Rolled stats. The game offers billions of possibilities in which you can customize your character, but it lays on the assumption that ALL characters start equal. Choosing the building elements that better reflect your original concept while being competitive is part of the challenge: choose poorly and your character will suck, and eventually die, choose wisely and it'll grow stronger day by day. Rolling stats however puts inevitably some characters ahead of others without any fault or merit on the player's side. And playing an effective 13pt buy character because you happened to roll poorly, while your teammate is playing an effective 25pt one is not challenging, nor fun. Just frustrating.
OP races. For characters to start equal, all races involved must be on the same power level. If not, some characters will be inherently stronger than others, undermining party balance and bringing up frustration at the table. ALL players deserve to play a hero, not only the one interpreting the Noble Drow.
3rd party material. Unlike official Paizo material, 3rd party material does not usually undergo the same thorough play-test process, and does not benefit from the same level of upkeep (no erratas, FAQs and so on). As a result, unregulated use of 3rd party material will probably introduce disparities within the game. If playing a 3rd party campaign, I guess allowing material from the same source would be OK, since the game system would then be internally balanced, but it depends on the specific case and the quality of the material.
House-rules. House-rules are even less reliable than 3rd party material, so their use is bound to break the game system. Of course I'm not talking about minor rules to cover holes in the RAW or to make the game more fluent, but about major alterations to the game that have no reason to exist in the first place, and that are there just because of the GM's delusions of grandeur.
Patches. Patches are a consequence of all the previous factors. What's the point of rolling stats if then the GM has to patch them manually because characters end up being unplayable? Just use the pt buy system already! Again, patches to fix some minor aspects of RAW are fine, the system cannot be perfect, but if they start piling up because of all the house-rules and non-kosher material, then you know something's wrong.
Fumbles. Players are supposed to kill the enemy and win the fight. Thinking otherwise is quite disingenuous. For this reason, when they roll 20, they sometimes are awarded with extra damage. Why however should they be punished when they roll 1? It's already an automatic miss, even if the total attack roll would be higher than the opponent's AC (rolling 20 usually is already enough to hit enemies, being an auto-hit is almost never relevant), so why also adding detrimental effects such as hitting oneself or other teammates? Sure, this applies also to enemies, but enemies are SUPPOSED to die. And they are supposed to die because the heroes kill them, not because of rolling 1 ("why are you hitting yourself?"). Furthermore, this favors casters even more, since I don't think rolling 20 on a saving throw makes the Fireball backfire to the Sorcerer: so in the end only martials are ones getting punished. And, again, hitting your friends is not challenging nor fun. Tactical positioning, teamwork, smart-thinking are challenging and fun. Fumbles are just frustrating.
To conclude: if you have fun playing an unbalanced and aleatory game full of holes, subject to the GM's whims, be my guest. And truly, I'm not being ironic! I respect this choice. But to me, the GM is just another player at the table, but with a different role in the game, and I prefer playing a game where every character is a hero, and every player at the table, GM included, is equal.
Rolled stats, OP races - mostly agree but some players really don't care and actually enjoy diversity. From GM side not nearly a problem as running a core rogue and chained summoner side-by-side.
3pp - as Paizo have shown with the shifter, their playtest process can be equally flawed and companion line doesn't have nearly enough quality control as core line, while some 3pps constantly playtest their material even on these forums, so not really a case against. But I agree with your later point about combining different 3pp materials, I usually try to stick to a single subsystem combined with Paizo options. Not that a lot of 3pp cannot work together, just that it's a lot more work with negating broken combos.
House rules - as someone who always house rules stuff sometimes extensive system sweeps, sometime minor stuff, I can tell you there are times you hit it perfectly and there are times you fail miserably, but if you don't try you certainly cannot know. And it certainly isn't a sign of bad GMing, just sign that you like to tinker with rules.
Fumbles are crap that needs to die in fire, I agree on that one.
Conclusion - core of the game is an unbalanced mess, IMO. It can certainly work, but to think it's some perfect thing that cannot be touched and tinkered with is pretty stupid. Thousands of people who play different RPGs and various iterations of the game with millions of house rules disagree. Now the combination that the OPs GM is running is a sign of a GM who doesn't care about balance or is maybe a beginner but that doesn't (necessarily) make him a bad GM. It makes him a GM I wouldn't like to play with, though.
Point buyers and dice rollers are like fleet and mobile infantry. They just don't mix."REAL roleplayers roll 3d6 in order and take what they get. This new generation of ROLLplayers are a bunch of entitled millenial munchkin brats who can't handle losing, and can't handle not having complete control of every aspect of their character, and think the DM is just there to set up pins for them to knock down."
A lot of 1e/2e fans actually have this mentality.
That is only because it is obviously true.
I jest to an extent, but I do think that in general the expectation of character death (permanent death in particular) and or disablement has gone down, and the 'power' of characters has been a pretty steady upward trajectory from 1e -> 2e -> 3.5 -> Pathfinder. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a different thing.
|
You know, Matt Mercer on Critical Role uses:
- Rolled stats
- 3rd party material (namely his own homebrew classes)
- House-rules
- Useless roleplay, including shopping.
He doesn't use critical fumbles or particularly powerful races. But he solidly meets four out of your six criteria.
And yet somehow his games have deeper, richer narrative than any other I've ever seen, none of his players are unhappy about power disparities in the party, and they all appear to be having a blast playing.
If that's bad GM'ing, sign me up!
Since when a single anecdote is representative of a whole distribution?
For each good GM enforcing those rules I could name 10 doing the same, and being terrible (except you wouldn't know them since they're not famous), as they aren't good/smart/experienced enough to discern functional unofficial material or house-rules from garbage.Matt Mercer is a talented GM DESPITE enforcing those rules, not because of it. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure rolled stats and heavy-roleplay are there because they are good for the show. Kudos to him, but he's definitely not the norm among GMs, and his game/show is not an example of the average home-game.
All I advocate for is equality at the table and balance in the game system. Apart from GMs used to constantly interfere with the rules and players' decisions just to feel important, I really cannot imagine how people can disagree with this.
I'd comment on things gray warden said but to be fair he figuratively stole thoughts out of my head and posted them before I could.
Unfair games are unfair, and thus not fun. I even push further and will refuse to DM or play a group that doesn't have equivalent exact and precise starting points (in the game im dming right now I had to boost humans to 12 BP because I wanted people to play 12 BP races).
