to want one of them in constitution, since I'll never want to risk a constitution lower than 10. That leaves me with only one guaranteed high stat to distribute. I would probably play a str-based melee or a caster, taking my chances on the rest of the stats.
I think this sort of thinking is where Marroar is coming from. Value-wise, the three 14s are the worst, and I don't want to chance either my main stat or con with the one 18 and rolling the rest, so I get two 16s. One goes to con, and that leaves only one for a "class stat", forcing me into a SAD class.
I guess the followup question would be: do any of your players let their CON be rolled, or is that always one of the "purchased" stats?
Of the "purchased" options (one 18, two 16s, or three 14s), the two 16s are the best value with a 20 point total value, versus 17 points for the 18 and 15 points for the three 14s. With only two...
CON is a common choice for the second stat, though it isn't ubiquitous. Martials pretty frequently take STR/CON or DEX/CON, though right now the group includes a Rogue who took INT/DEX, and rolled a 13 CON, which he chose to increase at his first opportunity. We've also got a STR/INT magus. So that's two out of the current regular five who didn't take CON as a starting stat.
Casting stat/CON is pretty popular, especially for Elves, though it gets about equal play with just taking a straight 18 in the casting stat.
So what I am seeing is that you have a vastly altered game running, and you trying to talk about general Pathfinder by appealing to experiences drawn from this explicitly house-ruled version of it.
Well of course you know what works for your version of a PnP RPG, but assuming your perceptions have any barring on what others are doing in Pathfinder is fallacious.
Perhaps in your version, guides and same stats do lead to the same characters and are a problem. I wouldn't know. So far details of your game do not exist in material I can reference.
One example of the vast difference between the game most of us are playing are your game would be that the Paladin is MAD in your game. Which I can assure you is not the case in the PF class I read.
You apparently missed the part where I ran point-buy games from, let's see...the beginning of D&D 3rd edition to a few years ago. I have more than enough experience with what pure point-buy leads to on a macro level. Again, the problem is not with any individual character and his dump stats (there are many possible believable archetypes), but with a system which leads to a whole world full of such characters, and almost nothing but.
MAD simply means "multiple attribute dependent". The PF Paladin is not as MAD as the 3.5 version was because he no longer needs Wisdom, but I assure you, the class does not need only a single stat like the Wizard and Oracle, for example. Most of the Paladins I've seen have taken 14s in STR, CON and CHA. Yes, it is still a MAD class in relative terms.
Yeah no, paladins do not need to pump con. They can have a 10 or 12 and be just fine. For Paladins, con is just a stat you don't dump.
I also played and GM'd 3.5, and I can tell you that our experiences do not align.
|
@the secret fire -
Do you allow players to change their class after after rolling their stats? For example - if one were to take a 16 in Str/Con intending to play a fighter, but then rolls a 17 Cha, they may decide to play a paladin instead.
(I've actually considered running a game - probably just a 1 shot - where everyone picks just their race, then rolls 4d6 straight down for all of their stats. Only after that do they pick a class. Which would represent a character becoming a class based upon their personal strengths/weaknesses.)
@the secret fire -
Do you allow players to change their class after after rolling their stats? For example - if one were to take a 16 in Str/Con intending to play a fighter, but then rolls a 17 Cha, they may decide to play a paladin instead.
Yes. I see no reason not to, as it gives the players more agency without undermining realism. Arguably, it adds to realism, as people with the "right abilities" tend to gravitate towards the jobs where those abilities are in demand.
The choice of chosen stats and race are binding (though there may be ways of making this more flexible, as well), but class choice can be reconsidered based on the luck of the dice.
In Way of the Wicked we used one 8, one 18, and four 1d10+7s in order (the adventure's method, I believe). I liked it pretty well, although I'm not sure the guy who ended up with 8 Dex and 8 Con liked it as well.
@The secret fire Do any monks play in your games? because i cannot imagine building one. You have to take the worst of the three options, and you are still rolling for one of the stats your class needs: Str, Dex, Con, or Wis. Even if you rolled well you still have terrible starting stats for a class that needs a optimized stat array to be effective.
Also, the two 16 option is by far the best one available. it provides the versatility that the 18 lacks, but gives classes enough raw power in their main class features. Unless of course you are a monk. combat focused rogue or alchemist, etc. Your system screws 6th level casters that want to be able to fight in combat without their spells if needed.
No monks or eastern classes/race in my world. They simply do not fit with the flavor and lore of the setting.
In my opinion, the really MAD classes are hard to handle in any system. They are tough to play unless you get lucky in a system with any randomness, but their "special needs" also create problems in point-buy systems by incentivizing hard-core stat-dumping in the few areas not needed. The devil and the deep blue sea.
DEX is a viable primary stat for offensive combat in my world, so the Rogue and Alchemist aren't as MAD as they are in Core.