| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No contradiction. Point buy does not force you to be a min-maxed horror. It just gives you more opportunity to optimize than rolling.*waves at Bandw2* Let me know how it turns out!
Both allow min-maxing. Point buy allows more. You have more control and thus more opportunity to optimize.And yet I was able to play with 6 point-buy PCs today that were not min-maxed horrors. The attitude of the players still has more to do with how the PCs treat the game than how their stats were generated.
And we don't want people to have more opportunities to optimize, now do we.
Of course, any time Paizo adds literally anything (that is not completely useless) to the set of options available to the player there is another "opportunity to optimize". That's what happens when you give someone more choice. They get it the same, or they it get better. Kinda why people like choice. I guess this means that choice=pure munchkiney evil, right? Because it lets you optimize more.
This is why a lot of people on this thread dislike rolling (or at least many types of it). It effectively removes most of the choices available to the player. With many of the methods used (especially 4d6d1) it also can screw over or bless certain players randomly. At least with a stat array (or a set of stat arrays) you can tune it so that it favors weaker classes over stronger classes to make up for the inherent strength of the stronger classes. There is at least a benefit to taking choice away from the player, which is better balance between classes.
With many rolling methods you don't get class balance because the rolls are random and do not favor weaker classes, and you don't get player balance either because some players are just worse off than others no matter what they choose. At least with point buy one player is at the same level of power as another before they start making character choices, instead of one sometimes being better off than the other forever right off the bat purely due to the luck of the dice at character creation. In other words, point buy sometimes punishes players for making certain choices, while many methods of rolling punish players because they didn't get good rolls, and often still punish certain choices on top of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just think it's old phogeys that have always done it that way and are inventing the best justifications as to why that's a legitimate method in a desperate attempt to deny the idea that in the course of decades there might be improvements over their precious nostalgia.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, my players have to face a random world with quests, monsters and rewards (mostly) out of their control. So they should have at least control over their characters, meaning point-buy attributes and full HP. A player feeling totally out of control is a frustrated player and that's not good for the entire table.
|
I detest rolling personally, though the rest of my group is in love with it. Problem is most of the other DMs in the group are very generous about negating the bad rolls and letting them have god characters.
I on the other hand play with a couple of groups and have had the misfortune of playing with a GM who loves rolling and let's the dice fall as they may. My measly 14-pt buy equivalent Barbarian/Druid was playing alongside a 72-pt buy equivalent monster of a Paladin. It was not fun. Sorry if that's petty but it truly is not fun being a 2nd banana with no peel.
Point buy has its problems as well - and honestly, as much as I know it is considered bad form to ever reduce player choice, I think stat arrays are truly the best option for retaining balance and not gimping MAD classes.
|
|
Did you consider asking the GM to let you calculate the Point Buy of your roll and re-allocate them? A druid can rock face with 14 point buy if needbe [though it's certainly not going to support melee wildshape shenanigans or Martial Multiclassing]
EDIT: Lessee...
Strength: 8, Dex: 14, Con: 15, Int: 8, Wis: 18 [16+2], Cha: 8
In the long run that's probably going to outperform just about any Paladin stats-be-damned. Any race with +2 Wis would work but I'd lean towards Human or Dwarf.
Of course this would require that your GM let you re-allocate the points you rolled, which he may have refused. If the stats are too imbalanced for fun a player really only has three choices. Suck it up and deal with it, play very suicidal or walk away from the game. Often rolling GMs are fairly amenable to rerolls if there's too much party imbalance, but it seems that wasn't the case here.
I actually went with a Wildshape-focus, which in PF means no dumping STR. I think my allocation was 18 (16+2) STR, 12 DEX, 14 CON (+1 from 4th Level bump), 8 INT, 14 WIS, 7 CHA. That may not be exactly right, but I do remember figuring out it was 14-pts and that is at least close.
So at 6th level with the Shaping Focus feat I was actually making good of a bad situation - actually, even in a game where the other players were rocking 20-25 point buys, I think I would've held my own.
