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."
I've always thought it meant that with low-end point buy your characters will necessarily have weak spots - which need to be covered for by the other players. With a high point buy, PCs can cover over those holes themselves and thus not be forced to rely on their team-mates as much.
That's my understanding of the argument, anyhow.
I've always thought it meant that with low-end point buy your characters will necessarily have weak spots - which need to be covered for by the other players. With a high point buy, PCs can cover over those holes themselves and thus not be forced to rely on their team-mates as much.
That's my understanding of the argument, anyhow.
But even with really high point buys, everybody is still going to have weak spots. Every class (except the chained monk) has at least one bad save, Wizards don't want you to get in their face, melee oriented martials are less effective when they can't full attack, etc.
The difference generated by a character being able to buy up their Wisdom to slightly higher to shore up a bad will save isn't the sort of thing that results a character not having a weakness. "Hits slightly less often or for less damage" isn't the sort of character weak spot that's very interesting, either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm not trying to persuade you it's a sound argument, or even just valid. My style as a player doesn't really fit into point bu so I don't have particularly strong held positions.
I was just explaining the argument (as I understand it anyhow). I guess the response would be that the higher the point buy, the easier it is to plug those weaknesses and thus rely on teamwork less.
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.
just saying it's easier to pump to-hit than AC, and pumping AC isn't all that rewarding. as in, heavily optimized character's are going to hit each other quite a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.]
No, my player's regularly win because they're either fighting 4 on 1 or they're fighting 4 on 4 enemies 2-4 levels behind them (or some variation thereof), the way the game is supposed to be played. If each individual player has a 50% success chance, the party as a whole has a 95% chance that at least one of them will succeed, resulting in a WIN for the party.
Monsters from the bestiaries are not balanced for hyper-optimized parties, and are pretty worthless for a GM in those situations; as others have pointed out: it's just as easy to resolve roflstomp encounters without dice or even stats.
Class-leveled NPCs and monsters, who are optimized to the same extent as the players should hit the players just as often as the players hit them.
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
As in those new(ish) classes? Since we aren't very aware of the mechanics we haven't used them. But I would at least be reasonable and start to incorporate more item based things if it was integral to a character. Usually the items I do drop are unique, offer varied and tangible pros/cons, and often could fit on multiple characters. The group tends to like the "I have the mythical sword of [insert name]! I...need to figure out what it does." over just plain old boost items.
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.
You aren't wrong! It's usually all that's 'necessary' considering our group has a pretty high level of system mastery across most of the players. Usually we have no issues having slightly above normal stats (Our investigator is down the board 13, 16, 14, 18, 12, 18 for example, some very lucky rolls on his part) dealing with level appropriate things or occasionally CR +1 encounters. The trade off seems to be that they are more powerful early (not uncommon to deal with CR2-3 encounters at level 1 if they all are coordinating like a team) and by about 5th-6th level they are evened out. Because we don't use the boosting items it's basically like they always had lesser versions of them mechanically from the start. Doesn't really cause issues in mid level from our experience.
The templates though I will usually have as a reward very meaningful roleplay and story segments if the players all did things in a way I feel deserves such a permanent boon. Once for example the party had infiltrated the Abyss (around 14th level at this point), and our cleric hurled himself into a portal to the Abyss so that the party could escape. They turned right back around and jumped in after him once they secured what they went in to grab. The cleric's player had just assumed they would let him sacrifice himself, but once they were all their I just continued from that point. They managed to beat one of the lower demon lords, and in thanks for showing such dedication to their friend the cleric's god (Sarenrae) gave them all a celestial guardian (Celestial blessed template with an angel of their choice).
Oh ok you use dice generated stats I was assuming 15 point buy yeah ok I can see that working out. Yeah that definitely sounds like a fun way of doing it.
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.
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.
"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.
About the common stand of "if they are good at everything they aren't challenged" and heroes with flaws, I'll say we aren't flawless and certainly aren't GOOD at everything. I'll take that investigator for example. His character is a genius from the most prestigious magical college in the nation he's from...but he's a total failure at magic. He got by cheating the system with his wit and intellect to get the funds for his budding detective agency. However he can't be trusted with funds because he's an impulse buyer, he's melodramatic and so egotistical our barbarian nearly smacked him with a stick to make him stop talking. He's good with his hands but dense as a rock with subtly (despite his intellect and charisma, he as a person has no eye for social situations), and he tends to cause more trouble than he solves.
