So, Hard Caps on numbers....


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I actually like capped numbers (ability scores, AC), I never liked that 3rd Ed did away with that. I would prefer characters to be capped at 18 for ability scores, the idea of a halfling as strong as an ogre, bothers me.
A halfling, according to the rules as written in 3rd Edition CAN'T be as strong as an ogre at first level.
I am not talking about 1st-level, with ability score increases they can become as strong as an ogre.
Then we are having two different conversations.

Ah, so not about hard caps, but how high ability scores can be at 1st-level?


Igor Horvat wrote:

Seriously, if I were your DM that character would never see the light of day in my campaign.

Your stats are almost as good as a 20th level in this playtest.

And you would play this beside someone with 18,16,14,12,10,8?

We gave up on rolling for stats in 2003 :p

First, if I rolled those stats and you, as the DM said "No, I would have to ask why? I rolled them. You WATCHED me roll them. There's NO reason not to allow it." If you still said no, I would decline to play but that's my option. I don't like being PUNISHED because I rolled well. It's unfair to me. But, as most people don't roll that well on a consistent basis, most don't see it that way.

And if I rolled those stats, and someone else rolled the spread you offered, and the DM allowed them to take the spread I rolled, and they said "No, I'll play these," then that's the choice THEY made. Why should I be punished for that?

Like I said before. I don't mind a point-buy system if the game was built with point-buy in mind. If the game gives me the option to roll stats, I'm going to take it. Because I can, more often than not, beat the spread. But I shouldn't be penalized for doing this. If everyone at the table chooses to go a point-buy route, instead of rolling, then I have a choice to make. I can either fall in line, doing the best with what I'm being given, or I can opt out.

But it shouldn't be the GAME that forces me to make this choice. It should be the DM. If the book offers different options, it shouldn't arbitrarily favor one of the other.

THAT is imbalanced.

Dark Archive

Ah, so this is about how hard caps on stat rolling games(if you roll well) are pointless?

To be fair, rolling, unlike in 1e, isn't portrayed as an equal alternate option to the point buy, its portrayed as alternate optional option you can try out for fun but book even says game isn't balanced for it.

It does makes me sad because I like rolling, but it does make sense since balancing game around "Some players might have all stats lower than 10 someone might have +4 modifier in all stats" isn't possible. 2e doesn't really support rolling(as better you roll less interesting leveling up becomes on certain levels), it just provides rules for it if you really want to do it. Its equal in value to the "optional flaw" rule aka "I want this stat to suck even though I don't get anything in return for it sucking" the way its presented.

It wouldn't make sense to allow rolling to allow stats higher than 18 because that would make it weird if one way of generating stats allows stats higher than max cap of the other. All 1e stat generation methods had same stat caps.(though to be fair, point buy didn't allowe lower stats than -7 while rolling did)


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I actually like capped numbers (ability scores, AC), I never liked that 3rd Ed did away with that. I would prefer characters to be capped at 18 for ability scores, the idea of a halfling as strong as an ogre, bothers me.
A halfling, according to the rules as written in 3rd Edition CAN'T be as strong as an ogre at first level.
I am not talking about 1st-level, with ability score increases they can become as strong as an ogre.
Then we are having two different conversations.
Ah, so not about hard caps, but how high ability scores can be at 1st-level?

While I don't believe there should be caps AT ALL (limited to what you can feasibly do with your character or what the DM proposes), yes. It was that I chose to use one of the methods the book offered, then having done that, was faced with "Sorry, you can't make the character you want." But then not offering any kind of reason as to why that rule is in place. NO other gaming system I have ever played has done this. When all of the other systems I've ran put a limitation on something, it was given a reason.

Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason. And I absolutely loathed it in return. But I played it because it was, at the time, the only option open to me. It was with a grudging hatred. I was, however, able to craft the character I wanted, full stop, at 1st level and didn't limit me in that regard.

I understand that what I'm doing is pretty much just pissing and moaning about something that, by and large, isn't that big a deal to a lot of people. It's just important to me. It's a pet peeve of mine. I'm a DM that likes a system with a HUGE amount of resources for character creation because I like my players to have options. Now, sometimes, players can suffer from option paralysis, and I get that. This game seems to be mostly for those types of individuals. But for someone that's got a lot of experience, I see it as just a clunky mess. And I don't foresee Paizo doing much to change what we're looking at now.

Now, with that said, I honestly HOPE and PRAY that I'm wrong. I want to have to eat my words so badly, I'm buying dipping sauce. I just don't see it happening.

I hope I'm wrong. I really do.

Dark Archive

To be fair though, is "18 is max cap you can raise stat without items or magic" any more different from "Average character has max of 10 feats" 1e had? Like, how should it be explained in book that would make it feel better for you?


CorvusMask wrote:
All 1e stat generation methods had same stat caps.(though to be fair, point buy didn't allowe lower stats than -7 while rolling did)

The only option in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook that has a limitation is the 'Purchase' option. According to the text as written, no other option states that there is a cap.

And if the whole 'stat rolling' option isn't balanced, then it shouldn't be in the book. If they want point-buy, make the game point-buy and be done with it. Don't pu$$y-foot around about it.


Sulako wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Seriously, if I were your DM that character would never see the light of day in my campaign.

Your stats are almost as good as a 20th level in this playtest.

And you would play this beside someone with 18,16,14,12,10,8?

We gave up on rolling for stats in 2003 :p

First, if I rolled those stats and you, as the DM said "No, I would have to ask why? I rolled them. You WATCHED me roll them. There's NO reason not to allow it." If you still said no, I would decline to play but that's my option. I don't like being PUNISHED because I rolled well. It's unfair to me. But, as most people don't roll that well on a consistent basis, most don't see it that way.

