So, Hard Caps on numbers....


General Discussion

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

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

Because when I roll stats, I generally roll better than anything a typical 'point-buy' spread is going to give me.

Point-buy, first off screws you if you want higher stats as they allow you to do 1-for-1 up to a certain point, then start charging you more for each individual stat bump. And whenever someone like me pimps in with how it's BS, everyone whines about 'game balance'. Whining about 'game balance' is just tantamount to saying "I'm a lazy GM and don't wanna put in anymore effort than I absolutely have to."

Whenever I do point-buy for players, I allow 1-for-1 with no stat cap. I'm a good enough GM that I can balance that crap out.

I don't see how any GM should have a problem doing this but hey. Monkeys and typewriters.


Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
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.

Optimization is not the threshold for not being bland, imo. I’m looking more at who the character is, their history, where they come from, their personality, and such.

Narrative defines that, to me, not things that are ultimately just numbers.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
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.

Oh, I could bust out some straight up Unicron level sh!t. Planet destroying. But be that as it may, players do have limits to what their stats can be. Dice, stat bumps, and magic can only get you so far. So there's no real need to escalate.

Just because a player's as strong as a giant, doesn't mean when that giant bashes him across the head with a greatclub, it isn't going to kill a few brain cells.


GameDesignerDM wrote:
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.

It's about the OPTION of rolling the best stats ever. The CHANCE that you COULD. If I do, I do. If I don't, I don't. But I like that option.


Sulako wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
My concern is that the developers are not really going to listen to the play testers and are going to do what they are going to do. I wonder if this is so much a play test or more of a preview of things to come.

Given that Vic Wertz all but came right out and SAID that they won't be changing much, you've hit the nail right on the head.

This has already been playtested with the corporate sponsored playtesters (I.E. Convention goers), so despite what people want to believe, this is a BETA and not an ALPHA playtest, regardless of what Paizo wants to call it.

They don't give a crap about the casual gamer. We don't mean a damn to them. It's about the greenbacks. Always has been, always will be. The best you can hope for is that they don't rape the game you love too badly when putting out new garbage like this.

The opinions of the roadies and those who often fall down in workshops sans critical thought about something tend to take more important than those who can sit down and evaluate and object to something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sulako wrote:

I play several point-buy systems. I don't mind them. In fact, my favorite roleplaying game OF ALL TIME is Shadowrun. It's a point-buy game. I love it. The setting, the combat, the crunch...it's all good to me.

What I DON'T like, is a game that offers you an option to roll stats, then punishes you for doing so. Yes, most people don't roll stats as well as I do. I get that, I do. I've rolled some pretty piss-poor stats in my day and been forced to play them. It sucked.

But when I do roll, I always tell the DM that I rolled incredibly well and would have no problem offering up those same numbers for everyone in the party to use. Mostly, this is met with a good response. Though, there are some people that don't like using numbers they didn't generate. I can respect that. It's the same reason I won't play a pre-generated character. I have nothing invested.

The fact is, I, like Daedalus here, am an optimizer. I like scouring the texts available to get every ounce of benefit I can. Some call me a power-gamer because of this. Fine, I'll accept the stigma that comes with that. But to have the numbers to do so, only for the game to outright tell you "NO!" and giving NO reason for it, smacks of just being an angry parent yelling at their child.

It's pointless. It serves no purpose than to be limiting.

Now before anyone wants to try and deconstruct this argument with exaggerated hyperbole, no I don't mean you should be a fighter, but be able to backstab/sneak attack, or that you should be a monk and be able to cast wizards spells. To people that wanna blow it out of proportion like that, f*ck off! I'm talking about stats. It's where the game starts. If the attribute system is warped, it throws the whole game out for me. And being limited to no stat above 18, even though you have the numbers to go beyond that, and the game gives you no adequately explained reason why, it's a deal-breaker for me.

If that makes me a power-gamer, then so be it.

It's not a punishment.

You pick one of two systems. The bonus allocation is the replacement for point buy - people grab bonuses and slap them on top of all 10's to get higher.
If you could roll and THEN add all of those bonuses, it would have been outright broken.
As is, the rolling and bonus systems are roughly balanced against each other.
You can't both have the cake and eat it.