Now don't get me wrong, some characters will either be or appear stronger to the others, but that has to be from conscious choice. To give an example, in my current age of worms game we have my druid a bars and a paladin. The bard and I massively buff the paladin (even denying ourselves some wbl in order to finance better items for her) and then use telekinetic leap and heroic finale to move her around the battlefield where she proceeds to smite murder everyone with full attacks. In this scenario, one player is clearly getting a lot more validation and fun from the strategy, but the bard and I made the conscious choice to make her stronger, and so her success is ours.
In this scenario, all these flags are indicators of bad GMING because ultimately the GM's job is to be a fair and arbitrary presence that sets the limits to adhere to in the game. It's not that house rules are bad (check alastars hard mode kingmaker campaign thread on kingmaker forums to see just how much house ruling I do) it's that unfair house rules where one player is clearly favored are fair. It's not that dice rolling stats is bad GMING per say (although as it's been pointed out it's kinda unfair and unbalancing...) It's that it indicates that the GM isn't really aware of what unbalanced a game...
My 2 cents.
3rd party material (namely his own homebrew classes)
Wait, shouldn't stuff you made yourself be second party?
Using rolled stats more often than not results in character disparities that, if valuing characters as equals, shouldn't be present unless it is something that all players participating desire.
It goes beyond that - it's not just bad rolls, it's rolls that don't fit your class. For instance, my very first PF character had (4d6 drop lowest) rolled stats of 18/17/13/19/8/8. I actually got envied by the other players because of my starting 18. On many characters, those would have been good rolls, but on my Monk... let's just say the only thing that prevented him from dying almost every combat due to a +0 ability score mod in Dex and Con (+2str/-2dex/+2con from race) was pre-nerf Crane Wing, and the character still wouldn't have died without hero points.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything else being equal a balanced game has to better than an unbalanced one.
That's why my group uses point-based builds. We also use fixed hit points. It's the one house rule we use in every campaign. Indeed, why fixed hit points aren't presented as an option in the CRB is beyond me.
We use PFS rules for that. Max hit points on 1st level, then half hit dice rounded up after 1st level. So d12 becomes 12 hp at 1st level and 7 hp after that; d10: 10/6, d8: 8/5, d6: 6/4.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest you leave that group before it's too late. You'd only get more and more frustrated session by session. You'll find another one . . . I don't recall saying that you cannot have fun with that type of game. Lemme check...yep, no mention whatsoever.
Why should he leave before it's too late? Because he might have too much fun?
Why will he get more and more frustrated session by session? Because he's enjoying himself?Yes, technically, you didn't explicitly state that fun could not be had. However, you heavily implied it.
anything that undermines game balance is bad.
In your opinion. Take Legolas in LotR. When the Fellowship is slogging their way up Caradhras, every human is hip deep in snow, Gimli and the hobbits more so. Even Mithrandir is trudging along. And Legolas? He's light-stepping across the top of the snow. And why? Because he picked that feat? No, because he's an elf and elves are inherently better. And this, to me, in my opinion, has been the crux of the problem with D&D since it's beginning: Fluff doesn't equal crunch.
The flavor text of elves describes them as a superior race, but because everything has to be balanced, this incredibly long-lived race that measures its lifespan in millenia has a penalty to Constitution. What now?
Rolled stats.. . .And playing an effective 13pt buy character because you happened to roll poorly, while your teammate is playing an effective 25pt one is not challenging, nor fun. Just frustrating.
Again, this is your opinion, not a fact. You state it as an absolute. All that is required to prove an absolute wrong it to have one counter-example. I have played for over 30 years. I have never used an array or a point-buy. I have played characters with underwhelming abilities. I was challenged. I had fun. I was not frustrated. Your argument is now nullified.
OP races. For characters to start equal, all races involved must be on the same power level. If not, some characters will be inherently stronger than others, undermining party balance and bringing up frustration at the table. ALL players deserve to play a hero, not only the one interpreting the Noble Drow.
Sam Gamgee is the hero of LotR and he isn't a superior race, hobbits are inferior to maiar, elves and dwarves and yet Sam saves the world. Not because his stats were better, or even perfectly equal to everyone else's and not because his starting CR was equal to everyone else's racial choice, but because of the choice he made. And that's what makes rpg's fun for me, the shared story we're all telling. And I don't need all of the characters at the table to be exactly level with each other in order to tell a good story.
3rd party material.
I agree with you here. I do not allow TPM at my table (only CRB, ACG, APG, Unchained, UM, UC, EQ).
House-rules. House-rules are even less reliable than 3rd party material, so their use is bound to break the game system. Of course I'm not talking about minor rules to cover holes in the RAW or to make the game more fluent, but about major alterations to the game that have no reason to exist in the first place, and that are there just because of the GM's delusions of grandeur.
I generally agree with this, even though I have a lot of house rules (fifteen, which I think is a lot). However, at the start of each campaign, on character creation day, I project them all on the screen, we discuss them and then we vote on which ones will be used. My players are happy; I'm happy and the game isn't broken as far as we're concerned.
Patches. Patches are a consequence of all the previous factors. What's the point of rolling stats if then the GM has to patch them manually because characters end up being unplayable?
Unplayable? What makes a character unplayable? In RotJ, Yoda appears to have a penalty to strength, but who wouldn't want to play him? The point is that a low stat doesn't make a character unplayable, but a player's perception of that score that makes it so; they choose to not play it, it isn't inherently unplayable.
And so what if your stats are 14, 12, 10, 10, 10, 7? How many stories are about the average person thrust into extraordinary circumstances? Of course, I'm not saying I don't ever want to play a Perseus, someone born with advantages over the common man. But to say that the common person is unplayable is untrue.Fumbles. Players are supposed to kill the enemy and win the fight. Thinking otherwise is quite disingenuous.
*splutter* Whuuuuut?!? This isn't a video game where you've entered the God-mode cheat code. Players aren't supposed to do anything. If you were first level and ended up picking the owlbear cave in Keep on the Borderlands, you were toast! The DM wasn't supposed to make the owlbear old and sickly. The DM wasn't supposed to switch the goblin cave with the owlbear one. You had chosen . . . poorly. Your character died, you made a new one and you tried again. I was gobbled up more times than I can count on The Isle of Dread. Scourge of the Slave Lords you started off in a loin-cloth on a slave galley. The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth claimed more lives than Carter has pills. And don't even get me started on the Temple of Elemental Evil!
