15 point buy, why does it appeal to you?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 492 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

My group dislikes low point buys because it essentially leaves most attacks/abilities up to chance.


Being practically guaranteed to succeed just seems boring to me. At that point I would feel that having any sort of dice rolls would be pointless. It was at that point in my final Pathfinder game, where the paladin and magus couldn't miss except on a 1, and they couldn't be hit by the majority of creatures unless the GM rolled a 20 (or a 19 or whatever the crit range for the weapon was).

I know that my playstyle preference isn't compatible with most of the random Pathfinder players out there (especially those that seem to frequent roll20), and I am sure as people start breaking 5th edition D&D down to spreadsheets (even moreso than they do now), it will start to be incompatible with 5e players as well.

I am startin to see more and more "What race should I choose for (insert class name here)?" on D&D reddits and Enworld threads, and the first thing that pops into my head is "Whatever the hell race you want to play", yet I know they are wanting to get the biggest numbers.

I know I am different. I even made a kitsune barbarian in a game once (lasted only 2 sessions before the GM flaked out, so I never got to really play it), and they are definitely not the best race for a barbarian. But it seemed fun, and I wanted to try it out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A low strength in Ad&d 2 was less penalysing due to Strength Boosting Items gaves you a fixed strength (Gloves of Ogre Power 18/00, girdles from 19 to 24) so if you have the luck or the money and the opportunity to have one, it'll will increase survivability, I've played a lot of fighter and many of them had less than 18 in Strength and it was not an issue due to the system. In 3.x / PF, a low strength issue cannot be cancelled by strength boosting items, and does not allow you to take mandatory feats (Power Attack for example)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yondu wrote:


A low strength in Ad&d 2 was less penalysing due to Strength Boosting Items gaves you a fixed strength (Gloves of Ogre Power 18/00, girdles from 19 to 24) so if you have the luck or the money and the opportunity to have one, it'll will increase survivability, I've played a lot of fighter and many of them had less than 18 in Strength and it was not an issue due to the system. In 3.x / PF, a low strength issue cannot be cancelled by strength boosting items, and does not allow you to take mandatory feats (Power Attack for example)

Plus, again, the nuts and bolts of the game were less wedded to your attributes in 2nd ed than they are in 3rd/pathfinder. Comparing to 2nd ed fails on its face because yeah you could do 3d6 straight down, but your save DCs dont depend on high casting stat (though even in 2nd ed, if you didn't roll a natural 18 you didn't get 9th/7th for cleric level spells)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Adjule wrote:


I am startin to see more and more "What race should I choose for (insert class name here)?" on D&D reddits and Enworld threads, and the first thing that pops into my head is "Whatever the hell race you want to play", yet I know they are wanting to get the biggest numbers.

I just feel like pointing out that those people probably simply don't care what race they are, but have a chosen class, so they want to see what would work out really well.


Bandw2 wrote:
Adjule wrote:


I am startin to see more and more "What race should I choose for (insert class name here)?" on D&D reddits and Enworld threads, and the first thing that pops into my head is "Whatever the hell race you want to play", yet I know they are wanting to get the biggest numbers.
I just feel like pointing out that those people probably simply don't care what race they are, but have a chosen class, so they want to see what would work out really well.

In other words, they are picking the race for its numbers, like he said?

Verdant Wheel

Cyrad wrote:
My group dislikes low point buys because it essentially leaves most attacks/abilities up to chance.

What is wrong with dice?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
My group dislikes low point buys because it essentially leaves most attacks/abilities up to chance.
What is wrong with dice?

Nothing, so long as they mostly roll in your favor.

If I'm playing a character who fails on a 12 at things he's supposed to be good at, I feel like he really sucks.

As an optimizer I typically aim for success somewhere around 5 and up on a d20

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
My group dislikes low point buys because it essentially leaves most attacks/abilities up to chance.
What is wrong with dice?
Nothing, so long as they mostly roll in your favor.

Bah!


kyrt-ryder wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
My group dislikes low point buys because it essentially leaves most attacks/abilities up to chance.
What is wrong with dice?

Nothing, so long as they mostly roll in your favor.

If I'm playing a character who fails on a 12 at things he's supposed to be good at, I feel like he really sucks.