And if I rolled those stats, and someone else rolled the spread you offered, and the DM allowed them to take the spread I rolled, and they said "No, I'll play these," then that's the choice THEY made. Why should I be punished for that?

Like I said before. I don't mind a point-buy system if the game was built with point-buy in mind. If the game gives me the option to roll stats, I'm going to take it. Because I can, more often than not, beat the spread. But I shouldn't be penalized for doing this. If everyone at the table chooses to go a point-buy route, instead of rolling, then I have a choice to make. I can either fall in line, doing the best with what I'm being given, or I can opt out.

But it shouldn't be the GAME that forces me to make this choice. It should be the DM. If the book offers different options, it shouldn't arbitrarily favor one of the other.

THAT is imbalanced.

As I said we have got rid of rolling ages ago.

But if you rolled that high in comparison to others point buying, I would compare rolls and told you to reduce your scores by some number. You would still have higher scores than point buy as a reward for taking a chance but it would be by 4 max.

I.E. by current method of buying you can get 18,16,14,12,10,8.
That is 78 in total.

you got 18,18,17,16,16,16. that is 101. LoL!

I would say that you reduce your scores by 19. For a total of 82. You would pick how to reduce the scores. havin 4 pts over other is reward enough without being completely imbalanced.

Dark Archive

1e did have dice rolling caps for though. With 4d6 only 3 highest dice were chosen meaning cap was always 18. Same with dice pool method.

Hmm, but even I like having the barest minimum support for rolling even if it will never be used, I want there to be rules for it if I ever wanted to run oneshot game where we used them. Granted, it is waste of one page when you really think about it, but I think lot of folks would actually be sad that there wasn't stat rolling option at all


CorvusMask wrote:
To be fair though, is "18 is max cap you can raise stat without items or magic" any more different from "Average character has max of 10 feats" 1e had? Like, how should it be explained in book that would make it feel better for you?

Given that a fighter, my preferred class, gets a feat and nearly every level, they exceed that 10 feat cap. Now, if it were to say Everyone can only start with 2 feats at first level, no matter what, and I picked a human fighter (giving me 3 feats and first level) and I was forced to have to give one of those up because 'sorry, you can only have 2 feats', despite the book offering human as a race and fighter as a class, then yeah, I'd be pissed as hell. Or everyone only gets a max of 10 feats, despite the Fighter getting bonus feats every even level, again, I'd be pissed as all get out.

I should be given an example of where having a 19 or 20 at first level would irreparably shatter the game. Because if there is no in-game, mechanical REASON that your characters CAN'T have a stat above 18, then it's just plain arbitrary and is there for no other reason than to bone people who want to roll instead of point-buy. This isn't a limitation that MATTERS to the 'Assigned Boost' system they tout. It ONLY affects those that like to roll for their stats. And there's just flat out no reason.

If they can provide an example of where 'Yes, having an 18 in this situation is okay but having a 19 or a 20 renders this first level character UNPLAYABLE and would completely destroy the game' then I'd be all for it. But as someone who's been doing this crap since Bush Sr. was in office, I'm pretty sure no such instance exists.


Sulako wrote:
Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason.

Ah yes, level caps for demihumans is loathed by many, but ability score caps are great and not for no reason, to stop a human from becoming as strong as a fire giant sounds like a good enough reason.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Seriously, if I were your DM that character would never see the light of day in my campaign.

Your stats are almost as good as a 20th level in this playtest.

And you would play this beside someone with 18,16,14,12,10,8?

We gave up on rolling for stats in 2003 :p

First, if I rolled those stats and you, as the DM said "No, I would have to ask why? I rolled them. You WATCHED me roll them. There's NO reason not to allow it." If you still said no, I would decline to play but that's my option. I don't like being PUNISHED because I rolled well. It's unfair to me. But, as most people don't roll that well on a consistent basis, most don't see it that way.

And if I rolled those stats, and someone else rolled the spread you offered, and the DM allowed them to take the spread I rolled, and they said "No, I'll play these," then that's the choice THEY made. Why should I be punished for that?

Like I said before. I don't mind a point-buy system if the game was built with point-buy in mind. If the game gives me the option to roll stats, I'm going to take it. Because I can, more often than not, beat the spread. But I shouldn't be penalized for doing this. If everyone at the table chooses to go a point-buy route, instead of rolling, then I have a choice to make. I can either fall in line, doing the best with what I'm being given, or I can opt out.

But it shouldn't be the GAME that forces me to make this choice. It should be the DM. If the book offers different options, it shouldn't arbitrarily favor one of the other.

THAT is imbalanced.

As I said we have got rid of rolling ages ago.

But if you rolled that high in comparison to others point buying, I would compare rolls and told you to reduce your scores by some number. You would still have higher scores than point buy as a reward for taking a chance but it would be by 4 max.

I.E. by current method of buying you can get 18,16,14,12,10,8.
That is 78 in total.

you got 18,18,17,16,16,16....

Again, forcing me to reduce my points is PUNISHING me for rolling well.


CorvusMask wrote:

1e did have dice rolling caps for though. With 4d6 only 3 highest dice were chosen meaning cap was always 18. Same with dice pool method.

Hmm, but even I like having the barest minimum support for rolling even if it will never be used, I want there to be rules for it if I ever wanted to run oneshot game where we used them. Granted, it is waste of one page when you really think about it, but I think lot of folks would actually be sad that there wasn't stat rolling option at all

That just means the BEGINNING cap is 18. But, alas, if you play a human and wish to apply your +2 bonus at creation to Strength, after you put an 18 into it, at 1st level, you'd have a Strength of 20.

In this playtest, if you rolled an 18, put it into your Strength, and wanted to play a Strength-based Fighter, tough sh!t! You are then being PUNISHED for rolling that 18 and are arbitrarily being FORCED to put that into Dexterity instead. This railroads you into creating a character you don't wanna play.

THAT is my issue. OG Pathfinder didn't do this. 18 was the cap BEFORE racial ability modifiers. In this playtest, 18 is cap REGARDLESS of 'Boosts'. That's just complete BS.

Dark Archive

Let me rephrase that: How is 18 stat cap different from "+10 is max cap for enhancement and special abilities bonuses weapons and armor can have with +5 also being cap of said enhancement bonus"?


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason.
Ah yes, level caps for demihumans is loathed by many, but ability score caps are great and not for no reason, to stop a human from becoming as strong as a fire giant sounds like a good enough reason.

That might be a fine reason for some. But not for me. I want an in-game reason. I want to be shown, hands down, where having a stat that high breaks the game.

Fact? It doesn't. I know this because I've run players with seriously awesome stats. And you know what? They can die. They can be hurt. They can be outsmarted. They can fail.

But when they do so, it's with the character they WANTED to build. It wasn't some jury-rigged, pigeon-holed monstrosity that is nothing but a patchwork of compromises to fit a flawed narrative. I've got the DMing chops to make things a challenge for my players regardless of what stats they have. Every DM should. Adaptation is the hallmark of a decent DM. I've had many that had the imagination of wet cardboard. And the games were terrible as a result.

But 'Just because' isn't a reason. It's an excuse. And excuses don't belong in my source material.

Scarab Sages

Vic has said that they are willing to change everything and even delay the launch if needed, so I don’t get what you’re talking about.


Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason.
Ah yes, level caps for demihumans is loathed by many, but ability score caps are great and not for no reason, to stop a human from becoming as strong as a fire giant sounds like a good enough reason.
That might be a fine reason for some. But not for me. I want an in-game reason. I want to be shown, hands down, where having a stat that high breaks the game.

There is an in-game reason, and I am not talking about breaking the game, mechanically; humans are simply not as strong as giants.

Dark Archive

I think mythic rules have good examples on how lack of stat cap can break stuff <_< Its not that bad with 5 modifier, but when you have high enough modifier to get +10 damage per attack without taking two handed power attack in account.. It gets into 100 damage per one hit territory not to mention being able to crit more damage than Cthulhu's hp


CorvusMask wrote:
Let me rephrase that: How is 18 stat cap different from "+10 is max cap for enhancement and special abilities bonuses weapons and armor can have with +5 also being cap of said enhancement bonus"?

The reason given in the old ass players handbook I had said something along the lines of 'items can only contain so much magic'. It was a clunky reason but it was a reason and it made some sort of sense so I was okay with it. It's been a staple of D&D since as far back as, at least AD&D. It's a rule that's been in the book for a long time and is a part of the lore. I can accept that.

What I CAN'T accept is the game giving me an option, then slapping me down when I avail myself of that option.

Now, if the book has some sort of ability for a weapon that is a +11 Enchantment/Enhancement but then in the next chapter it hammered home that weapons can ONLY be a +10, with no exception, THEN I'd have a problem.

Dark Archive

That is considering 2e as chapter 2 of same book where 1e was chapter one though.

Like, 2e isn't same system as 1e, so it would come back to "1e rangers can cast spells, 2e rangers can't" type of "I dislike it because its different from earlier" stuff.

Still, would it make you feel better about this if they included some sort of flavor reason for why 18 is max cap that non monsters can reach?


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason.
Ah yes, level caps for demihumans is loathed by many, but ability score caps are great and not for no reason, to stop a human from becoming as strong as a fire giant sounds like a good enough reason.
That might be a fine reason for some. But not for me. I want an in-game reason. I want to be shown, hands down, where having a stat that high breaks the game.
There is an in-game reason, and I am not talking about breaking the game, mechanically; humans are simply not as strong as giants.

Very true. And, at 1st Level, a human has absolutely no chance of being. Best a human can hope for is a Strength of 20. Stone Giants, among the weakest of the giants, has a Strength of 27. Even if you have a Barbarian raging, at 1st Level, you're going to have a Strength of 24. So a human CAN'T be stronger than a giant.

Without limiting the character, the game has already seen to that.


Sulako wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Seriously, if I were your DM that character would never see the light of day in my campaign.

Your stats are almost as good as a 20th level in this playtest.

And you would play this beside someone with 18,16,14,12,10,8?

We gave up on rolling for stats in 2003 :p

First, if I rolled those stats and you, as the DM said "No, I would have to ask why? I rolled them. You WATCHED me roll them. There's NO reason not to allow it." If you still said no, I would decline to play but that's my option. I don't like being PUNISHED because I rolled well. It's unfair to me. But, as most people don't roll that well on a consistent basis, most don't see it that way.

And if I rolled those stats, and someone else rolled the spread you offered, and the DM allowed them to take the spread I rolled, and they said "No, I'll play these," then that's the choice THEY made. Why should I be punished for that?

Like I said before. I don't mind a point-buy system if the game was built with point-buy in mind. If the game gives me the option to roll stats, I'm going to take it. Because I can, more often than not, beat the spread. But I shouldn't be penalized for doing this. If everyone at the table chooses to go a point-buy route, instead of rolling, then I have a choice to make. I can either fall in line, doing the best with what I'm being given, or I can opt out.