Maybe my age is showing. Maybe some of today's newer players have a sense of entitlement where they think that the DM should always adjust every encounter to insure the players' success. That sounds very sad to me. I can handle it when I roll three doubles in a row in Monopoly and go to jail. I can handle it when someone draws a Sorry! card. I can handle it when someone lays down a Wild Draw 4 on me. And I can handle it when my character dies. That's part of the game. That's a great deal of the fun: the risk. And as Captain James T. Kirk said, “Risk is our business.”
For this reason, when they roll 20, they sometimes are awarded with extra damage. Why however should they be punished when they roll 1? It's already an automatic miss, even if the total attack roll would be higher than the opponent's AC (rolling 20 usually is already enough to hit enemies, being an auto-hit is almost never relevant), so why also adding detrimental effects such as hitting oneself or other teammates? Sure, this applies also to enemies, but enemies are SUPPOSED to die. And they are supposed to die because the heroes kill them, not because of rolling 1 ("why are you hitting yourself?"). . . Fumbles are just frustrating.
Han Solo steps on the twig (fumbling his stealth check). Mrs. Tasker drops the MAC 10 in True Lies. There are many times when our heroes fumble. It shows them to be fallible humans, which makes it easier for us to identify with them. Similarly, when a character fumbles and we pull it out anyway (like Han still blowing up the shield generator) we feel a greater sense of accomplishment. And are you saying you've never seen a movie where Mook #1 accidentally stabs/shoots Mook #2? Where are you getting this SUPPOSED to stuff from, anyway? I've read the CRB cover to cover and I don't recall reading where bad guys are only supposed to be offed by the good guys.
Useless roleplay. Do you roleplay +1 skill rank on Perception on level up? Do you roleplay getting Power Attack? Does roleplay influence how many spells the Sorcerer learns? No. So why should I roleplay selling stuff, with income being dependent on how good I am at marketing? I want to play a hero, not a salesman. Equipment is part of the character's build, like feats, skill ranks, spells and whatnot, and should be treated as such.
Yes, in my games, non-combat oriented skills (knowledges, performs, professions, crafts) require time spent doing them to gain the rank. One is stealthing, bluffing, diplomacizing, etc. during the adventure and so the rank up makes sense. But if one has Profession (Cobbler) and has been Steading the Frost Giant Jarl, one hasn't been making any shoes! One has to spend as many weeks as they have ranks studying/practicing non-combat skills to go up. However, I usually have generous amounts of down-time in my games, so it isn't a problem.
And I disagree with you about equipment. Equipment is treasure (those braces, that +1 sword, etc.), it isn't something a character gains as a part of experience (feats, skills, spells, etc.). I don't get a Cloak of Resistance +2 because I'm 6th level, I get it because I killed the dude wearing it, regardless of his level or my level.But to me, the GM is just another player at the table, but with a different role in the game, and I prefer playing a game where every character is a hero, and every player at the table, GM included, is equal.
It's one thing to play a character on an adventure. It's quite another to run the adventure as a Game Master. It's a lot more work . . .
Storyteller: The Game Master must be able to craft stories and to translate them into a verbal medium.
Entertainer: A Game Master is on stage, and his players are his audience.
Judge: The Game Master must be the arbiter of everything that occurs in the game . . . his word is law.
Inventor: The Game Master's job does not end when the game session does. He must be an inventor as well.
Player: Just because he's playing dozens of characters during the course of a session doesn't make him any less a player than the others who sit at the table.
I think that makes the case that the DM is actually quite a bit more. One example: if everyone at the table is equal then the DM, as Judge, has no authority to arbitrate rules.
I suggest you leave that group before it's too late. You'd only get more and more frustrated session by session. You'll find another one . . . I don't recall saying that you cannot have fun with that type of game. Lemme check...yep, no mention whatsoever.Why should he leave before it's too late? Because he might have too much fun?
Why will he get more and more frustrated session by session? Because he's enjoying himself?
Yes, technically, you didn't explicitly state that fun could not be had. However, you heavily implied it.anything that undermines game balance is bad.In your opinion. Take Legolas in LotR. When the Fellowship is slogging their way up Caradhras, every human is hip deep in snow, Gimli and the hobbits more so. Even Mithrandir is trudging along. And Legolas? He's light-stepping across the top of the snow. And why? Because he picked that feat? No, because he's an elf and elves are inherently better. And this, to me, in my opinion, has been the crux of the problem with D&D since it's beginning: Fluff doesn't equal crunch.
The flavor text of elves describes them as a superior race, but because everything has to be balanced, this incredibly long-lived race that measures its lifespan in millenia has a penalty to Constitution. What now?
Rolled stats.. . .And playing an effective 13pt buy character because you happened to roll poorly, while your teammate is playing an effective 25pt one is not challenging, nor fun. Just frustrating.Again, this is your opinion, not a fact. You state it as an absolute. All that is required to prove an absolute wrong it to have one counter-example. I have played for over 30 years. I have never used an array or a point-buy. I have played characters with underwhelming abilities. I was challenged. I had fun. I was not frustrated. Your argument is now nullified.
OP races. For characters to start...
The next time I run a game, I'm going to have the players roll stats, and then any player can use the stats rolled by any other player.
So if one dude rolls 18, 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, then everyone can choose to use the 18, 18, 18, 17, 16, 15 stat array.
The GM will just have to give all his monsters the Advanced Template....
This is exactly what I do for the games I run. The players have been happy with it for the most part. I did have one player who deliberately weakened her PC by insisting on using the stats she rolled instead of someone else's better set, but that was her call...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess many people just don't care about rolling stats or point buy, and I understand them, it isn't in fact a life-changing thing. But those who actually prefer rolling over point buy? No, those I do not understand:You can choose your name, race, class, feats, skills, traits, origin, gender, color and length of hair, color of eyes, weight and a million of other different and equally aleatory things, BUT HELL NO I'LL BE DAMNED IF YOU CAN CHOOSE YOUR STATS BECAUSE REALISM!
I prefer rolling and there are a number of reasons why.
1) The game as a whole is actually better balanced around stats that are rolled. They tend to hug the mean with fewer outliers than you see with point buy - both good stats and dumped bad stats. There should be a lot more +/-1s and +/-2s than +3s, +4s, and +5s - stats that become comparatively common among point buy and classes that are single-stat heavy.