But this doesn't mean he's also not an asset to the team and lovable in his own weirdly Shelldon Cooper meets House kinda way. He just doesn't have to have negatives in a score and give a penalty to numerous things to be very, very flawed. That barbarian I mentioned is a war vet with one arm and bad eye. Just my own thoughts on how we have flawed heroes. We go for flawed on the personal level and roleplay with that.
Oh ok you use dice generated stats I was assuming 15 point buy yeah ok I can see that working out. Yeah that definitely sounds like a fun way of doing it.
Yep it's usually 4d6 drop lowest, occasionally reroll 1s if we're feeling particularly cheeky that game. One of the rules we always have though is that if someone rolls a god-like array the other players can just choose to use that one if the roller doesn't want to give up the huge numbers. Usually this doesn't happen and we get an average of 10-14s more than straight 16s or up, and can make the characters a bit samey, but we figure it's better to have everyone on the same level or around there. On one occasion a player rolled 17, 18, 17, 16, 16, 15. Before the other players chimed in he told them flat out he was dropping two of those to a 12 and one to a 14 just so it wasn't TOO much. We like being able to contribute our characters input in almost any situation the whole party needs or fend for ourselves if separated is about it.
Point Buy I will say is fantastic in this regard though. 25 point buy is what we use for APs (and let me tell you, Skulls and Shackles part 1 doesn't give a kobold's backside if you've got straight 18s. No climb check? HOT BOX FOR YOU).
|
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).
I do not really disagree with anything you said here. Still, the thing is that if you've created a game with a certain difficulty in mind, you'll probably have less work if you choose the players accordingly.
On the other hand, if you want to play more powerful characters but expect from me to increase the challenge accordingly, we'll basically end where we already were at the beginning. Only difference being that I had to put in more work to come to the same result.
That's why I personally have no problems with players like kyrt. He optimizes to increase his chances, which is fine with me. And in this case it would actually be detrimental to his fun if I reacted with increasing the difficulty, because that would mean that his chances decreases. My preferences as a player lie elsewhere but if I am the GM and he is the player it's not about my player preferences but about his.
As in those new(ish) classes? Since we aren't very aware of the mechanics we haven't used them. But I would at least be reasonable and start to incorporate more item based things if it was integral to a character. Usually the items I do drop are unique, offer varied and tangible pros/cons, and often could fit on multiple characters. The group tends to like the "I have the mythical sword of [insert name]! I...need to figure out what it does." over just plain old boost items.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
no the occultist, is an occult class (i know, hard to figure right?) who's premise is he casts magic by using various items he finds or buys that have at least some significance, with their base price being like 10 gp i think.
like to cast transmutation spells you need a weapon or a talisman or something as a focus.
so get it? it was a joke, haha. a very misplaced joke. ;-;
Poor bandw2 no one understands him
As in those new(ish) classes? Since we aren't very aware of the mechanics we haven't used them. But I would at least be reasonable and start to incorporate more item based things if it was integral to a character. Usually the items I do drop are unique, offer varied and tangible pros/cons, and often could fit on multiple characters. The group tends to like the "I have the mythical sword of [insert name]! I...need to figure out what it does." over just plain old boost items.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
no the occultist, is an occult class (i know, hard to figure right?) who's premise is he casts magic by using various items he finds or buys that have at least some significance, with their base price being like 10 gp i think.
like to cast transmutation spells you need a weapon or a talisman or something as a focus.
so get it? it was a joke, haha. a very misplaced joke. ;-;
Well I can say I did think it was an occult class at least XD
I wouldn't have a problem letting them do their thing though, I mean if it's their whole deal why stop them having fun?
Orcs are Cr 1/3rd enemies using 5 point buy for stats. Your 15 point buy dude is way better than an orc even at level 1.which probably means you want to win more than 80% of your fights.
"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.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.
No, a group of 3 Orcs are a challenge for a group of 4 1st level PCs.