But it shouldn't be the GAME that forces me to make this choice. It should be the DM. If the book offers different options, it shouldn't arbitrarily favor one of the other.

THAT is imbalanced.

As I said we have got rid of rolling ages ago.

But if you rolled that high in comparison to others point buying, I would compare rolls and told you to reduce your scores by some number. You would still have higher scores than point buy as a reward for taking a chance but it would be by 4 max.

I.E. by current method of buying you can get 18,16,14,12,10,8.
That is 78 in total.

...

No, I am rewarding you with 4 more points than point buy.

:D

Dark Archive

So when you say you want reason for it, you want mechanical proof/essay that lack of cap on stats makes balancing the game harder?


Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason.
Ah yes, level caps for demihumans is loathed by many, but ability score caps are great and not for no reason, to stop a human from becoming as strong as a fire giant sounds like a good enough reason.
That might be a fine reason for some. But not for me. I want an in-game reason. I want to be shown, hands down, where having a stat that high breaks the game.
There is an in-game reason, and I am not talking about breaking the game, mechanically; humans are simply not as strong as giants.
Very true. And, at 1st Level, a human has absolutely no chance of being.

Not sure why the focus on 1st level, they can surpass giants as they gain ability score increases. Even being as strong as an ogre is stupid.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Seriously, if I were your DM that character would never see the light of day in my campaign.

Your stats are almost as good as a 20th level in this playtest.

And you would play this beside someone with 18,16,14,12,10,8?

We gave up on rolling for stats in 2003 :p

First, if I rolled those stats and you, as the DM said "No, I would have to ask why? I rolled them. You WATCHED me roll them. There's NO reason not to allow it." If you still said no, I would decline to play but that's my option. I don't like being PUNISHED because I rolled well. It's unfair to me. But, as most people don't roll that well on a consistent basis, most don't see it that way.

And if I rolled those stats, and someone else rolled the spread you offered, and the DM allowed them to take the spread I rolled, and they said "No, I'll play these," then that's the choice THEY made. Why should I be punished for that?

Like I said before. I don't mind a point-buy system if the game was built with point-buy in mind. If the game gives me the option to roll stats, I'm going to take it. Because I can, more often than not, beat the spread. But I shouldn't be penalized for doing this. If everyone at the table chooses to go a point-buy route, instead of rolling, then I have a choice to make. I can either fall in line, doing the best with what I'm being given, or I can opt out.

But it shouldn't be the GAME that forces me to make this choice. It should be the DM. If the book offers different options, it shouldn't arbitrarily favor one of the other.

THAT is imbalanced.

As I said we have got rid of rolling ages ago.

But if you rolled that high in comparison to others point buying, I would compare rolls and told you to reduce your scores by some number. You would still have higher scores than point buy as a reward for taking a chance but it would be by 4 max.

I.E. by current method of buying you can get

...

But I rolled those stats. Why can't I use them? If you wouldn't want me to use what I rolled, why would you allow me to roll at all?

That's the very CORE of what I'm talking about. Paint it however you want. Bottom line is I rolled the numbers, everyone watched me do it, then after the fact, is getting mad at me for doing so because no one else at the table did.

By not letting me play my character as I created them within the boundary of the options presented to me, how can it be seen as anything but a punishment?

You're looking at it as a "Well I'm GIVING you this," but I'm seeing as "No, you're TAKING AWAY all of THIS because little Johnny over there is pouting that he doesn't have as good a stats as I do."

I've been on the back end of this. I've played with people that have had stats better than mine. That's the name of the game. Point-buy does alleviate some of this. And if the group decided to do point-buy, I'd probably go along with it. But if everyone wanted to roll and I just happened to roll higher, then, well, Wah! That's the way it goes. Nut up, or shut up.

But hamstringing the player that rolled well just to make everyone ELSE happy is DELIBERATELY creating an antogonistic environment. If the other players are butt-hurt that so-and-so rolled better, they need to quit being wusses and man/woman up.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason.
Ah yes, level caps for demihumans is loathed by many, but ability score caps are great and not for no reason, to stop a human from becoming as strong as a fire giant sounds like a good enough reason.
That might be a fine reason for some. But not for me. I want an in-game reason. I want to be shown, hands down, where having a stat that high breaks the game.
There is an in-game reason, and I am not talking about breaking the game, mechanically; humans are simply not as strong as giants.
Very true. And, at 1st Level, a human has absolutely no chance of being.
Not sure why the focus on 1st level, they can surpass giants as they gain ability score increases. Even being as strong as an ogre is stupid.

But see, ogres can level, too.


Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason.
Ah yes, level caps for demihumans is loathed by many, but ability score caps are great and not for no reason, to stop a human from becoming as strong as a fire giant sounds like a good enough reason.
That might be a fine reason for some. But not for me. I want an in-game reason. I want to be shown, hands down, where having a stat that high breaks the game.
There is an in-game reason, and I am not talking about breaking the game, mechanically; humans are simply not as strong as giants.
Very true. And, at 1st Level, a human has absolutely no chance of being.
Not sure why the focus on 1st level, they can surpass giants as they gain ability score increases. Even being as strong as an ogre is stupid.
But see, ogres can level, too.

Okay, so the ogre can become as strong as a Titan or what-have-you, that's not any better.

You can also use the Epic Level Handbook and have 50th-level Barbarian ogres walking around, or just keep adding class levels from all classes until they surpass Zeus in power, that is why I do not dig unbounded systems.