2) Rolled stats offer more balance between single-stat dependent classes and multi-stat dependent classes. Wizards, clerics, sorcerers have more power to boost their save DCs and outpace the defensive stats that feed the saving throws against their power. Magic item and feats go some distance toward making up the difference, but under point buy you're often going to see a +4 or +5 offensive stat squared off against defensive stats at least 2 to 3 points lower. Same with comparing single vs multi stat characters - the single stat characters are looking at 2-3 point advantages over their multi-stat peers in their core powers.
3) Point buy allows stat dumping (even rewards it) to get the peach stats. Not only does this lead to characters that tend to be more one-dimensional, it also leads to a lot more blandly similar characters with every character except the ones who absolutely need charisma dumping the stat (or intelligence, or strength). To be sure, by choosing where stats go, stat rollers are also deciding what to emphasize and what to de-emphasize, but the difference is between making do with what the dice gave you vs deliberately torpedoing one part of the character to boost another. One situation I have sympathy for, the other I don't.
4) You get to discover your character during generation. And that's fun.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skating over the "all I need is a counter-example", since I'm not stating mathematical properties, but general trends, and all the other BS (Han Solo fumbling? It's a plain old failed Stealth check vs opponent's Perception check; Yoda with a str-penalty? I guess you never heard of dex-to-hit/damage; and so, sooo on) I'll quote only one thing:
I have played for over 30 years.
And yet your top example of RPG is LotR: a story (not a game), with a party composed by a few commoners, one Fighter, two Rangers, and a Wizard casting Daylight. Once.
Talking about nostalgia.
I guess many people just don't care about rolling stats or point buy, and I understand them, it isn't in fact a life-changing thing. But those who actually prefer rolling over point buy? No, those I do not understand:You can choose your name, race, class, feats, skills, traits, origin, gender, color and length of hair, color of eyes, weight and a million of other different and equally aleatory things, BUT HELL NO I'LL BE DAMNED IF YOU CAN CHOOSE YOUR STATS BECAUSE REALISM!
I prefer rolling and there are a number of reasons why.
1) The game as a whole is actually better balanced around stats that are rolled. They tend to hug the mean with fewer outliers than you see with point buy - both good stats and dumped bad stats. There should be a lot more +/-1s and +/-2s than +3s, +4s, and +5s - stats that become comparatively common among point buy and classes that are single-stat heavy.
2) Rolled stats offer more balance between single-stat dependent classes and multi-stat dependent classes. Wizards, clerics, sorcerers have more power to boost their save DCs and outpace the defensive stats that feed the saving throws against their power. Magic item and feats go some distance toward making up the difference, but under point buy you're often going to see a +4 or +5 offensive stat squared off against defensive stats at least 2 to 3 points lower. Same with comparing single vs multi stat characters - the single stat characters are looking at 2-3 point advantages over their multi-stat peers in their core powers.
3) Point buy allows stat dumping (even rewards it) to get the peach stats. Not only does this lead to characters that tend to be more one-dimensional, it also leads to a lot more blandly similar characters with every character except the ones who absolutely need charisma dumping the stat (or intelligence, or strength). To be sure, by choosing where stats go, stat rollers are also deciding what to emphasize and what to de-emphasize, but the difference is...
1. I see Paizo APs with a Point Buy recommendation instead of a statistical array recommendation. Saying that it is the norm, or even the assumption, is objectively false.
2. Yeah, no they don't. I've done rolled stats before numerous times, and I've gotten negative point buys more than I have gotten single or double digits combined. To illustrate, you're better off making such a character a Commoner in the background instead of an actual PC, even one as SAD as a spellcaster.
3. You say this like dump stats are a bad thing or that they are some taboo that can't ever happen. Well, with my above point, I get more dump stats than I do actual optimized stats in exchange, and those characters die in the first combat that takes place, no matter how I play it up simply because of bad stats. Even then, dump stats can represent flaws in characters, and having a character with flaws is a lot more interesting than some snobby perfect know-it-all who never struggles at anything.
4. This is a subjective thing. I discover a character prior to even considering their stats or feats or what-not. Knowing what I want a character to do comes before trying to allocate or quantify his/her capabilities in the rules. Not saying the other way around is wrong or anything, just that not everyone plays that way.
for all those who say paizo published material is the pinnacle of balanced over any and all 3rd party content i would like to point you to the brute vigilante archetype. the notion that the use of 3rd party is bad because its unbalanced when compared to paizo items is complete hog wash
What's so powerful about the brute vigilante that you worry about it being unbalanced? Paizo has been pretty consistent about erring on the side of making new options less powerful than old options for many years now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal perspective is that- there is no intrinsic value to game balance- it is a meaningless construct and pursuing it is a waste of time.
All of the ills that are potentially caused by lack of game balance, or ham-fisted efforts to avoid problems due to game balance are social problems, which are not ones that are best solved through game mechanical conceits.
Specifically there are two problems caused by lack of party balance, which are related. The first issue is what I would call "sharing the spotlight" which is to say that everybody should feel like they are the hero some of the time, and get to do cool stuff. If someone hogs the spotlight because they are especially powerful, that leads to other people feeling useless, and having less fun. I observe, however, that it is possible to play a level 20 Wizard with 40 in every stat with a party of 3rd level characters and not hog the spotlight. Which is to say, just because you have a way to solve any problem the party might come across does not mean that your character should suggest that solution- instead, suggest ways that other people can solve whatever problem faces the party. If you're vastly more powerful than anybody else at the table, your job is to intervene when all hope is lost and get the party out of a jam. If you understand that this is a cooperative, social, teamwork game you probably don't need to be told that the person who can do the most should sit back and not do those things that the rest of the party can do.
This leads into the other social problem caused by lack of balance: the player who has the most power feels like their perspective is the only one that matters because, if push comes to shove, they can just beat up any of their so-called teammates and have it their way. This requires a fundamental misapprehension of the very premise of the game, but it happens. It's better to stop people from wanting to be bullies, however, than make it difficult for them to engage in bullying.
For proof that "achieving game balance is fundamentally undesirable" I would observe that the one thing no combination of rules can do is to account for system mastery. You can put a veteran player in this game, give them a 0-point-buy and tell them they can't play a race with a bonus to its classes primary statistic, and they can run circles around new players who are granted a 30-point-buy. The only way to avoid this sort of thing is to make the game so simple that anybody can understand it in 30 minutes, but that ship sailed a long time ago.
But above all, remember that the point of the game is to have fun. If something results in more fun, pursue that, if it results in less fun it should be avoided or mitigated somehow. Every person at the table's fun is of equal value, and people should be able to maintain inviolable boundaries. Playing especially weak characters is some people's idea of fun, and playing especially strong characters is other people's idea of fun. These two things can easily coexist if players are cognizant of each other when they're playing.
|
|
noting is powerful about it, its just so bad its unplayable an over 70% chance to hulk out and start killing your allies every combatfor all those who say paizo published material is the pinnacle of balanced over any and all 3rd party content i would like to point you to the brute vigilante archetype. the notion that the use of 3rd party is bad because its unbalanced when compared to paizo items is complete hog washWhat's so powerful about the brute vigilante that you worry about it being unbalanced? Paizo has been pretty consistent about erring on the side of making new options less powerful than old options for many years now.
Oh my god.
FACT: Paizo material is overall better tested and controlled than 3PP material.
FACT: Paizo material has overall better support from the community, which gives useful feedbacks for fixing bugs.
FACT: Paizo material is overall more frequently and successfully updated/errata'd/FAQ'd than 3PP material.
Therefore, while both Paizo and 3PP material are not perfect, official one is overall more reliable than 3PP. Cherry-picking rotting cherries from Paizo's basked and red, juicy, very specific and situational ones from 3PP's basket, and using them as a counter-proof doesn't make any sense, since it goes both ways, but with 3PP losing the match!
Skating over the "all I need is a counter-example", since I'm not stating mathematical properties, but general trends.
And playing an effective 13pt buy character because you happened to roll poorly, while your teammate is playing an effective 25pt one is not challenging, nor fun. Just frustrating.
There is nothing about your statement indicating a general trend.
You don't say it is often not challenging.You don't say it is usually not fun.
You do say that it is “Just frustrating.”
These are blanket statements that cover all situations. Therefore, a single counter-example is sufficient to disprove your assertion.
, and all the other BS (Han Solo fumbling? It's a plain old failed Stealth check vs opponent's Perception check
No, when Obi-Wan is tracking Jango & Boba Fett, his Stealth is out-Percepted.
Han trying to sneak up on the trooper and stepping on a dry twig is a fumble. He wasn't stealthy and the trooper was just very perceptive anyway. The trooper becomes aware of Han because he stepped on the dry twig.Yoda with a str-penalty? I guess you never heard of dex-to-hit/damage; and so, sooo on)
You'd be guessing wrong and missing the point. Your whole point was:
What's the point of rolling stats if then the GM has to patch them manually because characters end up being unplayable?
So Yoda should be unplayable because he has a low-strength. I made the point that almost everyone would want to play someone with the abilities of Yoda, if not the Grandmaster himself. Whether or not there's a work-around his low strength isn't the issue. It's whether or not he's playable. You claimed that low-stats are unplayable and I say that they are. And based on your whole dex-to-hit/damage point, I am inferring that I've convinced you of the playability of low-stats.
And yet your top example of RPG is LotR: a story (not a game), with a party composed by a few commoners, one Fighter, two Rangers, and a Wizard casting Daylight. Once. Talking about nostalgia.
Of course I'm using stories as examples instead of games! Stories, especially popular stories (like LotR) have the benefit of providing a common frame of reference. But if it makes you feel better: Elklar was able to withstand the power of the Blackfire Amulet when all of his comrades had succumbed because of his racial heritage.
[sarcasm]Wow! You were right! Using an example from a game that no one on here except for me played in over two decades ago makes the point much better than using a silly old book that almost everyone here has read or seen.[/sarcasm]If you disagree with me, do it by addressing the arguments I made one by one and explaining why each of them is wrong,
And I did exactly that, eleven times (well, ten, since I did agree with you once). And you were only able to reply to two of them (counter-example and my use of stories). Since silence is compliance, and you have remained silent on 80% of your arguments that I addressed, I'll make the logical conclusion that I've proven my point and you've acquiesced.
Also, not all archetypes are intended for PCs. The brute would seem to be an NPC archetype.
|
|
Oh my god.Is there a reason you're choosing to reply to Lady J of all people and avoiding replying to my posts?
I didn't reply to your post because you're just stating a bunch of things you do in your game. What do you expect me to say? This is OK, this isn't? It's your game, do what you want, I'm only expressing MY idea of good GMing and the reasons supporting it. I'm not interested in giving a rate to every one's home-game.
If you disagree with me, do it by addressing the arguments I made one by one and explaining why each of them is wrong,And I did exactly that, eleven times (well, ten, since I did agree with you once). And you were only able to reply to two of them (counter-example and my use of stories). Since silence is compliance, and you have remained silent on 80% of your arguments that I addressed, I'll make the logical conclusion that I've proven my point and you've acquiesced.
Or maybe it's not my intention to make an old time player, who have stayed static on the same gaming system for 30+ years, suddenly change his mind. I've stated exactly what my ideas are, and I've asked who disagreed to explain specifically why. You know what I think; you replied and I know what you think. No further actions are required.
In your opinion. Take Legolas in LotR. When the Fellowship is slogging their way up Caradhras, every human is hip deep in snow, Gimli and the hobbits more so. Even Mithrandir is trudging along. And Legolas? He's light-stepping across the top of the snow. And why? Because he picked that feat? No, because he's an elf and elves are inherently better. And this, to me, in my opinion, has been the crux of the problem with D&D since it's beginning: Fluff doesn't equal crunch.
The flavor text of elves describes them as a superior race, but because everything has to be balanced, this incredibly long-lived race that measures its lifespan in millenia has a penalty to Constitution. What now?
If Elves are supposed to be Just Plain Better than everyone else and you want the crunch to reflect that, by all means give them better stats and other such perks—and a level adjustment.
Also, not all archetypes are intended for PCs. The brute would seem to be an NPC archetype.
We have NPC classes, so clearly delineating NPC archetypes would be nice. Sometimes it's obvious (anything with the word Squire in its name, for example) but not always. For example, the Vigilante archetypes are supposed to hearken to superheroes like Captain America, and the Brute is likely to be picked by people who want to play the Hulk.
|
|
OP, getting back to your question, you don't mention what rules are used for rolling stats. In my experience, the most critical thing about rolling stats is that it must be in front of at least the GM; even better if it's the whole party.
As GM, I prefer rolling for stats, and do 4d6 drop the lowest. I also let each player roll 3 'sets' of stats, and pick what they want of their sets. If someone still doesn't get something reasonable, they either can roll another set or can use another character's set. Usually, characters end up a little more powerful than point buy.