No, my player's regularly win because they're either fighting 4 on 1 or they're fighting 4 on 4 enemies 2-4 levels behind them (or some variation thereof), the way the game is supposed to be played. If each individual player has a 50% success chance, the party as a whole has a 95% chance that at least one of them will succeed, resulting in a WIN for the party.
Monsters from the bestiaries are not balanced for hyper-optimized parties, and are pretty worthless for a GM in those situations; as others have pointed out: it's just as easy to resolve roflstomp encounters without dice or even stats.
Class-leveled NPCs and monsters, who are optimized to the same extent as the players should hit the players just as often as the players hit them.
4 on 1 fights are notoriously difficult to balance, and most games I've noticed these days feature battles that are several CR above the players- these usually aren't even boss battles, just regular encounters. I'm talking normal adventure paths, but it gets even worse in, say, Frog God Games adventures that are actively meant to be difficult.
So I only have one objection to this post, and it's the phrase "the way the game is supposed to be played", because this is very arguable and differs by the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, a group of 3 Orcs are a challenge for a group of 4 1st level PCs.stuffOrcs are Cr 1/3rd enemies using 5 point buy for stats. Your 15 point buy dude is way better than an orc even at level 1.
but they're not, they're CR appropriate. to give a clue how they try to balance CR, basically CR+1 is a single APL in class levels character with player wealth. 4 on 1 is CR + 1. CR is put at a value where it should be reasonably safe unless you go to CR+2-4.
but they're not, they're CR appropriate. to give a clue how they try to balance CR, basically CR+1 is a single APL in class levels character with player wealth. 4 on 1 is CR + 1. CR is put at a value where it should be reasonably safe unless you go to CR+2-4.No, a group of 3 Orcs are a challenge for a group of 4 1st level PCs.stuffOrcs are Cr 1/3rd enemies using 5 point buy for stats. Your 15 point buy dude is way better than an orc even at level 1.
Even then theyre not. since 2d4+4 18+ crit is one of those things that can end a level 1 character in one swing.
Even then theyre not. since 2d4+4 18+ crit is one of those things that can end a level 1 character in one swing.
That's not a problem of the CR system, but because the game is extremely random at 1st level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Until building a pfs character I have always used 3 columns of 4d6 drop lowest. I have always had at least one good column. I very much dislike point buying in general, I know it's necessary for pfs or online games, but part of making a PC, to me, is rolling stats. The first reason being that until I see what stats I have available to me I don't know what class or race or archetype etc. that I am going to play, which feels more real to me. You don't pick what you're going to grow up to be and then suddenly have the ability to do so, you grow up to be what you're able to be. I'd you end up with 3 Cha that's the hand you were dealt (or rolled). If you end up with 18 in 4 stats, huzzah! Rolling stats gives a much larger and truer to reality variety of heroes.
This is the exact reason to avoid rolled stats. So you have awesome stats, how do you think that makes your fellow players feel when they have garbage stats?
Use point buy, everyone is equal.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is not everyone is equal with Point Buy. SAD classes get significantly more mileage from Point Buy than MAD classes, and it's just as unfair. (I'd actually argue that it's more unfair, as at least with rolling it's a matter of individual luck rather than the system rewarding certain builds/classes and not others).
DM Beckett, that argument keeps getting used but I have already shown how it is not true earlier in this thread. In fact, overall the MAD classes tend to have more bonuses even if the 'primary' ability score is +1 behind the SAD class.
Yes, a SAD class can cripple itself elsewhere via PB but then you have easily targeted weaknesses.
|
The problem is not everyone is equal with Point Buy. SAD classes get significantly more mileage from Point Buy than MAD classes, and it's just as unfair. (I'd actually argue that it's more unfair, as at least with rolling it's a matter of individual luck rather than the system rewarding certain builds/classes and not others).
High point-buy and capping stats at 16 pre-racial does a lot to minimize the advantages of SAD characters over MAD ones. And does it much better and more fairly than rolling.
Everyone is not equal. Why should they be in a fantasy world? Using that logic it's unfair for a wizard to not get to wear full plate because a fighter gets to and that would be equal. And a fighter should get to cast spells.... if you roll 3 terrible columns you just have to live with it, just like rolling a 1 on a save or die, you have to live(die) with it. The chance of greatness (rolling for stats) far exceeds the chance of lameness.. when compared to the guaranteed mediocrity of point buy.