As an optimizer I typically aim for success somewhere around 5 and up on a d20

If that is your sentiment why play a dice based game at all? There are diceless RPGs out there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Adjule wrote:


I am startin to see more and more "What race should I choose for (insert class name here)?" on D&D reddits and Enworld threads, and the first thing that pops into my head is "Whatever the hell race you want to play", yet I know they are wanting to get the biggest numbers.
I just feel like pointing out that those people probably simply don't care what race they are, but have a chosen class, so they want to see what would work out really well.
In other words, they are picking the race for its numbers, like he said?

well yes and no, if you're asking for advice on what race makes a class work well, it's generally because they don't care what race they are.

"Whatever the hell race you want to play" isn't an question they would be able to answer. they don't want to play any specific race, just an alchemist. hence them asking for advice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Gauss wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
My group dislikes low point buys because it essentially leaves most attacks/abilities up to chance.
What is wrong with dice?

Nothing, so long as they mostly roll in your favor.

If I'm playing a character who fails on a 12 at things he's supposed to be good at, I feel like he really sucks.

As an optimizer I typically aim for success somewhere around 5 and up on a d20

If that is your sentiment why play a dice based game at all? There are diceless RPGs out there.

i feel that

if
"i shouldn't need to roll well to succeed at something I want to be good at"
then
"I'd have more fun playing a game that is diceless"

is a non sequitur.


No, it isn't.

If what you are doing is taking a system which is designed for an 'average result' and then you are optimizing it so that you get an 'above average result' most of the time then you are trying to reduce the effect of dice or eliminate it entirely.

kyrt-ryder basically said as much when he said that he wants to take a (presumably normal) 45% success rate and turn it into an 80% success rate because he feels that 45% success rate means his character "really sucks" (rather than has a more or less average chance of success).

Some people want the illusion of dice rolling but they really just want to roflstomp anything they come into contact with. I guess that is fine, but why delude yourself with the illusion? Just get rid of the dice rolling, go to a diceless system, and then RP the roflstomping adventure without all the math.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

No, it isn't.

If what you are doing is taking a system which is designed for an 'average result' and then you are optimizing it so that you get an 'above average result' most of the time then you are trying to reduce the effect of dice or eliminate it entirely.

kyrt-ryder basically said as much when he said that he wants to take a (presumably normal) 45% success rate and turn it into an 80% success rate because he feels that 45% success rate means his character "really sucks" (rather than has a more or less average chance of success).

Some people want the illusion of dice rolling but they really just want to roflstomp anything they come into contact with. I guess that is fine, but why delude yourself with the illusion? Just get rid of the dice rolling, go to a diceless system, and then RP the roflstomping adventure without all the math.

Kyrt wanted an 80% success rate at "something he's supposed to be good at". Surely 45% is a bit of a low goal for such a thing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
My group dislikes low point buys because it essentially leaves most attacks/abilities up to chance.
What is wrong with dice?

Nothing, so long as they mostly roll in your favor.

If I'm playing a character who fails on a 12 at things he's supposed to be good at, I feel like he really sucks.

As an optimizer I typically aim for success somewhere around 5 and up on a d20

If that is your sentiment why play a dice based game at all? There are diceless RPGs out there.

I initially learned to roleplay in online diceless forums so that may have an influence.

As to 'why dice at all' I like a game where there's a small chance of failure to keep things interesting, not a game where you're struggling to find success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

so are we arguing 15 point buy and why it appeals to one or if we want to be good at things were suppose to be good at?(and is that a serious question?) I think the better question would be does 15 point buy actually make for a lower power level game for all or just for some classes and is it enough to notice a difference?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:

i feel that

if
"i shouldn't need to roll well to succeed at something I want to be good at"
then
"I'd have more fun playing a game that is diceless"

is a non sequitur.

Gauss wrote:

No, it isn't.

If what you are doing is taking a system which is designed for an 'average result' and then you are optimizing it so that you get an 'above average result' most of the time then you are trying to reduce the effect of dice or eliminate it entirely.
{. . .}

It could be a non sequitur if you prefer the diceless mechanic, but even more prefer everything else about the Pathfinder system relative to that of the available diceless systems, or likewise even if you prefer the diceless system itself, but even more prefer the Pathfinder Campaign Setting to the campaign settings that can be found with the available diceless systems, and can't get anyone else in on a conversion of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting to one of those systems (for that matter, conversion of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting to any non-D&D/PF system would be a monumental undertaking -- conversion to 5th Edition D&D is largest leap in that direction that I've heard of anyone doing). In other words, diceless mechanics might be something desirable in a game, but not sufficient to guarantee preference for those games that have that characteristic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Gauss wrote:

No, it isn't.