By default I allow pretty much anything from Paizo, and will _consider_ anything from Dreamscarred Press.
I don't find balance between players to be a bit priority. As long as characters are building for different roles, everyone will still have something they are the best at, so everyone is able to have fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You kids and your balance and point buy... Back in my day we rolled 3D6 in order and liked it. My characters were so poor, stupid, and ugly that Nilbogs gave them their prized possession and wiped its own memory! No respect I tell ya!
Or maybe it's not my intention to make an old time player, who have stayed static on the same gaming system for 30+ years, suddenly change his mind.
You do realize that I'm posting on a Paizo messageboard and not a TSR one, right? Is it really your belief that I'm playing red box rules where Elf is a class and not a race? Or 1E where Illusionist was a separate class from Magic-User? Or 2E with THAC0? As I'm playing Pathfinder now, I have clearly not stayed static with the same gaming system for 30+ years.
If Elves are supposed to be Just Plain Better than everyone else and you want the crunch to reflect that, by all means give them better stats and other such perks—and a level adjustment.
I've actually done exactly that with all of the core races (and a few others). I've taken most of the alternate racial traits and many race specific feats that most people find appealing from a fluff POV, but not good enough to take from a crunch perspective and spread them out over the levels (some at first, some at second, usually ending around tenth). For Elves we're talking things like Attuned to the Wild, Desert Runner, Light Step, etc. For Dwarves: Stonesinger, Ironguts, Stonebones, etc.
This “unbalances” the races, but also makes them more distinctive. And since my players keep coming back to my table (and I live a major metropolis, not some rural backwater where their choices are few), and because they've explicitly told me, I know they enjoy the experience.
|
|
I didn't reply to your post because you're just stating a bunch of things you do in your game. What do you expect me to say? This is OK, this isn't?You said
"Of course I'm not talking about minor rules to cover holes in the RAW or to make the game more fluent, but about major alterations to the game that have no reason to exist in the first place, and that are there just because of the GM's delusions of grandeur."
I'm asking you to clarify where you see the line between those. How do you tell whether it's a minor /more fluent house rule vs major alteration house rule?
To help you out, I gave some examples and I was hoping you'd say which category you felt each fell into.
And to be clear, that's distinct from saying whether something is "OK" in a broader sense -- someone might very well have a major alteration that you actually approve of...but it'd still be a major alteration. The category is what interests me right now. Not asking you to evaluate the impact/balance/whatever of the house rule, just where you think it would fall on your spectrum.
I'd prefer not to address specific cases, since I'd like to wrap this up. I can clarify what I mean though. Feel free to disagree.
I define minor a house-rule covering missing or unclear RAW or addressing an obvious bug not yet officially errata'd or FAQ'd.
I define major a house-rule clearly going against RAW.
Examples:
Minor. It is not clear at many tables whether a prone character can stand-up with a full-round action without causing AoO. I think it's acceptable to allow it.
Major. The Halfling Rogue cannot deal sneak damage to the giant, despite being flat-footed, because his dagger is too small and the giant's skin is too thick to strike a vital spot. This blatantly goes against the rules and invalidates a whole class feature for the sake of fluff: absolutely not acceptable.
We have NPC classes, so clearly delineating NPC archetypes would be nice.
I feel like that's not really feasible, since you can have a game that can have a pathfinder game that's about literally anything. If you want to tell a story about a bunch of heroic squires who save the day, you can do that. Sometimes something like the "Celebrity Bard" would make no sense, since no one in the dungeon or the orc hordes care who you are, but if you have a campaign in a single city, it makes a lot of sense.
I feel like the test is "If I can think of a single NPC I would build using this archetype, then it's a valid archetype." I mean, the Siege Mage doesn't necessarily make sense for a PC, but it's absolutely a sensible thing to have if magical siegecraft is the extent of your job and the army is paying for your training.
So while I would never *play* a Brute or recommend someone else do so, I can see having one in a group of enemies for the party to fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of using sarcasm, I'll try to succinctly (and seriously) explain what I'm trying to say here. I get annoyed when people state subjective preferences as if they were objective facts. Some people prefer vanilla while some prefer chocolate. Some prefer rock climbing while some prefer scuba diving. Some prefer random rolling while some prefer point buy. Some prefer prefer Golarion while some prefer a Knight Rider/Pokemon/Mad Max mash-up. Beliefs about what are "fun" are purely subjective. We can explain and give reasons for our preferences in gaming, but none of them are "right" or "wrong"--that's the essence of "fun" being a subjective concept.
The home brew or third party vs Paizo argument is a lot different than the point buy vs rolling argument. With third party, everyone is still relatively equal, assuming everyone has equal access to those sources. But with stat rolling, characters can be permanently hamstrung by bad rolls. And if you don’t like your character, the desire is too high to just kill them off. At which point rolling for stats was pointless anyway, as you can just keep suiciding until you get the stats you want, which breaks immersion and game flow.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of using sarcasm, I'll try to succinctly (and seriously) explain what I'm trying to say here. I get annoyed when people state subjective preferences as if they were objective facts. Some people prefer vanilla while some prefer chocolate. Some prefer rock climbing while some prefer scuba diving. Some prefer random rolling while some prefer point buy. Some prefer prefer Golarion while some prefer a Knight Rider/Pokemon/Mad Max mash-up. Beliefs about what are "fun" are purely subjective. We can explain and give reasons for our preferences in gaming, but none of them are "right" or "wrong"--that's the essence of "fun" being a subjective concept.
Agreed.
The point is that having fun has nothing to do with functional game system. They are two different, NON MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE things, and yet there are people who seems to think that either you can play a functional character, or have fun: never both.
I could have fun playing characters obtained by rolling not only stats, but also race, class, feats and skills. Fine, but it doesn't mean it's a good system (for Pathfinder at least), especially if someone at the table is not having fun because he rolled an abomination, or because another player rolled so good he's stealing the scene all the time. And guess what, by rolling stats you might(I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) get unhappy people at the table; by using point buy, you never do.
It seems only logical to me to use the system that minimizes chances of unhappiness.
The home brew or third party vs Paizo argument is a lot different than the point buy vs rolling argument. With third party, everyone is still relatively equal, assuming everyone has equal access to those sources. But with stat rolling, characters can be permanently hamstrung by bad rolls. And if you don’t like your character, the desire is too high to just kill them off. At which point rolling for stats was pointless anyway, as you can just keep suiciding until you get the stats you want, which breaks immersion and game flow.that just means you have a bad rolling system
It doesn't matter the system. It'll always lead to aleatory results which might not correspond to the concept the player had in mind, or might bring unwanted power imbalance to the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OP, getting back to your question, you don't mention what rules are used for rolling stats. In my experience, the most critical thing about rolling stats is that it must be in front of at least the GM; even better if it's the whole party.