Nobody is arguing that all characters throughout the world should be equal, but PCs being deeply unequal with each other is often the opposite of fun. Which is why things that make them more equal are good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone is not equal. Why should they be in a fantasy world? Using that logic it's unfair for a wizard to not get to wear full plate because a fighter gets to and that would be equal. And a fighter should get to cast spells.... if you roll 3 terrible columns you just have to live with it, just like rolling a 1 on a save or die, you have to live(die) with it. The chance of greatness (rolling for stats) far exceeds the chance of lameness.. when compared to the guaranteed mediocrity of point buy.
You can set the chance wherever you like with pointbuy (with 50 pointbuy you have no chance of 'lameness'). FWIW, I prefer rolling, although three columns is too generous for my tastes.
Ultimately though, neither is better - it's just whether your group values equal opportunity for all members of the group or values the random element inherent in rolling.
|
|
DM Beckett, that argument keeps getting used but I have already shown how it is not true earlier in this thread. In fact, overall the MAD classes tend to have more bonuses even if the 'primary' ability score is +1 behind the SAD class.
Yes, a SAD class can cripple itself elsewhere via PB but then you have easily targeted weaknesses.
I don't know what you are referring to, but wouldn't it be better to show evidence rather than claiming you have already proven something somewhere else as if it where a fact?
Regardless, I disagree, because it isn't an issue with one class being slightly behind another as much as that the SAD classes get a greater deal of benefit from it than the MAD classes by their very nature. That is to say that the SAD classes can raise their most needed Abilities to an acceptable level, and then everything else is just a bonus. Not "needed" but very much desired. The problem might be your misunderstanding about SAD classes. They do not need to cripple themselves, (I'm taking your statement to mean dumping stats), but rather just leave them at average. The problem is more that generally, MAD classes DO HAVE TO cripple themselves in other areas just to pull off their basic function.
But, the MAD classes instead are forced to be very cautious, as then need to get more Abilities to an acceptable level, leaving them with little (or no) other points for anything else. This effectively does the exact same thing at the table as having half the player's roll really good stats and the others really poor ones.
Now, that being said, as was mentioned, if there are other additional rules involved, such as capping abilities (mostly affecting the SAD classes here), can make this feel a lot more fair across the board, or going out of your way to make weakness and average Ability scores hurt, (which is often very artificial and DM fiatish).
This is mainly why I dislike Point Buy in general. At least without ways to make it balanced and fun, (such as by capping stats at 16 after Racial). Personally, I also feel that rolling stats, (assuming it's done in a fair way out in the open, and there are either some method of rerolling if the entire set is pretty bad, or the group as a whole is perfectly fine with less effective characters), is a lot more interesting and intrinsic to the RPG experience.
To be completely honest, and this is a little off topic even for the already off topic, ideally, what Pathfinder could do if they want go the Point Buy route would be to remove Int from the Skill Points per level equation and/or force all classes to become more MAD, (having different Class Abilities work off of different stats), for instance. These two things would balance out Point Buy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone rolling is equal opportunity... everything in the game is decided by rolling dice...why should your stats be any different. Again, I understand it for pfs and online or whenever you can't truly verify rolls and I am not arguing against that. In a game based on rolling dice... why remove opportunities to roll dice? One column of 3d6 instead of 15 point buy, I'd definitely take my chances...because to me it is more realistic, and offers a chance at truly being a "hero" which is what every PC is supposed to be.
My point was that rolling doesn't guarantee mediocrity - that depends entirely on how many points you choose to use.
FWIW, I share your preference (and I would too). My point is that it is just preference. There's no objective way to judge them (other than one is more random, one results in more evenly powered PCs - but which of those is most important to you is just preference).
In terms of framing the choice, I think if you want to generate your PC by rolling you're better off not thinking in terms of 'I want a chance to be awesome!' you should more be thinking 'How will I feel if my attributes suck relative to the rest of the group?' If you think you won't enjoy it, you'd probably be better off not rolling (or using some of the roll-but-rule-out-crappy-results methods).
EDIT: Forgot to mention:
Everyone rolling is equal opportunity... everything in the game is decided by rolling dice...why should your stats be any different.