CorvusMask wrote:
So when you say you want reason for it, you want mechanical proof/essay that lack of cap on stats makes balancing the game harder?

I want an example. I want a scenario where having a strength of 18 is okay but a strength of 19 or 20 is detrimental.

And game balance isn't the responsibility of the GAME. That's the responsibility of the DM. If the DM can't balance the game properly for his/her players, then, frankly, they shouldn't be DMing. Learning game balance is one of the first things you learn as a DM. "Will this system work with my players?" That's the FIRST question any good DM should ask himself.

And, as I said, if it's rule the DM wants to impose, that's fine. But, as with the game, he'd BETTER have a good reason. And 'Because I'm the DM and I said so' is NOT a good reason. I won't play with dicks like this.

Now, if it were a situation of 'I'm not that familiar with you guys as players, so I'm doing this to keep it tight until I learn your play styles,' that's fine. While not necessarily the reason I'm looking for, it's a reason I'll accept.

But this game doesn't even give you that. It's just 'No because...*shrug*'. Doesn't fly with me.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason.
Ah yes, level caps for demihumans is loathed by many, but ability score caps are great and not for no reason, to stop a human from becoming as strong as a fire giant sounds like a good enough reason.
That might be a fine reason for some. But not for me. I want an in-game reason. I want to be shown, hands down, where having a stat that high breaks the game.
There is an in-game reason, and I am not talking about breaking the game, mechanically; humans are simply not as strong as giants.
Very true. And, at 1st Level, a human has absolutely no chance of being.
Not sure why the focus on 1st level, they can surpass giants as they gain ability score increases. Even being as strong as an ogre is stupid.
But see, ogres can level, too.

Okay, so the ogre can become as strong as a Titan or what-have-you, that's not any better.

You can also use the Epic Level Handbook and have 50th-level Barbarian ogres walking around, or just keep adding class levels from all classes until they surpass Zeus in power, that is why I do not dig unbounded systems.

Understandable. To each their own. Like I said, this was my b+$~*. I'm pretty damn sure I'm the minority. It's just an important issue to me. Won't be an issue for everyone.

And not to put too fine a point on it but, if you were so inclined, you could level Zeus up too. Just sayin'...


Sulako wrote:

But I rolled those stats. Why can't I use them? If you wouldn't want me to use what I rolled, why would you allow me to roll at all?

That's the very CORE of what I'm talking about. Paint it however you want. Bottom line is I rolled the numbers, everyone watched me do it, then after the fact, is getting mad at me for doing so because no one else at the table did.

By not letting me play my character as I created them within the boundary of the options presented to me, how can it be seen as anything but a punishment?

You're looking at it as a "Well I'm GIVING you this," but I'm seeing as "No, you're TAKING AWAY all of THIS because little Johnny over there is pouting that he doesn't have as good a stats as I do."

I've been on the back end of this. I've played with people that have had stats better than mine. That's the name of the game. Point-buy does alleviate some of this. And if the group decided to do point-buy, I'd probably go along with it. But if everyone wanted to roll and I just happened to roll higher, then, well, Wah! That's the way it goes. Nut up, or shut up.

But hamstringing the player that rolled well just to make everyone ELSE happy is DELIBERATELY creating an antogonistic environment. If the other players are butt-hurt that so-and-so rolled better, they need to quit being wusses and man/woman up.

Sure you did.

But, I would point to you in advance, that you can roll but any rolls over certain treshold will be reduced to that treshold.

Same with rolls below it.

For this playtest as I said. point buy is 78 pts in total.

If you want to roll, legal values are 74-82 anything above/below will be set to 82/74

And you will be creating character in the boundaries of options as those are your options.

Also because I saw many low-roll characters meet their early demise so new(and hoping better) characters can be rolled.

that is why I am 99% for point buy, but if someone is insistent to roll I will give 4-8 window where those rolls can be.

Dark Archive

Hmm, it is true that GM should try to balance the game, however that doesn't mean that game should go "Eh, doesn't matter, everyone can fix my problems with homebrew". As in, devs should still attempt to balance the game.

I don't have proof for it, but thing is that if 18 is max cap without magic items, then you know for example how high DCs average player character has and can balance monsters' saves to be high enough that a monster that should be a threat has higher chance of succeeding and weaker one higher chance of failing. And if 18 is max cap, it also makes it easier for dev to tell waht is actual max cap of stat when magic is taken in account. So like if max cap was something like 26(I threw that number out of the hat since I don't remember all the spells and items from the book) when devs can plan around "Okay, we know now that this is highest possible dcs players can have, so we don't accidentally balance Cthulhu so that it can only succeed with natural 20 against player's DCs".

That is how I see it at least, it is possible to balance game without caps in modifiers, but it is harder at least. If game succeeds being balanced, it also makes GM's job easier because they don't need to do much extra work to balance it. As I said earlier, its okay for GM to tweak game mechanics to better suit what they prefer, but game shouldn't require homebrewing in order to work.


You said it destroys the game limiting it to 18. How? The burden is on you to prove that, not Paizo to give you a reason why it doesn’t. They said the game is balanced around the cap.

Also, every design decision ever made is “because a designer wanted to”.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:

But I rolled those stats. Why can't I use them? If you wouldn't want me to use what I rolled, why would you allow me to roll at all?

That's the very CORE of what I'm talking about. Paint it however you want. Bottom line is I rolled the numbers, everyone watched me do it, then after the fact, is getting mad at me for doing so because no one else at the table did.

By not letting me play my character as I created them within the boundary of the options presented to me, how can it be seen as anything but a punishment?