If what you are doing is taking a system which is designed for an 'average result' and then you are optimizing it so that you get an 'above average result' most of the time then you are trying to reduce the effect of dice or eliminate it entirely.

kyrt-ryder basically said as much when he said that he wants to take a (presumably normal) 45% success rate and turn it into an 80% success rate because he feels that 45% success rate means his character "really sucks" (rather than has a more or less average chance of success).

Some people want the illusion of dice rolling but they really just want to roflstomp anything they come into contact with. I guess that is fine, but why delude yourself with the illusion? Just get rid of the dice rolling, go to a diceless system, and then RP the roflstomping adventure without all the math.

Kyrt wanted an 80% success rate at "something he's supposed to be good at". Surely 45% is a bit of a low goal for such a thing?

I don't think that a chirugeon who supposed to be good at something will be happy to miss 55 of his operations, he is supposed to have a near perfect score in what he is trained for, so yes 45% is a low goal for something you should be an expert in...


Yondu wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Gauss wrote:

No, it isn't.

If what you are doing is taking a system which is designed for an 'average result' and then you are optimizing it so that you get an 'above average result' most of the time then you are trying to reduce the effect of dice or eliminate it entirely.

kyrt-ryder basically said as much when he said that he wants to take a (presumably normal) 45% success rate and turn it into an 80% success rate because he feels that 45% success rate means his character "really sucks" (rather than has a more or less average chance of success).

Some people want the illusion of dice rolling but they really just want to roflstomp anything they come into contact with. I guess that is fine, but why delude yourself with the illusion? Just get rid of the dice rolling, go to a diceless system, and then RP the roflstomping adventure without all the math.

Kyrt wanted an 80% success rate at "something he's supposed to be good at". Surely 45% is a bit of a low goal for such a thing?

I don't think that a chirugeon who supposed to be good at something will be happy to miss 55 of his operations, he is supposed to have a near perfect score in what he is trained for, so yes 45% is a low goal for something you should be an expert in...

A surgeon also doesn't have an active opponent who Is ALSO good at what he does opposing him directly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But the injury and time and blood loss etc is his opponent.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
But the injury and time and blood loss etc is his opponent.

However, they are not actively opposing him and skilled in their own right which is very different. An excellent shooter in the NBA can hit baskets all day when wide open. He does very well to hit sixty percent overall when actively guarded. Heck, if he routinely hits over fifty he's likely to be offered a very nice contract.

If the subject of the surgery was actively grabbing the surgeon's hands and kicking him while he was trying to do his surgery, then we could talk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

80% may be a high goal, but I think somewhere between 60-75% isn't unreasonable for experts at what they do. To succeed more often than fail is what is desired here.

In many people's games, heroic NPCs are SUPPOSED to be the type that would be offered a very nice contract if they were a sports star. This may be different for different groups, but that's where that particular impulse comes from.

To be honest, part of this comes from culture. Whenever someone fails at something they are supposed to be good at, there's usually a joke cracked, at least in games I've played in. Which is fine and normal, but when there's a fairly constant string of failures, the incompetence of the characters are emphasized, probably more than they should be. The result is that "expert" characters just feel like blowhards who act like they are better than they are. As GM I try to make it clear that they are facing heavy opposition and it's natural that attacks might end in failure, but I can only do so much.

Dark Archive

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Gauss wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
My group dislikes low point buys because it essentially leaves most attacks/abilities up to chance.
What is wrong with dice?

Nothing, so long as they mostly roll in your favor.

If I'm playing a character who fails on a 12 at things he's supposed to be good at, I feel like he really sucks.

As an optimizer I typically aim for success somewhere around 5 and up on a d20

If that is your sentiment why play a dice based game at all? There are diceless RPGs out there.

I initially learned to roleplay in online diceless forums so that may have an influence.

As to 'why dice at all' I like a game where there's a small chance of failure to keep things interesting, not a game where you're struggling to find success.

I tend to avoid free form games in Play-By-Post format roleplaying. There's too many people who never get hit always manage to strike their opponent, can spot the subtlest of clues from twelve miles away, and so forth. In one fantasy based free-form game I tried playing in one player described in his post the following sequence actions for his character

1. figuring out that that my character considered his home to be tasteless and over done (despite the fact I was being rather polite and hiding this belief)
2. ran across the dining hall length wise
3. grabbed my character by the head before I can react
4. slammed my character's head into the wall six times
5. drew my peace bound sword
6. thrust the sword into my character's stomach
7. finally said "Never insult my home again"

All that, without giving me a chance to react at all. If you're unfamiliar with the term, a peace bound blade is one which has a cord tied around the hilt and scabbard to prevent the weapon from being drawn.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Yondu wrote:
I don't think that a chirugeon who supposed to be good at something will be happy to miss 55 of his operations, he is supposed to have a near perfect score in what he is trained for, so yes 45% is a low goal for something you should be an expert in...

In a fantasy world or low magic historical setting such as the 1800's, then yes I'd say a 55% chance for the skilled doctor to successfully treat their patient sounds about right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Gauss wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
My group dislikes low point buys because it essentially leaves most attacks/abilities up to chance.
What is wrong with dice?

Nothing, so long as they mostly roll in your favor.

If I'm playing a character who fails on a 12 at things he's supposed to be good at, I feel like he really sucks.

As an optimizer I typically aim for success somewhere around 5 and up on a d20

If that is your sentiment why play a dice based game at all? There are diceless RPGs out there.

I initially learned to roleplay in online diceless forums so that may have an influence.

As to 'why dice at all' I like a game where there's a small chance of failure to keep things interesting, not a game where you're struggling to find success.

I tend to avoid free form games in Play-By-Post format roleplaying. There's too many people who never get hit always manage to strike their opponent, can spot the subtlest of clues from twelve miles away, and so forth. In one fantasy based free-form game I tried playing in one player described in his post the following sequence actions for his character

1. figuring out that that my character considered his home to be tasteless and over done (despite the fact I was being rather polite and hiding this belief)
2. ran across the dining hall length wise
3. grabbed my character by the head before I can react
4. slammed my character's head into the wall six times
5. drew my peace bound sword
6. thrust the sword into my character's stomach
7. finally said "Never insult my home again"

All that, without giving me a chance to react at all. If you're unfamiliar with the term, a peace bound blade is one which has a cord tied around the hilt and scabbard to prevent the weapon from being drawn.

Rule one of Freeform Roleplay: never do it publically without rules.

A private game between friends probably doesn't need rules but a forum game does. Things like Action Limits, specific special abilities approved by the staff and explicit laws against imposing any result on another Player Character are good things to look for.

It's a player's job to portray his character's reaction/response to anything targetting him, including whether or not it happens and to what degree [influenced by circumstances and stats/abilities if the game has them.]

Dark Archive

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:

I tend to avoid free form games in Play-By-Post format roleplaying. There's too many people who never get hit always manage to strike their opponent, can spot the subtlest of clues from twelve miles away, and so forth. In one fantasy based free-form game I tried playing in one player described in his post the following sequence actions for his character

1. figuring out that that my character considered his home to be tasteless and over done (despite the fact I was being rather polite and hiding this belief)
2. ran across the dining hall length wise
3. grabbed my character by the head before I can react
4. slammed my character's head into the wall six times
5. drew my peace bound sword
6. thrust the sword into my character's stomach
7. finally said "Never insult my home again"

All that, without giving me a chance to react at all. If you're unfamiliar with the term, a peace bound blade is one which has a cord tied around the hilt and scabbard to prevent the weapon from being drawn.

Rule one of Freeform Roleplay: never do it publically without rules.

A private game between friends probably doesn't need rules but a forum game does. Things like Action Limits, specific special abilities approved by the staff and explicit laws against imposing any result on another Player Character are good things to look for.

It's a player's job to portray his character's reaction/response to anything targetting him, including whether or not it happens and to what degree [influenced by circumstances and stats/abilities if the game has them.]

Even when the GM has rules like that, you'll generally see more people who never get hit (or only a very minor cosmetic only scratch) and always hit what they aim for. The play-by-post free form community for the most part just doesn't understand the concept of "no dictating other peoples actions"

I've done some really great free-form RP, but only with a single person. And that was more 2 people writing short stories. We'd take turns coming up with increasingly bad situations, and the other trying to figure out a way to escape said bad situations while ALSO adding more complications into the mix. Rather fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Even when the GM has rules like that, you'll generally see more people who never get hit (or only a very minor cosmetic only scratch) and always hit what they aim for. The play-by-post free form community for the most part just doesn't understand the concept of "no dictating other peoples actions"

When you say GM... Do you mean that in the Tabletop sense of somebody managing an adventure?

I have extremely little experience with PBP of that sort, mine is the type with Staff overseeing a website filled with individual characters roleplaying their own paths in the world, including where those paths cross with other players or forum events.

Dark Archive

I usually do play-by-post gaming on RPOL.net, use to use Playbyweb.com but that site's mostly dead these days. On that each game board is a separate game, run by the board's GM or GMs. SOme games are story centered, where threads are created as old story threads are filled. Others are location driven where there's a thread for each location, and players move between threads as they travel around during the game.

Typically in location based games it's expected you start a post when you enter a thread with something along the lines of

Quote:
<- from (previous location)

and end posts where you're about to change location with something like

Quote:
to (next location) ->

Personally, I prefer using story threads instead of location threads. Much easier to track what's going on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:
Naoki00 wrote:
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.

Well I've been playing DnD for several years and coming up close with pathfinder, honestly the system itself doesn't bother me. It might be a little hard to explain the type of feeling the general idea of 15pb gives me, partly because I know it's not a commonly shared feeling among the community (and no one can really explain why they are weird on some things).

I considered not playing simply because I know I wouldn't have as much fun as I would have liked too. The character would probably just use the 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10 array for every character I would end of making (because I have an extreme distaste for a hero having a tangible penalty that isn't self-roleplay induced) and have a really limited pool of classes that would more feasibly 'work' with that. Yes anything can be made to function, but I want it to function as well as someone who went a SAD class or at least feel like I do.

It's also a general aversion to dying. I do everything possible to not die. Having a character I spent 2-3 hours on creating a background for and figuring out what they want or why they are involved in the plot feels really bad when they just kick it and I have to try to get into playing a different character all together. At least with somewhat higher stats it doesn't feel like "I died because I wasn't able to avoid it", and more like "I died because I made a mistake".

Is it mostly just a 'feels bad man' placebo kind of thing? Yeah it is, and I won't deny that it's completely possible that it's just over the top.

As for the making friends part that's more of a "I don't really make new friends" deal. I wouldn't mind seeing them more or not, and thankfully they all know I'm a pretty antisocial person in real life. Online I'm a lot more social lol.

And thanks for all the replies from everyone! I'm really enjoying the discussion, and if nothing else some points are at least opening my thoughts to giving such a game type more thought than "no".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Richard Federle wrote:

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."

I wholeheartedly agree here! Though this is an interesting way to generate stats, I'll have to toy around with this in one or two of my own games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:
Adjule wrote:

...

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.

** spoiler omitted **...

I'm really sorry something like that happened, even if I'm an advocate for higher numbers than some I can say that whoever would say such things to you is a very sad little person. Even if I might not see lower numbers in a 'heroic' light I can say I wouldn't diminish the accomplishments of a character no matter what scores they carry. Hope your future games have people that understand that personal preferences are no excuse for ridicule in a game all about coming together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
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 run my games the same on this. The fact that my group (and myself personally) refuses to even buy or use stat boosting items kinda is part of why we are the way we are on stats. We don't like our 'heros' being nothing but walking magic shops unable to do much without their use array of stat boosting super items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Naoki00 wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
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 run my games the same on this. The fact that my group (and myself personally) refuses to even buy or use stat boosting items kinda is part of why we are the way we are on stats. We don't like our 'heros' being nothing but walking magic shops unable to do much without their use array of stat boosting super items.

if you already don't use stat boosting items do you have any problems at higher levels?

There is a good optional rule in unchained to eliminate purely stat boosting magic items while still keeping toons at the appropriate bonuses so they don't struggle with encounters. It does still boost your stats mind you but i think the idea is it comes from the character instead of an outside source. (in case you were not aware)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Naoki00 wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
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 run my games the same on this. The fact that my group (and myself personally) refuses to even buy or use stat boosting items kinda is part of why we are the way we are on stats. We don't like our 'heros' being nothing but walking magic shops unable to do much without their use array of stat boosting super items.

if you already don't use stat boosting items do you have any problems at higher levels?

There is a good optional rule in unchained to eliminate purely stat boosting magic items while still keeping toons at the appropriate bonuses so they don't struggle with encounters. It does still boost your stats mind you but i think the idea is it comes from the character instead of an outside source. (in case you were not aware)

I wasn't aware of that rule no, and now I'll be looking that up soon! As for higher levels one thing that is common in our games is an ability point every 3 levels instead of 4, but occasionally we'll also use flavorful templates to add power to a character if the reasoning fits. That ones less common though.


heh that really only gives you one more attribute point over 20 levels ;D but the template idea does sound cool. Kind of a funny thought but would work mechanically is to have templates take up item slots (even though it doesn't make much rational sense)

Yeah I wish I could remember the exact name of it but I know its on pfsrd and was in unchained.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe you're referring to Automatic Bonus Progression.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Gauss wrote:

No, it isn't.

If what you are doing is taking a system which is designed for an 'average result' and then you are optimizing it so that you get an 'above average result' most of the time then you are trying to reduce the effect of dice or eliminate it entirely.

this is all well and good, but still doesn't make, someone wanting a diceless game, because they want to be good at something they aim for a 80% success rate, correct.

there isn't any direct logic there and only assumed personality traits.

again

"I shouldn't need to roll well to succeed at something I want to be good at"

you can't be good at something if you fail half the time, that's plain and simple, so you should be able to roll a bad roll and still come out on top if you're an expert at it, beating the odds. At the same time, you still have to in some circumstances because saying you shouldn't doesn't not conflate into "you have to".

The Exchange

Naoki00 wrote:
To me 15 point buy represents "unheroic" characters, average, normal, everyday people who happen to be thrust into a fantastic adventure.

Interestingly enough, that is actually exactly, what I prefer to play or run games for. I'm much more interested in the story about how Joe Average has to become a hero to save the world as in the story how Superman saves the world for the thousandst time.

Now I wouldn't say that PB 15 makes your character into an Joe Average (you're still a hero compared to a normal commoner) as I wouldn't say that PFRPG is perfectly suited to my particular taste. But it works for me well enough that I keep playing it.

Quote:
mainly because I always imagined the heroes of the story are all just better then the rest in everyday aspects.

I like my heroes flawed and that's also the case with the heroes in books or movies I prefer. Doesn't mean that they are weak, but if they are so good at everything that you have to go out of your way to really challenge them, it can easily get boring to play them.

Bandw2 wrote:
"I shouldn't need to roll well to succeed at something I want to be good at"

To me, it's a matter of interpretation what "I want to be good at X" means. If I personally say, for example: "I want to be good at fighting.", I mean that I want to play a character that could hold his own again most members of his own race (in my cae, normal humans). What it does not mean is that I want to be able to kill dragons easily or at all. Again PB 15 allows me basically to play any character I want to play (and yes, even MAD characters), and that it's a bit harder to succeed with those characters, to me, is a feature, not a bug.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Naoki00 wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
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 run my games the same on this. The fact that my group (and myself personally) refuses to even buy or use stat boosting items kinda is part of why we are the way we are on stats. We don't like our 'heros' being nothing but walking magic shops unable to do much without their use array of stat boosting super items.

those poor occulists...

XD


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:


Bandw2 wrote:
"I shouldn't need to roll well to succeed at something I want to be good at"
To me, it's a matter of interpretation what "I want to be good at X" means. If I personally say, for example: "I want to be good at fighting.", I mean that I want to play a character that could hold his own again most members of his own race (in my cae, normal humans). What it does not mean is that I want to be able to kill dragons easily or at all. Again PB 15 allows me basically to play any character I want to play (and yes, even MAD characters), and that it's a bit harder to succeed with those characters, to me, is a feature, not a bug.

which probably means you want to win more than 80% of your fights. which is what kyrt is trying to say. not all of them, just most.

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:


Bandw2 wrote:
"I shouldn't need to roll well to succeed at something I want to be good at"
To me, it's a matter of interpretation what "I want to be good at X" means. If I personally say, for example: "I want to be good at fighting.", I mean that I want to play a character that could hold his own again most members of his own race (in my cae, normal humans). What it does not mean is that I want to be able to kill dragons easily or at all. Again PB 15 allows me basically to play any character I want to play (and yes, even MAD characters), and that it's a bit harder to succeed with those characters, to me, is a feature, not a bug.
which probably means you want to win more than 80% of your fights.

Except heroes tend to fight things that are also very good at fights.

Someone good at fighting might win 80% of bar brawls but when they're against legions of Orcs. four-armed demons, towering giants and unfeeling, relentless undead, you have to lower the bar when it comes to what success rate is 'good at fighting'.

A party should be more than the sum of its parts. Teamwork and synergy don't come out much better than they do in 15pb.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
The Dandy Lion wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:


Bandw2 wrote:
"I shouldn't need to roll well to succeed at something I want to be good at"
To me, it's a matter of interpretation what "I want to be good at X" means. If I personally say, for example: "I want to be good at fighting.", I mean that I want to play a character that could hold his own again most members of his own race (in my cae, normal humans). What it does not mean is that I want to be able to kill dragons easily or at all. Again PB 15 allows me basically to play any character I want to play (and yes, even MAD characters), and that it's a bit harder to succeed with those characters, to me, is a feature, not a bug.
which probably means you want to win more than 80% of your fights.

Except heroes tend to fight things that are also very good at fights.

Someone good at fighting might win 80% of bar brawls but when they're against legions of Orcs. four-armed demons, towering giants and unfeeling, relentless undead, you have to lower the bar when it comes to what success rate is 'good at fighting'.

A party should be more than the sum of its parts. Teamwork and synergy don't come out much better than they do in 15pb.

someone who should win 80% of all fights in my book would win 99% of all bar fights. bar fights probably aren't even CR appropriate.

also the last line is false, everyone focuses on surviving at 15 pb, not on filling holes. you get the essentials, not the luxuries.


The Dandy Lion wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:


Bandw2 wrote:
"I shouldn't need to roll well to succeed at something I want to be good at"
To me, it's a matter of interpretation what "I want to be good at X" means. If I personally say, for example: "I want to be good at fighting.", I mean that I want to play a character that could hold his own again most members of his own race (in my cae, normal humans). What it does not mean is that I want to be able to kill dragons easily or at all. Again PB 15 allows me basically to play any character I want to play (and yes, even MAD characters), and that it's a bit harder to succeed with those characters, to me, is a feature, not a bug.
which probably means you want to win more than 80% of your fights.

Except heroes tend to fight things that are also very good at fights.

Someone good at fighting might win 80% of bar brawls but when they're against legions of Orcs. four-armed demons, towering giants and unfeeling, relentless undead, you have to lower the bar when it comes to what success rate is 'good at fighting'.

So play a Wizard, Cleric or Druid, got it.

In the meantime I'll be gming for heroes not chum [the fishing term]


The Dandy Lion wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:


Bandw2 wrote:
"I shouldn't need to roll well to succeed at something I want to be good at"
To me, it's a matter of interpretation what "I want to be good at X" means. If I personally say, for example: "I want to be good at fighting.", I mean that I want to play a character that could hold his own again most members of his own race (in my cae, normal humans). What it does not mean is that I want to be able to kill dragons easily or at all. Again PB 15 allows me basically to play any character I want to play (and yes, even MAD characters), and that it's a bit harder to succeed with those characters, to me, is a feature, not a bug.
which probably means you want to win more than 80% of your fights.

Except heroes tend to fight things that are also very good at fights.

Someone good at fighting might win 80% of bar brawls but when they're against legions of Orcs. four-armed demons, towering giants and unfeeling, relentless undead, you have to lower the bar when it comes to what success rate is 'good at fighting'.

A party should be more than the sum of its parts. Teamwork and synergy don't come out much better than they do in 15pb.

I've never found PB to affect teamwork.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm already on record as not understanding this, but can someone explain to me how "characters are more or less capable" has anything to do with teamwork? I see literally no correlation except "if you design encounters that are too easy, players don't need to work together."

Seems like the solution to that has nothing to do with point buy and everything to do with encounter design. Certainly 10 PB characters will be more challenged by a handful of random orcs than 25 PB characters would ceteris paribus, but in my experience players tend to judge fights like that as dull and disengage regardless of how challenged they are.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
The Dandy Lion wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:


Bandw2 wrote:
"I shouldn't need to roll well to succeed at something I want to be good at"
To me, it's a matter of interpretation what "I want to be good at X" means. If I personally say, for example: "I want to be good at fighting.", I mean that I want to play a character that could hold his own again most members of his own race (in my cae, normal humans). What it does not mean is that I want to be able to kill dragons easily or at all. Again PB 15 allows me basically to play any character I want to play (and yes, even MAD characters), and that it's a bit harder to succeed with those characters, to me, is a feature, not a bug.
which probably means you want to win more than 80% of your fights.

Except heroes tend to fight things that are also very good at fights.

Someone good at fighting might win 80% of bar brawls but when they're against legions of Orcs. four-armed demons, towering giants and unfeeling, relentless undead, you have to lower the bar when it comes to what success rate is 'good at fighting'.