The common reply is that rolling poorly in other areas of the game has very limited downside (and is generally balanced by the times you'll roll very well). So if you have a night of rolling single digits on your d20, there will probably be weeks when your dice run hot. With poor stats though, you suffer through an entire campaign.
Again, I embrace that (and think that's what people should consider when deciding whether they want to use dice to generate stats) - but it's pretty easy to see why other people wouldn't like it. Many want to play heroic characters and don't want to be the sidekick - they don't want to show up week after week with their single 14 attribute, standing next to the player who didnt roll below a 13.
DM Beckett, that argument keeps getting used but I have already shown how it is not true earlier in this thread. In fact, overall the MAD classes tend to have more bonuses even if the 'primary' ability score is +1 behind the SAD class.
Yes, a SAD class can cripple itself elsewhere via PB but then you have easily targeted weaknesses.
I don't know what you are referring to, but wouldn't it be better to show evidence rather than claiming you have already proven something somewhere else as if it where a fact?
Regardless, I disagree, because it isn't an issue with one class being slightly behind another as much as that the SAD classes get a greater deal of benefit from it than the MAD classes by their very nature. That is to say that the SAD classes can raise their most needed Abilities to an acceptable level, and then everything else is just a bonus. Not "needed" but very much desired. The problem might be your misunderstanding about SAD classes. They do not need to cripple themselves, (I'm taking your statement to mean dumping stats), but rather just leave them at average. The problem is more that generally, MAD classes DO HAVE TO cripple themselves in other areas just to pull off their basic function.
But, the MAD classes instead are forced to be very cautious, as then need to get more Abilities to an acceptable level, leaving them with little (or no) other points for anything else. This effectively does the exact same thing at the table as having half the player's roll really good stats and the others really poor ones.
Now, that being said, as was mentioned, if there are other additional rules involved, such as capping abilities (mostly affecting the SAD classes here), can make this feel a lot more fair across the board, or going out of your way to make weakness and average Ability scores hurt, (which is often very artificial and DM fiatish).
This is mainly why I dislike Point Buy in general. At least without ways to make it balanced and fun, (such as by capping stats...
As I said, I posted that earlier in this very thread. If you do not want to read the thread you are posting in then that is on you, not me. But, for expediency, here are the two posts: post1 and post2
The difference between 15PB with MAD vs SAD is that the SAD build has +1 in the primary ability unless the SAD build sacrifices too much and that the MAD build has +1 overall compared to the SAD build.
So no, MAD is not at disadvantage vs SAD when using 15PB. In fact, MAD is even more well rounded.
Until building a pfs character I have always used 3 columns of 4d6 drop lowest. I have always had at least one good column. I very much dislike point buying in general, I know it's necessary for pfs or online games, but part of making a PC, to me, is rolling stats. The first reason being that until I see what stats I have available to me I don't know what class or race or archetype etc. that I am going to play, which feels more real to me. You don't pick what you're going to grow up to be and then suddenly have the ability to do so, you grow up to be what you're able to be. I'd you end up with 3 Cha that's the hand you were dealt (or rolled). If you end up with 18 in 4 stats, huzzah! Rolling stats gives a much larger and truer to reality variety of heroes.This is the exact reason to avoid rolled stats. So you have awesome stats, how do you think that makes your fellow players feel when they have garbage stats?
Use point buy, everyone is equal.
i prefer everyone choosing their stats, so everyone isn't stuck into these strict areas of "this is equal into power of this" when it is not.
DM Beckett, that argument keeps getting used but I have already shown how it is not true earlier in this thread. In fact, overall the MAD classes tend to have more bonuses even if the 'primary' ability score is +1 behind the SAD class.
Yes, a SAD class can cripple itself elsewhere via PB but then you have easily targeted weaknesses.
wait wait wait, the MAD class is significantly more likely to have these glaring weaknesses. even after lower PBs where an 18 might not be for the best, they can still go 16 and and end up way ahead of the MAD classes...
Everyone is not equal. Why should they be in a fantasy world? Using that logic it's unfair for a wizard to not get to wear full plate because a fighter gets to and that would be equal. And a fighter should get to cast spells.... if you roll 3 terrible columns you just have to live with it, just like rolling a 1 on a save or die, you have to live(die) with it. The chance of greatness (rolling for stats) far exceeds the chance of lameness.. when compared to the guaranteed mediocrity of point buy.
because it means that CR and player levels are a lie. not to mention poor rolls were usually the character you tried to have killed, so you basically lost out on a session because of it.
still never got 18-00 strength in ADnD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Point Buy isn't balanced. {fact} The person willing and able to buy the most stats down has a much better stat pool to build from. This can be fixed with the popular method of removing bonus points from buying down stats. BUT Aranna high point buy levels repair that! If you want a high powered game (and who doesn't from time to time) the best method ISN'T point buy it's Choose Whatever Stats You Want. That is literally the BEST WAY to eliminate ALL stat envy, MAD vs SAD differences, or anger over impossible builds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
because it means that CR and player levels are a lie.You imply they weren't already a lie.
i'm replying directly to "Everyone is not equal. Why should they be in a fantasy world?"
Until building a pfs character I have always used 3 columns of 4d6 drop lowest. I have always had at least one good column. I very much dislike point buying in general, I know it's necessary for pfs or online games, but part of making a PC, to me, is rolling stats. The first reason being that until I see what stats I have available to me I don't know what class or race or archetype etc. that I am going to play, which feels more real to me. You don't pick what you're going to grow up to be and then suddenly have the ability to do so, you grow up to be what you're able to be. I'd you end up with 3 Cha that's the hand you were dealt (or rolled). If you end up with 18 in 4 stats, huzzah! Rolling stats gives a much larger and truer to reality variety of heroes.This is the exact reason to avoid rolled stats. So you have awesome stats, how do you think that makes your fellow players feel when they have garbage stats?
Use point buy, everyone is equal.
i prefer everyone choosing their stats, so everyone isn't stuck into these strict areas of "this is equal into power of this" when it is not.
DM Beckett, that argument keeps getting used but I have already shown how it is not true earlier in this thread. In fact, overall the MAD classes tend to have more bonuses even if the 'primary' ability score is +1 behind the SAD class.
Yes, a SAD class can cripple itself elsewhere via PB but then you have easily targeted weaknesses.
wait wait wait, the MAD class is significantly more likely to have these glaring weaknesses. even after lower PBs where an 18 might not be for the best, they can still go 16 and and end up way ahead of the MAD classes...
Everyone is not equal. Why should they be in a fantasy world? Using that logic it's unfair for a wizard to not get to wear full plate because a fighter gets to and that would be equal. And a fighter should get to cast spells.... if you roll 3...
I already showed how, with a 15PB, a MAD character isn't going to have those glaring weaknesses. A reasonable PB across the board gives a MAD character -1 in one ability score compared to a SAD character but a +1 advantage in overall stats.
It is the SAD character that is the one with greater weaknesses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
right, because that wizard doesn't need to specifically get any other stat he's what not going to get dex and con or something?
10 PB
str: 7
Dex: 13
Con: 13
Int: 16
Wis: 12
Chr: 7
10 PB
14
14
14
7
12
7
pre-racials obviously, the top will get +1 con then +1 dex at 4rth and 8th level, bottom might be strength.
as it is, the top is slightly behind and quickly equal in defensive stats, while being way over the top in offensive ones. The bottom one will have 2 skill ranks per level, the top one will have 5 since FCB is going to HP.
so to tally them up its:
TOP
Magic (extra spells first level, DC 13+spell level)
+2 hp per HD (+3 at 4rth level)
+1 AC (+2 at 8th)
+3 skill points
+1 will save(let's face it we don;t care much about the other save mods, though i'll mention now that the other has 1 higher fort until fourth level which can be important)
BOTTOM
melee +2/3 dmg +2 to-hit
+2 AC
+2 HP per HD
-2 skill points
+1 will save
there are other class related reasons to pick the wizard over the fighter but i don't think they mean much for this discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone is not equal. Why should they be in a fantasy world?You're not in a fantasy world. You're in a game in the real one. Why should my time and investment in playing be rewarded by a character that's permanently inferior to your character because of one short dice-rolling segment?
