| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if the wizard I imagine my character to be isn't of the "so bookish they get minimal exercise and are socially maladroit" variety?
More troubling than the "can't play a dwarf sorcerer" issue with low PBs is that you struggle to play a wizard who has lots of friends and who lifts heavy things to blow off steam. Not especially gifted in either musculature or social skills, but at least fairly competent in both regards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I try to avoid dumping too many stats because monster abilities and poison can reduce stats, but you are correct, and if the GM doesn't use those types of encounters there is not much of a risk involved.When I play a wizard at 15 point buy, I dump charisma and strength. That gives me 23 points to work with. 6 after int. Which I split between con and dex. I don't have to put con at 10 or lower.
A wizard starting at level 1, with either 15 point buy, or 20, or 25 point buy, will have a 20 intelligence regardless.Not really.
You only make that 20 possible with certain races and even then it involves buying an 18 which actually cost 17 points meaning every other stat is likely to be a 10 or lower to include con.
Your experience may be different from mine, but having a low con leads to death, and I have seen characters die at exactly the con needed and saved at 1 hit point away from death.
A potion of delay poison is 50 gold. So is a potion of lesser restoration. That covers most ability damage in the game.
And while those monsters do exist, they aren't common. Certainly less common than monsters you will have to use intelligence against as a wizard or constitution as anyone.
I know they are not common, and I was not just talking about ability damage, but also ability drain, which can happen through supernatural abilities. Undead such as shadows and wraiths tend to be in adventure paths on a regular basis, but those two only affect strength and constituation depending on which one of the two you are dealing with.
This PB thing basically boils down to how the group plays and how the GM runs his games more than anything else though.
I have read some but not all of the thread. It is very similar to other threads on the topic.
But I will go ahead and throw my 2 copper on the table anyhow.
1) Even 15 or 18 point buy is above average, but not by all that much. Personally I like that. I like for my heroes to be a bit better than average, but not demi-god-like perfect. Could have been just an average Joe, but at some point made a decision to be more. Then carried through against all adversity and challenges.
I once played with a group at the other end, that used 35 point buy. To me it was almost silly. How is there any risk when your low stat was a 16?!? There also wasn't as much character differentiation. Even the wizard could weapon fight better than most anyone in the guard. Everyone could make most of the skill/knowledge checks. Etc...
Who is more of a hero to you - Superman stopping bank robbers who can't hurt him so he has no risk or the Spartan 300?
2) A lower point buy requires a bit more emphasis on the build and tactics. When your stats get high enough, the spell and/or attack almost always succeeds. It has a tendency to become rocket tag where only the initiative roll makes any real difference. So the builds with multiple stacking bonuses on initiative become common. 'Charge' become the default tactic. Being sneaky and clever don't seem worth the effort. No point in trying to gather information on the opponents since we are going to tear them to pieces no matter what. Etc...
Is this always the case? No, obviously not. But in my experience it has a tendency to head in that direction.
3) Low point buy is a heck of a lot less work for the GM to deal with. Since the game is designed around the expectation of approx. 15 point buy That is what tends to work well with the published material.
The 35 point buy group I mentioned above, the GM was using things like ogres and ghasts to try an challenge 1st level characters. But then just a few good/bad rolls and half or more the party could be down. Now there is no way to recover and win the encounter. Can't have that, so he was obviously fudging the die rolls to let the PC's survive because he had over scaled.
As GM, I always know I'm going to have to modify stuff in published encounters to mesh well with my group. If it is a group of 4 PC's, with 15 point buy, and decent system skill - I will have to scale it up a bit, but it won't be too extreme, too much effort, and will still be recognizable as near what was written.
When we start with much higher stats (and/or more PC's and system skill) I have to start modifying it a lot more. It becomes much more work for me. I have to re-write basically every encounter from the ground up. It becomes difficult to challenge the party without a serious risk of an accidental TPK.
Can't just use a higher CR creature. It might have abilities, spells, or peak damage output that the PC's just can't deal with. So I have to increase the number of monsters. Now it more things I have to concentrate on. My turns as GM take longer with less time for the players. Etc...
4) I do not believe MAD classes are impossible to play in low point buy. They won't be good at everything, but nobody should be good at everything (at least in my opinion). I don't believe some of the weird class race combinations are impossible to play in low point buy. I have played 15 point buy monks and druegar sorcerers. I survived, contributed greatly to the success of the group, and had fun.
Having said all that, I still have fun with 25 point buy games - if the GM is good enough (not sure I always am). I rarely find groups that want to use 15 point buy. So I go along with what the group wants and still have a blast with no problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't if you don't just absolutely have to have that 18 int. Which. You know, you really don't.
I think though that there's something vastly more bland about a character whose preracials are 14,12,12,12,12,12 versus a character whose stats are more spread out (without dumping anything) because they had more points to play with.
Give me 15 points and I'll usually end up with something like 14,14,13,12,10,8 but with 25 I'll be something like 16,16,13,12,10,10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coming from spending years playing 2nd edition AD&D as my game of choice... the very idea of a dwarf wizard or sorcerer still seems weird to me.I think legitimately the complaints about "with a low point buy, you can't play a [race] [class]" are ultimately complaints about racial stat modifiers not point buys.
Like if Dwarves didn't have a penalty to Charisma, they would make fine (non-Empyreal sorcerers). Probably an easier sell to get your GM to "do racial stat modifiers differently" than to up the point buy.
Well, since 3.0 opened the floodgates... I've grown used to the concept, even if I'll never make them common in my campaigns or make frequant use of them as characters... it's been 15 years now
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't if you don't just absolutely have to have that 18 int. Which. You know, you really don't.
How dare you sir imply that not starting out with an 18 in the class's primary stat isn't needed! I had a stuttering fit just reading this!
Sarcasm aside, I tend to agree. I also agree with a lot of the others here in that I prefer when the characters are (alightly above) Average Joes who aren't gods in some aspect.
If you enjoy the higher point buys and breezing through things (or having the DM adjust everything to give you a challenge), then good on you. Glad you are having fun. Personally, I find it rather boring. Sure, I can find it fun for the first couple sessions, but after a while it gets old.
It's one reason I enjoy 5th edition. The races don't get any stat penalties, point buy starts at 8 (instead of 10), and there's no extra points obtained from dumping a stat (as you can't have a stat lower than 8). You get 27 points (which equals out to a 15 point buy since each stat starts 2 points lower than Pathfinder), and can't have a score higher than 15 before adding in racial bonuses (Gasp! Highest score is a 17! The horror!).
I have been raged at by a few people because I didn't start out with a 20 in my class's main stat. I have been ridiculed by at least one person on this message board (in a thread that has since been closed) because I said I don't like to have astronomically high numbers. I have no problem with people who like the high numbers, but apparently I do it wrong by not having high numbers. It's because of this attitude I haven't touched Pathfinder in 2 years. I would like to, but everyone I seem to come across is all about the high numbers.
|
Even when rolling dice to determine attributes (yeah I know) characters who have high attributes across the board end up being boring. Oh look, it's another fighter with a 18/18/16/16/15/17 spread. No, it's a wizard with an 18/17/17/15/15/16 spread. No, it's a... does it really matter what their class is if everyone has a 60 point build?
When for a 3.5 game I legitimately rolled a 17 strength, 18 dex, 16 con, and 18 Cha for a sorcerer I thought it was a tad much. Then when the GM forced me to take the half dragon template instead of my planned going into the dragon disciple prestige class to represent the half-dragon nature slowly coming forth... I honestly didn't have much fun with the character. A sorcerer with a +7 to-hit, 18 standing AC, and more HP then the fighters at level one was... Well, it felt too strong.
like, i don't get the "If you enjoy the higher point buys and breezing through things (or having the DM adjust everything to give you a challenge), then good on you. Glad you are having fun. Personally, I find it rather boring. Sure, I can find it fun for the first couple sessions, but after a while it gets old."
the difference between 16 to 20 is +2 or about 10% extra chance.
10 to 20 is +25% extra chance.
to me this is still just slightly above average in actual mechanical benefit.
that's why my opinion is just let people choose their stats, they don't mean much in the long run.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
the difference between 16 to 20 is +2 or about 10% extra chance.
10 to 20 is +25% extra chance.
to me this is still just slightly above average in actual mechanical benefit.
Too simplistic. You are conflating % added to the die roll with chance to hit.
Say with a 16 you must roll a 16 to hit. That is 5 chances out of 20 to hit. With a 20 you only need a 14 to hit. This 7 chances out of 20 to hit. That is a 20% increase in chance to hit. I consider that significant.
For the same AC opponent your second example (with the 10 ability score) would need 18 to hit. That is only 3 chances out of 20 to hit. The 20 ability score is now a 133% increase in chance to hit. That is huge.
But it is more than that. With a high point buy you don't have just 1 good ability. They all are. So everyone almost always succeeds at everything. They make nearly all the saves. They are rarely hit and if they are, they survive it over and over. Everyone makes the perception check. Everyone makes the climb check. Everyone makes the ride check. Etc...
Yes, I know that is an exaggeration. But that's what it can feel like. I have been in campaigns where the only noteworthy memorable events were when someone actually failed at something even if it was minor. "Holy carp Gunder missed twice in a row!" "I can't believe Rance failed a will save!"
OR
The GM adjusts everything. The NPC's also have 25 point buy. The creatures all have the advanced template (or better). The poisons are more difficult to resist, the traps are more fiendish, the shop keeper has a higher sense motive and appraise to detect that you are scamming him, the regent has a higher bluff to out lie your truth, etc... Ok, that works. But it is a lot of work for the GM. And it puts you [I]right where you were before all the changes![I] Why not just use a low point buy and keep everything where it was to begin with?
Even when rolling dice to determine attributes (yeah I know) characters who have high attributes across the board end up being boring. Oh look, it's another fighter with a 18/18/16/16/15/17 spread. No, it's a wizard with an 18/17/17/15/15/16 spread. No, it's a... does it really matter what their class is if everyone has a 60 point build?
When for a 3.5 game I legitimately rolled a 17 strength, 18 dex, 16 con, and 18 Cha for a sorcerer I thought it was a tad much. Then when the GM forced me to take the half dragon template instead of my planned going into the dragon disciple prestige class to represent the half-dragon nature slowly coming forth... I honestly didn't have much fun with the character. A sorcerer with a +7 to-hit, 18 standing AC, and more HP then the fighters at level one was... Well, it felt too strong.
I honestly rolled something similar. 18/18/18/16/16/14 was a legitimate roll I did. I didn't use it, as that was too much for me.
the difference between 16 to 20 is +2 or about 10% extra chance.
If the difference between 16 to 20 is only 10%, then why am I severely gimping myself if I choose the 16 over the 20, according to many people on this board and out in the world? Why is it such an affront to some that my class's main stat is a 16 (or 17) and not a 20?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
I have been raged at by a few people because I didn't start out with a 20 in my class's main stat. I have been ridiculed by at least one person on this message board (in a thread that has since been closed) because I said I don't like to have astronomically high numbers. ...
I have had the same experience on the boards. Thankfully few people I have actually played with in person have had that extreme of an attitude.
However, I wouldn't suggest giving up on the game because of that (assuming you like it otherwise). Just try to ignore the jerks online.
I started going to PFS sessions. If someone is a jerk at the table, meh so I lost a few hours. I avoid them in the future. When I found someone that seemed to play the way I like, I would try to sit at the table with them a few more times, on both sides of the GM screen. We get to talking about home games and groups.
It seemed to be a pretty good way to build or find a gaming group. It has worked for me a couple of times anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, average people aren't completely average. They're often good at several things and exceptional with at least one thing.
15 point buy is, in my mind anyways, average. As a player (and GM), I'm not interested in average. Heroes are supposed to be...heroic.
Someone else came up with this and I borrowed it because it gives me the feel I desire. "Your ability scores start at 14. You may lower a score by 1 point to raise another by one point. No score may be lowered below 8 or raised above 18 prior to racial modifiers."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That +2 difference may not seem like much Bandw2. But it can, and does make a huge difference. One reason I avoided 3rd edition in favor of 2nd edition for years was because the system I thought made you too powerful too quickly. In 2nd edition you needed a high strength to get any bonuses to Thac0 and damage. That's "To Hit Armor Class 0" for those unfamiliar with the term. In fact, you needed a 17 or 18 Str score to get a +1 to-hit. You needed a 16+ str to get a +1 damage (18 Str for a +2 damage).
You also needed a 15 Con to get a +1 to hit points per level. For a +2 you needed a 16-18 Con, unless you were a warrior class. They got +3 HP with a 17 con or +4 HP per level with an 18 con. Those incredibly high attributes actually mattered, but then again they were rare to get unless the GM allowed something like 4d6 drop lowest reroll 1's.
By comparison, an 18 Str and power attack in Pathfinder at level one is the equivalent of having an 18/00 strength (best you could have at character creation) in 2nd edition. My fighter build that does +9 damage with a scythe when using power attack? That's a damage bonus equal to having 21 Str in 2nd edition (which was HARD to get back then). His attack bonus of +6 with power attack would be equal to having a strength of 24 in 2nd edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if the wizard I imagine my character to be isn't of the "so bookish they get minimal exercise and are socially maladroit" variety?
10 Str, 13 Dex, 12 Con, 18 (+2 race) Int, 10 Wis, 10 Cha
or12 Str, 12 Dex, 12 Con, 17 (+2 race) Int, 10 Wis, 12 Cha; Int goes to 18 at 4th level
Remember 10 or 11 in an ability score is considered "average."
IMO, if the difference between starting with 17-18 Int vs. 19-20 Int makes a wizard "unplayable," your standards are way too high.
|
|
Heck, simply using half +1 HP at level up and max HP at level 1 is better then in 2nd edition. In 2nd edition you rolled your hit die at every level, including level 1. If you multi-classed (because you're not a human) then you often got hosed on potential HP totals compared to single class characters. An elf fighter/mage could only get at most 7 HP total for each level. But they didn't get them all at the same time. And I was in a few games where the wizard's player rolled well for hit dice each level, while the fighter rolled badly. Thus the wizard always ended up with more hit points then the fighter. And that was using a D4 vs a D10 hit die.
Consider that 3rd edition still worked on the assumption that you're rolling 3d6 down the line. Yeah, there were other methods outlined in the DMG for stat generation, including a point buy system I think. But 3d6 down the line was the default assumption. And that means that most characters aren't going to be super amazing at any given thing. I'll do 3 quick stat arrays using 3d6 down the line
Array 1: Str 13, Dex 8, con 10, int 10, wis 12, cha 10
Array 2: str 7, dex 6, con 10, int 16, wis 12, cha 10
Array 3: str 10, dex 7, con 10, int 12, wis 14, cha 9
Ladies and gentlemen, this is roughly what the average expected attributes that 2nd edition and 3rd edition were balanced around. Okay, yes my dice were rolling kind of poorly. But that doesn't change the fact that it's what the games were mostly balanced around. Of the 3 arrays, the first one I would make into a fighter. The second one would obviously be made into a wizard. And the 3rd I'd probably make a cleric using.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
44!? Really? I'm calling B's.Wrath of the Righteous really, really doesn't need more than 15 PB. You could go with 0 PB and characters would be one-shotting bosses as written.
(This is not a complaint, my players had a lot of fun curb-stomping the opposition)
I can confirm this. We played WotR with 10 point buy and it was still effortless.
My cleric started with a 16 Str after racial modifiers and would have ended with a 44 had we finished (real life stuff got in the way - we were all having a blast, GM included.)
16 +5 (20 levels) +10 (10 mythic tiers) +5 (inherent) +6 (enhancement) +2 (anarchic) = 44. Possible if that was the focus for the character and the GM doesn't limit the mythic bonus allowed on one ability score.
...
I have been raged at by a few people because I didn't start out with a 20 in my class's main stat. I have been ridiculed by at least one person on this message board (in a thread that has since been closed) because I said I don't like to have astronomically high numbers. ...I have had the same experience on the boards. Thankfully few people I have actually played with in person have had that extreme of an attitude.
However, I wouldn't suggest giving up on the game because of that (assuming you like it otherwise). Just try to ignore the jerks online.
I started going to PFS sessions. If someone is a jerk at the table, meh so I lost a few hours. I avoid them in the future. When I found someone that seemed to play the way I like, I would try to sit at the table with them a few more times, on both sides of the GM screen. We get to talking about home games and groups.It seemed to be a pretty good way to build or find a gaming group. It has worked for me a couple of times anyway.
The kicker for it all, and what drove me over the edge and made me step away from the game, was the very last session. When the paladin and magus took the BBEG out in the 2nd round (which was usually rare, as by the time the paladin's turn was over the enemies were dead, and the magus always went first), the campaign was over. And the paladin types out this long diatribe about how my character was a useless pile of excrement, I was dragging them down and not contributing to anything because I didn't jack up my numbers to their levels, blah blah blah, and then quits the game. His magus buddy did the same (only without any of the comments).
So yeah, my experience with Pathfinder hasn't been the best. 7/10 groups were all about the numbers. Though most did try to put effort into the characters outside the numbers. But I was always given flak for not pumping up my numbers like them.
If I could find a group (and my work schedule would let me, stupid retail) that wasn't focused on the numbers, didn't care if anyone didn't jack up the numbers (like not having a 20 in class's main stat at level 1), and would play something other than a murderous wanderer who's answer to everything was murder it until it died because the NPC looked at them funny or such, I would play Pathfinder again. I have wanted to try out the classes from the ACG or the Occult classes or the Unchained book (ACG just released when I walked away). But it would take a special group of people to bring me back.
Ok, that got longer than I thought it would. Let's put it in some spoiler brackets because it may come off a bit whiney to some. Don't know, don't care.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I almost can't imagine anything lower than 25. I asked the DM why he'd settled on that and politely explained that the game might not be for me.
So you're going to miss out on what could be a great game, making some new friends, and playing an AP you've never finished just because... it's 15 point buy?
Maybe it's not just that particular game that's not for you. Maybe it's Pathfinder in general or all RPGs for that matter. If such a minor inconvenience is a deal-breaker, maybe this isn't the hobby for you.
It was a horrible group. But I stupidly stuck with it until the end because I thought the GM was a cool dude and I didn't want to screw him over by leaving after 4 months (was a group of 4 players). And because I was trying to be nice to him, I got 8 more months slogging through the AP having no fun and looking forward to the session ending. The saying "no game is better than a bad game" is so very true. I found that out the hard way.
|
|
Makes me wonder, are groups like that filled with people who never played 2nd edition or earlier? Because it seems to me those of us who played 1st or 2nd edition as our introduction fantasy roleplaying have lower expectations on what you need to actually be effective. Probably due to the fact we had so many characters who had no bonuses due to high attributes, and were use to not raising our attributes with magic because doing so was rare and difficult. Fighter with 9 or 10 strength? Good to go, and just as effective as most other fighters. As an example
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, simply using half +1 HP at level up and max HP at level 1 is better then in 2nd edition. In 2nd edition you rolled your hit die at every level, including level 1. If you multi-classed (because you're not a human) then you often got hosed on potential HP totals compared to single class characters. An elf fighter/mage could only get at most 7 HP total for each level. But they didn't get them all at the same time. And I was in a few games where the wizard's player rolled well for hit dice each level, while the fighter rolled badly. Thus the wizard always ended up with more hit points then the fighter. And that was using a D4 vs a D10 hit die.
Consider that 3rd edition still worked on the assumption that you're rolling 3d6 down the line. Yeah, there were other methods outlined in the DMG for stat generation, including a point buy system I think. But 3d6 down the line was the default assumption. And that means that most characters aren't going to be super amazing at any given thing. I'll do 3 quick stat arrays using 3d6 down the line
Array 1: Str 13, Dex 8, con 10, int 10, wis 12, cha 10
Array 2: str 7, dex 6, con 10, int 16, wis 12, cha 10
Array 3: str 10, dex 7, con 10, int 12, wis 14, cha 9Ladies and gentlemen, this is roughly what the average expected attributes that 2nd edition and 3rd edition were balanced around. Okay, yes my dice were rolling kind of poorly. But that doesn't change the fact that it's what the games were mostly balanced around. Of the 3 arrays, the first one I would make into a fighter. The second one would obviously be made into a wizard. And the 3rd I'd probably make a cleric using.
2nd edition also stopped rolling hp at like level 9 and you got +2 per level after that
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
the difference between 16 to 20 is +2 or about 10% extra chance.
10 to 20 is +25% extra chance.
to me this is still just slightly above average in actual mechanical benefit.
Too simplistic. You are conflating % added to the die roll with chance to hit.
Say with a 16 you must roll a 16 to hit. That is 5 chances out of 20 to hit. With a 20 you only need a 14 to hit. This 7 chances out of 20 to hit. That is a 20% increase in chance to hit. I consider that significant.
For the same AC opponent your second example (with the 10 ability score) would need 18 to hit. That is only 3 chances out of 20 to hit. The 20 ability score is now a 133% increase in chance to hit. That is huge.
But it is more than that. With a high point buy you don't have just 1 good ability. They all are. So everyone almost always succeeds at everything. They make nearly all the saves. They are rarely hit and if they are, they survive it over and over. Everyone makes the perception check. Everyone makes the climb check. Everyone makes the ride check. Etc...
Yes, I know that is an exaggeration. But that's what it can feel like. I have been in campaigns where the only noteworthy memorable events were when someone actually failed at something even if it was minor. "Holy carp Gunder missed twice in a row!" "I can't believe Rance failed a will save!"
OR
The GM adjusts everything. The NPC's also have 25 point buy. The creatures all have the advanced template (or better). The poisons are more difficult to resist, the traps are more fiendish, the shop keeper has a higher sense motive and appraise to detect that you are scamming him, the regent has a higher bluff to out lie your truth, etc... Ok, that works. But it is a lot of work for the GM. And it puts you right...
I was aware of this numerical weight, but you'll note a +5 never really gives a 25% increase.
at a 20 wouldn't hit, you'd need a 21, 5% becomes 25%, this is a 400% increase in your chances. if you need a 6 to hit, your 75% becomes 95%, which is a 26% increase.
I'm saying you add a flat +25% to your chance to hit. it doesn't matter that much, also by adjust everything, if things are underpowered i run the encounters as 1 CR higher, that's it, a few more mooks in the room...
this is all besides the point though, because my ceiling is still an overclocked wizard for my party, a bard with 16s in all mental stats still won't work out better than wizard v1.06 running at 1.2gigaflops.
likewise, a wizard with 18-20 int won't suddenly break everything because he also wanted to have strength...
and this is my point, I already assume you have an 18-20 in your main stat, so it stats that don't really have any special bonuses on your class like int on a fighter, having 16 doesn't break anything, it's a +15% on all int based checks and still not more skill points than the wizard has...
the difference between 16 to 20 is +2 or about 10% extra chance.If the difference between 16 to 20 is only 10%, then why am I severely gimping myself if I choose the 16 over the 20, according to many people on this board and out in the world? Why is it such an affront to some that my class's main stat is a 16 (or 17) and not a 20?
i'm not, most of the time when people can just choose, side stats rarely go over 14, but the point is, if you wanted to play something higher for a change you could, or you could heavily weigh it to 1 side stat and make the others all really low.
you misunderstand my point, it;s not about gimping yourself, it's the fact that none of it really matters enough for a point buy system in general to really be necessary.
to make my point clearer, why couldn't I play a dwarf sorcerer with 20 charisma? because the point buy is impossible?
what if I want to play a Kobold fighter, why is the highest i can make my strength 14? even if 6 is the kobold average surely once in a blue moon a kobold could have 20 strength?
it all just seems so petty.
----
as a side note, because of this, it's like an extreme balance thing that races don't in general have a bonus racial to strength if they intend to be played. It's like... just be a dual talented human... it's just really dumb that there's such an emphasis on +2 stats here or there...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
So lets answer that:
STR: 14
DEX: 13+2(race)
CON: 12
INT: 10
WIS: 13
CHA: 12Now, prerequisites:
TWF is DEX 15@BAB1, 17@BAB6, 19@BAB11
Eldritch Heritage is CHA 13@LVL3, 15@LVL11, 17@LVL17
Keen Scent is WIS 13@1Note: If you went the full dexterity route this would be an even better build. The 5pts put into Strength can be put into the other ability scores or, if you want to qualify for Power Attack you can drop STR to 13 and increase DEX to 14.
Level 1, qualify for TWF and for Keen Scent @level 3 (or ELdritch Heritage @3 by swapping Wis/Cha)
Level 4, bump CHA by +1, now you qualify for Eldritch Heritage.
Level 6, +2 Belt of Dex, qualify for Improved TWF.
Level 11, +2 Headband of Cha has long since been available, qualify for Imp. Eldritch Heritage. Also, +4 Belt of Dex is long since available by level 11, qualify for Gr. TWF.
Level 17, +4 Headband of Cha has long since been available, qualify for Gr. Eldritch Heritage.
Note: Level increases at 8, 12, 16, and 20 have not been assigned and can go into Strength or any desired ability score.Your statement about magic items not being available is not part of the game system. The game assumes things are available at certain points. Specifically, a Small city will have a 75% chance of your +2 ability boosters while a Metropolis will have a 75% chance of having your +4 ability boosters.
You make the comment about walmart but the fact is if that is your problem then the problem is not the 15pb but how you choose to respond to magic item availability and how the game presumes certain items are available. That would be a different discussion entirely.
Not totally irrelevant -- if you want to run a world where a magic mart isn't available on every city street corner or you want to run a PC that isn't totally hosed by a major theft, mishap to a magic item, or anti-magic effect, this matters. The build you posted above technically works with Rules As Written, but has these icky problems that I just noted (and noted before), that make the build feel like even though it technically works, it's built upon a foundation of sand. Besides, even with Rules As Written, even within the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, some APs take you away from friendly civilization for LONG periods, AND some of those don't give you decent opportunity for crafting, and then what do you do?
* * * * * * * *
With respect to racial ability score adjustments, I'd like to see more alternate racial traits for these. Specific Aasimar and Tiefling heritages and Witchborn Changelings are a start (before the latter became available, Changelings were just worse Witches than Halflings), but I'd like to see more. Also, for both flavor and balance, some of the penalties should be reduced to penalties to skills tied to the ability score instead of penalties to the ability scores themselves -- for instance, instead of having an outright penalty to Charisma, Dwarves' xenophobia and gruffness would get them a penalty to Charisma-based skills other than Intimidate when dealing with non-Dwarves, but not penalize their actual Charisma; Elves would have a hit point penalty as if they had a -2 modifier to Constitution, but not a reduced actual Constitution score (and thus no penalty on Fortitude Saves -- having poor Fortitude just doesn't square with being extremely long-lived).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I probably wouldn't allow a magic item to let you qualify for feats. If you only qualify for Power Attack when you're wearing your belt of strength, then I guess you don't qualify for Power Attack. After all, if you take off your stat boosting item at all it gives no benefit for 24 hours after you put it back on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I probably wouldn't allow a magic item to let you qualify for feats. If you only qualify for Power Attack when you're wearing your belt of strength, then I guess you don't qualify for Power Attack. After all, if you take off your stat boosting item at all it gives no benefit for 24 hours after you put it back on.
generally the rules are that you can qualify for stuff so long as you can do it at least some what on demand.
like you "have claws" for feat prerequisites and such, if a class ability lets you have claws for say charisma mod + class level rounds per day.
same with magic items.
however, they obviously have no effect when you no longer have the prereq.
I think this goes so far as having a natural attack with wildshape ability...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I probably wouldn't allow a magic item to let you qualify for feats. If you only qualify for Power Attack when you're wearing your belt of strength, then I guess you don't qualify for Power Attack. After all, if you take off your stat boosting item at all it gives no benefit for 24 hours after you put it back on.
My thoughts exactly, but Rules As Written, apparently magic item bonuses do qualify you for feats. I wouldn't let them qualify you for extra spells or higher levels of spells known either, but Rules As Written, apparently they do.
To put the SAD vs MAD at low point buy another way: Even accepting the build from Gauss (quoted in my message above for ease of access, since the original is all the way back in the middle of the previous page) and accepting these Rules As Written functionalities (that is, none of the house rules we want), that MAD build is resting on a foundation of sand. One Sunder or Steal of that +4 Headband of Charisma, and that MAD character is now severely crippled. One Sunder or Steal, and that SAD Wizard (as much as I hate to give fuel to those saying Wizards are overpowered) who has a natural Intelligence (including ability score adjustments for leveling) of 19 and an item-adjusted Intelligence of 23 (from a +4 Headband of Intelligence) is still largely functional, just moderately less effective. (And yes, you could Sunder or Steal the Wizard's spell component pouch, but it's a lot easier to have backups of spell component pouches other than the really expensive uncommonly used material components, both on hand and back at home, than it is to have backups of major magic items.)
(Edited due to semi-Ninja.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, that anti-magic field which negated everyone's magic items? It's also making the wizard feel pretty dang useless. Meanwhile the fighter's magic armor and magic sword are still armor and a sword. Even without a functioning enchantment, they provide benefits.
the great thing about anti-magic fields is how small they are... if you know it exists, fly over it and conjure up some lava...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Makes me wonder, are groups like that filled with people who never played 2nd edition or earlier? Because it seems to me those of us who played 1st or 2nd edition as our introduction fantasy roleplaying have lower expectations on what you need to actually be effective. Probably due to the fact we had so many characters who had no bonuses due to high attributes, and were use to not raising our attributes with magic because doing so was rare and difficult. Fighter with 9 or 10 strength? Good to go, and just as effective as most other fighters. As an example
I grew up on 1e, and I can say this doesn't apply to me. The groups I played in tried many different dice systems to ensure you had a bonus in your primary stat. Many a fighter met an untimely death because it only had a 17 in strength. (a 17 int, wis or dex was less important for the other base classes) I don't recall a single fighter with less than 18(50) strength (I'm sure there were, I just don't recall them).
So it really does depend on the group who introduces you to the game and not the edition you started with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That +2 difference may not seem like much Bandw2. But it can, and does make a huge difference. One reason I avoided 3rd edition in favor of 2nd edition for years was because the system I thought made you too powerful too quickly. In 2nd edition you needed a high strength to get any bonuses to Thac0 and damage. That's "To Hit Armor Class 0" for those unfamiliar with the term. In fact, you needed a 17 or 18 Str score to get a +1 to-hit. You needed a 16+ str to get a +1 damage (18 Str for a +2 damage).
I've only ever played (at least when it comes to DnD) ADnD and pathfinder, so I know they meant a lot back in the day, but not really in the context of pathfinder, where you can easily and cheaply get a +2 belt of charisma.
i never did end up getting 18/00 strength. ALWAYS rolled below average when i actually managed an 18.
however, by the time I grew out of my "rolling is so fun and immersive" phase, I was always GMing ;-;.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, that anti-magic field which negated everyone's magic items? It's also making the wizard feel pretty dang useless. Meanwhile the fighter's magic armor and magic sword are still armor and a sword. Even without a functioning enchantment, they provide benefits.
That is true most of the time, but even that is subject to circumstances -- if the Wizard has enough levels in the Blackfire Adept prestige class and is as well versed in summoning as that prestige class expects, even the classic 6th level spell Antimagic Field isn't a hard counter. (Too bad that Good spellcasters don't have any way to get the equivalent ability . . . Antimagic Field is kind of in need of a rewrite anyway -- as is, it's too all-encompassing.)
(Edited due to quasi-Ninja.)
|
|
Makes me wonder, are groups like that filled with people who never played 2nd edition or earlier? Because it seems to me those of us who played 1st or 2nd edition as our introduction fantasy roleplaying have lower expectations on what you need to actually be effective. Probably due to the fact we had so many characters who had no bonuses due to high attributes, and were use to not raising our attributes with magic because doing so was rare and difficult. Fighter with 9 or 10 strength? Good to go, and just as effective as most other fighters. As an exampleI grew up on 1e, and I can say this doesn't apply to me. The groups I played in tried many different dice systems to ensure you had a bonus in your primary stat. Many a fighter met an untimely death because it only had a 17 in strength. (a 17 int, wis or dex was less important for the other base classes) I don't recall a single fighter with less than 18(50) strength (I'm sure there were, I just don't recall them).
So it really does depend on the group who introduces you to the game and not the edition you started with.
While I've had many a fighter with 9-13 Str in 2nd edition. Often they were a fighter simply because that 9 was their best stat. Or I've played more then a few wizards in 2nd edition that had an Int of 9, again because it was their best stat. The 2nd edition DMG specifically calls out that the only "useless" stat array is the one with nothing higher then an 8.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Edited due to quasi-Ninja.)
I am now Quasi-ninja master of probably most of martial arts.
While I've had many a fighter with 9-13 Str in 2nd edition.
now see, character's like that tended to die rather quickly, usually due to "their" "incompetence".
after a while we decided those people simply didn't go adventuring and rerolled until something interesting happened.
|
|
Not for me, they tended to actually do better then when I did roll really well. Probably because Joe the Clumsy was more cautious in a fight then Carl the Ungodly Strong And Agile. Or when Eric the not too bright wizzrd honestly doesn't know much magic, he tends to use what he does have more creatively then those more intelligent wizards with their fancy schooling and robust spell lists.
Things like "I cast Light on the nose guard of the bandit leader's helmet."
Which at the time got followed up by the GM going "Er..." and having to make up a ruling for what exactly happens when you use a non-combat spell in a way which clearly should have a combat function.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not for me, they tended to actually do better then when I did roll really well. Probably because Joe the Clumsy was more cautious in a fight then Carl the Ungodly Strong And Agile. Or when Eric the not too bright wizzrd honestly doesn't know much magic, he tends to use what he does have more creatively then those more intelligent wizards with their fancy schooling and robust spell lists.
Things like "I cast Light on the nose guard of the bandit leader's helmet."
Which at the time got followed up by the GM going "Er..." and having to make up a ruling for what exactly happens when you use a non-combat spell in a way which clearly should have a combat function.
huh i was in the "holy shit i rolled well, can't let this guy die!" camp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which makes me wonder, out of sheer curiosity, does anyone here play 40- or 50- or 60-pt buys?
I don't use point buy, but I use a rolling method that usually generates 40+ value equivalent scores (and offer an array of 18 17 16 14 13 11 that can be chosen after rolling).
I like PCs to be special destined hero types. Also I always start at lv 1, but don't have to use kid gloves when they have excellent stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason why everyone having high stats and fighting high stat monsters is different than everyone having low stats and fighting low stat monsters should be obvious (stat minimums in builds). If all stats are high then everyone makes it past the "you must be this tall to ride" gate. Which is good in my opinion. I never understood why you needed such a gate in a role playing game. And yet people cry havoc and let slips the dogs of war if I even suggest removing stat mins. Yet these same people push hard for higher and higher stats EVEN WHEN TOLD I use the same stats for the monsters.
I suspect it's psychological. The difference between a 16 and a 20 may be just 10% more hits but in reality it is a 67% increase in bonus from +3 to +5. And it feels like it too. When you hit two more times per encounter than the guy with a 16 you FEEL much stronger than 10%.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, that anti-magic field which negated everyone's magic items? It's also making the wizard feel pretty dang useless. Meanwhile the fighter's magic armor and magic sword are still armor and a sword. Even without a functioning enchantment, they provide benefits.
To be fair, a fully kitted level 20 Fighter is going to lose 5 from his saves, 5 from his attack and damage, any special properties from his armor and weapons, and somewhere between 15 and 20 armor class depending on if he uses sheilds. That's statistically similar to a fistful of negative levels. And considering the range of that spell, the Fighter is the one that's likely going to be stuck in it. And Nethys help him if he's relying on some flying or planar adeptation effect at the time.
But on the topic of incrimental bonuses and the Glorious Big Six? After putting some thought into the sheer number of bonuses from stat boosters and enhancements, nevermind class features and possible shenanigans, the gap between a 16 and an 18 post-racials doesn't seem like that big of a deal at all.
The more I read this thread, the more I want to try playing a character made with a 15 point buy. Or maybe some kind of roll-in-order system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In many respects, 2nd edition characters WERE single attribute characters. Only one attribute really mattered (the one that applied to you class) and saves were basically the same no matter what your attributes were. Skills, then called Non-Weapon Proficiences, weren't even introduced until after Unearthed Arcana (in the underground book, who's name I can't recall). You had very few weapons (1-3 sounds right) and really not much else.
3rd edition (and by proxy Pathfinder) blew up what a character could do. So, yes, attributes bonuses DO make a big difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I probably wouldn't allow a magic item to let you qualify for feats. If you only qualify for Power Attack when you're wearing your belt of strength, then I guess you don't qualify for Power Attack. After all, if you take off your stat boosting item at all it gives no benefit for 24 hours after you put it back on.
I think the issue, from a design balance perspective is that if you let you have "choices you made at character generation" be able to determine whether or not you can take a feat ten levels or later, you have to give the player some ability to overcome their initial choices.
Just aesthetically though I would prefer "more frequent permanent stat boosts" than "the belt lets you take a feat." This is another thing that I think ABP does better than the basic system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With respect to choices made at character generation, one possible partial solution is: Somebody posted earlier in this thread and in another thread (not sure if this was same poster) the idea of awarding ability score point buy build points at each level-up. To flesh this out, you would need to allow fractional ability scores (both at character creation and at level-up). The fractions wouldn't do anything by themselves, but would stack with more fractions to make whole numbers that would then do something.