You're looking at it as a "Well I'm GIVING you this," but I'm seeing as "No, you're TAKING AWAY all of THIS because little Johnny over there is pouting that he doesn't have as good a stats as I do."

I've been on the back end of this. I've played with people that have had stats better than mine. That's the name of the game. Point-buy does alleviate some of this. And if the group decided to do point-buy, I'd probably go along with it. But if everyone wanted to roll and I just happened to roll higher, then, well, Wah! That's the way it goes. Nut up, or shut up.

But hamstringing the player that rolled well just to make everyone ELSE happy is DELIBERATELY creating an antogonistic environment. If the other players are butt-hurt that so-and-so rolled better, they need to quit being wusses and man/woman up.

Sure you did.

But, I would point to you in advance, that you can roll but any rolls over certain treshold will be reduced to that treshold.

Same with rolls below it.

For this playtest as I said. point buy is 78 pts in total.

If you want to roll, legal values are 74-82 anything above/below will be set to 82/74

And you will be creating character in the boundaries of options as those are your options.

Also because I saw many low-roll characters meet their early demise so new(and hoping better) characters can be rolled.

that is why I am 99% for point buy, but if someone is insistent to roll I will give 4-8 window where those rolls can be.

And that is why I wouldn't play with you. I wouldn't be able to play with a DM that tells me "You can roll stats, but if you roll too high, I'm going to punish you. But it's okay, because if you roll too low, I'm going to adjust things upward."

That's not an incentive. If you were to simply tell me, no stat-rolling. We do point-buy only, then I'd make the decision whether to play or not.


Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Now yes, 2nd Edition D&D capped levels for no reason.
Ah yes, level caps for demihumans is loathed by many, but ability score caps are great and not for no reason, to stop a human from becoming as strong as a fire giant sounds like a good enough reason.
That might be a fine reason for some. But not for me. I want an in-game reason. I want to be shown, hands down, where having a stat that high breaks the game.
There is an in-game reason, and I am not talking about breaking the game, mechanically; humans are simply not as strong as giants.
Very true. And, at 1st Level, a human has absolutely no chance of being.
Not sure why the focus on 1st level, they can surpass giants as they gain ability score increases. Even being as strong as an ogre is stupid.
But see, ogres can level, too.

Okay, so the ogre can become as strong as a Titan or what-have-you, that's not any better.

You can also use the Epic Level Handbook and have 50th-level Barbarian ogres walking around, or just keep adding class levels from all classes until they surpass Zeus in power, that is why I do not dig unbounded systems.

Understandable. To each their own. Like I said, this was my b*!$@. I'm pretty damn sure I'm the minority. It's just an important issue to me. Won't be an issue for everyone.

And not to put too fine a point on it but, if you were so inclined, you could level Zeus up too. Just sayin'...

Hahahaha, exactly, where does it end?! Azathoth not strong enough, raise hit dice and add some levels.


Sulako wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:

But I rolled those stats. Why can't I use them? If you wouldn't want me to use what I rolled, why would you allow me to roll at all?

That's the very CORE of what I'm talking about. Paint it however you want. Bottom line is I rolled the numbers, everyone watched me do it, then after the fact, is getting mad at me for doing so because no one else at the table did.

By not letting me play my character as I created them within the boundary of the options presented to me, how can it be seen as anything but a punishment?

You're looking at it as a "Well I'm GIVING you this," but I'm seeing as "No, you're TAKING AWAY all of THIS because little Johnny over there is pouting that he doesn't have as good a stats as I do."

I've been on the back end of this. I've played with people that have had stats better than mine. That's the name of the game. Point-buy does alleviate some of this. And if the group decided to do point-buy, I'd probably go along with it. But if everyone wanted to roll and I just happened to roll higher, then, well, Wah! That's the way it goes. Nut up, or shut up.

But hamstringing the player that rolled well just to make everyone ELSE happy is DELIBERATELY creating an antogonistic environment. If the other players are butt-hurt that so-and-so rolled better, they need to quit being wusses and man/woman up.

Sure you did.

But, I would point to you in advance, that you can roll but any rolls over certain treshold will be reduced to that treshold.

Same with rolls below it.

For this playtest as I said. point buy is 78 pts in total.

If you want to roll, legal values are 74-82 anything above/below will be set to 82/74

And you will be creating character in the boundaries of options as those are your options.

Also because I saw many low-roll characters meet their early demise so new(and hoping better) characters can be rolled.

that is why I am 99% for point buy, but if someone is insistent to roll I will give 4-8 window

...

You do realise that there is a thing called "game balance"

If I allow on character to have 20pts higher abilities then others then I have to rework challenges to that. And if any monster have save-or-suck attacks, the "ubermench" will go no problem forward with 3-5 dead fellow adventurers.

You have too much HP, too much AC, all exelent saves, better skills.
If I want to challenge you, I have to destroy others.


GameDesignerDM wrote:

You said it destroys the game limiting it to 18. How? The burden is on you to prove that, not Paizo to give you a reason why it doesn’t. They said the game is balanced around the cap.

Also, every design decision ever made is “because a designer wanted to”.

Playing an RPG is about CHOICE. It is about determining what you want to be, how you want to play, and how you want your character to be built.

When you impose a limitation on a character, DESPITE OPTIONS TO THE CONTRARY, that destroys the game. It gives the ILLUSION of choice but then turns around and rescinds it at the 11th hour because the game didn't expect you to roll that well.

That's been my complaint all along. Is that the game gives you the option of rolling your stats. So the option of getting 18's is there. The game just ASSUMES no one will and went full steam ahead. It didn't play for the eventuality that someone would. Law of large numbers says SOMEONE is going to do so. It's inevitable. So the fact that they didn't compensate for that is, frankly, amateur hour on their part.