At least two of the other players rolled something like a 30-pt buy, but the Paladin's stats were absurd. I know he started with a 20 in STR and CHA (player rolled 2 18s and was playing an Angel-blooded Aasimar). I mean yeah, Druids > Paladins typically, but it's not like it was a Monk or Rogue. Paladins are respectable enough to begin with and the stats pushed him far into broken territory.
The GM definitely ruled by Dice-Fall-Where-They-Fall. (Honestly, that would drive me nuts as a GM - nevermind how it screws players. Trying to challenge the guy who just couldn't roll anything under a 15 at character creation would be hell.) I guess his philosophy was that everyone would get an awesome set at some point and everyone would get the crap set, but it definitely wasn't for me. After a session where the Paladin one shotted an enemy whose DR I couldn't overcome no matter what I did (!@$%ing Smite Evil), I decided I'd had enough and walked away.
Heh, I'm the opposite guy.
My ability scores when rolling stats always come out absurdly high compared to average [for example, the last character I played in a rolling game came out to 18, 16, 16, 14, 12, 10 before racial mods] but then I usually can't roll a d20 to save my skin.
i'm guessing you don't JUST roll 4d6d1 and take the first roll.
4d6d1 gave me an 18! Woo!
Why isn't it "4d6r1"?
Both of them allow for min-maxing to get an optimal character. Rolling does nothing to stop that. I can just put my low score into intelligence or charisma after I roll. I don't know why people think rolling stops this.Both allow min-maxing. Point buy allows more. You have more control and thus more opportunity to optimize.
That still does not negate what I said.
I prefer point buy, but rolling doesn't make you useless. You don't need high stats for diplomacy and bluff. The difference between a +5 or a +2 in charisma becomes trivial when you look at all the other ways to boost skills. All you need for a barbarian is strength and constitution, and with toughness and favored class bonus, you could still live without a huge constitution score. A low stat player could also just buff their party with spells. Everyone would love you and you'd definitely make your party better. Also, speaking of goblins, goblins get a +4 to dex, orcs get a +4 to str and dual talent humans can get +2 to two separate stats. That's enough of a boost to make you good at one thing, and being a dumb strong guy or a fragile useful guy isn't bad when you're with a group. Plus, you could always roll god stats.
I prefer point buy, but rolling doesn't make you useless. You don't need high stats for diplomacy and bluff. The difference between a +5 or a +2 in charisma becomes trivial when you look at all the other ways to boost skills. All you need for a barbarian is strength and constitution, and with toughness and favored class bonus, you could still live without a huge constitution score. A low stat player could also just buff their party with spells. Everyone would love you and you'd definitely make your party better. Also, speaking of goblins, goblins get a +4 to dex, orcs get a +4 to str and dual talent humans can get +2 to two separate stats. That's enough of a boost to make you good at one thing, and being a dumb strong guy or a fragile useful guy isn't bad when you're with a group. Plus, you could always roll god stats.
Going from removing a threat from combat 45% of the time, and removing the same threat from combat 30% of the time is a massive difference. That's the difference between the DCs of a charisma based caster.
Skills are actually one of the worst things to look at. Yes, they are really easy to boost and the stat they use doesn't matter that much. Hence (part of) why people dump Cha. On the other hand, on a d6 class 10->14 Con increases HP by nearly 50%. That is huge.
I prefer point buy, but rolling doesn't make you useless. You don't need high stats for diplomacy and bluff. The difference between a +5 or a +2 in charisma becomes trivial when you look at all the other ways to boost skills. All you need for a barbarian is strength and constitution, and with toughness and favored class bonus, you could still live without a huge constitution score. A low stat player could also just buff their party with spells. Everyone would love you and you'd definitely make your party better. Also, speaking of goblins, goblins get a +4 to dex, orcs get a +4 to str and dual talent humans can get +2 to two separate stats. That's enough of a boost to make you good at one thing, and being a dumb strong guy or a fragile useful guy isn't bad when you're with a group. Plus, you could always roll god stats.Going from removing a threat from combat 45% of the time, and removing the same threat from combat 30% of the time is a massive difference. That's the difference between the DCs of a charisma based caster.
Skills are actually one of the worst things to look at. Yes, they are really easy to boost and the stat they use doesn't matter that much. Hence why people dump Cha. On the other hand, on a d6 class 10->14 Con increases HP by nearly 50%. That is huge.
I wasn't talking about charisma on casters though, I was talking about charisma for liars and negotiators who, in the right context, don't need to do much else. If you rolled straight tens and wanted to be a caster though, you could still summon stuff or cast stuff like fly, haste, invisibility, or any spells that don't have or need saves. I'm not saying rolling straight tens is ideal, but even if you do you aren't doomed.
I prefer point buy, but rolling doesn't make you useless. You don't need high stats for diplomacy and bluff. The difference between a +5 or a +2 in charisma becomes trivial when you look at all the other ways to boost skills. All you need for a barbarian is strength and constitution, and with toughness and favored class bonus, you could still live without a huge constitution score. A low stat player could also just buff their party with spells. Everyone would love you and you'd definitely make your party better. Also, speaking of goblins, goblins get a +4 to dex, orcs get a +4 to str and dual talent humans can get +2 to two separate stats. That's enough of a boost to make you good at one thing, and being a dumb strong guy or a fragile useful guy isn't bad when you're with a group. Plus, you could always roll god stats.Going from removing a threat from combat 45% of the time, and removing the same threat from combat 30% of the time is a massive difference. That's the difference between the DCs of a charisma based caster.
Skills are actually one of the worst things to look at. Yes, they are really easy to boost and the stat they use doesn't matter that much. Hence (part of) why people dump Cha. On the other hand, on a d6 class 10->14 Con increases HP by nearly 50%. That is huge.
If we're talking lvl 1 survivability, then low stats should just be an indicator that you should play something that doesn't die easy, which would still leave tons of options even with low stats. I usually start at lvl 5 though, so I didn't take that into consideration.
. If you rolled straight tens and wanted to be a caster thoughExcept that pesky 'Your casting attribute must be at least 10+the level of spell to be cast' clause.
Ah, never played one, escapism for me almost exclusively means hitting things. I guess that goes to show I shouldn't talk about stuff I don't fully understand. Still though, with a racial +2 and a +1 to any stat every 4 levels, you could roll straight tens and still be able to cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're talking lvl 1 survivability, then low stats should just be an indicator that you should play something that doesn't die easy, which would still leave tons of options even with low stats. I usually start at lvl 5 though, so I didn't take that into consideration.I prefer point buy, but rolling doesn't make you useless. You don't need high stats for diplomacy and bluff. The difference between a +5 or a +2 in charisma becomes trivial when you look at all the other ways to boost skills. All you need for a barbarian is strength and constitution, and with toughness and favored class bonus, you could still live without a huge constitution score. A low stat player could also just buff their party with spells. Everyone would love you and you'd definitely make your party better. Also, speaking of goblins, goblins get a +4 to dex, orcs get a +4 to str and dual talent humans can get +2 to two separate stats. That's enough of a boost to make you good at one thing, and being a dumb strong guy or a fragile useful guy isn't bad when you're with a group. Plus, you could always roll god stats.Going from removing a threat from combat 45% of the time, and removing the same threat from combat 30% of the time is a massive difference. That's the difference between the DCs of a charisma based caster.
Skills are actually one of the worst things to look at. Yes, they are really easy to boost and the stat they use doesn't matter that much. Hence (part of) why people dump Cha. On the other hand, on a d6 class 10->14 Con increases HP by nearly 50%. That is huge.
Classes that "don't die easy" are usually frontliners. A 10 con frontliner is a bad idea.
Sure, you could play an archer, but that's about it, and you will more likely than not just lose against any form of will save. The reason you will fail is because if a d6 class couldn't afford a good con they have at least 4 bad stats. Archers need high dex, decent str and probably shouldn't skimp on the con. This means that wisdom is likely to suck. On what is probably a low will class. Hope you didn't plan on being a ranger with that wisdom, by the way.
Besides, I count "sucks unless you play an extremely limited selection of classes and then you are merely kind of crappy" to be a subset of "sucks". Not a point in favor of rolling.
Having ridiculously high stats compared to the rest of the party is just as disappointing to me as ridiculously low compared. You see, I'm actually capable of empathy for my fellow party members. I still dislike dice rolls even if I'm the lucky one, because someone is getting screwed.
I reject your false dichotomy.
you used this phrase wrong. a False Dichotomy would mean there's no division between your view points in reality.
but rolling doesn't make you useless.
it simply makes you or others unbalanced compared to the group. making it more of a hassle for the GM as he has to challenge the powerful people and not murder the weak ones.
I SPECIFICALLY DISLIKE ROLLING BECAUSE IT ENFORCES AND CREATES POWER CREEP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I SPECIFICALLY DISLIKE ROLLING BECAUSE IT ENFORCES AND CREATES POWER CREEP.
This phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.
This phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.
I SPECIFICALLY DISLIKE ROLLING BECAUSE IT ENFORCES AND CREATES POWER CREEP.
player's get more and more powerful as the ones that live are the most powerful, so the ones that have higher stats live, the lower ones die, and then they roll again they have another chance at rolling high, if they do, then the over all party strength goes up. I have to up my ante, making the rest more likely to die. by campaign end everyone is used to playing with much higher stats than is norm and thus they want better rolling methods as their rolls don't roll well as their memorable character did.
did that fit your definition?
player's get more and more powerful as the ones that live are the most powerful, so the ones that have higher stats live, the lower ones die, and then they roll again they have another chance at rolling high, if they do, then the over all party strength goes up. I have to up my ante, making the rest more likely to die. by campaign end everyone is used to playing with much higher stats than is norm and thus they want better rolling methods as their rolls don't roll well as their memorable character did.did that fit your definition?
Or you could, you know, not play that way. Stat differences generally matter less as PCs go up in levels as skill ranks, feats, and gear exert their modifiers. And if the higher stat PCs have a little easier time with a few things here and there, meh, so what?
Or you could, you know, not play that way. Stat differences generally matter less as PCs go up in levels as skill ranks, feats, and gear exert their modifiers. And if the higher stat PCs have a little easier time with a few things here and there, meh, so what?
player's get more and more powerful as the ones that live are the most powerful, so the ones that have higher stats live, the lower ones die, and then they roll again they have another chance at rolling high, if they do, then the over all party strength goes up. I have to up my ante, making the rest more likely to die. by campaign end everyone is used to playing with much higher stats than is norm and thus they want better rolling methods as their rolls don't roll well as their memorable character did.did that fit your definition?
it's mostly higher general rolls generally means higher HP, to-hit/to-save, and what not. this just simply gives them a statistical advantage that means their either going to survive every fight pretty easily while their allies are scraping it by, or they're going to be challenged while their allies are being punished.
PB ignores all of this.
generally i notice people who end up with high stats and aren't challenged usually reroll a character because they're bored.
this just simply gives them a statistical advantage that means their either going to survive every fight pretty easily while their allies are scraping it by, or they're going to be challenged while their allies are being punished.
PB exacerbates all of this.
My take bolded.
My take bolded.this just simply gives them a statistical advantage that means their either going to survive every fight pretty easily while their allies are scraping it by, or they're going to be challenged while their allies are being punished.
PB exacerbates all of this.
it's funny how wrong you are, just on a pure statistical level.
take 2 monks, both roll, they CAN be about equal. take 2 monks both use PB, they are ALWAYS about equal.
same goes with wizards, clerics and druids.
1) A False Dichotomy is actually giving the 2 viewpoints as the only possibilities, ignoring the middle ground or other options.
that's an ACTUAL dichotomy, a false one is one that is only perceived to exist(an example being the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims).
2) There are rolling options that don't lead to power differences between characters. The one I keep pushing is rolling a set each and everyone using their choice of those.
that's rolling for an array, arguably not the same as rolling for stats, or at least has enough difference to merit it's own genre of stat generation.
My take bolded.this just simply gives them a statistical advantage that means their either going to survive every fight pretty easily while their allies are scraping it by, or they're going to be challenged while their allies are being punished.
PB exacerbates all of this.
What you say is only correct if players usually pick weak classes on good rolls and strong classes on weak rolls.
This is not guarenteed. It isn't even reasonable to expect this.
Look at it this way. Classes usually lie on a spectrum between MAD and weak, and SAD and powerful. These two features do not necessarily imply eachother, but there is a strong correlation between them (mostly because SAD classes are usually powerful spellcasters).
Classes that are MAD are usually weaker than SAD classes. They benefit disproportionally more than SAD classes from a higher PB value for their ability scores (regardless of whether they arrived at that point buy value by actually using a point buy or by rolling).
Lets make up 4 players, called A,B,C and D.
A likes playing caster chess. They got 5,8,10,10,12,14 for their roll. Worse than a 3pt buy. They decide to play an elven wizard. Their stats aren't great, but they are workable if A focuses on things that don't require saves and stays far away from melee.
B enjoys playing Robin Hood and similar. They got 10,12,14,14,16,17. This is a 35pt buy. They decide to play an archery ranger. The stats are very good for a Ranger. B is really happy. They aren't mindblowingly powerful, but they should be able to contribute meaningfully to the party most of the time while not being defensively tepid.
C enjoys nature themed magic. They got 8,10,11,15,17,17. This is a 32 pt buy. C is pleased. They have a good enough stat array to keep melee as a backup to spellcasting. However, since C does not have the spare feat slots from all the summoning they want to do, C sticks to the chain of summon improving feats and takes power attack with the Saurian Shaman bonus feat at 8th. They aren't actually improved that much by another 17 - One 17 could have been replaced by a 5 and they would still be fine (a drop of more than 17 on the pb). They could instead just put the other 17 in dex or con, and that would improve their defensive capabilities but since they aren't frontliners and druids have good defenses this isn't actually that needed.
D likes smashing faces and taking names. They got 7,8,9,9,14,15. This is a 4 point buy. They don't want to be a completely skilless fighter, so Slayer seems to be the best choice. They still don't do much damage with 17 str after adjustment, and they are clumsy naive uncharismatic dumboes to boot. Their saves are really weaksause, and they are forced to blow feats on buffing their will to compensate for that 9 wisdom.
Note the difference.
A gets an unlucky roll and plays a good class. They are a little weaker than normal, but still quite functional.
B gets a lucky roll and a weak class. They are quite strong for their class, but still not spectacular.
C gets a lucky roll and a good class. They only move slightly in power, from a stupid good roll.
D gets an unlucky roll and a weak class. They get screwed.
In a really low point buy, you only see A and D. This is not good.
In a really high point buy, you only see B and C. This is much better.
With a stat roll like 4d6d1, you see A,B,C and D. This is arguably even worse than the low point buy, because with the rolling you have D not only competing with A, but with B and C. At least when it is just A and D half the party will frequently be D so one guy won't feel particularly useless. With the roll method, D is stuck with very little chance that anyone else will be nearly as bad as them, so they will dislike the game even more.
TLDR:
Low Point buy makes low ability score wizards compete with low ability score fighters. This is bad.
High Point buy makes high ability score wizards compete with high ability score fighters. Fighters need ability scores more than wizards, so this is less bad.
Many rolling methods such as 4d6d1 make low ability score fighters compete with high ability score wizards purely due to the luck of the dice. This is terrible.
snowblind I was going to mention taking into account statistical discrepancies to actually check if a statistical "fact" is fact.
like how African Americans are statistically more likely to break laws than white people. when it reality law breaking is more tied to poverty and becomes equal across race when you account for wealth.
likewise if you account for class, you can see that rolling is less fair than PB.
but you had to ruin it all with your factual argument going deep into the nitty gritty. :3
When it's true that it's one or the other with no middle ground or other alternatives, then it's an actual dichotomy. It's false when it's presented as a dichotomy, but isn't really. Which doesn't mean the options are really identical, they can still be different extremes, but you could actually choose the middle.1) A False Dichotomy is actually giving the 2 viewpoints as the only possibilities, ignoring the middle ground or other options.that's an ACTUAL dichotomy, a false one is one that is only perceived to exist(an example being the difference between Sunni and Shiite .
let's agree to just not keep doing this.
snowblind I was going to mention taking into account statistical discrepancies to actually check if a statistical "fact" is fact.
like how African Americans are statistically more likely to break laws than white people. when it reality law breaking is more tied to poverty and becomes equal across race when you account for wealth.
likewise if you account for class, you can see that rolling is less fair than PB.
but you had to ruin it all with your factual argument going deep into the nitty gritty. :3
I was considering trying to argue it in terms of statistics and things, but then it occurred to me that it might end up being misinterpreted or just flying over the head of half the people reading it, so I opted for a straightforward concrete example instead.