Sulako wrote:
Just because a player's as strong as a giant, doesn't mean when that giant bashes him across the head with a greatclub, it isn't going to kill a few brain cells.

That's neither here nor there, I simply don't like the idea of a human being as strong as ogres, trolls and giants, etc, sans magic.

There is also no brain cell tracking in PF!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Noodlemancer wrote:
Sulako wrote:

I play several point-buy systems. I don't mind them. In fact, my favorite roleplaying game OF ALL TIME is Shadowrun. It's a point-buy game. I love it. The setting, the combat, the crunch...it's all good to me.

What I DON'T like, is a game that offers you an option to roll stats, then punishes you for doing so. Yes, most people don't roll stats as well as I do. I get that, I do. I've rolled some pretty piss-poor stats in my day and been forced to play them. It sucked.

But when I do roll, I always tell the DM that I rolled incredibly well and would have no problem offering up those same numbers for everyone in the party to use. Mostly, this is met with a good response. Though, there are some people that don't like using numbers they didn't generate. I can respect that. It's the same reason I won't play a pre-generated character. I have nothing invested.

The fact is, I, like Daedalus here, am an optimizer. I like scouring the texts available to get every ounce of benefit I can. Some call me a power-gamer because of this. Fine, I'll accept the stigma that comes with that. But to have the numbers to do so, only for the game to outright tell you "NO!" and giving NO reason for it, smacks of just being an angry parent yelling at their child.

It's pointless. It serves no purpose than to be limiting.

Now before anyone wants to try and deconstruct this argument with exaggerated hyperbole, no I don't mean you should be a fighter, but be able to backstab/sneak attack, or that you should be a monk and be able to cast wizards spells. To people that wanna blow it out of proportion like that, f*ck off! I'm talking about stats. It's where the game starts. If the attribute system is warped, it throws the whole game out for me. And being limited to no stat above 18, even though you have the numbers to go beyond that, and the game gives you no adequately explained reason why it's a deal-breaker for me.

If that makes me a power-gamer, then so be it.

It's not a punishment.

You...

Here's the kicker. And everyone seems to be missing this point. With their non-rolling system, no matter what you do, you CAN'T get more than 18 in a single stat. You simply CAN'T. No matter what you do.

But if you roll your stats, you CAN. Because say you roll all 18's. Slim chance, granted, but it's a POSSIBILITY. And not only is it a possibility, it's an INEVITABILITY. Because the law of large numbers. Someone, somewhere, sometime, is GOING to do this. So what do you do? At that point, you can't apply ANY 'Boosts'. At all. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

At that point, you are, in fact, being PUNISHED for rolling high stats. It doesn't matter that they are all 18's already. That is completely beside the point. It is a possibility that was NOT accounted for and it SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Bottom line.

Setting the cap at 1st level at 20 would have, at the very least, allow players that have God's own luck, to build a character instead of getting hosed out of EVERY boost just because the rolled well.

But by having that 18 cap in place, I can't take my highest stat and put it where I want it. I HAVE to put it somewhere I don't want it, thus resulting in a character I DON'T want to play.

That, to me, is PUNISHMENT.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Just because a player's as strong as a giant, doesn't mean when that giant bashes him across the head with a greatclub, it isn't going to kill a few brain cells.

That's neither here nor there, I simply don't like the idea of a human being as strong as ogres, trolls and giants, etc, sans magic.

There is also no brain cell tracking in PF!

Your table, your rules, boss.

My table, my rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not a punishment when everyone has the same limitations. It's a feature, not a bug. It's part of the system.

Also, maybe stop saying people don't deserve to be DMs if they can't do X or Y? You're being vitriolic for no reason.

I work in games - game balance is not on the DM, or a player. It is on the designers of the game, and this is more balanced because it establishes a baseline for every character.

DMs are not designers in the same way - some are better at certain aspects as others, and I bet there are people who are better at certain parts of DMing than you, and maybe not as strong as dealing with unbalanced, wildly high-powered characters.

That's fine. Don't be mean about it.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and their replies.

Profanity is not allowed on our forums. The use of alternative characters to bypass the profanity filter is not acceptable. I do not like having to remove relevant discussion points for this reason, so please avoid it in the future.