So play a Wizard, Cleric or Druid, got it.

In the meantime I'll be gming for heroes not chum [the fishing term]

this is true, suddenly, it's "okay" to be really good at fighting demons if you're a wizard or cleric, this is why we can't have nice things.

The Exchange

Bandw2 wrote:
which probably means you want to win more than 80% of your fights. which is what kyrt is trying to say. not all of them, just most.

I'm not arguing against what Kyrt said at all, it's just that his preferences aren't necessarily my preferences. And I (meaning the groups I play in) actually want to win more than 80% of the fights (I like surviving to tell the tale), but I feel that this is absolutely possible with PB 15 characters, so I don't feel the need to be better than that. With the added benefit that to me it feels more heroic to pull the stunt with a PB 15 character than with a PB 25+ character.

Possible Cabbage wrote:
I'm already on record as not understanding this, but can someone explain to me how "characters are more or less capable" has anything to do with teamwork? I see literally no correlation except "if you design encounters that are too easy, players don't need to work together."

Well, I'm playing a lot of official stuff, and this stuff is balanced vs PB 15. And as I'm used to it, I also use this standard to create my own adventures. (I'm not designing with a specific group in mind). So from this point of view, the necessity of working together as a team doesn't depend on the difficulty of the encounters (because this difficulty is set) but on the power level of the characters (depending at least partly on the way they are created).

I can see that it's the other way round if you're designing the encounters with a specific group in mind, though. So again, it's a matter of preference.


WormysQueue wrote:

Well, I'm playing a lot of official stuff, and this stuff is balanced vs PB 15. And as I'm used to it, I also use this standard to create my own adventures. (I'm not designing with a specific group in mind). So from this point of view, the necessity of working together as a team doesn't depend on the difficulty of the encounters (because this difficulty is set) but on the power level of the characters (depending at least partly on the way they are created).

I can see that it's the other way round if you're designing the encounters with a specific group in mind, though. So again, it's a matter of preference.

I feel like even if we're talking about official stuff you're going to see a big difference facing off against a party consisting of a wizard, a druid, an oracle, and a bard versus facing off against a party consisting of a Swashbuckler, a Brawler, a Cavalier, and an Inquisitor.

So there's a lot of things to consider, one is point buy, but there's also things like inherent class potency, build quality, and how well a group that didn't collaborate on who's playing what works together out of the box (and "asking someone to play something they didn't want to play" is a good way to ruin games.) It seems like the only reliable standard is "make sure your players are appropriately challenged" (I'd probably have to tune things up for the first party and down for the 2nd party, regardless of point buy).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Gauss wrote:

No, it isn't.

If what you are doing is taking a system which is designed for an 'average result' and then you are optimizing it so that you get an 'above average result' most of the time then you are trying to reduce the effect of dice or eliminate it entirely.

this is all well and good, but still doesn't make, someone wanting a diceless game, because they want to be good at something they aim for a 80% success rate, correct.

there isn't any direct logic there and only assumed personality traits.

again

"I shouldn't need to roll well to succeed at something I want to be good at"

you can't be good at something if you fail half the time, that's plain and simple, so you should be able to roll a bad roll and still come out on top if you're an expert at it, beating the odds. At the same time, you still have to in some circumstances because saying you shouldn't doesn't not conflate into "you have to".

You can't be good at something if you fail half the time? That's just patently false.

Do you ever watch baseball? A batter who only fails to get on base half the time, isn't just good, he's playing in his kid's middle school league instead of the majors where he belongs.

In Pathfinder, if a 'highly optimized' character is confronted by an equally 'highly optimized' character of the same level, which should happen on a regular basis, should win just as often as he loses, the two being of the same skill.

A player who wants to succeed on rolls 80% of the times would be better off seeking out challenges no higher than his level -4.


Steve, do your parties regularly lose? Or are you frequently fudging encounters?

If you fail on average half the time, then you LOSE on average half the time. The sum of individual averages is the total average.

If you aren't fudging, aren't deliberately downplaying or down-powering the opposition or defeating your players...

... do you have some players carrying the 'average joes'?

Speaking as a GM, I play hardball. My enemies are exactly as written either in the bestiaries or in the books, and they fight ruthlessly. A failed save likely means the party just lost 25% of its battle power and is dramatically closer to being completely defeated [either TPK or capture.]

1 to 50 of 492 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / 15 point buy, why does it appeal to you? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.