And yes, most things the designers do is 'Because we said so'. But most of the things they agree to do that with MAKE SENSE. Not allowing a 1st level character to have a stat above 18 DOESN'T make sense.

Not allowing Fighters to cast spells? That makes sense. Not allowing Wizards to Dual-Wield Greatswords? That makes sense. Even if they don't come right out and say WHY Fighters and Wizards can't do this, it still MAKES SENSE. It isn't arbitrary.

The 1st level stat cap IS arbitrary. There's no logical reason why. There isn't even any perceived reason why. OG Pathfinder didn't have this stipulation and it was an extremely solid system. Wasn't perfect, but then there's no such animal, so take that as you will. But a starting character with a stat of 19 or 20 didn't destroy the game. It didn't screw things up SO BADLY that the rest of the game was unplayable.

So I don't see why it's such a big thing here that they felt the need to limit it.

Now yes, by that same token, people could ask me 'Well, if it ISN'T such a big deal, why are you fighting so hard against it?'

And my answer is very simple. I was presented with the option and I took it. In doing so, they gave me the chance to get a stat higher than 18. Then, when I got that number, they took that option away.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:

But I rolled those stats. Why can't I use them? If you wouldn't want me to use what I rolled, why would you allow me to roll at all?

That's the very CORE of what I'm talking about. Paint it however you want. Bottom line is I rolled the numbers, everyone watched me do it, then after the fact, is getting mad at me for doing so because no one else at the table did.

By not letting me play my character as I created them within the boundary of the options presented to me, how can it be seen as anything but a punishment?

You're looking at it as a "Well I'm GIVING you this," but I'm seeing as "No, you're TAKING AWAY all of THIS because little Johnny over there is pouting that he doesn't have as good a stats as I do."

I've been on the back end of this. I've played with people that have had stats better than mine. That's the name of the game. Point-buy does alleviate some of this. And if the group decided to do point-buy, I'd probably go along with it. But if everyone wanted to roll and I just happened to roll higher, then, well, Wah! That's the way it goes. Nut up, or shut up.

But hamstringing the player that rolled well just to make everyone ELSE happy is DELIBERATELY creating an antogonistic environment. If the other players are butt-hurt that so-and-so rolled better, they need to quit being wusses and man/woman up.

Sure you did.

But, I would point to you in advance, that you can roll but any rolls over certain treshold will be reduced to that treshold.

Same with rolls below it.

For this playtest as I said. point buy is 78 pts in total.

If you want to roll, legal values are 74-82 anything above/below will be set to 82/74

And you will be creating character in the boundaries of options as those are your options.

Also because I saw many low-roll characters meet their early demise so new(and hoping better) characters can be rolled.

that is why I am 99% for point buy, but if someone is insistent to roll

...

When you belly up to the table as a player and a GM, that's the risk you take. Some people roll good, some people roll bad. If we're all rolling with the same method and you get someone with uberstats, that's just the way it goes.

You wanna dance, you gotta pay the band.


Sulako wrote:

When you belly up to the table as a player and a GM, that's the risk you take. Some people roll good, some people roll bad. If we're all rolling with the same method and you get someone with uberstats, that's just the way it goes.

You wanna dance, you gotta pay the band.

Some people find this rough, so I let them roll, and if they are unhappy with the rolls, they can take an array/point buy.


That doesn’t destroy anything. You do have plenty of choices. It’s just now you choose where to put that 18, instead of the 20.

Games like this have limitations, otherwise it’d be impossible to balance.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:

When you belly up to the table as a player and a GM, that's the risk you take. Some people roll good, some people roll bad. If we're all rolling with the same method and you get someone with uberstats, that's just the way it goes.

You wanna dance, you gotta pay the band.

Some people find this rough, so I let them roll, and if they are unhappy with the rolls, they can take an array/point buy.

That's one of the reasons why, at my table (and as a player) I allow everyone to roll and will offer to let the group use the highest set of stats rolled.

Most of the time, this works out. But every so often you'll get that holdout that is all "I didn't roll them, so I don't want to use them".

At THAT point, they're choosing to hamstring themselves. But that's THEIR choice.


GameDesignerDM wrote:

That doesn’t destroy anything. You do have plenty of choices. It’s just now you choose where to put that 18, instead of the 20.

Games like this have limitations, otherwise it’d be impossible to balance.

It isn't about the choices I DO have. It's about the one choice that I DON'T have. And I don't have this choice for no adequately explained reason. Previous games didn't have this limitation. So why now? Why here? The previous edition was pretty damn balanced, all things considered.

There is legit NO reason why I can't. As I've said, THAT'S my biggest gripe. Give me the limitation, that's fine. But give me a reason beyond 'because we said so'. That just doesn't fly. I didn't accept it when my parents did it (shocker, I got smacked a lot as a kid) I sure as hell ain't gonna accept it now.


Sulako wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

That doesn’t destroy anything. You do have plenty of choices. It’s just now you choose where to put that 18, instead of the 20.

Games like this have limitations, otherwise it’d be impossible to balance.

It isn't about the choices I DO have. It's about the one choice that I DON'T have. And I don't have this choice for no adequately explained reason. Previous games didn't have this limitation. So why now? Why here? The previous edition was pretty damn balanced, all things considered.

There is legit NO reason why I can't. As I've said, THAT'S my biggest gripe. Give me the limitation, that's fine. But give me a reason beyond 'because we said so'. That just doesn't fly. I didn't accept it when my parents did it (shocker, I got smacked a lot as a kid) I sure as hell ain't gonna accept it now.