As GM, I prefer rolling for stats, and do 4d6 drop the lowest. I also let each player roll 3 'sets' of stats, and pick what they want of their sets. If someone still doesn't get something reasonable, they either can roll another set or can use another character's set. Usually, characters end up a little more powerful than point buy.
By default I allow pretty much anything from Paizo, and will _consider_ anything from Dreamscarred Press.
I don't find balance between players to be a bit priority. As long as characters are building for different roles, everyone will still have something they are the best at, so everyone is able to have fun.
This asked a question which I will answer. There's a lot to read through all this and a lot of things I'd like to reply to but lots of it seems to have devolved to opinion.
Answer though: I don't know. Using standard point buy I had made both of my characters prior, and never actually asked which of the rolling systems were used, since I do also have a penchant for playing deliberately underpowered characters, and most of the time rolled stats wind up about even or if they're a little stronger it's no big deal. The other rolled players on the table don't have the issue, our Ranger has an 18 and 2 9's, so she's about on par with me all things considered, the Sorc is a bit under and was the one who needed the manual buff, and I'm not sure of our Cleric, though she's a very new player.
To address some of the more broad strokes of the issue, the issue is not everyone having fun. When I called out the Drow Noble character because of it's lack of a CR adjustment and being able to wipe the party solo, he then made the half giant, and I was forced to change my character, because he didn't like it and insisted we needed a skill character. I agreed and changed to a still martial based vigilante character.
His character has the strength of our ranger, my character's dex (which for a Drow is a bonus stat, and for the half giant a penalty), the highest constitution in the party by a good margin, and still high Int-Wis-Cha to boot. Comparing the characters, a Barbarian and a Vigilante, he is better in every regard except Charisma because I like higher Charisma characters. In function however, with the sheer advantage he has over everyone else he doesn't need a team, and he plays like he doesn't need a team.
This is compounded, he's the GM's partner, so there's the viability it could purely be favoritism. There's also the possibility this is the first game she's run in five years and is significantly rusty. She may not be aware of how things are happening. Both as the Drow Noble, and the Barbarian, his character is at the forefront, he searches the room, makes his decision and has already moved onto the next thing before any other player at the table is allowed to make a choice or reaction. We entered a room and I had to make the active decision to want to look at something else at the same time just to get a turn in edge-wise, and when he discovered I was going the correct way compared to him, he was the first one dogging my ass to get in on it. We defeated a boss character and his first bit is to loot, the treasure we were going for was magic, and I have the first drow nobility feat so my first bit was to cast detect magic so we could sort out the good stuff. I found the item we were going for, and despite that, he wanted to be the one to take it and the glory. It was a cursed item, so there were consequences and story aspects I didn't know about obviously until after the fact, but the point remained the first thing he did was try to strongarm it away. That's kind of where the lack of fun is coming in, is being dragged along in the coattails of someone bullying the game away, first with character options that allowed him to sleight of hand steal magic items from the party so he got first dibs on everything, and now with a combat character wielding a Large-size greatsword with no penalty that doesn't need the rest of the party.
Like this was one of the first scenarios we entered in the dungeon. He walked off ahead without anyone else, I as a stealth-ish vigilante character decided to follow. We entered a room with one enemy, and as a roleplaying aspect I think he asked for a plan. My answer was to wait for the others. Before I even finished that thought, he was already announcing his character was rushing into the room. The Sorc and Ranger are 2 rooms back because they haven't gotten a turn yet, and I'm only there because he's my moving buddy. He's dictating the game for everyone. The drow noble took over social situations, and even this barbarian does despite not being that type of character. As someone who also GMs games, most of my social interactions I've defaulted to whichever other player I'm there with so that they can partake in the fun. Maybe it's just an incompatibility in playstyle? However as a GM, these are things I'd be nipping in the bud. Turning to the other players and asking what they want to do, or insisting he roll/buy a character on-par with the rest of the team so that there is a team.
|
|
Minor. It is not clear at many tables whether a prone character can stand-up with a full-round action without causing AoO. I think it's acceptable to allow it.Hmm.
Standing up from a prone position requires a move action and provokes attacks of opportunity.
How do you see your rule not violating RAW? Is it solely because it's beneficial?
Major. The Halfling Rogue cannot deal sneak damage to the giant, despite being flat-footed, because his dagger is too small and the giant's skin is too thick to strike a vital spot. This blatantly goes against the rules and invalidates a whole class feature for the sake of fluff: absolutely not acceptable.Let's reverse this to a buff:
In an elemental heavy campaign, the Rogue can sneak attack an elemental due to possessing significant cunning and knowledge. This blatantly goes against the rules in an effort to avoid invalidating a whole class feature.
Acceptable or not acceptable?
Then it's even easier: rules already cover this aspect, there is no reason to enforce a house-rule, and therefore it's not good. I happened to be at two different tables where this thing came up (in two different countries, just to iterate how uncorrelated the two GMs were), and I trusted the two GMs saying it was actually a thing (it might have been related to the Withdraw action maybe). My bad, next time I won't trust them. I, as a player, was personally against it (since I wanted to check first), but in the assumption that rules weren't clear, I agreed to it. Also, beneficial to whom? Both enemies and players might benefit or be hindered by it, and in those specific cases, it was always beneficial to the enemy. Just assume I made a different example. Actually two: one usually benefiting players, and the other that doesn't:
- Allowing Robes of Arcane Heritage not only on Sorcerers but also on Bloodragers, since they also have a Bloodline. The item was written when Sorcerers were the only ones having a Bloodline, this is probably the reason why Sorcerers are the only ones being called out explicitly, and it's sensible to assume that it should apply to Bloodragers as well. While I'm OK with not allowing this, I see no problem in allowing it either.- Do not allow the feat Potion Glutton to work with Alchemist's extracts just because they are potables (I've played both Alchemists and Investigators, and I've never taken this feat). First of all, the Normal text is false, which suggests something might have gone wrong during the writing. Then, being able to quicken any Alchemist spell with a feat without paying the increment level cost is just nonsensical for obvious balancing reasons (and also because, although extracts are potables, they are very often treated differently from potions or other liquids).
For the Rogue, again, not kosher, hence not good. If the campaign is elemental-heavy, it's GM's responsibility to warn the players about possible trap-choices. In this case, I would have suggested to choose another class with the same flavour and capabilities, but less reliant on sneak attack, for example a Phantom Thief, or a Slayer (who does get sneak attack, but it's not his main strength). Other examples of bad choices the players should be warned about are: mounted Medium-sized characters in dungeon-heavy campaigns; intimidate, nonlethal damage or generic mind-effecting builds in undead-heavy campaigns; and so on. Once the players have been informed (without spoilers), they're free to choose whatever they want.
To address some of the more broad strokes of the issue, the issue is not everyone having fun. When I called out the Drow Noble character because of it's lack of a CR adjustment and being able to wipe the party solo, he then made the half giant, and I was forced to change my character, because he didn't like it and insisted we needed a skill character. I agreed and changed to a still martial based vigilante character.
His character has the strength of our ranger, my character's dex (which for a Drow is a bonus stat, and for the half giant a penalty), the highest constitution in the party by a good margin, and still high Int-Wis-Cha to boot. Comparing the characters, a Barbarian and a Vigilante, he is better in every regard except Charisma because I like higher Charisma characters. In function however, with the sheer advantage he has over everyone else he doesn't need a team, and he plays like he doesn't need a team.
This is compounded, he's the GM's partner, so there's the viability it could purely be favoritism. There's also the possibility this is the first game she's run in five years and is significantly rusty. She may not be aware of how things are happening. Both as the Drow Noble, and the Barbarian, his character is at the forefront, he searches the room, makes his decision and has already moved onto the next thing before any other player at the table is allowed to make a choice or reaction. We entered a room and I had to make the active decision to want to look at something else at the same time just to get a turn in edge-wise, and when he discovered I was going the correct way compared to him, he was the first one dogging my ass to get in on it. We defeated a boss character and his first bit is to loot, the treasure we were going for was magic, and I have the first drow nobility feat so my first bit was to cast detect magic so we could sort out the good stuff. I found the item we were going for, and despite that, he wanted to be the one to take it and the glory. It was a cursed item, so there were consequences and story aspects I didn't know about obviously until after the fact, but the point remained the first thing he did was try to strongarm it away. That's kind of where the lack of fun is coming in, is being dragged along in the coattails of someone bullying the game away, first with character options that allowed him to sleight of hand steal magic items from the party so he got first dibs on everything, and now with a combat character wielding a Large-size greatsword with no penalty that doesn't need the rest of the party.
Like this was one of the first scenarios we entered in the dungeon. He walked off ahead without anyone else, I as a stealth-ish vigilante character decided to follow. We entered a room with one enemy, and as a roleplaying aspect I think he asked for a plan. My answer was to wait for the others. Before I even finished that thought, he was already announcing his character was rushing into the room. The Sorc and Ranger are 2 rooms back because they haven't gotten a turn yet, and I'm only there because he's my moving buddy. He's dictating the game for everyone. The drow noble took over social situations, and even this barbarian does despite not being that type of character. As someone who also GMs games, most of my social interactions I've defaulted to whichever other player I'm there with so that they can partake in the fun. Maybe it's just an incompatibility in playstyle? However as a GM, these are things I'd be nipping in the bud. Turning to the other players and asking what they want to do, or insisting he roll/buy a character on-par with the rest of the team so that there is a team.
For starters, forcing you, not requesting you, to make a different character because he doesn't like it, is just an outright dick move.
Furthermore, the other half of his demand makes no sense. Why would he ask for a skill monkey for a party member, when he would just outright disregard every other character/player at the table and just run off to do whatever the hell he wanted?
Not only does his demand not make sense, but his playstyle as a whole doesn't make sense when this playstyle and power level assumption ultimately describes a 1 on 1 session between him and the GM playing the AP without anyone else there wasting their time and not getting any fair chance of participation (or fun, for that matter).
I know you originally stated not to want to miss out on an adventure path for the story, but I'm going to tell you this right now: You're not going to be focused enough on the story for you to care about it. The fact that you had to go and make this thread, questioning whether you should stay or deal with this issue is a big enough red flag to indicate to you that you won't enjoy the game, no matter what that story might be, because you're too worried about the stat disparities instead of your character or the story you're so intrigued by.
I'll echo what everyone else is suggesting, but in a different manner: These guys are bad news for a game like this, and you are only making things worse for yourself by continuing to play with them at this game. Tell them how you feel, let them know that you aren't enjoying the game for XYZ reasons that we've discussed here, and leave.
You should always follow the golden rule: "No gaming is better than bad gaming."
The point is that having fun has nothing to do with functional game system. They are two different, NON MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE things, and yet there are people who seems to think that either you can play a functional character, or have fun: never both.
And playing an effective 13pt buy character because you happened to roll poorly, while your teammate is playing an effective 25pt one is not challenging, nor fun. Just frustrating.
You do see the contradiction in your two statements, don't you?
It would be a contradiction if he believed a 13 point buy character and a 25 point buy character participating in the same game can be both functional and fun.
He doesn't. Neither would I, to be quite frank...
I feel like different point buys for SAD vs. MAD classes (assuming there aren't multiclassing exploits going on) can work fine. That's a thing I've heard about people doing and having fun with.
I've always wanted to run a sort of "fantasy fantasy auction" before a game where people have a set number of points to bid for stuff like "races", "Classes", "stat arrays", "access to archetypes", "access to source books", "trait packages" and stuff like that but the logistics have always escaped me. Like would you play an unarchetyped kobold core monk with only access to hardcover books printed before (and including) the Advanced Race Guide if you could start with a (pre-racial) 14, 14, 17,13,18,16?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like different point buys for SAD vs. MAD classes (assuming there aren't multiclassing exploits going on) can work fine. That's a thing I've heard about people doing and having fun with.
I've tried all sorts of stat generation methods and in the end I came to the conclusion that ability scores are sorta like sex: They really aren't that big of a deal unless you don't get enough. So... new game I just told people to fill in whatever the hell they wanted, up to 16 pre-racial, but that we were going on the honor system of "how do you envision your character?". Everyone who was playing a MAD class got what they needed, and my SAD friends got to decide if they really needed their other stats to be all that high. As a DM it really doesn't make much difference to me either way, but everyone else got to be happy. Only a few sessions in, but not really seeing an issue so far.