You need to find that thing which you find fun in a RPG. Some people enjoy the challenge of optimizing a weak start. AND point of fact a weak set of stats in the hands of a skilled optimizer is usually a stronger character than a strong set of stats in the hands of a poor optimizer. If optimizing a weak set doesn't make you happy then find out what does. Is it mowing down hordes of monsters like bowling pins? Great then do that! But my group won't let me. Then either find a new group or become the GM and build games where they can mow down monsters like bowling pins. But beware if what makes you happy is "being better than the other guy" then there is no other group that you can retreat to and being a GM that always wants to beat the players seems destined to end in disaster. If that is the case take a break and try to get excited about a different thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bandw2 post errata
line 29 on page 7 should read "-1 skill points" where it says "-2 skill points".
Bandw2, 15PB is the lowest PC PB in the game, not 10PB and this thread is about 15PB, not NPC 10PB.
Additionally, Your 10PB SAD and MAD PB ability scores 100% balance out at level 8. Oh, and your top +hp tally is incorrect, it is only +1 per level until level 4.
So using your idea that both PCs are sacrificing two ability scores (a bit unreasonable, but whatever) we have:
SAD: 18, 12, 12, 12, 7, 7
MAD: 16, 14, 14, 13, 7, 7
SAD has a +1 over the MAD in 1 ability score.
MAD has +1 overall ability scores.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you ignore is that MAD classes generally can't dump two stats, while SAD classes often can. Wizard is fine with a 7 in Charisma and Strength. What's a Monk's or Fighter's second dump stat? Int so that the character is completely useless outside of combat?
|
|
In general I find making a character I would find fun to play is quite a bit easier when I don't have to fight a die roll for stats or a system that fights at every turn to make some character concepts inferior to others. YMMV.
I guess it's about how flexible you are about what's fun for you. I have very rarely had problems with making a functioning character by rolling the dice, even if the outcome was not as good as I had hoped beforehand. The thing is, if 10 is the assumed average of a normal human in any attribute, then a 14 is already quite over-average (meaning you're already an exceptional strong, intelligent or charismatic person). For some, that's already enough, and characters with those values (you just need to look at the Pathfinder Iconics) are perfectly playable in a standard game.
The thing why I prefer rolling the dice is that it brings me out of my comfort zone. With PB, I intuitively tend to optimize a bit which means that if I build two characters of the same class, they tend to share more similarities as I probably intended beforhand. If I roll, I have to make with what I get, so I use the dice more as an inspiration help than as anything else.
Bandw2, 15PB is the lowest PC PB in the game, not 10PB and this thread is about 15PB, not NPC 10PB.
Additionally, Your 10PB SAD and MAD PB ability scores 100% balance out at level 8. Oh, and your top +hp tally is incorrect, it is only +1 per level until level 4.
So using your idea that both PCs are sacrificing two ability scores (a bit unreasonable, but whatever) we have:
SAD: 18, 12, 12, 12, 7, 7
MAD: 16, 14, 14, 13, 7, 7SAD has a +1 over the MAD in 1 ability score.
MAD has +1 overall ability scores.
you're forgetting FCB, i'm assuming the first uses it on HP and 2nd on skills(so he;s not stuck with a single skill point per level...). also there's the fact that the int is going way more than just just hitting people, which is the point. you spend you're level 8 stuff to get 16 strength? that doesn't even make nearly as much of a difference as int being spell DC, skill points and access to spells.
also 10 pb is "low fantasy"
then on top of all this the caster is going to spend his cash on a headband of intelligence and a belt of con or dex based on if he uses ranged attacks a bunch or not, your guy is going to spend it on a belt of physical perfection which costs twice as much.
I think one of the issues I have with 15 PB is that for most of the history of The Brand, I and everyone I knew created characters with 4d6 drop low, for stats.
In practice, "4d6 drop low" generates character arrays that average around 20 PB. It's just that occasionally you get the equivalent of a 7 PB or a 42 PB. It's definitely a bigger discrepancy to have a party whose stats are a PBE of 42, 33, 17, and 7 than it is to have SAD classes mixed with MAD classes.
The issue is that by going to a 15 PB, I'm getting a character with lower stats than what my average character had when I was playing back in AD&D, 2e, 3e, 3.5e etc. A 15 PB is closer to 3d6 strict in terms of average stats, and I don't know anybody who liked things that way.