As I said, it breaks the game balance.

As a player and a DM i know that from experience.

IF all players have the same rolls, the high ones as you said.
That is fair, but it also pushes DM to build encounters that are 100% more though,because default like in printed adventure is a pushover.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Dαedαlus wrote:

...Yeah.

I die a little inside every time I read 'you may never have more than X' or 'you cannot have a value greater than X'.

The whole reason I like PF is that it allows me to scour a ton of options, trying squeeze out the last bonus, and this system just... does away with that completely.
I understand why it's done. It's to future-proof the game, I know, to avoid something unexpected coming up and breaking the game. But just make it so that something is impossible on your Big List of Design Rules hanging on the Paizo HQ wall, don't tell it to the players if you have to do that.

Even better, don't put hard limits on anything, just make it exponentially harder to make something higher and higher as you go on. Because as it stands, if there's no way for me to ever improve my skill as a player when making a character, if I can't come up with new and exciting ways to push the limits of the game further and further without hitting a brick wall if I go an inch past normal, and what any new player could make day 1, why would I ever want to keep playing?

Um...not to be a jerk...and apologies if it comes across that way...but what about the thrill of advancing the story, of making choices that reflect a narrative arc as opposed to a gamist one?

Why would you keep playing? Because you love the core of fantasy rpgs ---the progression of a character through a carefully guided world at the hands of a DM...the camaraderie of the table of friends playing a game...that thrill you get when you find a magic item as opposed to buying the optimal one so you can inch past your previous cap.

I understand and like the art of building a cool character as much as the next person...but there are so many reasons to play this game. Chiefly...telling a collaborative story with your friends in a semi-competitive, oft-twisting and unexpected manner.

---
Again, this isn't to discount your take: You LIKE what you like; that is valid. AND, you're clearly not alone. I just felt compelled to wax poetic for a second.


Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:

When you belly up to the table as a player and a GM, that's the risk you take. Some people roll good, some people roll bad. If we're all rolling with the same method and you get someone with uberstats, that's just the way it goes.

You wanna dance, you gotta pay the band.

Some people find this rough, so I let them roll, and if they are unhappy with the rolls, they can take an array/point buy.

That's one of the reasons why, at my table (and as a player) I allow everyone to roll and will offer to let the group use the highest set of stats rolled.

Most of the time, this works out. But every so often you'll get that holdout that is all "I didn't roll them, so I don't want to use them".

Yeah, that's fair, and very generous, but some people don't like everyone in the party having the same array, and what you said about not rolling them personally.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

That doesn’t destroy anything. You do have plenty of choices. It’s just now you choose where to put that 18, instead of the 20.

Games like this have limitations, otherwise it’d be impossible to balance.

It isn't about the choices I DO have. It's about the one choice that I DON'T have. And I don't have this choice for no adequately explained reason. Previous games didn't have this limitation. So why now? Why here? The previous edition was pretty damn balanced, all things considered.

There is legit NO reason why I can't. As I've said, THAT'S my biggest gripe. Give me the limitation, that's fine. But give me a reason beyond 'because we said so'. That just doesn't fly. I didn't accept it when my parents did it (shocker, I got smacked a lot as a kid) I sure as hell ain't gonna accept it now.

As I said, it breaks the game balance.

As a player and a DM i know that from experience.

IF all players have the same rolls, the high ones as you said.
That is fair, but it also pushes DM to build encounters that are 100% more though,because default like in printed adventure is a pushover.

But that's the GM's JOB. If you can't hack it, hand the game over to someone who can. And sorry to be the bearer of bad news, my friend, but the only person that can break game balance...is YOU. The GM. You shouldnt' be relying on the game to do it for you. If you see a system that is just too whacked out to play, then you don't run it. However, if you know what you're doing and have any adaptations skills whatsoever, game balance should be a breeze.

And I know THAT from experience. I routinely play with a group that has killer stats. And I have NO problem challenging them when the game calls for it. Every GM worth a damn should be able to do this. It's tabletop roleplaying 101.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:

When you belly up to the table as a player and a GM, that's the risk you take. Some people roll good, some people roll bad. If we're all rolling with the same method and you get someone with uberstats, that's just the way it goes.

You wanna dance, you gotta pay the band.

Some people find this rough, so I let them roll, and if they are unhappy with the rolls, they can take an array/point buy.

That's one of the reasons why, at my table (and as a player) I allow everyone to roll and will offer to let the group use the highest set of stats rolled.

Most of the time, this works out. But every so often you'll get that holdout that is all "I didn't roll them, so I don't want to use them".

Yeah, that's fair, and very generous, but some people don't like everyone in the party having the same array, and what you said about not rolling them personally.

That's their choice. But that doesn't mean the player that DID roll really well should be punished for it. If it means there's a huge stat gap, then C'est la vie. That's the box they checked themselves into.

I'm a harsh GM, but I'm fair. If a majority of the players want to roll stats, then we roll. If a majority wants to point-buy, we point-buy. But if a player wants to roll, rolls complete garbage, then refuses to take a spread of stats rolled by another player, tough. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it.


If you want choice, why are you rolling stats in the first place?


Khudzlin wrote:
If you want choice, why are you rolling stats in the first place?

So they can be a power gamer, since apparently they always roll the best stats ever.


I'm not so sure that it is about balance as it is about blandness of characters. Even PFS character making allowed for more optimization than what I am seeing in 2.0.

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / So, Hard Caps on numbers.... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.