Slightly off topic, this reminds me of that smoking vs drinking thing. Fun Fact: you are much more likely to die from lung cancer if you are a heavy drinker. Another Fun Fact: The last sentence is totally true, but highly misleading.
Statistically, point-buy allows a wide spread of stats (high standard deviation), which favors SAD classes as a matter of course. A higher point-buy helps somewhat only insofar as it reduces that spread.
The claim that "point buy is the fairest!" is generally used in an attempt to (a) gloss over the major class/SAD vs. MAD imbalances (as was done earlier in the thread), or (b) is actually held up as a solution to them (which it is not, except in comparison to high-spread dice rolling methods, which are indeed worse).
We all know that classes aren't going to be rebalanced anytime soon. It's also clear that the relative importance of the various stats will remain violently skewed. The only thing left is to use a stat generation which mitigates that, which means one with as low a spread as possible: note that an array of all 14s (30-point buy equivalent) is a lot worse for the wizard than an actual 15-point buy! Whereas for the monk, it's infinitely better. And we can increase that base number slightly, or decrease it to taste, and our stat generation method is still mitigating our problems slightly, rather than masking them. As soon as we increase the spread, though, we stop helping.
Statistically, point-buy allows a wide spread of stats (high standard deviation), which favors SAD classes as a matter of course. A higher point-buy helps somewhat only insofar as it reduces that spread.
The claim that "point buy is the fairest!" is generally used in an attempt to (a) gloss over the major class/SAD vs. MAD imbalances (as was done earlier in the thread), or (b) is actually held up as a solution to them (which it is not, except in comparison to high-spread dice rolling methods, which are indeed worse).
We all know that classes aren't going to be rebalanced anytime soon. It's also clear that the relative importance of the various stats will remain violently skewed. The only thing left is to use a stat generation which mitigates that, which means one with as low a spread as possible: note that an array of all 14s (30-point buy equivalent) is worse for the wizard than an actual 15-point buy! Whereas for the monk, it's infinitely better. And we can increase that slightly, or decrease it to taste, and our stat generation method is still mitigating our problems slightly, rather than masking them.
So why are we not using an extremely high point buy or a stat array instead of rolling.
With a 35 point buy, the elven wizard gets 20 Int, 18 Dex, 14 con,10 wis, 10 cha, 8 str. This isn't actually that much better than what they normally get with a 20 pt buy. I guess they don't need to dump as much. Yay?
The Monk gets 18 str, 16 wis, 16 dex, 16 con, 9 int, 7 cha. This is amazing for the monk.
Or you can do a stat array. The exact same thing happens if you set up the array right. Say...16,16,14,14,12,10(equivalent of 32pt buy). Monk is very happy. Wizard is barely better off than with a 20 pt buy if they weren't planning on a 20 int, and worse if they were.
Given one of these two choices or rolling, why would you want to roll. Rolling just means that some people are stuck with badly chosen arrays that heavily favor SAD classes, while some get arrays that are reasonable, and a few get arrays that are disgustingly good, and you just have to hope that they don't pick a divine fullcaster and go CoDzilla on the campaign.
note that an array of all 14s (30-point buy equivalent) is worse for the wizard than an actual 10-point buy!Strength:7, Dex: 14, Con: 14, Int: 16, Wis: 8, Cha: 7
To be fair, the sucky wisdom does actually hurt a wizard. Low will saves aren't great. A 15 point buy would give the wizard a respectable 12, even though the 5 points are better spent in Int.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, the sucky wisdom does actually hurt a wizard. Low will saves aren't great. A 15 point buy would give the wizard a respectable 12, even though the 5 points are better spent in Int.note that an array of all 14s (30-point buy equivalent) is worse for the wizard than an actual 10-point buy!Strength:7, Dex: 14, Con: 14, Int: 16, Wis: 8, Cha: 7
Not really. They have a good Will progression to even it out.
Given one of these two choices or rolling, why would you want to roll.
That's the thing -- there are more than two choices.
I never said rolling is fair. I will say, however, that rolling methods that minimize the standard deviation are better than those that don't -- 9d2, for example, as opposed to 3d6.
I also said that point-buy isn't fair, either -- the only time it tries to be is at the uppermost registers, where stat imbalances are minimized.
I said an array is most fair when the total point spread is the least. An array of 6, 8, 10, 10, 12, 20 is totally unfair, whereas an array of 14,14,14,14,14,14 does exactly what we want it to.
This phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.
I SPECIFICALLY DISLIKE ROLLING BECAUSE IT ENFORCES AND CREATES POWER CREEP.player's get more and more powerful as the ones that live are the most powerful, so the ones that have higher stats live, the lower ones die, and then they roll again they have another chance at rolling high, if they do, then the over all party strength goes up. I have to up my ante, making the rest more likely to die. by campaign end everyone is used to playing with much higher stats than is norm and thus they want better rolling methods as their rolls don't roll well as their memorable character did.
did that fit your definition?
Usually in gaming, power creep is when increasingly more powerful content is introduced into the system by designers or developers, so that characters made with original content can not hold a candle to characters made with latter content.
This is what I've always understood it to mean, anyway.See also: RIFTS
Not really. They have a good Will progression to even it out.To be fair, the sucky wisdom does actually hurt a wizard. Low will saves aren't great. A 15 point buy would give the wizard a respectable 12, even though the 5 points are better spent in Int.note that an array of all 14s (30-point buy equivalent) is worse for the wizard than an actual 10-point buy!Strength:7, Dex: 14, Con: 14, Int: 16, Wis: 8, Cha: 7
And if they had a 12 wis instead of their 8 wis they would have a 10% greater chance of not getting removed from combat or turning on the party.
It is a non-trivial issue, in fact. I don't deny that 8->12 wisdom is not nearly useful as 16->18 int, but that lack of wisdom has a good chance of hurting you at some stage. It's not like str, where unless you go up against shadows you might literally never care about it if you have some form of extradimensional storage. Or Cha, when you might never roll a social skill as a 7 Cha wizard. But with wisdom, better saves are better saves, regardless of your save progression. The wizard's good save progression can make dumping Wis viable, but it doesn't make it cost free by any stretch of the imagination.
Granted in my own revisions I've been attempting to tone down the impact of stats so they become less relevant.
It's no secret that I'd like to see better balance both in terms of classes and in terms of attributes and what they do. Then the stat generation method would impact baseline power level only, and not also have trickle-down ramifications beyond that. My houserules go that route.
However, for people playing straight Pathfinder, that's not an option. So they have to consider a lot of things when choosing a stat generation method: not just what general power level is, but the comparative power leveraging capability between classes, and what stats can be leveraged most efficiently, and which can be dumped, etc., etc. And every one of those considerations can lead to large imbalances down the road. Using a high-enough point-buy can help ameliorate those issues, as can using a low-standard-deviation rolling method, or using a horizontally linear array like straight 14s.
Isn't the bigger problem here the SAD classes, rather than the point buy? If SAD classes didn't exist, what would everyone's opinion be on rolling vs. point buy?
Isn't the bigger problem here the SAD classes, rather than the point buy? If SAD classes didn't exist, what would everyone's opinion be on rolling vs. point buy?
That's exactly what I'm saying -- but, unfortunately, Paizo is determined to keep some classes SAD, and others MAD, and they're not going to change that.
They made an attempt with the Arcanist, but then they made all of the stuff that depends on charisma suck.
And if they had a 12 wis instead of their 8 wis they would have a 10% greater chance of not getting removed from combat or turning on the party.
That's true only if we're within the nice spread of the random number generator. Unfortunately, at 18th level you've got a +/- 5-point variance on base saves alone, plus increasing discrepancies for magic defenses and so on, so you're often in the territory of can't save/can't fail, and that -2 is diluted to the point of being irrelevant.
For my part, I'd be happier if all saves were +1/2 level, and the only difference between a good or bad save was the initial +2.
But that's a subject for a different thread!