Do not personally attack others for participating in any conversation. Do not dismiss the opinions of others or their play-styles, and remember to approach those with very different gaming styles and experiences than your own with respect and deference. We expect a welcoming tone from our forums, and we are all responsible for achieving and maintaining this tone.


Sulako wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

Umm, but that is really arbitrary point to make.

Like, why aren't you instead angry that game doesn't allow you to start with ability score of 30? Well that is because 1e didn't allow it either. You are angry that first edition allowed you to start with 20(or higher) ability score while 2nd edition doesn't. But you might as well be angry that rangers and paladins don't have spells anymore or that action economy works differently, you are being angry that change exists rather than about why it exists.

OG Pathfinder didn't put any limits on stats whatsoever. What you get is what you get. No compromise. I like that. I don't like arbitrary limits with no reasoning.

Just go back to OG Pathfinder and be happy. It's just a game and the purpose is to have fun. If this isn't fun for you, find something that is.

Alternatively, nearly every game I've read says that the rules should never get in the way of fun and so just change what you like. Obviously, for this Playtest, changing rules means that your feedback may be invalid, but as long as you're having fun...

Or, just play as written, complete the surveys and see what happens next year and then make your choice.


How often has Paizo really taken the suggestions from their play tests to change things? IIRC they stopped doing that in the latter classes because they appeared to have what they wanted and did what they wanted so play tests were not taking place.


Which is fine but dont call what you are doing a play test.


CorvusMask wrote:
You see unbalanced gameplay mechanics as a feature? O_o

When it makes the game more fun & enjoyable for me & my fellow players in general? Absolutely.


Sulako wrote:

Here's the kicker. And everyone seems to be missing this point. With their non-rolling system, no matter what you do, you CAN'T get more than 18 in a single stat. You simply CAN'T. No matter what you do.

But if you roll your stats, you CAN. Because say you roll all 18's. Slim chance, granted, but it's a POSSIBILITY. And not only is it a possibility, it's an INEVITABILITY. Because the law of large numbers. Someone, somewhere, sometime, is GOING to do this. So what do you do? At that point, you can't apply ANY 'Boosts'. At all. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Rolling has never allowed higher stat caps than other stat generation methods. The rule about applying boosts to other stat is there to enforce the same limitation as on players who use the standard method, while still giving you options. You're asking for a free benefit by pretending you're being punished.

The probability of rolling an 18 on 4d6 drop lowest is about 1.6%. The probability of rolling 6 of them is a bit less than 1 in 50,000,000,000. You'll need a lot of gamers rolling a lot of characters for the law of large numbers to apply. And even then, a character with all 18s is already so busted it doesn't matter that you can't give it any boost.


But the game/dm never game you the option to roll and keep whatever stats you got. You keep saying that if you roll you can get higher than 18 but the system tells you that you can't. You are never getting robbed out of the stats. The game is clear and upfront with you. If the dm also tells you that if you roll much higher than everyone else it's going to have to be tuned down. It's not a punishment it's just the system in play. It's not like it's you who roll well anyway. You are not skilled at rolling it's just random.


A lot of discussion over a small rule that only breaks the game he is in. Simply play with a GM that will allow stats over 18 at first level. Problem solved.


Sulako wrote:


It's about the OPTION to do so. I want to be able to get my stats that high. Not saying I will. Not saying I won't. But when I go to make the choice and see, out of the gate, that some of my options are limited for NO reason, it's a red flag. It's starting out on a bad foot.

Well, a couple of things. First, they are not limited for NO reason, they are limited for balance reasons. You may not like that reason (Balance), but the reason is there.

Second, stats were capped in PF 1 too. You could not start with STR 34 for example. The only difference is how high the cap is. Some people might like to cap them at 18, others at 20, and others will like to cap them at lower than 18 or higher than 20. The cap is there, always, in every single game.


While measly static bonuses (the only thing ability scores contribute) are likely more valuable under the new system, they're just as boring as ever and the game would probably be improved by their omission.

I expected them to be retained, but the amount of attention they're given in the new Character Generation method is disgusting.

101 to 120 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.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion